Helping New Maintenance Hires Adapt to the Airport Operating Environment (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4 BACKGROUND Airport managers, particularly at general aviation (GA) air- ports, often have to hire maintenance personnel who are unfa- miliar with the operating environment of an airport. Ensuring that employees are trained to operate safely on the airport is critical to safe operations. Yet many GA airports, and even air carrier airports, have difficulty attracting individuals with knowledge of airport maintenance and operational practices. They also may lack the resources to adequately prepare any new employees they do hire. The question raised by this situ- ation is, “How does one properly instruct and prepare a new employee to operate safely on the airfield when he/she may have little or no prior knowledge of airport operations?” As directed by the synthesis panel members, this study focused on GA airports, rather than on larger commercial air- ports, primarily because previous synthesis studies had com- piled similar data on the larger airports and it was perceived that little information existed on GA airports. GA airports also are the most common type of airport in the nation. According to the 2013–2107 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), which is a plan identifying those airports eligible to receive airport development funding, there are 2,560 general aviation and 269 reliever airports that pro- vide their communities with access to the national air trans- portation system (NPIAS 2013–2017, 2012). Collectively, GA airports make up 84% of the total airports in the United States and account for 28% of the total development needs reported in the NPIAS. There are approximately 1,800 additional GA airports that are not included in the NPIAS but that are open to the public. Also not included in the NPIAS are more than 14,000 GA airports that are operated privately and that are not open to the public. Though this synthesis can be helpful to both GA and com- mercial service air carrier airports, the air carrier airports have requirements under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 139 (Airport Certification 2004) to train individu- als having access to the airfield. General aviation airports do not have such a requirement, nor may they have the resources and capabilities of the larger airport to assimilate the new maintenance hire. The survey did include seven GA airports that were certified under Part 139. Further, 12 of the GA air- ports had full-time air traffic control facilities, 15 had part- time facilities, and three were non-towered airports. If an airport receives federal assistance for an airfield construc- tion project, it will be required to develop a safety plan and provide requisite training to all involved with the project, whether the airport is certified or not. “New maintenance hires” refers to those individuals newly employed to work at an airport to provide a variety of main- tenance services, both on the airfield and to the surround- ing buildings and infrastructure. The term is not restricted to employees of an airport organization, as GA airports will often utilize the services of employees from other municipal departments, such as public works; or contract out the main- tenance services to private individuals or firms. The term is meant to include these individuals and non-airport employees who are engaged, assigned, or contracted to provide similar maintenance activities on the airfield. The principal function of a newly-hired airfield mainte- nance employee is to perform work associated with the con- struction, repair, and maintenance of the airport’s runways, taxiways, and ramps where aircraft operate, as well as the airport’s buildings, grounds, and other facilities. These areas are what can be construed as the “airport environment.” The synthesis panel narrowed the area of study to the airside of the airport; that is, the area generally inside the perimeter fence, including the movement and non-movement areas. Access to these areas and operations exposes the employee and those operating on the airport to a number of known and unknown hazards. Movement areas are the runways, taxiways, and other areas of an airport that are used for taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and aircraft parking areas (Airport Certification 2004). A movement area normally meets FAA or state design criteria for safe operations. At airports with an air traffic control tower (ATCT), the movement area is generally under the control of that facility. A non-movement area includes those areas not under the control of an ATCT facility, usually the loading ramps and aircraft parking areas; but it also covers those areas where design standards may not be met, such as a taxiway in close proximity to a building or where airport vehicles routinely operate. In a non-movement area, both aircraft and vehicle operators have responsibility for greater safety awareness. Safety areas are defined surface areas comprised of either a runway or taxiway and the surrounding surfaces that are chapter one INTRODUCTION

5 prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to air- craft in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, excursion from a runway, or the unintentional departure from a taxi- way (Airport Certification 2004). It is in the movement, non- movement, and safety areas of an airport that the FAA and airports seek to minimize the mingling of aircraft, vehicles, and persons for safety reasons. Part 139-certified airports are required to provide oversight of those persons having access to movement and safety areas of their airports. This does not hold for GA airports unless they are also certified under Part 139, or unless they are undertaking a construction proj- ect that requires airfield safety training. The distinction between commercial airports serving sched- uled air carrier (airline) operations and GA airports serving nonscheduled (charter) operations is important from the stand- point of the required level of airfield operator training required. Title 14 CFR Part 139 (2004) applies to airports served by air carrier operations with aircraft of more than 10 seats. By definition, GA airports are not air carrier airports. A GA air- port is defined as a public or private airport that does not have scheduled air carrier service; or that has scheduled service of fewer than 2,500 paying passenger boardings each year (FAA Order 5100-38C 2005). Those paying passenger boardings at GA airports that do occur are a result of nonscheduled charter operations conducted in aircraft having fewer than 10 seats. General aviation airports, especially those identified as reliever airports, often have infrastructure and facilities that can accommodate large aircraft. A reliever airport is a GA airport in a metropolitan area that provides pilots with alter- natives to using a congested commercial service airport, or that provides GA access to the surrounding area served by a larger commercial airport (General Aviation Airports: A National Asset 2012). The alternative community access helps “relieve” the pressure on the busier main airport from having to accommodate general aviation activity. Reliever activity often includes larger turbine powered aircraft that would obligate the GA airport to meet Part 139 requirements. Of the 30 GA airports cited in the study, 23 held reliever status and seven are certified. For maintenance personnel, the airport environment goes beyond the paved surfaces of the movement and non-movement areas to include the open and unimproved areas that com- prise airport property. The land area encompassed by the air- port perimeter fence or property lines is often referred to as the airport operations area (AOA). The term AOA is actually a security term defined under Title 49 CFR Part 1540 TSA General Rules. However, the term AOA is commonly used within the airport industry to refer to the area inside an airport’s perimeter fence, which includes the movement areas, non- movement areas, safety areas, and the adjacent land. Activi- ties such as mowing, agriculture, herding, servicing of utility lines, mineral operation, and wildlife mitigation can all have an impact on aircraft operations, and therefore merit consid- eration in the training of maintenance personnel. This synthesis describes some of the challenges airport agencies face when integrating new maintenance hires into their ranks. One main challenge is finding the time and resources to devote to helping those individuals adjust to what is generally an unfamiliar environment full of safety risks and hazards. TYPICAL RISK AND HAZARD EXPOSURES The safety of airport operations is of primary concern to the FAA, airport governing bodies, and airport and aircraft opera- tors, as well as to the maintenance person themselves. All maintenance personnel are exposed to hazardous risks when operating on the airfield. They can also pose a risk to others, primarily pilots operating on the airport. Numerous hazards and safety restrictions exist on airports that are generally not known or understood by individuals unless they are specifically trained or educated in those areas. A maintenance employee’s awareness of and diligent attention to these risk factors are prime defenses in reducing the possibility of accidents and incidents on airports. For this reason, providing new mainte- nance personnel with proper training includes understanding and awareness of the hazards they may encounter or that they might present on the airport. A hazard is defined as any real or potential condition, cir- cumstance, or event that can potentially cause injury, illness, or death; damage to or loss of a system, equipment, or prop- erty; or damage to the environment (AFI 13-213: Airfield Driving 2012). Of major concern to the FAA is the hazard associated with a runway incursion impinging on aircraft operations. A runway incursion (RI) is defined as any occurrence at an airport involv- ing the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft (FAA Guide to Ground Vehicle Operations 2012). One type of RI is vehicle/pedestrian deviations (V/PD), which occur when a vehicle or pedestrian deviates from an ATCT communication. Annually, V/PDs account for approxi- mately 20% of total runway incursions at U.S. airports (FAA Guide to Ground Vehicle Operations 2012). Reducing RIs and V/PDs is a major safety initiative for the FAA and all involved in aviation. Both pose a significant risk for personal injury or property damage on an airport. Recently, the FAA noted a slow but steady increase in the numbers of RIs and V/PDs during the second and third quarters of fiscal year 2012 (Certalert 12-06). A certalert is a communication bulletin from the FAA Airport Division that informs airport operators of various safety practices, initiatives, or clarifica- tions. The prevention of RIs and V/PDs is one of the main reasons for training new maintenance hires. The statistics on RIs and V/PDs come from airports that have an ATCT. A majority of the nearly 4,600 GA airports

6 open to the public do not have an ATCT. In a 2012 study, the FAA calculated that less than 9%, or approximately 256 GA airports of the 2,952 GA airports studied, had operating con- trol towers (General Aviation Airports: A National Asset 2012). For this synthesis study, the participating airports represent a greater ratio of towered facilities than the 9% ratio in the ASSET Report. Twenty-seven of the 30 participating GA airports had ATCT operations (12 full-time, 15 part-time). Adequate data are not collected, reported, or compiled on how many potential incidents have occurred at non-towered GA airports as a result of maintenance personnel not being adequately trained. Given the total number of GA airports in the United States that do not have an available ATCT to record RI or V/PD incidents, the risk factor for such incidents remains. Among the hazards that maintenance persons could pre- sent when accessing the airport are attracting or disturbing wildlife, creating ruts in the safety areas, obstructing fields of vision, disturbing navigational signals, and impinging on aircraft operations. Additional hazards a maintenance person might present include: • Damaging aircraft by introducing foreign object debris (FOD) onto the airport through carelessness, inadequate maintenance, or insufficient inspection; • Causing an aircraft diversion by recklessly driving on runways, taxiways or aprons; by not properly scanning for other aircraft or vehicles; or by not properly com- municating on the radio; • Causing pilot or air traffic control confusion as a result of not using proper radio communication; • Creating a hazardous condition by not performing job tasks properly, such as cutting the grass, plowing the run- way, repairing the pavement, or fixing lights, signs, or markings; • Creating a hazardous situation by not properly follow- ing rules, regulations, policies, procedures, or by cut- ting corners in work activity; • Creating a hazardous situation by the improper use of tools and equipment; • Creating a hazardous situation by interrupting or dam- aging an aircraft navigation instrument, such as visual approach slope indicators (VASI) or electronic local- izers and glideslopes, that guide aircraft in for landings; • Creating a security or public exposure threat by leaving gates and other access open or unlocked; • Causing environmental damage through disregard or improper work activity; • Creating a wildlife hazard by improper workplace activ- ity or by not properly carrying out wildlife mitigation; • Not properly performing duties by omitting steps or checklist items; misdiagnosing problems; conducting inadequate inspections; and using poor work techniques; • Compromising aircraft and air traffic control operation by not recognizing and reporting unsafe conditions. Preventing injury to maintenance personnel is another primary objective of training. The safety of airport opera- tions can be enhanced by making new maintenance person- nel knowledgeable about hazards and how unsafe acts, such as not using proper personal protective equipment, errors, deviations from procedures, and rule violations can affect their safety and the safety of others. Several of the common hazards that maintenance person- nel can be exposed to on the airfield include: • Electrical hazards associated with constant current electrical lighting of signs and lights • Propeller or jet blast exposure • Exposure to inclement weather, including lightning, ice and snow, and temperature extremes • Exposure to hazardous materials • Work conditions such as long hours or inadequate resources causing fatigue and/or stress • High levels of noise from equipment and aircraft • Erroneous communications from others • Unsafe aircraft or vehicle operations by others • Exposure to OSHA-identified hazards, including slip and fall factors, ladders, machines, and chemicals. In these economic (and litigious) times, when a typical single engine piston aircraft costs $140,000, a multi-engine piston aircraft $450,000, a turboprop aircraft $1.8 million, a small corporate jet averages $6.5 million, a large corporate jet $18.5 million, and a typical small air carrier twin engine aircraft $74 million, the liability exposure resulting from inad- equate maintenance personnel training can have a significant impact on an airport’s financial bottom line were an accident to occur, not even accounting for personal injuries. LITERATURE REVIEW Information was sought on literature related to new hire or orientation training programs for airport maintenance work- ers. A basic Internet literature search was conducted primarily using Internet search engines Google Scholar, Lexus-Nexus, and the Transportation Research International Documenta- tion (TRID) database. Included in the search of federal data- bases were FAA, TRB, and the U.S. Air Force. A search was also made of airport and aviation trade asso- ciation websites, such as the Airport Council International- North America, AAAE and its regional chapters, International Air Transportation Association, International Civil Avia- tion Organization, National Air Transportation Association, NASAO, and a number of individual state bureaus or depart- ments of aviation. Websites associated with air transportation, airlines, aviation safety, and airport ground handling services were accessed, as were aviation chat sites and airport confer- ences. In addition, airport consulting firms, airport training individuals and organizations, airport trade committees, and

7 other professional individuals who would have insight into the subject matter were invited to contribute. The result of the literature search generated little in the way of academic research or other information that addresses the training challenges associated with airport maintenance new hires. Operations employees often have responsibility for overseeing and carrying out the requirements of Part 139 airport certification; and what literature did exist on airport new hire training focused on operations personnel at air car- rier airports. However, the related information on operations training does have a bearing on maintenance training, because at GA airports, the role of maintenance often includes the operations function found at larger airports. For instance, one article highlighted the efforts of the Detroit Metropolitan– Wayne County Airport to develop a three-week orientation program for operations employees that was then extended to others, including maintenance new hires (Bremer 1992). One study explored the expected knowledge level and skills of entry-level operations employees at air carrier airports (Quilty 2005a). That study suggested that some of the skills sought by airport managers for their operations employees can be applied to new maintenance employee training programs. For instance, airport managers identified such desirable skills as the ability to: (1) communicate well with others, (2) be able to identify what is or is not a hazard to safety, (3) interact well with contractors and engineering firms, and (4) plan and orga- nize daily activities and information. A later study looked into the knowledge requirements for entry-level operations personnel (Quilty 2005b). The top 10 topics in that study can be compared with findings in this study. The author suggested that educational institutions could better prepare students for the airport career field by identify- ing topics to be covered in an educational curriculum. This same information can be used for preparing maintenance per- sonnel as well. A number of ACRP studies support data found in the Quilty studies. ACRP Synthesis 27: Airport Self-inspection Practices (Prather 2011) reviewed the training of personnel who conduct airfield inspections at Part 139-certified airports. Although the focus of Synthesis 27 is on operations personnel, the training can be applied to maintenance personnel as well. The author emphasized that any training for new hires on an airport needs to be student-centered, meaning that the train- ing focus should not just be on the subject matter, but on the learning outcome, or what the new hire should be able to do in the course of his or her job (Prather 2011, p.15). Synthesis 27 explored various training and instructional methods and the benefits and drawbacks of each; consequently, this current synthesis report did not delve into the same information, but rather sought only to identify the type of instruction used in maintenance training. Comparisons to the Synthesis 27 study are made in later sections of this study. ACRP Synthesis 15, Identification of the Requirements and Training to Obtain Driving Privileges on Airfields stud- ied driver access to movement areas for general aviation air- ports (Castellano 2009). Although this study entailed a review of Part 139 airports of all sizes, the author did include sepa- rate data on 12 GA airports. That data can be used for com- parison and validation of this report’s data. Additional literature review found Air Force Instruction 13-213, Airfield Driving (2012) published by the Air Force Flight Standards Agency. It contains information on airfield driver training programs that can serve as a checklist and model for new hire maintenance orientation at both air carrier and GA airports. Additional training outlines were acquired from several participating survey airports, and are included as appendices to this report. A number of FAA documents include important informa- tion that can be used in the training of maintenance new hires, including online videos, brochures, advisory circulars, and related training material from the Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports and its regional offices websites. In particular, Advisory Circular 150/5210-20, Ground Vehi- cle Operations on Airports (2008) provides guidance for development of a training program associated with driving on the airfield. However, most existing information focuses on the regu- lated activities at FAA Part 139-certified airports. This syn- thesis report focuses on GA airports that are not Part 139 certified and are represented in General Aviation Airports: A National Asset (2012). Gathering information on the new maintenance hire practices at GA airports required the use of a survey questionnaire and interviews. SURVEY METHODOLOGY Seeking information for this synthesis study required the iden- tification of airports that had orientation and new hire training procedures in place for maintenance personnel. Whereas ini- tial inquiries determined that many GA airports were unlikely to have established maintenance training protocols, a decision was made to include several larger Part 139-certified airports for comparison and resource purposes. Obtaining training information from certified airports can assist smaller airports with identifying possible resources, which is a goal of the synthesis. Both quantitative and qualitative means were used to col- lect data. Data was sought primarily from airports identified as having existing maintenance orientation and training pro- grams in place, including larger Part 139 airports. However, airports without training programs in place were also sur- veyed to identify the challenges and issues they face. Several state agencies that oversee GA airports were queried about how they handle job vacancies, hiring, and training. Those

8 interviews are highlighted in later sections. Other agencies, such as military airports and professional airport associa- tions, contributed to the report as well. The survey developed with the help of the project panel members sought to identify the current practices and pro- cesses used by airports in the training of their maintenance personnel (see Appendix A). It was pretested with a sample from three airports and further refined before being dissemi- nated. The survey was designed to capture the following basic information: • Airport size, as defined by operations and based aircraft • Size of staff and maintenance responsibilities • Topics of new maintenance hire training • Delivery methods for training • Who conducts training and how is it documented • Additional training issues such as budgets and existing needs • Challenges and lessons learned • Budget allocation for training. Using the FAA’s Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) for the calendar year 2011 (ATADS 2012), a list of the top 100 airports as ranked by the number of air traffic opera- tions was reviewed. From the ATADS list, 40 GA airports were identified for the study and were forwarded the survey (Appendix A). An additional 10 air carrier airports were solic- ited as well. Thirty of the GA airport organizations and 10 of the air carrier airports responded, resulting in a total response rate of 80%. More than 40 airports are actually represented in the response, however, as several of the responding agencies operate multiple airports. See Figure 1 for the general location of the airports that responded. Appendix B contains a more specific listing of the participating airports. To help supplement the formal survey, several state avia- tion bureaus or departments were contacted and interviewed in an open format. Case information on those findings is pre- sented in related sections of this synthesis. REPORT ORGANIZATION This synthesis report is organized into eight chapters, with additional sections for the references, acronyms, and appen- dices. Within the report, references are made to the survey questions by use of a noted letter Q and a corresponding sur- vey question number (i.e., Q1, Q2, Q3 . . . ). Chapter one provides an introduction and describes the purpose of the synthesis, the literature review and study meth- odology, and the survey instruments used. The term “new maintenance hires” is described and the context in which it is used is explained. The context includes distinguishing between general aviation airports and those that are certified under 14 CFR Part 139; the emphasis on preventing runway incursions or vehicle/pedestrian deviations; and a descrip- tion of hazards and risks airport maintenance employees may face on the job. Chapter two describes the challenges facing GA airports when they hire new maintenance personnel or contract with individuals to work on the airfield. The chapter frames the FIGURE 1 General location of survey and interview airports (Source: Survey data).

9 fundamental issues that will be supported and explained in later chapters. Chapter three describes the operating environment of a GA airport organization and its staffing levels. It provides sur- vey data on reasons individuals access the airfield and on the impact of an airport’s budget on the training of new employees. Chapter four provides survey data on the types or areas of training included in a new-hire training manual or checklist, and an observed disparity between what is desired and what actually exists. Included in this chapter is the status of train- ing assessment within the GA airports surveyed. Chapter five covers survey data on practices, procedures, methods, and techniques. It builds on the previous chapter by cataloguing the types and methods of training provided to new hires, along with how that training is documented. Chapter six lists several of the resources that are available for airports to use in developing training checklists, instruc- tional lessons, or manuals. Chapter seven provides comments from survey respon- dents on what lessons might be learned from their experi- ences in the past on training new maintenance hires at their airport. Chapter eight presents conclusions drawn from the study. Appendices provide supplemental material, especially sev- eral training outlines, that may be of value to airport operators.