Lessons Learned from Airport Safety Management Systems Pilot Studies (2012)

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.

32 BACKGROUND At the core of SMS is the component relating to safety risk management. The ICAO defines SRM as “ . . . a generic term that encompasses the assessment and mitigation of the safety risks of the consequences of hazards that threaten the capabili- ties of an organization, to a level as low as reasonably practi- cable. The objective of Safety Risk Management is to provide the foundations for a balanced allocation of resources between all assessed safety risks and those safety risks the control and mitigation of which is viable” (ICAO 2009). The FAA currently defines SRM as “the composite of the likelihood (i.e., risk) of the potential effect of a hazard, and predicted severity of that effect. As an example, the possibility of an overshoot by an aircraft landing on an icy runway would be considered a safety risk of the hazard. The hazard is “icy runway” and the risk is “possibility of an overshoot” (FAA 2007). Fundamentally SRM is a formal, structured set of processes to proactively identify hazards, classify and prioritize asso- ciated safety risks, apply corrective actions to mitigate the risks, and continuously improve operational safety. One of the key tasks and deliverables within the SMS implementation study was the requirement to conduct a minimum of three safety risk assessments. A SRA is the formal process of analyzing a “system” change and assessing the associated hazards and risks, proposing mitigations, and assigning oversight or moni- toring of the corrective action. CHAPTER CONTENTS This chapter presents findings relating to the development and implementation of SRM processes with specific questions focusing on SRAs. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS SRAs were conducted as part of the implementation study; however, some airports participated in non-FAA SMS pilot study SRAs, which is noted and included in the chapter findings. Safety Risk Assessments Figure 16 provides information on SMS pilot study airports that have conducted SRAs. Airports participating in the SMS implementation study were required to conduct SRAs. As expected, all SMS implementation study airports (all 14 par- ticipating in the survey) replied “yes” to having conducted SRAs within the study. Nine other airports reported “yes” they had conducted SRAs and three replied “no” they had not performed SRAs. Collectively, the results are that 23 of the surveyed airports have conducted SRAs and only three have not. For airports replying “yes” to having conducted SRAs, a list of SRA topics was collected and is presented in Table 21. The majority of topics focused on airside hazards, including wildlife, ramp operations, snow removal, irregular operations, and construction; however, some airports conducted terminal or landside SRAs on topics such as pedestrian walkways, conveyance systems, signage, and change management. The range and type of SRAs conducted suggest that the SRA pro- cess may be applied to any aspect of airport operations, not merely the airside. A subject matter expert typically conducts SRAs. However, for more complex issues, airports have found it helpful to use a panel of experts, including airport staff and stakeholders. The airport then designates someone to formally manage the five-step risk assessment process and associated documenta- tion developed for the SRA. In these cases, a facilitator is used to engage the panel, cultivating discussion among panel mem- bers about potential hazards, risks, and mitigations. Figure 17 provides a summary of SRA facilitations at the SMS pilot study airports with 10 implementation personnel as the facili- tators, six consultants facilitating, four combined consultant and implementation personnel facilitators, and three FAA or other facilitators. Comments from airports (specifically the SMS implementation study airports) indicated that con- sultants conducted the first or second SRA (a minimum of three SRAs was required as part of the SMS implementa- tion study deliverables) and subsequent SRAs were either cofacilitated (four) or the airport personnel took over the SRA facilitation. LESSONS LEARNED Synthesis study questions focused on SRAs and did not include discussions regarding the airport’s overall SRM processes. The SRAs conducted as part of the SMS implementation chapter four SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND SAFETY RISK MANAGEMENT

33 FIGURE 16 SRAs conducted. Airport SRA Topics Reported by SMS Pilot Study Airports Class IV Blind Spots on the Ramp Area, New Technical Center Pedestrian Routes, Wildlife Class II Entire Airport Incorporating Review of Records (including tenant’s documents) Class I Vehicle Traffic on Ramp, FOD, Taxiway Conversion, Restricted Crossing for Baggage Transport Class I Winter Weather Operations, Surface Incidents on the Aircraft Movement Area and Ramp, Construction Safety-Terminal A, Phase I, Pavement Rehabilitations Class I Runway Reconstruction Class I Tower Glass Replacement for FAA Tower, High-Speed Turnoff for Runway, Construction with Runway Safety Area Class I Proposed Changes in Level of Service, Airside Vehicle Program, Closing Taxiway, Taxiway Widening, Aircraft Size Relating to Barriers of the Taxiway Class I Airbus 380 Operations, Runway Pavement, All Hazardous Inventory Assessment Class I Change Management Class I General Hazards, Wildlife Issues, Signs, and Stoplights Class I Fire and Master Evacuation Plan, Decouple Runway, Customs Use of the Ramp, Wildlife Class I Public Conveyance Systems, Commercial Ramp Operations, Capital Budget Process Class I Environmental, Bypass Taxiway, Convert Nonmovement to Movement Area Class I Special Events, Winter Operations, New Terminal Orientation on the Ramp, Gate Usage During Construction, Request from FBO to Taxi Aircraft, Overlay Project, UPS Ramp to Introduce the SRA Concept to the Airport Community Class I Major Runway Rehabilitation, Escalator Issues, Cut Over Taxiway Class I Car Show, Snow Removal, Runway Marking and Operations, Air National Guard for Testing Class I Taxiway Project Class II Retaining Wall with Drop-off on Perimeter, Signage in Movement Area, Runway Safety Area Markings Class IV Construction Pavement Projects, Annual Air Show Class IV Airfield Incursions Hot Spots, Wildlife Hazards, Ramp Operations Analysis Class I Ground Service Vehicles, Employee Safety Awareness, Fuel Service Vehicles, Movement Driving Awareness Regarding Safety, Safety Identification, and Reporting Systems Class I Public Safety Burning Structure, Burning Aircraft, and Hazardous Materials Class I Irregular Operations, Roofing Project, Commercial Ramp System, Community Fly-in Event Class I Jetway Safety, Operations on Closed Runways, Wildlife Hazard Management TABLE 21 SRA TOPICS BY AIRPORT SIZE

34 study and other non-SMS pilot study activities provided the opportunity to assess the integration of the SRA as a core element of the SRM. No information was collected regard- ing the airport’s development of risk matrices, severity and likelihood definitions, and so forth. Safety Risk Management Although no specific questions were asked regarding the airport’s overall SRM processes, valuable information was acquired on the mechanisms for conducting and facilitat- ing SRAs. Lesson Learned: SRM is facilitated by the development of various topic-related SRAs. Safety Risk Assessments The broad SRA topics presented by airports for both air and landside operations demonstrate that the five-step SRA process recommended by ICAO and FAA can be applied to various aspects of airport operations. Lessons Learned: Airports are conducting SRAs outside the specific context of SMS pilot studies. SRAs are developed and managed by a broad range of personnel with subject matter expertise. FIGURE 17 Personnel or organization who facilitated SRAs.