Airport Self-Inspection Practices (2011)

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.

The essence of maintaining regulatory compliance with Part 139 and ensuring airfield safety is a successful airport self-inspection program. The pillar of such a program, inspect- ing, is the main method used by certificated airports to identify and address issues on the airfield that must be resolved to ensure regulatory compliance with Part 139. As stated by the FAA, “at airports certificated under Part 139, the self- inspection program is a key component of an airport operator’s airport certification program and required under Part 139.327” (FAA 2004, p. 2). According to one FAA inspector, “Even more than documentation, the airport’s condition leads to the most discrepancies” (Lammerding 2010b). Even so, the in- spector notes, “Most of these items can be avoided through basic preventative maintenance schedules and proper self- inspection procedures” (Lammerding 2010b). Truly, even among non-certificated airports, regular self-inspections are integral to maintaining airfield safety and ensuring compliance with standards. INSPECTION PERSONNEL The foundation for a successful airport self-inspection program lies in the personnel tasked with conducting self-inspections. Whether these personnel include the airport manager or ARFF, operations, or maintenance personnel, specific considerations are necessary. As discussed in chapter two, certificated airports are required to (1) provide sufficient and qualified personnel, (2) equip these personnel, (3) train these personnel, and (4) maintain personnel training records (Certification of Air- ports 2004). Once personnel are hired, trained, and equipped, they engage in the daily task of conducting inspections. Although an airport may ask properly trained air carrier and fixed-base operator personnel to assist in certain aspects of the inspection, airports are cautioned by the FAA that “at Part 139 airports, the FAA will hold the certificate holder ultimately responsible for operating the airport safely” (FAA 2004, p. 3). FREQUENCIES OF INSPECTION The manner by which self-inspections are conducted varies among airports. However, according to AC 150/5200-18C, it is important that all airport self-inspection programs incor- porate inspections according to the four main types of fre- quencies. First, regularly scheduled inspections would be con- ducted at least daily during both daytime and nighttime hours. These inspections would occur at least daily during a time 20 when aircraft traffic is minimal in order to lessen any disrup- tion to airport operations. Second, continuous surveillance inspections are conducted in areas and facilities that have been identified as being susceptible to hazardous conditions. By maintaining a constant awareness of specific areas and facilities that are prone to hazards, the incidence of hazards can be reduced. Third, periodic condition inspections are conducted on a regularly scheduled basis, but less frequently than daily. Periodic condition inspections are similar to daily inspections, but focus on areas and facilities that may not need to be attended to daily. Depending on the area or facil- ity, these inspections may be conducted monthly, weekly, or quarterly. Fourth, special inspections are conducted after the receipt of a complaint or when an unusual event or condition occurs, such as a significant meteorological event, or an acci- dent or incident. Additionally, special inspections would also be conducted at the end of a construction project. These are to be completed before construction personnel leave the air- port, in case corrective measures need to be taken by the con- tractor. Airports may have specific checklists for each type of inspection or may incorporate each type of inspection into the daily self-inspection checklist. Regardless, all inspec- tions are to be appropriately documented (FAA 2004). AC 150/5200-18C offers additional guidance on the areas that should be inspected during each of these four inspection frequencies. As shown in Table 4, there are recommended areas of inspection based on the four main types of inspection frequency. Although some areas are shown in more than one inspection frequency each area is fully discussed. SELF-INSPECTION TOOLS Airports have a wide array of tools to assist personnel in con- ducting self-inspections. These tools can assist either with (1) conducting the actual inspection or (2) with recording findings, whether on a checklist or otherwise. Although tools are also available to assist personnel with reporting discrepan- cies and findings; follow-up, resolution, and close-out; as well as with quality control and training, tools for these tasks are pre- sented in their respective chapters. In essence, discrepancies are first noted and recorded, which is the subject of this chapter. For conducting the actual inspection, a basic tool that should be utilized by all certificated airports, according to the FAA, is a vehicle that is equipped with: CHAPTER THREE INSPECTING

21 It is important that inspection personnel be equipped with other tools necessary to inspect the areas noted in AC 150/5200-18C. Although knowledge of the areas outlined within the AC is necessary for inspection personnel, the wildlife area is typically the only area that requires additional tools. These may include a gun with live ammunition or scare munitions, binoculars, shovel, bucket, trash bags, gloves, earplugs, and impact-resistant glasses or goggles. Airports with well-developed wildlife hazard management programs may require additional tools. To assist personnel with recording findings, the first and most important tool is the self-inspection checklist. Although checklists also aid personnel in conducting the actual inspec- tion, especially with minimizing complacency, once com- pleted, they provide an historical record of findings during each self-inspection. Typically, a checklist contains the areas of inspection required by Part 139, subpart (d)—Operations, and with the guidance contained within AC 150/5200-18C. The formats of these checklists vary by airport, and the FAA includes several formats in AC 150/5200-18C for reference. Appendices I and J contain sample self-inspection check- lists in use by St. Cloud Regional Airport and Dane County Regional Airport, respectively. Another tool that is considered fairly basic for conducting a self-inspection is a camera. Some airports find a camera bene- ficial for inspection personnel in documenting various airfield discrepancies or events. With a digital camera, images of issues can be attached to an electronic self-inspection checklist and e-mailed to maintenance personnel for resolution. Regularly Scheduled Inspection Pavement areas Navigational aids Construction Safety areas Obstructions Aircraft rescue and firefighting noitcetorpcilbuPsnoitarepognileuFsgnikraM tnemeganamdrazahefildliWecidnawonSsngiS gnithgiL Continuous Surveillance Inspection Ground vehicles Construction Wildlife hazard management Fueling operations Public protection Foreign object debris ecidnawonS Periodic Condition Inspection Pavement areas Quarterly fueling inspections Obstructions Aircraft rescue and firefighting sdialanoitagivaNsgnikraM gnithgiLsngiS Special Condition Inspection Pavement areas Safety areas Construction Markings and signs Snow and ice Surface movement guidance and control system Source: FAA 2004. Refer to Appendix N for an excerpt from this AC. TABLE 4 RECOMMENDED AREAS OF INSPECTION ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF INSPECTION FIGURE 11 Operations vehicle. Source: A. Stuart, Salt Lake City International Airport. • A two-way ground control radio capable of communi- cating with the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) on controlled airports and on the Common Traffic Advi- sory Frequency (CTAF) or Universal Communications at uncontrolled airports; • A beacon for nighttime (or inclement weather condi- tions) inspections; and • Either a beacon or checkered flag for daytime inspec- tions (FAA 2004, p. 4). Figure 11 shows a vehicle utilized by airport operations per- sonnel at Salt Lake City International Airport to conduct self- inspections.

Particularly with regard to documenting self-inspection findings, technology has been adapted to benefit airports. Today, various computer or web-based applications can be used by self-inspection personnel in: • Documenting self-inspection findings on a checklist; • Recording significant operational activities in a chrono- logical event log; • Displaying locations of significant operational activities or discrepancies on an electronic airport diagram; • Transmitting information to airport staff, air carriers, and FAA, as appropriate; • Remotely reporting with mobile data computers in field vehicles; and • Integrating geographic information system (GIS) technology. Depending on airport needs and provider capabilities, the availability of platforms appropriate to these applications will vary. First, the application may be accessed on a stan- dard office computer. This platform requires inspection per- sonnel to return to the office to document findings and file self-inspection reports. Next, the application may be accessed by means of a vehicle-mounted laptop or tablet PC, with touch-screen features as an option. As shown in Figure 12, 22 this option adds a level of convenience previously unknown to inspection personnel. With such electronic resources avail- able to inspection personnel, access to self-inspection forms, to the airport’s work order system, and even to the ACs is substantially improved. Third, inspection personnel may be equipped with smartphones, PDAs, or other mobile devices. Accessing the airport’s applications by means of these devices further enhances convenience. However, the viewing area of many of these mobile devices is quite limited, and the key- board is often reduced to thumb manipulation; as such, person- nel may find it difficult to complete self-inspection forms and interface with the airport’s work order system using such devices. Often, a PDA supplements a vehicle-mounted device to fully enable inspection personnel to access the airport’s applications whether on the field or in the terminal. Addition- ally, whether in the form of a stationary office computer, a vehicle-mounted computer, or a PDA, some applications pro- vide the user with the capability of generating a work order, allowing for the resolution process to begin almost immedi- ately after a discrepancy has been discovered. Whether the application allows inspection personnel to interface directly with the airport’s work order system or to generate a work order to be e-mailed to maintenance, the benefits are obvious. Applications may also offer capabilities for accident report- ing, NOTAM issuance, and wildlife reporting. Overall, these systems can improve a self-inspection program by enhancing efficiency and reducing workload. At the same time, how- ever, such technology is not without added costs and, as such, is best considered on a case-by-case basis. Based on airport survey data, the vehicle-mounted device is the most common technology-based self-inspection tool used at airports. Although these platforms are available through several providers or may even be developed in- house, they operate in a typical fashion. The computer is mounted in the inspection vehicle and, either with a touch screen or with a monitor with keyboard, may be used by inspection personnel in conducting inspections and document- ing findings. By incorporating an electronic, static airport dia- gram, inspection personnel also are better able to document findings. Further, by having access to the self-inspection checklist on a monitor in the vehicle, airports may guard against complacency among self-inspection personnel (dis- cussed in greater detail in chapter six). Some systems incorpo- rate Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and present a GIS-based, moving-map airport diagram. GIS refers to a computer system capable of capturing, storing, analyzing, and displaying geographically referenced information (Geo- graphic Information Systems 2007). By incorporating GIS, inspection personnel can more precisely document the loca- tion of findings. By pinpointing the exact location of a discrep- ancy using GPS coordinates, maintenance personnel are bet- ter able to locate the discrepancy for resolution. GPS-based systems also support quality control of the self-inspection program through management oversight, as they allow the ability to replay the inspection route driven by inspection personnel. FIGURE 12 In-vehicle mounted device. Source: A. Stuart, Salt Lake City International Airport.

23 CONDUCTING THE INSPECTION Inspection Techniques As stated in chapter one, there are numerous ways in which to conduct a self-inspection. These techniques vary among airports and often among personnel at the same airport. Even so, there are some commonly recognized techniques. For instance, before starting an inspection, it is beneficial for inspection personnel to review the most recently completed self-inspection checklists and any outstanding NOTAMs. By doing so, inspection personnel can stay up-to-date on airport conditions from shift to shift. If construction is in progress, it is important that inspection personnel be familiar with the current construction safety plan specific to that project, as well as any current construction issues, including escort requests, FOD control, and others (AC 5370-2E, Operational Safety on Airports During Construction, provides guidance in this area). Inspection personnel need to be prepared to use correct communication phraseology, procedures, and tech- niques as specified in the Aeronautical Information Manual (FAA, 2004). Regarding the actual techniques to use in conducting the self-inspection, the FAA provides guidance in AC 150/5200- 18C. First, the AC recommends that inspection personnel vary the pattern of the inspection. Although fixed inspection patterns may be easy to learn and provide some standardization, they often do not allow for an adequate inspection. In addition, using a fixed inspection pattern can lead to complacency, with items deserving attention possibly being overlooked. Second, the AC recommends that inspection personnel drive toward the direc- tion of landing aircraft with high-intensity flashing beacon and headlights on, day and night. Although some airports conduct multiple passes during a runway inspection and the FAA actu- ally recommends that a runway inspection be performed in both directions, if time only permits one pass, it is best to drive toward the direction of landing aircraft. By adopting this tech- nique, self-inspection personnel will be able to see approaching aircraft and improve visibility of the vehicle to pilots. Third, inspection personnel need to drive the stub taxiways between the runways and parallel taxiways. Overlooking these areas may, for instance, allow FOD to remain on the pavement and be a danger to aircraft immediately before takeoff. Mechanics of the Regularly Scheduled Inspection As previously discussed, there are four types or frequencies of inspection. Of these, the regularly scheduled inspection is per- formed most often. During this inspection, personnel are tasked with observing a number of areas and facilities at the airport, which are spelled out in AC 150/5200-18C (as well as in Appendix N of this report). It is essential for inspection per- sonnel to document each inspection as well as any findings. According to the FAA, “if you don’t document it, it didn’t happen” (Lammerding 2010b). First, pavement areas are inspected, with attention to the following items: • Pavement lips; • Cracks; • Holes; • Spalling, low spots, debris (FOD), and contaminants; • Vegetation growth; and • Drainage and ponding. Specifically, any issue is a concern that could cause loss of aircraft directional control or could generate FOD that may damage an aircraft or personnel. For instance, Figure 13 shows pavement deterioration that is a concern, requiring personnel to detect, report, and ensure that it does not worsen before being repaired. Figure 14 shows a buildup of rubber contaminating the runway surface. This finding may encour- age airport personnel to conduct friction testing on the run- way or schedule rubber removal operations. Next, personnel need to inspect safety areas. This requires inspection personnel not only to know the dimensions of the “Stories from the Field” One airport that recently adopted technology to improve the self-inspection process is Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The airport’s Technology Division linked the air- port’s GIS and its enterprise resource planning system in an effort to enhance the efficiency of work order requests. The new application, known as Fieldport, allows operations personnel the ability to submit work orders by means of touch-screen tablet computers while they are out in the field conducting inspections, allowing for real-time submission of these requests and providing precise location information through the use of GIS maps. This has greatly improved the self-inspection process; before this, operations personnel conducting inspections were required to be in the office to submit work orders by means of Sky Harbor’s text-based SAP enterprise system. According to the airport, Fieldport vastly improves the work order request process. “When a work order is submitted through Fieldport, our staff receives a map that indicates exactly where maintenance needs to be performed,” said Deputy Aviation Director Becky Gawin. “This technology helps streamline our response time.” Sky Harbor’s Technology Division developed Fieldport over the past year, with a team of about 10 personnel work- ing on the project. So far, 22 touch-screen tablets are in use and 60 staff members are trained to use the Fieldport application. [Adapted from Airport Report Today (AAAE 2010, p. 2).]

24 ground with ruts and humps can shear aircraft landing gear, or worse. Figure 15 shows a rut with an exposed concrete base located in a safety area. Figure 16 shows a manhole cover that greatly exceeds the Part 139 requirements. Markings are also essential at an airport and play a key role in providing directional guidance and information to pilots. The following items need to be considered when inspecting markings: • Condition of the markings (correct color, paint chipping, fading, or obscure); • Visibility of runway hold position markings; • Reflectivity of markings at night; • Standardization of markings; and • Marking installation and configuration. The FAA recommends (in AC 150/5200-18C) that airport markings comply with AC 150/5340-1, Standards for Airport Markings, to avoid confusion and disorientation among pilots. It can be noted that compliance with this AC is mandatory for FIGURE 13 Pavement deterioration. Source: Lammerding 2010a. FIGURE 14 Contaminated runway. Source: Lammerding 2010a. runway and taxiway safety areas at the airport, but to inspect these areas as well. Often, as several FAA lead certification inspectors suggest, this can be done adequately only by getting out of the vehicle and periodically walking the safety areas. In so doing, it is important that the following items be considered: • Are proper dimensions maintained? • Are there hazardous ruts and surface variations? • Is there proper drainage? • Are objects in the safety areas functionally necessary and on a frangible mount? • Are equipment bases and lighting mounts at grade level? • Are manhole and handhole covers at grade level? and • Are the safety areas capable of supporting vehicles and aircraft (FAA 2004)? Specifically, safety areas must be capable of supporting vehicles and aircraft without causing damage to either (FAA 2004). This becomes important if an aircraft overruns a run- way or has an excursion from a taxiway, for instance. Uneven FIGURE 15 Safety area rut and exposed concrete base. Source: Lammerding 2010a. FIGURE 16 Safety area manhole above grade. Source: Lammerding 2010b.

25 FIGURE 17 Marking reflectivity. Source: Lammerding 2010b. FIGURE 18 Incorrect marking precedence. Source: Lammerding 2010b. certificated airports, as well as for non-certificated airports that have accepted federal funds for runway and taxiway con- struction or rehabilitation. Figure 17 shows the difference between two sets of markings, one with adequate reflectivity, and one without. If an airport does not conduct an inspection during hours of darkness, an item such as this will likely never be discovered and corrected. Figure 18 shows incorrect marking precedence. AC 150/5340-1 goes into great detail about precedence of markings to avoid situations such as this. It is necessary that inspection personnel also inspect newly painted markings (Figure 19). In addition to markings, signs are integral to providing important directional and distance information to pilots and to vehicle operators at the airport. To ensure that appropriate sign standards are being met and maintained at the airport, inspection personnel need to be familiar with the airport’s FAA-approved sign plan and regularly check that the airport’s signs are: • Easy to read, correct color, and retro-reflective; • Properly illuminated and not obscured by vegetation, dirt, snow, or other obstructions; • Frangibly mounted with concrete bases at grade level; FIGURE 19 Newly painted markings. Source: F. Dettmann, A.A.E., Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, Tampa International Airport. FIGURE 20 Sign obscured by vegetation. Source: Lammerding 2010a. • On panels that are in proper condition; and • Configured in accordance with the standards and sign plan (FAA 2004). The FAA has developed AC 150/5340-18, Standards for Airport Sign Systems, to provide guidance to airports in meeting standards with their signage. It can be noted that for certificated airports, as well as non-certificated airports that have accepted federal funds for runway and taxiway construction or rehabilitation, compliance with this AC is mandatory. Figure 20 shows a sign partially obscured by veg- etation. Discovering this would likely prompt inspection per- sonnel to contact maintenance to either cut the grass with a mower or use a weed trimmer around the sign. To prevent more frequent mowing, airports may spray herbicide around the signs. However, caution is urged with this approach, because without vegetation holding onto soil, erosion around the sign

26 FIGURE 21 Reversed signage. Source: Lammerding 2010b. FIGURE 22 Faded sign panel. Source: Lammerding 2009. FIGURE 23 FOD signage. Source: T. Bartlett, Houston Airport System. base may occur, thus creating another problem with a sign base not at grade level. Some airports have opted for a per- manent solution to this problem by installing an artificial turf in their movement areas. For instance, in 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport installed 90,000 sq ft of arti- ficial turf in runway safety areas to control erosion and FOD (Nelson 2008). Figure 21 shows a sign reversed from the standard config- uration. This may be addressed by moving the sign panels or by installing a new sign according to FAA requirements. When replacing sign panels, it is best to replace both panels on a sign face at the same time. Otherwise, the new panel may overshadow the older, faded panel (Figure 22). Signage designed to remind drivers of FOD is shown in Figure 23. Especially important to pilots at night, airfield lighting must also be inspected during a self-inspection. Although the inspection is typically concentrated on lighting owned by the airport, inspection personnel may wish to consider any light- ing owned or operated by others. Although a lighting inspec- tion may be attempted during the day, it is quite difficult to accomplish. Therefore, according to the FAA, “Inspection of lighting is best accomplished during periods of darkness in order to evaluate lighting systems when they provide the primary visual aid for pilots” (FAA 2004, p. 7). Specifically, the following lighting systems are to be inspected: • Runway and taxiway edge lights; • Apron edge lights; • Runway centerline and touchdown zone lights; FIGURE 24 Bent taxiway edge light. Source: P. Khera, Alaska DOT. • Taxiway centerline lights or centerline reflectors; • Runway threshold and end lights; • Runway guard lights (both elevated and in-pavement, if installed); • Ramp lights and floodlights used in construction to ensure they are properly shielded; • Obstruction lights; and • Lighting in fuel storage areas (FAA 2004). Specifically, while observing these lighting systems, inspection personnel should pay attention to the intensity, alignment, color, and proper function of lighting through manual or radio control features. Figure 24 shows a taxiway edge light that is bent at the frangible base. This needs to be

27 corrected to ensure it does not fall completely off the base and become FOD. Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs) also should be inspected during a regularly scheduled inspection. Although the inspec- tion might focus on those visual NAVAIDs owned by the air- port operator, inspection personnel are advised to also observe any NAVAIDs owned or operated by others, such as the FAA (FAA 2004). Items to be observed include: • Segmented circle; • Rotating beacon; • Wind cone(s); • Runway end lights; • Visual glide slope indicators (such as VASIs, PAPIs, or PLASIs); and • Approach lighting (FAA 2004). When inspecting these NAVAIDs, it is important that inspection personnel ensure that lighting is operable, NAVAIDs are not obscured by vegetation or other obstruc- tions, frangible couplings are in good condition, and lights flash in proper sequence, as appropriate. Any outages or deficiencies of FAA equipment must be reported and documented (FAA 2004). Figure 25 shows a wind sock and Precision Approach Path Indicators in operation. While conducting a self-inspection, personnel also need to check visually for obstructions on and near the airport. This includes checking for trees or other obstructions to Part 77 surfaces. To accomplish this, inspection personnel must be knowledgeable of Part 77 and the imaginary surfaces as they relate to the airport (FAA 2004). Specifically, the fol- lowing items are to be addressed: • Construction equipment and tall cranes in relation to Part 77; and • Proper marking and lighting of obstructions (FAA 2004). If construction equipment, such as a crane, is found and thought to be an obstruction, the airport operator should ver- ify that proper notification to the FAA has been provided. If an obstruction is not properly marked and lighted, it is impor- tant that this be reported to the responsible party. In sum, inspection personnel both report and monitor any obstruction light that is missing, inoperative, or damaged, as well as any object that appears to be an obstruction and is not properly marked or lighted (FAA 2004). Figure 26 shows an obstruc- tion as part of a construction project. In this case, a NOTAM is in place and the crane, only in operation during daylight hours, is marked with a flag. It is important that fueling operations at the airport also be inspected during a regularly scheduled inspection. This daily inspection is necessary even though a more in-depth fueling inspection is typically conducted quarterly. Although the inspection mainly consists of a quick inspection for the most common problems concerning compliance with local fire safety codes at the airport’s fuel storage areas and mobile fuelers, inspection personnel also must consider security, fire FIGURE 25 Wind sock and Precision Approach Path Indicators in operation. Source: F. Dettmann, A.A.E., Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, Tampa International Airport. FIGURE 26 Obstruction. Source: F. Dettmann, A.A.E., Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, Tampa International Airport.

protection, general housekeeping, and fuel dispensing facilities and procedures (FAA 2004). Items of consideration include: • Practices of personnel conducting fueling; and • Appropriate signage in place at the fuel farm, with gates locked as appropriate (FAA 2004). Specifically, it is important that inspection personnel keep an eye out for unsafe fueling practices and any violation of fire codes. For instance, if fueling personnel fail to bond an aircraft with the mobile fueler or if someone smokes while fueling air- craft, inspection personnel need to take action (FAA 2004). Figure 27 shows a mobile fueler inspection in progress. During periods of winter operations, it is important that inspection personnel observe any snow and ice and their effects. By being familiar with the airport’s snow and ice removal procedures and, in the case of certificated airports, the FAA-approved Snow and Ice Control Plan, inspection personnel can effectively observe these conditions (FAA 2004). Items to be inspected include: • Lights and signs obscured by snow or damaged by snow removal operations; • Snow banks and drifts adjacent to runways and taxi- ways to ensure clearance for aircraft wing tips, engines, and propellers; • Piles of snow to ensure that snow is not piled across the runway threshold or across from the runway or runway intersections; • FOD from snow removal operations; • Taxiways or access routes dedicated for ARFF to ensure they are not blocked; • Critical areas for electronic NAVAIDs to ensure that snow has not accumulated; and • Slippery pavement conditions (with braking action or Mu values, as appropriate) (FAA 2004). 28 In essence, inspection personnel inspect the AOA for unsafe conditions caused by snow and ice or the removal of snow and ice (FAA 2004). Several documents provide essential read- ing in this area, including AC 150/5200-30, Airport Winter Safety and Operations. Figure 28 shows a snowplow broken during snow removal. Often, airports undergo construction on the airfield. In such times, inspection personnel inspect construction sites during a regularly scheduled inspection. Being familiar with the airport’s construction safety plan and the guidance of AC 150/5370-2, Operational Safety on Airports During Con- struction, will benefit inspection personnel (FAA 2004). Items to be inspected include: • Construction staging areas and stockpiled materials, to ensure that materials are properly stored and secured and are not left in safety or movement areas; • Proper marking and lighting of construction areas and equipment adjacent to movement areas or as specified in the airport’s plan; • Construction barricades, to properly define the limits of construction and hazardous areas; • FOD generated by construction activities; • Open trenches in safety areas or adjacent to movement areas; • Airfield lighting and signage adjacent to construction areas; • Proper marking and lighting of closed pavement; and • NOTAMs (FAA 2004). Construction activity on the AOA is common, and by inspecting the items in the previous list, inspection personnel can ensure that this activity remains compatible with airport operations. In essence, inspection personnel report and monitor any unsafe condition created by construction activity, including damage to signs, lights, markings, and NAVAIDs. Further- FIGURE 27 Mobile fueler inspection. Used with permission. FIGURE 28 Broken snowplow. Used with permission.

29 more, inspection personnel need to ensure that equipment and supplies (even in the form of FOD) are not left in movement and safety areas, unless that area is closed to aircraft operations. By regularly coordinating with contractor personnel and ensur- ing they understand the airport’s construction safety plan, many of these items can be prevented at the outset (FAA 2004). Fig- ures 29 and 30 show an airfield construction under way. Regularly scheduled self-inspection provides an opportu- nity for self-inspection personnel to communicate with ARFF crews to make certain that personnel and equipment are pre- pared for the day’s activities. Items to be inspected include: • ARFF status, including availability of equipment, fire- fighting personnel, and extinguishing agent (proper Index for certificated airports); • Alarm and emergency notification systems; and • ARFF response routes, especially if maintenance or construction activity is affecting normal routes (FAA 2004). In conducting an inspection of the airport’s ARFF capabili- ties, inspection personnel would report and monitor any ARFF vehicle, equipment, or extinguishing agent that is not avail- able or is inoperative. Additionally, any reductions in ARFF personnel should be monitored. Further, if there are any changes to aircraft serving the airport, the ARFF Index may change, thus likely requiring changes in personnel, equipment, and extinguishing agent. At certificated airports, the FAA must be notified if an ARFF vehicle is inoperative and cannot be replaced immediately. Also, a NOTAM must be issued regard- ing the non-availability of any ARFF capability, as specified in Part 139.339 (FAA 2004; Certification of Airports 2004). Fig- ure 31 shows an ARFF vehicle having a tire replaced, during FIGURE 29 Airfield construction project. Source: F. Dettmann, A.A.E., Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, Tampa International Airport. FIGURE 30 Airfield construction project. Source: F. Dettmann, A.A.E., Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, Tampa International Airport. “Stories from the Field” The Houston Airport System, which includes George Bush Intercontinental Airport, William P. Hobby Airport, and Ellington Airport, has a well-developed construction safety program. Before the start of any construction activity, the air- port hosts a preconstruction kick-off meeting. At this meet- ing, a construction safety plan developed for that specific project is discussed in detail. Items of discussion include: • Construction haul route; • Site cleanliness; • Fencing; • FOD and the requirement for a FOD sweeper; and • FOD checkpoint. Additionally, the contractor is informed that the role of airport operations personnel during the project is that of coordination and liaison, in essence, the oversight of field activity. Typically, airport operations personnel are heavily involved in closing and opening pavement, issuing NOTAMs, and coordinating any necessary escorts. Airport operations personnel conduct a special inspection before opening or reopening a runway or taxiway affected by construction. Once the project is under way, daily project coordination meetings are held with both contractor and airport personnel present. Additionally, weekly or biweekly project status meetings take place. With a compre- hensive construction safety plan, daily coordination, and over- sight by airport operations personnel, the Houston Airport System is able to ensure a safe construction project compatible with the operation of the airport. Source: Bartlett 2007.

30 FIGURE 31 ARFF truck in disrepair. Used with permission. FIGURE 32 ARFF truck. Used with permission. which time the vehicle is unavailable. Figure 32 shows an ARFF truck in normal operating condition. During each regularly scheduled inspection, protection of the public is also an important area of concern. For instance, gates, fencing, locks, and other safeguards need to be function- ing properly to prevent inadvertent entry to movement areas by unauthorized persons and vehicles. Blast fences and other devices must be in place to offer protection from jet blast. Any of these safeguards that are damaged or missing must be noted and reported to appropriate personnel for correction (FAA 2004). Figure 33 shows a blast fence to be inspected. Figure 34 shows a downed perimeter fence that needs prompt attention. The final category of inspection concerns wildlife. Although some airports may conduct separate wildlife hazard inspec- tions, the FAA recommends that this area also be part of a reg- ularly scheduled inspection. During the inspection, personnel are to be observant of large flocks of birds and evidence of birds or animals on pavement areas (Figure 35 and Figure 36). FIGURE 33 Blast fence. Source: F. Dettmann, A.A.E., Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, Tampa International Airport. FIGURE 35 Wildlife remains discovered on paved surface. Source: P. Khera, Alaska DOT. FIGURE 34 Downed fencing. Used with permission.

31 Personnel are to note changes in the type or quantity of wildlife and take time to check fencing and gates for wildlife accessi- bility. If the airport has an accepted wildlife hazard manage- ment plan, personnel need to be prepared to use the outlined mitigation measures (FAA 2004). In essence, any inspection that is conducted, whether a daily inspection or a special inspection, is to be documented (see Fig- ure 37). In addition to maintaining self-inspection records for the purpose of meeting FAA requirements, airport management may find these records useful. An analysis of past, completed self-inspection checklists may reveal certain trends, define problem areas, and provide justification for certain expenses (such as a friction tester or FOD detection technology). In addition to maintaining records of each inspection, airports may maintain copies of previous work orders, NOTAMs, and wildlife reports (FAA 2004; Lammerding 2009). CURRENT AIRPORT INSPECTION PRACTICES Inspection Responsibility To determine if different personnel are responsible for conduct- ing self-inspections and maintaining Part 139 compliance, air- ports were queried about the personnel responsible for these two tasks. The majority of participating airports indicated that operations personnel are responsible for conducting self- inspections (94%), as well as for maintaining Part 139 compli- ance (97%). When queried as to which personnel are responsi- ble for the specific areas detailed in Part 139, the results were fairly uniform. As shown in Table 5, it is most common for operations personnel to be responsible for inspecting all areas. Next to the most common is for maintenance personnel to inspect these areas. Only in the area of fueling operations and public protection is it common to find personnel other than operations or maintenance conducting the inspections. Specifi- cally, fixed-base operator personnel inspect fueling operations at 31% of the airports, whereas security personnel inspect areas of public protection at 34% of the airports. Self-Inspection Methods Airports were also queried as to the methods they use for con- ducting self-inspections. As seen in Figure 38, the methods in FIGURE 36 Wildlife on the airfield. Used with permission. FIGURE 37 Documentation of special inspection. Source: Lammerding, 2010a. “Stories from the Field” At Salt Lake City International Airport, the airfield is staffed 24 hours each day by operations personnel who continuously patrol the taxiways and monitor the runways. Runways are inspected twice each day (once during daylight and once at night), with one of the airport’s three runways undergoing a more thorough inspection each day (to include safety areas). Inspection personnel utilize the airport’s self-inspection checklist to guide them during the process. Night inspections cover all airport lighting, including a check of the approach lighting system (ALS). Vehicles used by self-inspection personnel are equipped with laptop computers to access and file the checklist (Figure 12). The vehicles are equipped with high-intensity lights to enable inspections to be completed during low-light or low-visibility conditions. Source: A. Stuart, Salt Lake City International Airport. INSPECTION RECORDS Although required at certificated airports, it is good practice for any airport with a self-inspection program to practice good record keeping. In addition to maintaining training records (discussed in chapter two), certificated airports are required to: Prepare, and maintain for at least 12 consecutive calendar months, a record of each inspection prescribed by this section, showing the conditions found and all corrective actions taken (Certification of Airports 2004, p. 24).

32 (16%), non-hub (25%), and GA (0%) airports do not use teams for conducting self-inspections. When asked to share the reasons why various inspection methods were chosen, most airports responded in one of three ways. First, the most common response was the effi- ciency and practicality of their chosen methods. For instance, large airfields are best inspected with the use of a vehicle. Second, quite a few airports explained that their methods had proven successful over time and were based on expe- rience. As one respondent shared, “Thirty-five years of experience says this is the way to do it.” Third, although small airports with minimal staff may have one person ded- icated to conducting inspections, other airports (both small and large) conduct inspections in teams. Whether an air- port has multiple sets of eyes in the same vehicle or por- tions of the airfield inspected by different individuals, air- ports capitalize on the team approach. At least one airport acknowledged the benefits of sending two individuals in one vehicle on a self-inspection, to enable one person to concentrate on driving and avoiding incursions while the passenger focuses on the items being inspected. As one respondent explained: Part 139 self-inspections are a team effort. Operations person- nel complete a portion of the inspection during each opera- tional period (day, swing, and midnight). Dividing the daily self- inspection over multiple shifts ensures all areas are inspected by multiple individuals. If an issue is missed by one inspector, it is likely to be caught by the next. Another respondent shared the practice of dividing areas of the airfield into units and assigning individuals to concentrate on Part 139 areas such as markings, lighting, pavement, and safety areas. In sum, airports appear generally pleased with the self-inspection methods in use at their facilities. Appendix G presents open-ended responses to this question. Self-Inspection Techniques In addition to the methods available for conducting self- inspections, various techniques are available to the airport operator. In reality, there are many different ways to conduct 1st 2nd snoitarepOsaeratnemevaP (97%) Maintenance (41%) snoitarepOsaeraytefaS (97%) Maintenance (31%) Markings and signs Operations (97%) Maintenance (38%) snoitarepOgnithgiL (97%) Maintenance (39%) snoitarepOFFRA (89%) Maintenance (11%) Fueling operations Operations (83%) FBO (31%) Navigational aids Operations (97%) Maintenance (22%) Ground vehicles Operations (94%) Maintenance (29%) snoitarepOsnoitcurtsbO (97%) Maintenance (25%) snoitarepOnoitcetorpcilbuP (97%) Security (34%) Wildlife hazard management Operations (97%) Maintenance (28%) snoitarepOnoitcurtsnoC (97%) Maintenance (28%) Snow and ice control Operations (97%) Maintenance (38%) Note: Participants were able to select all that apply; thus, percentages do not total 100% across categories. TABLE 5 INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITY BY AREA 91% 81% 77% 49% 51% While in vehicle By one person Visual Walks In teams FIGURE 38 Self-inspection methods. Note: Participants were asked to select all that apply; thus, percentages do not total 100%. use are quite diverse. It appears that the majority of airports conduct inspections with a vehicle, driven by one person, using visual cues. However, FOD walks and conducting in- spections with a team are also quite common. When analyzed by hub size, using teams was most common among large-hub (73%) and small-hub (63%) airports. Generally, medium-hub

33 a self-inspection, and it appears that participating airports uti- lize many of these. As seen in Figure 39, responses were diverse and comprehensive. Interestingly, 100% of partici- pating airports conduct self-inspections during the night, with 95% also conducting inspections during the day. Partic- ipating airports also tend to favor a varied inspection pattern, rather than a fixed inspection pattern. When analyzing the data by hub size, GA airports have adopted many of the techniques, with 100% conducting varied inspection pat- terns, inspecting runways and taxiways in both directions, inspecting stub taxiways, and conducting both day and night inspections. Even so, only three GA airports partici- pated in the study, so these results may not be inferred of GA airports nationwide. When asked why an airport had chosen these various inspection techniques, respondents offered many ideas (Appen- dix G). Although several airports mentioned that inspection techniques differ among their personnel (as a matter of pref- erence), the most common reason for using certain techniques centered on flexibility. Airports may alter their inspection technique based on aircraft operations, availability of the air- field, and the location of operations personnel at the start of the inspection. Other common reasons were (1) ensuring a more complete inspection, (2) complying with an AC or Part 139, (3) cooperating with ATCT, and (4) continuing habits or routine. As one airport explained: Each duty operations manager has a choice on how he or she inspects the airfield; thus, pattern would be different from one individual to the next. Each is required to inspect all areas of the AOA and a varied approach works best by seeing the pave- ment in different directions. Runway inspections are toward the direction of landing traffic for safety reasons and this is specified in the letter of agreement with the FAA. Equipment and Tools for Self-Inspection Participating airports were also asked about the equipment or tools they use when conducting self-inspections. The major- ity of airports use a vehicle and a paper self-inspection checklist. Less frequently used are electronic devices and additional equipment, such as a friction tester. Although not offered in the answer choices, one respondent also mentioned their use of “shovels, brooms, plastic bags, PPE (gloves, hear- ing protection, eye protection, rain coats), liquid spill kits, haz-mat kits, measuring wheels, rulers, digital camera, cell phone, vehicle light bar equipped with spotlights & sirens, etc.” Results are shown in Figure 40. Among the technology- driven tools, hand-held devices are used by 33% of medium- 100% 95% 75% 63% 58% 58% 58% 38% Inspect during the night Inspect during the day Varied inspection pattern Inspect runway in both directions Inspect toward direction of landing… Inspect taxiways in both directions Inspect stub taxiways between runway… Fixed inspection pattern FIGURE 39 Self-inspection techniques. Note: Participants were asked to select all that apply; thus, percentages do not total 100%. 81% 79% 57% 55% 31% 14% 0% Paper self-inspection checklist Vehicles Friction tester Paper self-inspection checklist with airport diagram Vehicle-mounted device (Tablet PC) Handheld device (PDA) Imagery (FLIR) FIGURE 40 Equipment or tools used in self-inspections. Note: Participants were asked to select all that apply; thus, percentages do not total 100%.

hub airports and 13% of small-hub airports. Vehicle-mounted devices are used by 36% of large-hub airports, 13% of small- hub airports, and 50% of non-hub airports. An effort was also made to gain insight into the reasons why various types of equipment and tools were chosen by airports. Although responses varied, four themes emerged. First, the selection of tools and equipment was driven by the simplicity of the product. As one participant shared, “[Keep it Simple Stupid] KISS method.” Second, the acquisition of equipment was based on its appropriateness for the airport. Third, the equipment enabled the airport to meet AC or regulatory requirements. Lastly, a lack of resources or cost- benefit analysis drove the decision-making process. Addi- tional reasons include the proven success of the product, the efficiency or usability of the product, and the demand at the airport. One participant explained, “Over time [this equipment] has proven useful and we have a good track record.” Appendix G presents all open-ended responses to this question. Tenant Personnel Although findings indicate that airport operations personnel are typically responsible for conducting self-inspections, airport tenants may become more involved with the process at some airports. Airports were queried about allowing tenant personnel the opportunity to ride along on an airport self-inspection. The majority of airports only allow this by request, whereas only 34 one airport prohibits this practice. Results for this question are shown in Figure 41. 75% 13% 9% 3% By request only Occasionally Yes-daily No FIGURE 41 Airports allowing tenant personnel to ride along on inspection. “Stories from the Field” What makes your self-inspection program so effective? Terry Blue: General Mitchell International Airport Attention to detail! Get others involved on the administrative side. FOD Walks, safety area checks. Spend a lot of time on the airfield. Industry-trained. Hire some outsourced training, AAAE schools, and ACI. Hire outside folks for training on inspecting movement areas. FOD walks once a year for all 5 runways and all taxiways. Most of training is still done in-house, though. Dave Jensen: Dane County Regional Airport Comprehensive, checklist, multiple times a day. Inspect six times daily. Doug Kreulen: Huntsville International Airport It is successful because we are always prepared and do things 100% every day. Instead of “gearing up” for an FAA Inspec- tion, our airport actually uses the same checklist that the FAA uses while conducting our daily self-inspections.