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.

12 In synthesizing the results of the survey used in this report, it is important to understand the operating environment of GA airports and the influence various factors may have on their operation. This illuminates the ability of airport orga- nizations to adapt new maintenance personnel to each par- ticular airport. Given the wide diversity of general aviation purposes and use, GA airport organizations are affected by such factors as size, number and types of operations, type of governing bodies, geographic location, and budget allo- cations, among others. This chapter provides a synopsis of those factors and describes several of the reasons main- tenance personnel might access the airfield and therefore require training. ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The general characteristics of the airports surveyed are shown in Table 1. The basic stratification is that of 30 general avia- tion and 10 air carrier airports. The first survey question asked for the airport NPIAS type classification (Q1). The second survey question asked whether an FAA ATCT existed on the airport (Q2). The responses show that many GA airports do not have operating FAA control towers, which can help prevent accidents and record data related to RIs or VP/Ds (Table 1). Even so, for those airports that do have an operating control tower, accidents and incidents attributable to a lack of employee training or understanding still occur (FAA Annual Runway Safety Report 2010). Without an ATCT, any employee accessing the airfield is denied a safety com- ponent otherwise provided by tower personnel. There is also increased risk exposure to maintenance personnel from pilots and aircraft that may not follow safety protocols, such as not using a particular runway or not using proper radio technique. The converse holds true for maintenance personnel who are not familiar with the same proper protocols. Information culled from the FAA airport master records (known as Form 5010) determined an airport’s level of cer- tification under 14 CFR Part 139. If choosing to accommo- date larger aircraft operations having more than 30 seats, the airport must obtain an operating certificate under Part 139. In this study, five of the GA airports in the survey have chosen to hold Class IV-A airport operating certificates while another two hold Class 1-A certificates. A Class IV-A airport is certified to serve unscheduled pas- senger operations of large air carrier aircraft not exceeding 90 feet in length. A Class 1-A airport serves scheduled opera- tions of large air carrier aircraft and can also serve unsched- uled passenger operations of large air carrier aircraft and/ or scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft, neither exceeding 90 feet in length, The remaining 23 GA airports were not certified under Part 139 and cannot serve sched- uled or unscheduled air carrier operations. This has impli- cations for the kind of risk and hazard exposures new maintenance employees may face and what training needs to be performed. Management oversight of operations at the GA airports in the survey is shown in Table 2. Different governmental structures can have an impact on decisions such as budget and resource allocation, hiring practices, and the implementation of rules and regulations. No one type of governmental opera- tion is immune from the challenges associated with hiring new maintenance employees. To the survey question concerning the ownership of the airport (Q6), three of the GA airports and one of the non-hubs responded that they engaged third- party operators, rather than being operated by the owner of the airport. Responses to the survey question (Q3) regarding the num- ber of operations at the GA airports varied from 15,000 to 202,251 per year (Figure 2). An operation is counted when an aircraft either lands or takes off at an airport. Both the number of based aircraft and the number of operations give an indication of how busy the airport might be. For the scheduled air carrier airports, the operations ranged from 29,000 to 448,861 operations, with the average being 163,254 and the median at 144,109 operations. The median represents the middle point of the range of data presented. Knowing the median helps to place perspective on the cal- culated average in the event one airport’s data biases the total average. An example of such a bias would be two or three well-funded airports that have their own maintenance departments being compared to other GA airports of similar size and with similar numbers of operations that rely on the public works department to perform airport maintenance. Based on question Q4 in the survey as shown in Figure 3, the diversity of general aviation activity can be observed in chapter three OPERATING ENVIRONMENT

13 for GA airports is 50.1%, or a one to one ratio. The percent- age range of maintenance employees among total employ- ees for the GA airports ranged from a low of 15.7% (11 of 70 employees) to a high of 100% (eight of eight employees). For the air carrier airports, the total average percentage of maintenance employees among total employees was a more modest 35.0%, or roughly a one-to-two ratio. The variability in organization size and maintenance staff- ing ratios can mostly be explained by the fact that the air- ports with larger number of employees either provide fueling services to aircraft, or the airport experiences winter opera- tions, or both. Absent those two components, general aviation air ports tended to employ fewer than 15 people (18 of the GA airports did so). The average percentage of maintenance employees among total employees for those 18 airports was 62.3%, or roughly a two-to-one ratio. For the period from January 2011 to August 2012, the 30 GA airports averaged fewer than one maintenance hire each, as reported in the survey data (Q37). That statistic points out one of the difficulties in providing proper training, the infrequency of new hires. One survey respondent summed it this way; “Extremely small staff, not a lot of turnover.” The 10 air carrier airports averaged less than four new hires during that same period. The air carrier airport average is skewed somewhat by the hiring levels at the larger hub airports. The six non-hub airports averaged only one new maintenance hire during the 18-month time period, while the four medium and large hub airports averaged eight new hires (one medium hub airport had 16 new maintenance employees in the 18-month period). The number of based aircraft, number of operations, the number of maintenance employees, and the degree of employee NPIAS Category General Aviation Air Carrier General Aviation 7 — Reliever 23 — Non Hub — 6 Medium — 2 Large — 2 14 CFR PART 139 (1) None 23 — Class I 2 10 Class IV 5 — ATCT None 3 — Part-time 15 5 Full-time 12 5 Source: Survey Q1 and Q2. Source: FAA Form 5010. — = not applicable. TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEYED GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS Governing Body General Aviation Air Carrier Authority 11 4 City 12 4 County 6 2 State 1 0 Source: Survey Q5. TABLE 2 TYPE OF GOVERNING BODY FOR SURVEYED AIRPORTS 262 Average 255 Median 33 Number of Based Aircraft 588 FIGURE 3 Continuum for the range and numbers of aircraft based at the 30 general aviation airports, n = 30. (Source: Survey Q4). 15,000 94,821 Average 84,500 Median Number of Operations 202,251 FIGURE 2 Continuum for the range and numbers of annual operations conducted at the 30 general aviation airports, n = 30. (Source: Survey Q3). the wide range of based aircraft and operations. The num- ber of aircraft based at the 30 GA airports varied from 33 to 588. The larger air carrier airports reported a smaller range of eight to 155 based aircraft, with the median being 105 air- craft and the average being 106 aircraft. MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL ACCESSING THE AIRFIELD The number of employees at the GA airports surveyed (Q12) ranged from three to 70 (Figure 4), whereas the air carrier airports ranged from five to 600 total employees. The number of maintenance workers having access to the airfield at GA airports, as determined from the survey (Q13), ranged from two to 19 (Figure 5), while the air carrier airports reported a range of two to 156 employees. Based on the survey responses, the average percentage of maintenance workers to total airport organization employees

14 turnover all have implications for the risk exposure of indi- viduals accessing the airfield, the ability of the airport to fund training activities and resources, and the ability to schedule employees for training. The low number of maintenance per- sonnel at several of the GA airports was attributed in sur- vey remarks to the airports being operated by a municipality (city, county, borough, or parish) that has work performed at the airport by the public works or other departments within that jurisdiction. For other than airport-employed maintenance personnel, survey data (Q14 and Q15) indicated that maintenance person- nel accessing the airfield at both GA and air carrier airports could be FAA or contract personnel (maintaining naviga- tional aid equipment), National Weather Service personnel (weather observation), farmers, police or other security per- sonnel, emergency and ARFF responders, FBO employees, electricians, contract maintenance workers, etc. REASONS FOR ACCESSING THE AIRFIELD The primary reasons for maintenance workers to access the movement and non-movement areas of the airport (ranked in order) are for electrical repair (including lighting and sign main- tenance), pavement maintenance, emergency response, air- craft recovery, NAVAID maintenance, and mowing (Table 3). At those airports that experience winter snow conditions, snow removal becomes a major access issue. Less frequently, main- tenance workers must also respond to infrastructure repair, utilities servicing, and wildlife issues. Several airports iden- tified other broad reasons for accessing the airfield, includ- ing self-inspection, construction activity, security patrol, and FOD inspection. During electrical or pavement maintenance, mowing, and snow removal, individuals operate on or in close proximity to the runways. The use of supplemental or contract snow removal operators can add to the airport’s risk exposure in that those workers do not routinely operate on the airfield. Prior training, when not regularly utilized or reinforced, can be easily forgotten. A special hazard exists related to electrical airfield main- tenance because airfield lighting and signage systems utilize different power and distribution than a typical building sys- tem. Working on airfield lights and signs requires specialized knowledge of constant current regulator systems. This work is often contracted to an outside maintenance worker or organi- zation at GA airports because of the specialty aspects and local electrical code requirements. In Alaska, the three regions may hire only one or two individuals with experience in airfield lighting. Should a problem exist at an airport, the experienced individual is flown in to make needed repairs, a situation that could result in lengthy delay given some of the inclement weather conditions they routinely experience (see the Alaskan Case Example in chapter two.). BUDGET IMPACT In the question concerning what challenges airports face in providing training (Q38), “budget” was excluded as a potential response because it was believed it would have overshadowed other potential important responses. Budgets have always been an issue for airports of all sizes. The survey responses and comments reflected that notion. FIGURE 5 Continuum for the range and numbers of total maintenance employees at the 30 general aviation airports, n = 30 (Source: Survey Q13). 7 Average 7 Median 2 Number of Maintenance Employees 19 FIGURE 4 Continuum for the range and numbers of total employees at the 30 general aviation airport organization, n = 30. (Source: Survey Q12). 19 Average 10 Median 3 Total Number of Employees 70 Reasons for Airfield Access Number of GA Airports Electrical Repair 30 Pavement Maintenance 30 Emergency Response 29 Disabled Aircraft Recovery 29 Navaid Maintenance 29 Mowing 28 Infrastructure Repair 27 Wildlife Mitigation 27 Utilities Servicing 23 Building Repair 22 Building Maintenance 20 Vehicle Maintenance 17 Snow Removal 15 Horticulture Activity 15 Refuse Collection 15 Agriculture 6 Mineral Extraction 1 Herding Activity 1 Source: Survey Q10. TABLE 3 REASONS MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL ACCESS THE AIRFIELD

15 Thirteen of the 30 GA airports indicated they had a bud- getary line item for maintenance training, whereas only five of the air carrier airports did (Q33). Only four GA airports set aside more than one percent (1%) of their total budget allo- cation for training purposes (Q34). Fifteen GA airports indi- cated an allocation of equal to or less than 1%; and 11 airports indicated they dedicated no monies for training new hires at all. By comparison, seven of the 10 larger air carrier airports allocated between 1% and 4% of their budgets for training purposes. In its 2011 State of the Industry Report (2012), the American Society for Training and Development’s con- solidated data on its members showed a direct expenditure as a percentage-of-payroll to be 2.66% (ASTD 2012). The average direct expenditure per employee increased from an inflation-adjusted amount of $1,098 in 2009 to $1,228 in 2010. Most of that expenditure was directed toward manage- ment development. New employee orientation garnered 7% of expenditures, while basic skill content training was shown to have the least amount of content delivered at 4%. The problems that budgets and adequate training of newly- hired maintenance personnel present are not limited to air- ports, but resonate in all transportation modes. In a special TRB study focusing on the challenges of tomorrow’s transportation workforce, workforce training expenditures were deemed to be inadequate and insufficient (TRB Special Report 2003). The report refers to benchmark studies of successful private and public organizations that assign, on average, 2% of salaries to training as a necessary investment to provide the proper knowledge and skills that workers need for their jobs.