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.
60 Findings Key findings from the study follow. ⢠Few airports have formal incident reporting systems that capture incident data not related to regulatory compliance. ⢠Incident reporting, data collection, and analysis processes are not fully developed at airports, especially voluntary reporting capabilities. ⢠Airports with better-developed incident reporting practices generally had a champion within the organization supporting and shepherding the processes. ⢠The breadth and depth of an incident reporting system is determined by each airport, based on resources available and commitment of management to establish a culture of safety. ⢠The person or department responsible for incident reporting collection, reviewing, and analyzing varied from airport to airport. ⢠Safety and key performance indicators, dashboards, and scorecards are being used by only a few airports. ⢠Safety and key performance indicators, leading indicators, and hazard identification are not well understood in the majority of airports, indicating a need for training and education in those areas. ⢠It is difficult to benchmark or compare safety and key performance indicators among airports, as they reflect the individual goals of an airport, and those goals can vary widely given the type, size, and nature of an airport. Challenges Key challenges found in the study and the literature for implementing an incident reporting system follow. ⢠Formalizing and finding the resources to implement an incident reporting system. ⢠Determining what data to collect and monitor at the right time to improve safety and performance. ⢠Determining the value of a safety or key performance metric, given the general lack of adequate data. ⢠Developing and implementing policies and processes that result in a just and reporting culture. ⢠Educating and training the airport organization on understanding the value and importance of incident reporting systems. ⢠Gaining worker trust and confidence that will result in increased and timely reporting of incidents. ⢠Balancing the need for confidential reporting versus freedom of information disclosure. C H A P T E R 1 0 Findings and Conclusions
Findings and Conclusions 61 Conclusions This synthesis examines current practices for defining, collecting, aggregating, analyzing, protecting, and reporting airport organizational incident information. Based on responses from the surveyed airports and from the literature search, there is dis- parity as to what constitutes an incident, what kind of data are collected, how incident data are collected, how the data are analyzed, and how the data are used and communicated to others. Incident reporting was shown to be at different stages of development within the airports surveyed. Those airports observed to have progressed the furthest in development of incident reporting systems were also observed to have benefited from an individual champion who worked and promoted to advance the concepts within the organization. The extent to which an airportâs incident reporting system had breadth and depth appears to be related to where in the organization the program resides. Biases were found in the types of incidents being reported at airports. The biases stem from who has responsibility for data collec- tion; the degree of knowledge and exposure one has about the different kinds of incidents that are considered important; and where data reporting and collection are centered in the airport (i.e., operations, risk, finance, emergency, security, or other departments of an airport). Incident reporting systems housed in an airportâs operations, emergency, human resources, security, or maintenance departments tended to reflect a safety-centric approach and were often compart- mentalized or siloed within those departments. Systems housed in the finance or risk management departments tended to view incident reporting more holistically, with both a safety-centric and an enterprise-centric focus. Regulatory and mandatory reporting requirements are the most common types of incidents collected at airports. While provisions exist for voluntary incident reporting at airports, few of them have a formalized process to encourage, record, analyze, and respond to near-miss incidents. Even less process exists for enterprise-wide and strategic goal delineation. Training, education, and technology gaps exist in the reporting and documentation of incidents. A gap exists in the knowledge that airport organizations have about how incident reporting and enterprise risk management can be used at airports. Little training is conducted to prepare employees to fully participate in incident reporting outside of mandatory or regulatory reporting. The knowledge gap is reinforced by airports not having well-developed incident reporting policies, procedures, and practices in place. Incident reporting will take on greater importance within airport organizations as future emphasis is placed on SMS and ERM programs. The first will come about as a result of proposed rulemaking for certificated airports to implement a SMS. The latter will come about as the applica- tion of OMB circular A-123 is incorporated into grant acceptance and assurance processes. Those airports that have an ERM program in place generally have a champion within the organization who is versed in the requirements and metrics of ERM. The same appears to hold true for a SMS. The use of a culture survey is not a common practice at airports, but the success of an incident reporting system relies on a just and reporting culture within an organization. Management can help minimize the barriers perceived by employees to reporting incidents by communicating and supporting a just and reporting culture. Suggestions 1. Airport organizations would benefit from clearly defining any incident reporting terms to be used, and training employees and stakeholders as to the meaning and purpose of those terms. The development of airport specific terms related to incident reporting would also allow for better comparison and reference among airports.
62 Airport Incident Reporting Practices 2. Consideration needs to be given to establishing a national safety hazard/incident database similar to the national wildlife hazard database. Doing so would provide another layer of protection, allowing for data sharing and enhanced identification of trends and issues nationwide instead of simply at one airport. 3. Incorporate incident data reporting into the orientation, badging, and recurrent training processes of employees, tenants, users, contractors, and other stakeholders. 4. Incorporate ERM practices within the airport organization. Further Research 1. The development of a guidebook to assist airports in setting up and implementing an incident reporting system would be beneficial to the airport industry, especially for GA and non-hub airports. 2. The development of a standardized culture survey that can be used across airports of all sizes for benchmarking or other comparison purposes would be beneficial to the airport industry.
