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.

19 After identifying what topics to cover when training new maintenance employees, as described in chapter four, air- ports must address the issues of developing and delivering that training. This chapter describes survey responses associ- ated with the different methods of training that GA airports currently use. Described in this section is the extent to which the airports used classroom instruction, mentoring and/or coaching, OJT), in-house or web-based computer based-training (CBT), or seminars and/or workshops. Also presented are data on how many hours are expended; who conducts and documents the training; and the level of satisfaction manag- ers express with their existing training efforts. METHODS OF INSTRUCTION Airport Employee Training With the exception of all but one of the 30 GA airports, OJT was described as the predominate method of training new maintenance employees (Q15). Eighteen of the 30 GA airports used OJT for more than 70% of their total orientation training. Nine of those 18 airports used it for more than 80% of their training, and five used it for more than 90% of their introduc- tory training. OJT can be one of the most effective methods of training new hires, provided it is structured. Unstructured training, without, for example, a checklist of topics or items to cover, can lead to gaps in knowledge transfer and poor work habits. One key drawback to OJT for new hires is the amount of time required to properly structure and conduct it. As noted previ- ously, managers and supervisors—who are usually respon- sible for providing the training—indicated in the survey that their workloads and available time present a challenge in properly carrying out that responsibility. The second most common method for providing initial training was the use of mentoring and coaching methods (Q15). Twenty-three airports used those instructional techniques for about 23% of their total training. Mentoring and coaching are terms often used interchangeably, although there is a dif- ference. Most airport managers and supervisors will engage in coaching, which is related more to having an employee acquire functional knowledge and skills about the job. Men- toring is more relational in its approach. A person who men- tors another helps that individual to grow in ways other than related to his or her job. Assigning a new hire to shadow or buddy up with another employee of like stature in the organization can help him or her to learn the ropes. However, because of the few num- ber of maintenance employees typical of small GA airports, the buddy system may not be a viable option. It is more fre- quently found at airports with larger staffs; two of the large hub airports and one of the medium hub airports in the study rely in part on that method. The one GA airport that did not use OJT as its primary training tool instead used an in-house CBT platform for 70% of new employee orientation. Examples of CBT technology include the use of compact disc, digital video display (DVD), slide presentation, in-house computer use, or interactive web instruction. Only three other GA airports used in-house CBT, averaging only 15% usage. Those airports that had the in-house CBTs did so as a benefit from being part of a larger airport authority, making it cost-beneficial to use shared resources. Sixteen GA airports used a formal classroom for intro- ductory training, reporting an average of only 13.8% of train- ing time there. Sending individuals to seminars or workshops (three airports) and the use of an online CBT method (two air- ports) represented, on average respectively, only 7% and 5% of the training effort at the airports using them. In follow-up interviews, the cost to use such systems was identified as an issue, as was the infrequency of need contributing to low usage. An ASTD report identified instructor-led classroom training as the most widely used delivery method, with about 70% of all training being provided that way (ASTD 2012). It is noted in the ASTD report that technology is changing and several airport training providers are championing the use of interactive and efficient training modules over the Internet. The same ASTD report pointed out that technology-based training increased approximately 21.5% from 2001 to 2010, despite actually declining 7.2% in the year 2010. Of the totals, on-line learn- ing increased a little more than 9% from 2003 to 2010. Some CBT or web-based instruction can be tied to an organizational learning management system that tracks trainee usage, thereby enhancing the agency’s record-keeping capabilities. The training methods at the 30 GA airports contrast to those at the eight air carrier airports in the following way: only three of the 10 air carrier airports use OJT more than 70% of the time. Instead, they rely on other methods to meet their needs. Nine of the 10 air carrier airports incorporate mentoring and chapter five TRAINING METHODS AND PRACTICES

20 coaching into training, representing approximately 20% of training. Providing on-line CBT (four airports) or in-house CBT (five airports), or sending individuals to seminars and/ or/workshops (three airports), together constituted 10% or less of the training effort. Additional self-study was used by one air carrier airport. It is reported in ACRP Synthesis 27, Airport Self-Inspection Practices that interactive training is relied on by 27% of large-hub airports and 25% of non- hub airports, but much less at airports of other sizes (Prather 2011, p. 17). Castellano’s 2009 ACRP Synthesis 15 study on the require- ments to obtain driving privileges at air carrier airports did include some information on GA airports. Only three of the 13 GA airports in that study held Part 139 certificates at the time. A survey question from that study asked what method of training was used for movement and non-movement area training. For movement area training, eight of the GA airports required the reading of their driving manual, nine conducted classroom training, three used CBT, and five conducted OJT. For non-movement area training (ramps, terminal, and parking areas), eight required the reading of a manual, four conducted classroom training, two conducted OJT, and one responded “other.” The information from that study is similar to the find- ings of this current synthesis. There are advantages and disadvantages to all of the train- ing delivery methods. Based on the survey responses, the decision concerning what method to use at GA airports is pri- marily dictated by the budget, the constraints of a manager or supervisor’s time, and by the availability of employee release time and scheduling. Even one large airport organization that oversees several GA airports in a metropolitan area wrote, “Web-based [training] is desirable but too expensive,” when asked about what instructional method it uses. Tenant or Contractor Training A distinction is made between the training conducted for new tenant or contractor employee access on the airport for rou- tine maintenance activities, versus the training of contrac- tors for airfield construction projects. A construction project using federal funds, whether at an air carrier or GA airport, requires a safety plan and the training of associated contrac- tors for the duration of the project. A survey question (Q32) asked whether or not the airport training in both circum- stances was the same or different. Twenty-three of the GA airports and five of the air carrier airports indicated there was a difference in the level of training for each. The construc- tion project training was deemed more extensive. One large air carrier airport reported no difference between the two because its policy was for everyone to be qualified through the same training. Thirteen of the 30 GA airports indicated on the survey that training of outside tenant and contractor maintenance employees either did not occur or was not applicable (Q16). The “not applicable” response was mainly from those air- ports certified under Part 139, where escort was provided to all contractors and tenants. (Driver training is required under Part 139 requirements for having unescorted access to the movement areas of the airport.) The preferred method of instructing maintenance personnel from other companies needing to work on the airfield is OJT, according to those 13 airports. Mentoring/coaching was the second most com- mon method and was reported by eight of the GA airports. Only three GA airports indicated they use in-house CBT for contractor training. One large hub airport has a very struc- tured training program for all contractors and tenants that uses both classroom and field tour instruction. Appendix K describes that training. The FAA requires individuals having interaction with the ATCT or pilot operations to communicate and understand the English language. Although not requiring English profi- ciency of all persons who might have access to the airfield, the FAA suggests that any person expected to operate on the movement area should demonstrate a functional knowledge of the English language (Advisory Circular 150/5210-20 2008, p. 2). All airports in the survey conducted their instruction in English. However, one airport did provide additional Span- ish language instruction. It is noted in the Castellano study on airport driver training that the author found two medium hub airports, one small hub, and one GA airport that conducted driver training in Spanish (Castellano 2009, p. 10). TRAINING INTERVALS, DOCUMENTATION, AND BUDGET Airport Employee Training Results from the survey of GA airports showed wide differ- ences in the amount of time the airports devoted to the training of new maintenance employees (Q20). The time varied from 1.5 hour to 480 hours, with the average being 80 hours (see Figure 6). The median (meaning half of the airports on one side and half on the other side) was 40 hours or one week, currently conducted by six of the airports. The range of 1.5 to 480 hours for airport employee main- tenance training is skewed to the high end, as the median of 40 hours suggests. Five airports require 160 hours of training before a new employee is set loose. The 480 hours of orienta- 80 Average 40 Median 1.5 Number of Hours 480 FIGURE 6 Continuum for the range and numbers of hours currently spent training new airport main- tenance hires, n = 27 (Source: Survey Q20).

21 tion training was provided by a single airport, where a new maintenance employee shadows others and is coached over a three-month period before being allowed to work indepen- dently on the airfield. Two GA airports identified a two-week requirement, whereas three airports had a one-month training requirement. By comparison, nine of the air carrier airports averaged 162 hours of training per employee, with the range being from one to nine weeks. One airport could not reply because, as the respondent stated, “none in 11 years,” mean- ing it had not hired any new maintenance workers in more than a decade. When asked how much time should be devoted to the train- ing of newly hired maintenance employees (Q31), a disparity emerged between current practice and desired practice. The response from GA airports narrowed from the 1.5 to 480 hours to between five and 160 hours, with 56 hours (approximately 1.5 weeks) being the average and 40 being the median (Figure 7). One GA airport expressed a desire to require two to three years for initial training. For the air carrier airports, the desired range was 40 to 240 hours, with the average and median both at 120 hours, or three weeks. Those data are in line with existing practices reported by the air carrier airports in the survey. A number of factors—primarily the overall staffing needs of the organization—play into the length of training time. For airports with small or lean maintenance staffs, the hiring of a new employee is often the result of a previous one leaving. A second reason for the diversity of responses is the degree to which resources are available to the airport, whether it is the time for training, the training material, adequate budget allocation, or the support of other organizational departments such as human resources. Most airports do not have available an extended time period for bringing a new employee on line. The lack of time and a limited budget were cited as reasons why several managers or supervisors favored the mentoring/ coaching method. Tenant or Contractor Training Contractor and tenant new hires received much less training than airport maintenance employees (Figure 8). Eleven air- ports marked Q21 as “not applicable,” including three of the seven airports certified under Part 139 who provide escort to all contractors and tenants. One airport treats contractor/ tenant employees the same as its own employees, requir- ing 160 hours of training, whereas another airport provides contractor/non-employee training over a probationary period of 360 hours. Overall, though, 10 of 19 airports provide less than two hours of training to contractors and tenants coming onto the airport and 11 GA airports conducted no training for tenant/ contractors. Construction activity is not factored into these data, as 23 GA airports indicated their training of contrac- tors for a construction project is different than for ordinary new maintenance hires (Q32). A construction project funded through the FAA or a state organization normally requires specific training as part of the safety plan for the project. RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRAINING Airport Employee Training Based on the survey responses, the training of new main- tenance personnel is primarily performed by the airport’s manager or a supervisor (Q17). This can be challenging in a number of respects: (1) A manager or supervisor is not nor- mally trained or proficient as a trainer, (2) the time available to train is limited owing to other duties; and (3) training is limited by the manager’s or supervisor’s own knowledge and understanding. The data from Q17 shows that at half of the 30 GA air- ports, the manager or supervisor is the sole provider of new maintenance employee training, and another seven airports use their manager or supervisor for more than 80% of the training effort. In addition to the manager or supervisor, the GA airports relied on their human resources departments (six airports), outside associations (seven airports), or self-study programs (nine airports) to satisfy their needs. However, the supplemental resources accounted for no more than 20% of total instruction. At the larger air carrier airports, all of which are subject to the training requirements of Part 139, the responsibility for training is more diverse, in part because of a generally higher amount of resources available to them. Although all the air carrier airports used supervisors or dedicated trainers, their 56 Average 40 Median 5 Number of Hours 160 FIGURE 7 Continuum for the range and numbers of hours survey respondents at 29 GA airports desired for the training of new maintenance hires, n = 29 (Source: Survey Q31). 40 Average 3 Median 1.5 Number of Hours 360 FIGURE 8 Continuum for the range and number of hours currently spent training new tenant or contractor maintenance hires, n = 19 (Source: Survey Q21).

22 use only constituted an average of 64% of training programs. The larger airports tended to rely more on the resources of a human relations department, further supplemented by indi- vidual study and the use of professional associations provid- ing conference workshops, web-based instruction, or other instructional methods. The same held true for training non- airport maintenance employees. Prather reported in his syn- thesis study that the airport manager was found to conduct 100% of the training at non-hub airports and 50% at GA air- ports (Prather 2011, p. 17). Tenant or Contractor Training For the training of contractor or tenant employees, as deter- mined from the survey (Q17), the GA airports rely more often on their HRD or similar departments within the municipality to conduct the training; or they rely on the FBO for training its own employees, tenants, or contractors. Based on survey and interview comments, the type of training provided by the HRD or police departments is more related to security and driver badging requirements,. The survey also indicated that the training of outside contractor/tenant maintenance person- nel using workshops offered by professional associations, federal or state training resources, academic institutions, or self-study was negligible or non-existent (Q18). DOCUMENTATION An important requirement for those airports with Part 139 cer- tification is to maintain records of training (Section 139.301), which is also generally considered a good business practice: All but four of the 30 GA airports, each non-139 certified, kept training records of their personnel. Half used electronically- stored methods to record training as well. One GA airport is certified under International Organization Standards 9000, and uses those approved processes for documentation. For the training of new contractor and tenant maintenance employees, the preferred method of documentation was the simple written record placed in a file system. Two GA airports kept no training records on contractors or tenants. The air car- rier airports in the survey tended to incorporate both a written and electronic copy. All 10 had written records, with eight also having electronic records. One GA and one air carrier airport used a third party to maintain training documentation. No clear pattern emerged from the data regarding responsi- bility within the airport organization (Q23). Survey responses describing responsible positions included HRD, airport man- ager, operations officer, training officer, and maintenance supervisor, to name a few. For contractor/tenant documenta- tion of training (Q24), 11 responded either “none” or “not applicable”; three referred to the FBO having responsibility; and the remaining 16 identified various individuals in the air- port organization. Seventeen of the GA airports reported that they had some sort of training program for their new maintenance employ- ees (Q9). However, to a follow-up request, only three of the GA airports provided a formal outline of the training they conducted. SATISFACTION WITH TRAINING Figure 9 indicates that GA airport managers were generally more satisfied with their own level of employee training than with the training provided to contractors and tenants. Still, the level of dissatisfaction indicates room for improvement in both areas. Seven of the GA airports did not respond to the question regarding satisfaction related to tenant/contractor training (Q30) as they did not train either group, preferring to escort those needing access to the airfield. FIGURE 9 Level of airport satisfaction with training of new maintenance hires and contractor/tenant hires, n = 30 (Source: Survey Q29 and Q30).