The National Academies Press: Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data (2020)

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25969 SHARE

   
Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data (2020)
DETAILS
90 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-48182-3 | DOI 10.17226/25969
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Booz Allen Hamilton, Futron Aviation, Faith Group, LLC, George Mason University,
and Quadrex Aviation, LLC; Airport Cooperative Research Program; Transportation
Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Collecting and

Sharing of Operations and Safety Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25969.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 222

Collecting and Sharing of
Operations and Safety Data
Booz Allen Hamilton

McLean, VA
in association with
Futron Aviation
Norfolk, VA
Faith Group, LLC

St. Louis, MO
George Mason University

Fairfax, VA
Quadrex Aviation, LLC

Melbourne, FL
Subscriber Categories
Aviation • Safety and Human Factors
Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
2020
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 222
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- Project 03-45
portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and interna- ISSN 2572-3731 (Print)
tional commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects ISSN 2572-374X (Online)
with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for ISBN 978-0-309-48182-3
managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of Library of Congress Control Number 2020944253
state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research
© 2020 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate
new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into
the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)
serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- published or copyrighted material used herein.
sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ACRP carries out Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agen- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
cies and not being adequately addressed by existing federal research understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
programs. ACRP is modeled after the successful National Cooperative FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
Program (TCRP). ACRP undertakes research and other technical activi- reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
ties in various airport subject areas, including design, construction, legal,
maintenance, operations, safety, policy, planning, human resources, and
administration. ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can
cooperatively address common operational problems. NOTICE
ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100— The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight
Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports program sponsors.
Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Associa-
The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
tion of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State
Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because
Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) TRB they are considered essential to the object of the report.
as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the
FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract
with the National Academy of Sciences formally initiating the program.
ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport
professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials,
equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organi-
zations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibili-
ties, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort.
Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodically but
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility
of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest
priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel
appointed by TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport
professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels
prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors,
and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the Published research reports of the
project. The process for developing research problem statements and
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop-
erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP are available from
project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Transportation Research Board
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service pro- Washington, DC 20001
viders, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of research
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
interested parties; industry associations may arrange for workshops, https://www.nationalacademies.org
training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to ensure that and then searching for TRB
results are implemented by airport industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 222

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Marci A. Greenberger, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program
Brittany Summerlin-Azeez, Program Coordinator
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
Kami Cabral, Editor
ACRP PROJECT 03-45 PANEL

Field of Policy and Planning
David Bannard, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP, Boston, MA (Chair)
Geoffrey David Clark, MicroStrategy Japan, Yokohama, Kanagawa-ken, Japan
Catherine E. Coslick, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Keith E. Ellis, United Airlines, Inc., Chicago, IL
Mark R. Richter, Ricondo and Associates, Inc., Denver, CO
Elizabeth Smart, St. Louis Lambert International Airport, St. Louis, MO
Phillip Davenport, FAA Liaison
Susan Gardner, FAA Liaison
Ashley Sng, Airports Council International–North America Liaison
Christine L. Gerencher, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Guidebook herein has been developed under ACRP Project 03-45 by Booz Allen Hamilton and
teaming partners. Booz Allen Hamilton was the prime contractor for this study.
Jennifer Salerno, Lead Associate at Booz Allen Hamilton, served as the Principal Investigator. The other
authors of this Guidebook are Dr. Akshay Belle, Booz Allen Hamilton; David Byers, Quadrex Aviation,
LLC; David Fleet, Faith Group, LLC; Dr. Lance Sherry, George Mason University; and Dr. Ken Neubauer,
Futron Aviation.

FOREWORD
By Marci A. Greenberger
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
Airport operators and other airport stakeholders need real-time information to develop
or enhance their risk-based decisionmaking approach. Historical and current data can
also be used to identify trends. Collecting data from third parties can be challenging,
especially if the data is considered proprietary, likely making it unable to be shared. ACRP
Research Report 222: Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data identifies data
sources, best practices, and the challenges associated with collecting and sharing informa-
tion with other stakeholders.
The collection and sharing of data are essential in an airport’s risk management process.
The data can allow the airport to benchmark against the industry, monitor performance,
and proactively understand trends. When stakeholders have the same data, it allows all
stakeholders to have common situational awareness.
The collection and sharing of operations and safety data are recognized as being neces-
sary; however, there are concerns that such data may be subject to Sunshine laws, or that
it may be subsequently taken out of context. There also needs to be some standardization
of the data and a taxonomy to permit comparisons and benchmarking.
Under ACRP Project 03-45, Booz Allen Hamilton was tasked with identifying operations
and safety data that airports can use to develop or enhance their risk-based approach to
decisionmaking and that can be shared with stakeholders. The research involved an exten-
sive literature review and interviews with airport staff and other aviation organizations.
The report includes operations and safety data sources and how the data can best be used
to analyze and mitigate risk. It identifies best practices and provides a possible template for
the industry to collect operations and safety data. This will be useful to any employee at
an airport seeking to be proactive in risk mitigation activities, to benchmark against other
airports, or to work with stakeholders having the same data set.


CONTENTS
1 Chapter 1 Introduction
2 1.1 How to Use This Guidebook
3 1.2 Organization of the Guidebook
3 1.3 Benefits of Effective Data Usage
4 Chapter 2 Stakeholders
7 Chapter 3 Operations and Safety Data and Their Uses
7 3.1 Internal Data Sources
29 3.2 National Data Sources
53 3.3 Data Analysis
63 Chapter 4 Developing an Operations and Safety Database

63 4.1 Motivation
63 4.2 A Method for Collecting and Sharing Operations and Safety Data
66 4.3 Challenges Associated with Collecting and Sharing Operations
and Safety Data
75 Chapter 5 The Path Forward

77 Acronyms
79 Bibliography and Other Resources
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.


CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Airports collect data on their operations, facilities, passengers, and other activities on a daily
basis. In addition to statistical analyses and federally mandated reporting requirements, data
is essential in risk-based decisionmaking. The analysis of operations data to enhance aviation
safety requires access to data along with appropriate application and translation of the data to
make informed, risk-based decisions. Risk-based decisionmaking is a proactive approach to
address emerging risk by using data-informed approaches to make smarter decisions to address
or reduce risk. As airports develop their risk management processes, the collection and sharing
of real-time and historic data allows airports to monitor and understand trends and to bench-
mark against the industry. The collection of operations and safety data that could be deemed
sensitive is a challenge and concern to many airports because of the potential use of data out of
context. Nonetheless, analysis of operations- and safety-related data is a necessary component
in identifying and mitigating risks and hazards.
A key challenge to risk-based decisionmaking is the need for a standardized taxonomy,
data standards, and exchange protocols. Developing a common taxonomy requires an under-
standing of airport hazards and their associated risks and outcomes to identify key data
sets that will consistently allow users (e.g., airports and stakeholders) to conduct analyses
of performance metrics and trends to inform the risk assessment process. Other key input
includes consideration of legal issues and state Sunshine laws and their impact on collecting
and sharing sensitive airport data.
Key Insights
• This Guidebook is intended to provide information and assist any size airport
with identifying operations and safety data to collect and share for risk-based
decision management.
• An extensive literature review and outreach to airport operations and safety
managers (U.S. and international staff) was conducted to seek input for
risk-based decisionmaking data collection and sharing.
• This Guidebook does not recreate all operations and safety data that can be
collected or that is available but rather serves as a compass to direct airports to
the resources pertinent to their needs in managing risk-based decisionmaking
and sharing of data.
• While the airport industry lacks a sole source of data, this Guidebook provides
a potential roadmap to a future safety and operations national database.
1

2 Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data
For example, the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Aviation Safety Information
Analysis and Sharing System (ASIAS) was established to promote an open platform for collect-
ing and sharing aviation safety data (FAA 2019a). By hosting a publicly accessible database for
collecting and storing aviation safety data, researchers have a resource for investigating the
magnitude and trends involving emerging safety issues. Although ASIAS is a work in progress,
it has the potential to allow airports to contribute safety data to the collective database, to analyze
recurring events, and to share lessons learned for enhancing aviation safety.
This Guidebook is designed to help airport staff identify operations and safety data that
airports can and should collect to develop or enhance their systemic approach to risk-based
decisionmaking and to allow for benchmark comparisons with other airports and sharing of
data with stakeholders.
1.1 How to Use This Guidebook

This Guidebook provides airport owners, operators, and staff with recommendations
regarding the collection, analysis, and sharing of operations and safety data that can enhance
risk-based decisionmaking. The Guidebook user will better understand the types of data avail-
able, the sources of the data, and methods by which data can be used to perform benchmarking
and performance comparisons internal to the airport and against other airports. Through the
use of this Guidebook, airport professionals will better understand the categories of risk they
face in operations, availability of information that can be used to assess and mitigate risks, and
identify challenges and issues impacting data collection and sharing. The Guidebook provides
a view into the role the airport might play in improving the performance of airport processes
and of airport tenants and airlines.
This Guidebook draws from airport industry experts to provide “how to” guidance for
the application of operations and safety data from various internal and external sources.
Many airports may readily collect data for these data sources but may be inexperienced in
how to interpret the data or determine solutions and best practices to identify the issues or
challenges for operations and safety. This Guidebook is intended to serve as a resource to fill
in data gaps and identify best practices and tools that airports can use to address operations
and safety issues. The best practices and tools within this Guidebook include data sources,
examples, tables, and graphics to provide guidance and additional resources for data collection
and review.
This Guidebook provides illustrative examples of airports and air transportation organizations
that are pursuing initiatives to provide actionable knowledge to decisionmakers through data
collecting, analysis, depiction, and sharing. This Guidebook identifies how airports of various
sizes, complexities, and ownership might adopt some of these practices to improve their own
performance levels. While most airports will have many common elements, it is recognized that
each airport will invariably have unique characteristics, which may result in varying ways to
use this Guidebook and collect data. A number of the recommendations are made to provide a
wider and improved ability to collect and share standardized formats of data. This Guidebook
should be viewed as a starting point, rather than a final destination, when it comes to airport
performance improvement strategies.
This Guidebook should not be considered the single authoritative source on airport opera-
tions and safety data collection and sharing. Users of this Guidebook need to remember that
many of the topics addressed may evolve over time.

Introduction 3
1.2 Organization of the Guidebook

This Guidebook is organized to allow airport staff to easily collect and access operations and
safety data from a variety of data sources.
• Chapter 1, Introduction, provides an overview of this Guidebook and use strategies.
• Chapter 2, Stakeholders, identifies the various airport stakeholders within the aviation system
and their roles and relationships with the airport.
• Chapter 3, Operations and Safety Data and Their Uses, describes data sources for a variety
of aviation operations and safety data and related information, such as types of accidents,
incidents, near misses, and other event data that airports commonly track or may want to
track as well as other sources of data that provide actionable operational insight. Chapter 3
also includes examples of how to leverage operations and safety data for data analysis, such
as benchmarking, trend analysis, hazard identification, and situational awareness.
• Chapter 4, Developing an Operations and Safety Database, describes several challenges
airport operators face in collecting and sharing data. In addition, this chapter reviews how
to collect meaningful data specific to each component of the airport (e.g., airfield, ramp,
terminal, curb); the means for storing data in a standardized format; and sharing data across
a variety of platforms and databases.
• Chapter 5, The Path Forward, provides insight into data collection needs to support future
visualization and analysis, particularly a national database to allow sharing and comparisons
among airports.
1.3 Benefits of Effective Data Usage

There are many benefits of collecting and using operations and safety data. From a practical
standpoint, data collection provides airport owners and operators with current or real-time
data and the ability to predict how their airport will perform in the future relative to safety
and operations. The most practical benefit of reviewing historical data is the ability to begin
to predict and proactively manage safety. Safety data by itself does not enable this ability;
however, combining it with operations data provides context for safety data, making it more
compelling. In addition, collecting operations data provides the means to propose improvements
that may result in reduced operations and maintenance costs.
Reviewing data and using available data enables proactive risk-based decisionmaking
by airport management. The airport can offer services to passengers and tenants where and
when necessary. Proactive management can help control costs, minimize duplicative efforts,
and foster efficient operations and cost models. This is attractive to airlines because they are
keen on controlling airport costs (although on average, airport service costs comprise less than
10% of total airline operating costs) (FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans 2007). Because
airlines operate on tight margins, the ability to control airport costs (to the extent practicable)
is important. An airport that demonstrates proactive management and efficient operations
becomes a partner with the airlines and not necessarily a business adversary.

CHAPTER 2
Stakeholders
Airports typically engage with a variety of stakeholders in the collection and sharing of
operations and safety data. In general, the organizations listed in Table 2-1 provide services
or perform duties at an airport. Available data from each organization and their relationship
with an airport is also identified in Table 2-1.
Many of these airport stakeholders provide operations and safety data to airport owners
and operators. Even if these organizations do not provide data to the airport, they may have
data that could be valuable to that airport and the overall airport community (i.e., airport
staff, tenants, users, local residents, general public, stakeholders) in terms of tracking progress
toward improving operations and safety or bringing in additional businesses.
Airports are one contributor for commerce within a community. There are business relation-
ships in place, regulators, and true partners that airports can and should leverage for data. By
understanding the information an airport can provide to a community, the community can
enjoy the benefits of a safe and efficient transportation system.
Table 2-1. Aviation stakeholders.
Stakeholder Description and Data Relationship with the Airport

FAA Air Traffic Control • Service provider for the management of an • Coexist as a partner in how aircrafts are managed
Tower (ATCT) or a
aircraft to and from the airport and on the ground. at an airport.
Contract Tower Managed
by FAA Air Traffic • Data includes aircraft operational numbers, • ATO has no regulatory role with the airport;
Organization (ATO) aircraft types, rates of arrivals and departures, however, FAA ATO is co-dependent with the
and efficiency aspects of aircraft operations. airport.
FAA Office of Airports • Regulator for Part 139 certification inclusive • Primary regulator for an airport.
(ARP) of grant compliance, Part 139 compliance, • Does not directly provide data to an airport;
capital project approvals and funding, and ARP compels an airport to monitor, inspect,
planning support. and capture pertinent data.
• Data points include Part 139 discrepancies
and trends across the industry.
FAA Technical • Service provider for all FAA-owned and • Similar relationship to FAA ATO; partner in
Operations (Tech Ops) FAA-operated navigational aids. providing aviation service to the industry;
• Data includes navigational aids’ performance protecting and managing the services Tech Ops
and how that relates to aircraft operations. provides are crucial, and airports assist in that
endeavor.

Stakeholders 5
Table 2-1. (Continued).

Airlines (Both Signatory • Air carriers for passengers and cargo. • Signatory carriers have an established business
and Non-Signatory • Data includes passenger numbers (enplaning relationship and agreement with the airport;
Operators) and deplaning), cargo tonnage, and incidents non-signatory carriers use public use airports
and accidents on ramps and movement areas. and are subject to landing and other use fees
without an established agreement in place.
• Airports with scheduled or regular service have
an articulated business relationship, typically
called an airline use agreement; this agreement
is the vehicle by which airports can and should
compel airlines to provide operations and
safety data.
FAA Terminal Radar • Service provider for the management of • Coexist as a partner in how aircraft are managed
Approach Control
aircraft arriving and departing or transiting at an airport.
(TRACON)
airspace controlled by the facility.
• Data includes aircraft operational numbers,
aircraft types, and rates of arrivals and departures.
Fixed-Base Operators • Service providers to both commercial and • Critical to airport safety and operations.
(FBOs) general aviation (GA) operators for fueling, • Usually have a lease or use agreement with the
maintenance, and deicing (as examples). airport; leases and use agreements are the vehicles
• Data includes fueling data, aircraft by which airports can and should require the
maintenance data, deicing data, overall safety reporting of safety and operations performance
data, and operations metrics supporting aircraft data from their FBO(s).
operations.
Ground Service Provider • Service provider to commercial aircraft operations, • Crucial to airport safety and operations.
(GSP) such as baggage handling, fueling, aircraft parking, • While a GSP is primarily concerned with airlines
deicing, and general services. and services to airlines, GSPs usually have
• Data includes aircraft turn times (gate occupancy), standards and an operating agreement with the
baggage handling data (time to load and offload airport in place and should be providing data to
baggage), and general support data for commercial the airport on a regular basis.
carriers.
Maintenance, Repair, and • Service provider to commercial and GA operators • Similar to FBOs; might compete with FBOs for
Overhaul (MRO) specific to aircraft maintenance and services. aircraft services.
• Data includes aircraft serviced and general tenant • Must have a lease or operating agreement with
data points, such as airport badged employees and the airport.
foreign object damage/debris (FOD) reports. • To the extent benefit can be found, MRO should
report safety and operations data.
Large Tenants (e.g., • Tenant on the airport and may be a key GA • Must have a lease or operating agreement in
Corporate Aviation) aircraft operator. place with the airport.
• Data includes those associated with occupying • To the extent benefit can be found, tenant should
space on the airport and can, in some cases, be included in reporting safety and operations
provide aircraft fueling and general safety data, data.
such as FOD reporting.
Cargo Operations • Commercial aircraft operations specific to the • Similar to airlines but use sort/consolidation
transportation of cargo. facility.
• Data can come from airport badged employees, • Must have lease or operating agreement in place.
usually a key FOD producer and controller, and • Contribute significantly to safety and operations
overall partner in safety reporting of hazardous data, particularly for airfield operations.
conditions.
(continued on next page)


Transportation Security • Security provider and regulator for the • Both a regulator and a service provider.
Administration (TSA) screening of passengers, baggage, cargo, and • May have lease or contract for office space in
overall security of the airport. a terminal; airports cannot charge TSA for
• Data includes passenger processing, baggage inspection and passenger process areas.
processing, and overall safety reporting • Numbers of passengers processed, and bags
(generally confined to terminal areas). Note: inspected are key contextual operations
passenger processing through checkpoints is a data points.
key metric for overall operation of a terminal.
Customs and Border • Regulator and service provider for the • Similar relationship with airports as the FAA
Protection (International processing of passengers and aircraft to and and TSA.
Airports) from countries outside the United States.
• Data similar to TSA data points.
Police and Fire Safety • Regulator and service provider for safety and • Usually a more significant role in the daily
Officers protection at an airport. operations of the airport than regulators.
• Data includes those associated with fire, • Provide significant data points on airport
emergency, and police responses at an airport. operations.
Security Companies • Service provider for safety and protection at • Usually a subcontractor the airport manages and
an airport. directs for security issues.
• Data includes those associated with police
responses at an airport.
Parking Operators • Service provider for those passengers and • Crucial to overall airport operations.
(Landside) individuals using public parking areas at the • Normally have leases or contracts; often the first
airport. or last service provider for passengers in their
• Data includes parking numbers by product, travel journeys.
landside efficiency of roadways, and safety • Should have safety and operations data reporting
reporting source for facilities in the parking areas. requirements for the airport.
Major Ground • Service provider to those passengers and • Many have operating agreements with the airport
Transportation Operators public not parking at the airport. and should be compelled to report both safety
(Shared Rides, Uber, Lyft, • Data includes landside efficiency of roadways and operations data occurring at the airport.
Public Transportation, etc.) and safety reporting source for those facilities
(Landside) on the public side of the airport.
Terminal Concessions • Service provider for passengers and airport staff. • Must have leases or operating agreement;
• Data includes sales per passenger. airport should require concession providers to
report operations and safety data.
Convention and Visitors • Data includes key events during the year that • Does not typically have a business relationship
Bureau may impact airport operations and even cause with the airport.
congestion. • Sharing data is a partnership with the city and
local communities to provide needed services;
airports should be active members and share
data so passenger numbers can be proactively
reviewed based on local events that require
air travel.
Chamber of Commerce • Data includes key events during the year that • Similar to Convention and Visitors Bureau except
may impact airport operations and even cause data is used to attract new businesses and
congestion. investments into the community.
• Data may come from the airport to help improve
airline services to markets the local and regional
businesses need.

CHAPTER 3
Operations and Safety Data

and Their Uses
Airport owners and operators share a common responsibility to provide an efficient and
safe environment for their users and are responsible for investigating ways to mitigate risks
that may compromise safety and efficiency. Many have collectively expressed an interest to
determine if their issues are unique or shared by other airports. Chapter 3 describes data
sources maintained or captured internally by an airport (Section 3.1), data sources available
nationally (Section 3.2), and data analysis approaches an airport can take with available data
(Section 3.3).
Knowledge and tracking of this type of data and information can help airports analyze and
learn from their data to manage operations and safety risks. Using the right data for bench-
marking can help airports improve operating levels, efficiency, and performance. Analysis of
operations and safety data can help airports identify trends to assist with strategic planning
for needed improvements and to raise awareness for potential hazards.
Chapter 3 serves as a self-help guide drawn from airport industry experts to provide
“how to” guidance for the application of operations and safety data from various internal and
external sources. Many airports readily collect data for these data sources; however, they may
be uncertain or inexperienced in how to interpret the data to identify issues or challenges for
their operations and safety or how to determine solutions and best practices. This chapter is
intended to serve as a resource to fill in data gaps and identify best practices and tools that
airports can use to address operations and safety issues. The best practices and tools associated
with this Guidebook include items such as data sources, examples, tables, and graphics to
provide guidance and additional resources for data collection and review.
Figure 3-1 is a flowchart of steps to take when an inspection report indicates a concern in

the areas of operations or safety. The steps proceed from the initial report to analysis of trends,
identification of root cause, mitigation, documentation, monitoring for effectiveness, and
sharing results. This process is also of use for benchmarking and sharing data.
3.1 Internal Data Sources

The operations and safety data currently collected by airports are primarily driven by the
federal mandates of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 139—Airport Certification
(FAA 2019b; 14 CFR Part 139—Certification of Airports 2013). Safety issues are reported to
the FAA; however, many of them are not publicly reported. The following sections provide an
overview of the data source, description of the data, an example of data usage by an airport,
and data collection requirements (see Table 3-1). These are maintained or captured internally
by an airport through the normal course of business. If an airport is CFR Part 139 certificated,
7

Figure 3-1. Flowchart for addressing an operations or safety

concern identified in an inspection report.
the airport operator has an obligation to collect, document, and retain certain data specific
to regulatory compliance. These include Part 139 daily inspections results and corrections,
Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) inspections, driver training, movement area incursions,
obstruction surveys, and so forth. For airports that are not Part 139 certificated, operators
should consider using established data points and collecting operations data as needed to
obtain a more complete safety performance picture.
Table 3-1. Internal data sources covered in this Guidebook.

Section # Data Source
3.1.1 Part 139 Self-Inspection Reports
3.1.2 ARFF and Aircraft Fueling Equipment and Facility Inspection Reports
3.1.3 ARFF Runs (Non-Aircraft-Related) Reports
3.1.4 Airport Training Records
3.1.5 FOD Program Reports
3.1.6 Baggage Handling Area Inspection Reports
3.1.7 Ramp Inspection Reports
3.1.8 Terminal and Landside Inspection Reports
3.1.9 Safety and Incident Reporting

Operations and Safety Data and Their Uses 9
3.1.1 Part 139 Self-Inspection Reports

In the United States, commercial airports must be certificated under 14 CFR Part 139
(referred to as Part 139) for scheduled passenger air carrier service to operate (14 CFR
Part 139—Certification of Airports 2013). Part 139 certification is established with four
different classes (Classes I, II, III, and IV) based on the scheduled commercial service and aircraft
type operating at the airport. Class I airports are those certificated to serve scheduled operations
of large air carrier aircraft, unscheduled passenger operations of large air carrier aircraft, and
scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft. Airports designated as Classes II, III, and IV
are primarily designated for airports with smaller aircraft (regional jets and turboprop aircraft),
nonscheduled charter operations, or combinations thereof. While the classifications vary,
the fundamental requirements are consistent (FAA 2019b; 14 CFR Part 139—Certification of
Airports 2013).
This data source focuses on those fundamental requirements, and more specifically on the
inspections that are required of Part 139 certificated airports. These inspections are a continuous
source of data on the state of airport movement area and support to airport operations and safety.
The types of data captured during inspections can be trended and shared with other airports for
the purpose of identifying potential improvements to operations and safety performance.
Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-18D: Airport Safety Self-Inspection provides guidance to an
airport operator on what, when, and how self-inspections are to be conducted (FAA Advisory
Circular 150/5200-18D 2019). The AC does not apply to all airports, but the inspection process
benefits any size airport because it provides a relatively standardized way of collecting data
related to the operational condition and safety readiness of the airport, which benefits all airport
operators. According to the AC, the areas on which the inspection should focus are designated
as follows:
Primary attention should be given to such operational items as pavement areas, safety areas, markings,
signs, lighting, ARFF, fueling operations, navigational aids, ground vehicles, obstructions, public protec-
tion, wildlife hazard management, construction, and snow and ice control (FAA Advisory Circular 150/
5200-18D 2019).
The AC does not limit the areas that can be monitored on a periodic basis. The airport
operator may designate specific areas where conditions might impact safety of operations.
Part 139 regularly scheduled self-inspections should be conducted “. . . at least daily during
times when aircraft activity is minimal in order to create the least impact on airport operations”
and part of the inspection process “should be done during the hours of darkness at those airports
that serve air carriers after dark” (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-18D 2019). This guidance
provides a level of standardization to ensure data collected and shared can be compared with
relevancy and accuracy. The AC also notes that self-inspections may trigger special inspections
to investigate discrepancies “after receipt of a complaint or when an unusual circumstance or
unusual event occurs on the airport, such as a significant meteorological event or an accident
or incident” (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-18D 2019). Special inspections can generate
additional detailed data and root causes of discrepancies that can provide key and sharable
information that can identify systematic safety risks or trends.
Part 139 self-inspections are typically performed by the airport owner and/or operator at
least twice daily (once during daylight hours and once at nightfall) and involve the physical
inspection of the airfield and aircraft movement areas. Each airport operator must have an
FAA-approved checklist that covers all the areas called out in the regulation. Each area of the
inspection checklist has a minimum criterion for acceptable conditions. Items that are observed
as not acceptable (a discrepancy) must be documented and corrected within a reasonable
amount of time. The discrepancy must be documented and followed by corrective action. The

airport must maintain the Records of Correction and make them available for the FAA Airport’s
Division Certification annual inspection (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-18D 2019).
The data collected by airports during self-inspections depends on whether the conditions
are acceptable, and equipment and facilities at the airport meet minimum criteria. Thus,
the primary sharable data includes the number of “No” tallies where standards are not met,
the type and location of the discrepancy, causes of the discrepancy, the time lapse between
discovery and correction, and when a special inspection is performed. Checklists should be made
more usable for data collection and sharing by including the means to record the frequency,
number, and location of discrepancies.
3.1.1.1 Data Description

Table 3-2 provides a list of airport inspection areas from the FAA-recommended checklist,
along with the types of data an airport operator should collect to benefit data sharing. This
information should be used as a starting point for including Part 139 self-inspections as a source
of sharable airport data.
Part 139 self-inspection data sources allow for the measurement of the airport operator’s effi-
ciency at maintaining compliance with federal airfield standards. Measuring performance of stan-
dards should allow an airport operator to ensure successful Part 139 compliance during annual
inspections. By measuring the time and resources invested, the airport operator can quantify the
cost of compliance. This is critically important when understanding the true costs of the airfield.
3.1.1.2 Data Collection Characteristics

For the airfield lighting example, there are some assumptions made about the data that an
airport collects and/or inherently knows about its lighting systems. There is an assumption that
the number of lighting outages is collected, tracked, and, at some point, analyzed for trends.
An important point in this case is the type of lights (LED) and bulb part number were also
known and included in the analysis. This type of information must be available when needed.
Table 3-2. Data items from airport inspection areas.
Data Items Description

Paved and Unpaved Number of pavement discrepancies noted along with type and location of discrepancy.
Areas
Safety Areas Number of safety area discrepancies noted along with type and location of discrepancy.
Markings and Signs Number of marking and sign discrepancies noted along with type and location of discrepancy.
Lighting Number of lighting discrepancies noted along with type and location of discrepancy and
cataloged by area of the airport where the discrepancy occurs.
Navigational Aids Number of NAVAID discrepancies noted along with type and location of discrepancy.
(NAVAIDs)
Wildlife Wildlife activity noted along with changes to environment impacting wildlife activity
(wetlands expansion, trash accumulation, changes outside the airport property, etc.).
Fueling Number of fuel spills and number of fire code violations noted.
Obstructions Number of obstructions along with type and location of obstruction.
Hazmat Number of storage tanks and leaks along with type and location of discrepancy.
Snow and Ice Number of lights and signs damaged, FOD left on pavement following snow removal
activities (equipment parts, ice chunks, etc.), along with number and type, time required
to clear, means and methods used, and amount of snow/ice accumulation.
Public Protection Number of security discrepancies noted along with type and location of discrepancy.
ARFF Number of fire hazard discrepancies noted along with type and location of discrepancy.
Construction FOD collected/reported (type and amount) and number of violations by construction workers.
Wind Indicators Number of wind indicators and type and condition of wind indicators.

EXAMPLE: DATA SHARING FOR AIRFIELD LIGHTING

Given that Part 139 airports collect and manage the results from self-inspections,
there are significant similarities in data collected and how data is managed airport
to airport. While there are no technical requirements for data management, some
large airports have sophisticated software, and others use spreadsheets to track data.
Despite differences in the methods of documentation, airports can and should
share Part 139 inspection data given the possible benefits. The following is a brief
example using airfield lighting.
Part 139 airports inspect lighting nightly. If lights are out in the movement area,
this is documented and fixed as soon as possible. If more than two lights are out
in a row, the lights must be corrected immediately. This requirement is even more
stringent in Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions. To this end, if an airport begins
to note light failures in one specific area of the airfield, either on one taxiway or
perhaps one side of a runway edge, and the frequency of outages is increasing,
the airport operator must assume this situation is more than just normal bulb
failure and investigate.
Upon investigation, the airport operator discovers that the lighting systems
are working normally. There are no excessive ground faults, the regulators are
operating normally, and the power supply is smooth and efficient. The operator
determines that this taxiway (example) was recently transitioned to a new light
fixture with light emitting diode (LED) bulbs to save energy as part of a construction
project. Upon review, the operator discovers that the LED lights used meet the
specifications in the project. The airport operator meets with the engineers and
contractors to determine the root cause of the lighting issue.
Based on further review, it was determined that the bulbs used were manufactured
overseas and a Buy-American waiver was granted to the contractor. This issue
was then elevated to the FAA for consideration, and it was determined that this
brand of bulb would no longer be allowed under a Buy-American waiver request.
The contractor was required to replace all the bulbs with different, acceptable,
LED lights.
The information from Part 139 self-inspections enabled the airport operator to

identify a problem based on trending data (light bulb failures). This facilitated
a focused investigation on that particular lighting circuit resulting in the discovery
of an issue with national implications. The lighting and inspection results data,
including the number of outages and frequency, can be useful to other airports
when they manage and design their own facilities.
In this example, it would be important for airports who share lighting inspection
results to also document the types of lights and bulb part number(s). Many airports
have this information as a matter of course given its usefulness regarding
maintenance activities and parts management.

For this example to work effectively across several airports, airports would need to provide
the following information:
• Type of light (taxiway, runway, threshold, other)
• Location (as exact as practicable)
• Lighting system (e.g., which regulator, homerun, circuit)
• Light product, including part number
This list provides enough information for the airports to determine if a similar situation may
exist at their airports. The challenge is that most of this information is not typically captured
on the daily inspection checklist. The location and type of light are documented, but the exact
system and product are not. That information resides with the maintenance team responsible
for correcting the outage. Therefore, for this example to be effective, it is imperative that at least
two to three levels of analysis occur.
For airports to capitalize on data sharing, there needs to be a minimum of two levels of
analysis performed. In the example, the initial analysis is kept locally (as in, not reported to
or shared with stakeholders outside the airport) to determine if the overall system is operating
within acceptable ranges (e.g., lights are burning out at an anticipated rate). When a negative
trend is identified (lights burning out frequently), the analysis moves to finding the root cause.
After the root cause is identified, a fix is put in place and monitored for effectiveness. Only after
the problem is identified, root causes found, and corrections made and monitored should it be
shared with other airports. A complete and informative picture of the issue can provide benefits
and lessons learned to other organizations.
This is true in almost every situation related to Part 139 self-inspection areas. Approaching
one’s data collection and analysis in a systematic and consistent manner provides lessons learned,
and trends can be shared, thus driving the need for industrywide attention and evaluation.
Table 3-3 provides an example of Part 139 components that can be used for data sharing.
3.1.2 ARFF and Aircraft Fueling Equipment

and Facility Inspections Reports
ARFF inspection reports account for compliance costs and can be demonstrated to stake
holders and business partners (such as airlines). ARFF personnel are frequently assigned
responsibility for fire safety inspections but not always. This data provides the airport operator
with the tools and information needed to discuss operational improvements with fueling and
fuel storage companies, enabling a better understanding of how well the individual organiza-
tions are conducting their operations in terms of operations and safety efficiency.
Typically, at Part 139 airports, ARFF staff conduct inspections of aircraft fueling facilities
as well as the vehicles assigned to ARFF response. Therefore, for the purposes of providing
concise examples, they are both included in this section. Further, ARFF inspections also
review the fueling apparatus themselves, such as fuel trucks, fuel carts, hydrant systems, and
storage. This represents valuable information about the use and condition of the facilities,
even those owned and operated by tenants and stakeholders such as the airlines and fueling
consortiums or FBOs.

ARFF and fueling facility inspection data should be reviewed as three distinct categories:
aircraft fuel trucks, aircraft fuel storage and dispensing facilities, and ARFF response vehicle
inspection and testing (see Table 3-4).

Table 3-3. Data sharing examples.
Part 139 Item Sub-System Issue Issue Source Frequency Time Between Shared Data Benefit
(Location) (per Month) Discovery and
Correction
(Average)
Lighting Runway Burning too Part 139 nightly 6; approach 24 hours • Results of root cause analysis and Cost savings, ensures
Edge frequently inspection end of possible fix (acquire new LED improved safety
results Runway 5L bulbs) are shared through more reliable
• Share: circumstance and bulb airfield lighting
manufacturer
Pavement Runway Cracking and Part 139 daily 12 x 10-ft 1 week • Results of root cause analysis Cost savings,
Markings Edge peeling shortly inspection sections shows poor paint quality (acquire improved safety
Markings after repainting results new paint and inform FAA of through improved
specification variations) longevity of markings
• Share: circumstance and paint
manufacturer
Airfield Runway Hold Face panel Part 139 nightly 2 signs 1 to 2 days • Results of root cause analysis show Cost savings,
Signage Position fading within inspection poor quality signage panels; thus, improved safety
Signage 1st year of results fading prematurely through improved
deployment • Share: circumstance and signage longevity of signage
panel manufacturer
Snow Plow Blades Parts of Part 139 5 lights 2 days (time • Results of root cause analysis Cost savings,
Removal Damaging In- polyurethane inspections post- for analysis, revealed poly blades angled at 45 improved lighting
Operation Pavement blades are snow removal change to degrees are more likely to damage performance during
Lights breaking off in- events procedures) light fixtures. Rotating blades on snow removal; does
pavement light edge (90 degrees to pavement) not result in degrad-
lenses rarely damages lenses ation of snow removal
• Share: circumstance and blade
manufacturer
Wildlife Migratory Large flocks of Continuous 3 times per As soon as • Root cause analysis shows geese Understanding hazards
Hazard Birds migratory birds monitoring of day on possible flight patterns changed due to (flocks of large birds)
Management are overflying WHMP average over above average rainfall filling low- enables a proactive
Program the airport 2-week period lying areas near the airport approach to WHMP
(WHMP)
Construction Haul Routes Escorts are Continuous 18 1 week (time • Airport policy allows two pieces of Additional costs for
Activities Crossing losing contact monitoring of for analysis, equipment to be escorted across escorts; however,
Active with all pieces construction change to movement areas. Second piece has improved safety as
Movement of equipment procedures) been losing contact with escort and escort policy was
Areas going to/from appears alone on the airfield. Root changed to 100%
work areas cause analysis determines that control and single
single pieces of equipment escorts vehicles
are more appropriate.
Table 3-4. Data items for ARFF and aircraft fueling and equipment facility inspections.

ARFF Response Vehicle ARFF response vehicles must be inspected and tested daily. This requirement is
Inspection Results performed by ARFF personnel assigned to the units. When issues are identified,
the issues are documented and tracked for correction. Results and correction data
can be useful to other airports.
Typical Aircraft Fuel Trucks Aircraft fuel trucks must be inspected by airport personnel on a regular basis.
Inspection Discrepancies This requirement is typically managed by the airport’s ARFF department. Because
these inspections are recorded and tracked for correction, the data can be valuable
and can provide insight for other airports.
Fuel Storage Facility Aircraft fuel storage and dispensing facilities must be inspected by airport personnel
Discrepancies on a regular basis. This requirement is typically managed by the airport’s ARFF
department. Because these inspections are recorded and tracked for correction,
the data they provide is valuable and can provide insight for other airports.
The types of ARFF response vehicles used and their reliability are crucial to the operational
compliance of all commercial airports. To this end, the ARFF response vehicles are tested
daily to ensure any issues are corrected as soon as practicable. Should a front line ARFF unit
(one responsible for meeting an airport’s ARFF Index) be taken offline for more than 24 hours,
the airport has the obligation to provide a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) placing the truck out
of service. The NOTAM informs airline flight crews operating at that airport that there are not
enough ARFF capabilities onsite to meet requirements (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-28C
2008). The obligation then passes to the flight crews to determine if they should continue with
flights until such time that the issue is corrected.
EXAMPLE: DATA SHARING FROM ARFF RESPONSE

VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
ARFF response vehicles are produced by several manufacturers around the world.
The information regarding their reliability, strengths, and weaknesses can and
should be used by airports to determine which vehicles best suit their operations
(i.e., climate might play a factor) and where to invest their money. In order to
provide this information to airports, the results of ARFF response vehicle inspections
could be made available to a national database where ARFF personnel and equipment
maintenance staff could access the information to help them make decisions.
The results of inspections and testing could identify issues with water pumps,
engines, fit and finish of vehicles, and normal operational capabilities. Information
sharing among ARFF personnel could help them make decisions regarding their
fleet. Information sharing also results in more open communications between
airport ARFF personnel.
For example, an ARFF inspection may identify a water pump issue. ARFF units must
be able to dispense their allotment of water or chemical in a specific amount of
time. The pumps used to accomplish this task are crucial to the ability of the unit
to function. If pumps begin to slow or fail, the unit is put out of service until it
is repaired. Sharing information about the type of pump, the issue encountered,
and the correction required helps other airports determine equipment to acquire
or maintenance to be performed on existing equipment.


Data collection requirements for ARFF inspection reports should include the following:
• Type and brand of vehicle
• Model year of the unit
• Specific issue identified (i.e., water pump not holding pressure, etc.)
• Correction requirements (i.e., new pump, different pump, etc.)
• Time for correction
• Date the issue is detected or recorded and date of correction
• Fuel storage system condition (leaks, rust, corrosion, etc.)
• Fuel dispensing apparatus condition (worn or frayed hoses, couplings, corrosion, etc.)
• Fuel truck conditions (Deadman switch operational, tires, pumps, etc.).
ARFF inspection report data collection can easily be gathered and shared among ARFF
personnel through industry professional organizations such as the American Association of
Airport Executives (AAAE) and Airports Council International (ACI) as well as ARFF working
groups at the local, state, and national levels.
3.1.3 ARFF Runs (Non-Aircraft-Related) Reports

Many airport ARFF departments respond to more than aircraft-related incidents. Some
airport ARFF departments have a structural component and response apparatus, such as
one might find in a city department, requiring them to respond to building fires and alarms.
In addition, airport ARFF departments often have medical units (paramedics) that respond to
medical emergencies. The information associated with these ARFF runs (non-aircraft-related)
can be valuable to airports in determining the right size of their ARFF department and making
decisions about equipment acquisition and staffing.

The data collected for airport ARFF runs (non-aircraft-related) is broken into two practical
areas: structural (building) runs and medical runs (see Table 3-5). The details collected concern-
ing the type of response and responding units are valuable to the airport and other airports.

The data collection requirements for structural responses can be broken into three funda-
mental categories:
• Number of personnel planned for structural responses
• Number of runs annually
• Equipment used for the response
The data sharing example for data sharing of structure ARFF runs helps airports benchmark
their airport in comparison with other similar sized airports, and the data collection provides
insight into what works and what can be applied to other airports.
Table 3-5. Data items for ARFF runs (non-aircraft-related).

Structural (Building) Runs Number of runs annually accounted for by type (fire, alarm, other), type of facility
responded to (terminal, hangar, cargo facility, other), and location.
Medical Runs Number of runs per enplanements (rough order of magnitude), type of run, and location.
Response Time The amount of time required for ARFF response to the terminals, or locations on the
airport, such as aircraft hangars, office buildings, and critical infrastructure.

EXAMPLE: DATA SHARING OF STRUCTURAL ARFF RUNS

Helpful information for other airports to use in sizing and equipping their own
ARFF departments include the number of runs and their location based on facility
type. ARFF departments should learn from their peers by reviewing the types of
runs (alarms, fires, other) responded to. This information can directly translate into
how many staff should be on station to cover this type of response and still meet
the required ARFF Index for airfield responses. ARFF units are evaluated annually
to determine their required and regulated response times. These response times are
measured from the moment an alert is issued to the times the first and second ARFF
trucks arrive at the midpoint of the furthest runway. This data and information are
important for demonstrating the impacts or potential impacts to response times
resulting from pavements and facilities at the airport.
ARFF units responding in structural equipment cannot be counted on to meet

required airfield response needs from the time they depart the facility to when
they return because they are not operating an ARFF response vehicle or are too far
from the ARFF station to be recalled and meet response requirements. To this end,
if an airport has a structural response component, the airport must plan to staff for
that response and for the required ARFF Index response. This requirement speaks to
staffing and equipment needs. Airports that share this data as a benchmark should
use the information for budgeting purposes, training requirements, and long-term
planning by the ARFF departments.
3.1.4 Airport Training Records

For an airport to operate effectively and safely, airport personnel need to be trained effec-
tively on their responsibilities as well as the aspects of operations on the airfield that may affect
their safety. For airports certificated in the United States, training requirements are identified
under Part 139. An airport’s compliance with these training requirements is documented
in the Airport Certification Manual (ACM). An airport creates and maintains the ACM,
outlining specific training requirements. The ACM calls for the airport to maintain personnel
training records for airport personnel and emergency personnel, along with training for those
granted access to the airport movement and safety areas. Additionally, when airports are
inspected by the FAA, they are required to provide their training, records, and accident/incident
recordkeeping system for the inspector.
There are dozens of ACs issued by the FAA as guidance to certificated airports that assist
the airport operator in complying with FAA requirements for certification, and to help non-
certificated airports improve their operations and safety performance. Many FAA ACs are
mandatory. Thus, although the FAA recommends the types and key aspects of training for the
varied airport functions, it is up to the individual airports to design their own training and to
educate their personnel on the unique conditions and processes used at their airport.

Table 3-6 contains an example of the training records airports are required to maintain for
their personnel.
While not required by the FAA, airports may choose to archive test results for each employee.
Airport operators are required to show compliance with training requirements under Part 139

Table 3-6. Training records.

Employee Name Employee receiving training and their organization.
Subject Trained Course information (what was the information conveyed).
Type of Training Initial training for new employees, recurring, or remedial.
Date Date when training occurred.
(i.e., ARFF, fuel fire safety, and ground vehicle training requirements). Training records are
only required to be kept for a 24-month period.
There are benefits that can be realized by collecting and sharing the data available in airport
training records. As with other categories of data, it will depend on what the airport does with
the data to create actionable knowledge. For training records, an airport can
• Analyze the results of testing following training completion to discover items with the most
incorrect answers and use the results to improve training.
• Investigate incidents, accidents, and hazards to identify training deficiencies.
• Investigate airport rules and regulations violations to identify training deficiencies.
EXAMPLE: TRAINING RECORDS

To illustrate how training record data can use collected, analyzed, and shared
for the betterment of airport processes, operating ground vehicles in the airside
environment will be used as an example. All airports, whether certificated or not,
have vehicles operating on the airport for a variety of purposes. AC 150/5210-20A:
Ground Vehicle Operations to Include Taxiing or Towing an Aircraft on Airports
provides guidance in this area. This AC addresses several training issues and
recommends areas for which airport vehicle drivers should be trained as well as
containing a sample training curriculum, a sample vehicle operations training
manual, and a sample training record form within its appendices (FAA Advisory
Circular 150/5210-20A 2015).
The AC discusses the following under the “Training Requirements” section:

“Under Part 139, all personnel with duties requiring access to the movement and safety areas
are required to have initial and recurrent training. We encourage non-certificated airports to
develop a driver training program appropriate to their airports’ needs. . . . The airport operator
or his/her designated representative will retain records of this training for 24 months . . .
(and) [t]he airport operator is accountable for the training and actions of all airfield vehicle
operators approved to operate on the airport” (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5210-20A 2015).
To ensure a degree of standardization in training from airport to airport, the AC

recommends that training address the following topic areas (FAA Advisory Circular
150/5210-20A 2015):
• Runway incursions, airfield safety, and security.

• Airport signage, runway markings, lighting, and the terms used on an airport.
• Vehicle operating requirements.
• Requirements for taxiing or towing an aircraft.
• Ground vehicle and aircraft taxiing and towing rules and regulations.
• Airport configuration and familiarization.

EXAMPLE: TRAINING RECORDS (Continued)

More specifically, the AC proposes the following specific issues that are known to
be the cause of violations, vehicle incidents, or accidents:
• Infield aircraft navigation aids

• Identifying a given point on a grid map or other standard map used at the airport
• Applicable airport rules, regulations, or procedures for vehicle operations
• Airport layout, including runways and taxiway designations
• Known hot spots
• Boundaries of movement, non-movement, and safety areas
• Interpretation and color coding of airfield signs, pavement markings, and
lighting
• Location and understanding of critical areas associated with Instrument Landing
System (ILS) and Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Ranges (VORs)
• Proper terminology (including phonetic alphabet) and procedures for radio
communications with the ATCT
• ATCT light gun signals
• Established routes for emergency response vehicles
• Dangers associated with jet blast and prop wash
• Traffic patterns associated with each runway (left or right) and location of each leg
(i.e., downwind, base, final, and crosswind)
• Situational awareness (staying alert in the environment of operation)
Given these specifics for training of personnel who operate vehicles within the
airport, an airport should design their training syllabus to ensure these areas are
covered and tested to complete the training. The airport should track test results
on specific topics, record scores and areas of deficiency on the individual training
records, or capture the test results in a cumulative training record.
From this, the airport should have a database of quantitative test results that can
be compared with violation records, as well as incident and accident investigation
findings. The root causes determined in the findings of the investigations can
then be tied to the post-training test results to discover deficiencies in the airport
ground vehicle training process, making improvements if necessary.

For the example to benefit the airport, additional information needs to be captured in indi-
vidual training records so that knowledge based trends can be analyzed and compared with
human performance of the operations tasks. Typically, job performance is tracked by accounting
for undesirable actions that result in a violation, near miss, or an accident. Two items must be
incorporated into airport processes to connect actions with the personnel training.
First, additional information can be collected relating to individual training. Apart from the
name of the individual and the type and date of training, an airport benefits from capturing
and trending the following data points:
• Percentage of examination questions answered correctly
• Percentage of examination questions answered incorrectly
• Number of individual examination questions answered incorrectly per topic area (e.g., airport
markings, airport communications, airport hot spots, etc.)

These data points provide additional information to trend training results as a function of
undesirable outcomes on the airfield (such as airfield driving violations, vehicle accidents,
aircraft or airport equipment damage as a result of vehicle collisions, etc.). The challenge is
that most of this information is not usually captured in a training record; investigation find-
ings and root causes are not typically analyzed to assess training deficiencies by an airport.
Therefore, for this example to be effective, it is important to go beyond the collection and
archiving of training data and make the effort to find connections to other data that exists
on the airport.
For airports to benefit from sharing training record data, the airports would need to be
willing to share safety-related data regarding accidents and incidents. Local and state Sunshine
laws as well as individual airport policies may preclude the sharing of such information.
Sharing data collected by Part 139, Safety Management System (SMS), and other areas of
safety concerns can contribute to a broader awareness of the potential risks and strategies for
mitigation. Certain generic aspects of incident data and the relationship to airport training and
training examination results can be shared without sacrificing sensitive airport data. Potential
data elements that could be shared are illustrated in Table 3-7.
At present, sharing relevant training record data needs to occur between partner airports
because of the lack of national or organizational airport data sharing tools and processes. Air-
ports should share the information with partner airports near their location or of like size and
operational tempo.
3.1.5 FOD Program Reports

The effective management of FOD is vital to safe and efficient operations on an airport.
The existence of FOD in the airport operations area (AOA) is a safety hazard to aircraft,
personnel, and equipment. The collection, analysis, and trending of FOD at an airport can
result in solutions to the sources of FOD, and the implementation of risk mitigations that may
reduce the impact of this safety and operations hazard. The knowledge gained through the
assessment of FOD-related data should be shared with other airports so that common issues
and effective control measures (best practices) can be brought to the attention of airports and
airport stakeholders.
Having an established FOD program that tracks and determines the root cause of FOD
(where it was generated from) allows the airport operator to set goals and objectives and manage
them at their source. This allows for the costs associated with the FOD program to be accounted
for and justifies the investment made into the FOD program. This data also provides valuable
operations data for the airlines and other aircraft operators at the airport about how well their
internal systems are working.
Area of Training Airfield Issue Outcome Frequency (Per Shared Data Benefit/Action
Month) Taken
Airside Driving Speeding • Violations • Number of • Type of vehicle • Reduced number of
citations in month • Vehicle owner vehicle accidents
• Testing results • Reduced cost for vehicle
related to rules maintenance
Airside Driving Operating off • Violations • Number of • Testing results • Review and revision of
designated routes • Accidents citations in month related to rules airport rules conducted
• Number of • Review and revision of
accidents: vehicle training curriculum and
to equipment testing questions
completed


AC 150/5210-24: Airport Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Management addresses FOD evalua-
tion in Chapter 6. This includes data collection and analysis regarding FOD that an airport should
consider incorporating into a FOD prevention program (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5210-24
2010). The guidance in the AC suggests the following regarding the collection of FOD data:
“The FOD manager will ultimately determine the documentation guidelines in a FOD management
program. Certain small items, such as plastic wrappers or baggage tags, may simply warrant efficient
collection and disposal. A consistent trend of small items, such as those coming from a particular entity
or operation, or particularly large or hazardous FOD, may require detailed documentation for effective
analysis and prevention efforts.”
Additionally, regarding reporting on FOD, the AC suggests the following:

“Depending on the potential hazard of FOD collected, a reoccurrence of FOD from the same source,
and the personnel available at an airport, the FOD management program may contain provisions to notify
the FOD source of a FOD occurrence.”
The AC further recommends that the data elements in Table 3-8 be collected by the airport
for analysis.
The FAA requires that records regarding FOD should be maintained for a period of 2 years
but does not suggest a designated manner or method for documenting FOD information for
sharing. The FAA also recommends that the airport investigate “major FOD incidents (as
determined or classified by the airport operator). . . .” (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5210-24
2010). As stated, there could be many and varied definitions of a major FOD event. A typical
airport will likely define such an event as one where damage to an aircraft or to equipment,
or injury to airport personnel is involved. While undesired events need to be investigated,
airports gain more knowledge upon which to base airport risk decisions if airport management
also regularly investigates FOD occurrences based on analysis of collected FOD.

In the Airfield FOD example, there are some assumptions made regarding the data that an
airport collects or inherently knows about FOD detection, collection, and analysis. It is assumed
that airport personnel understand that debris in the AOA is not merely garbage to be thrown
in trash bins but hazards to flight operations that need to be assessed; that a user-friendly FOD
reporting and data collection system exists and is used by all airport personnel; and that there is
Table 3-8. FOD data.

How Was FOD Detected? A description of how the FOD was detected (inspection, pilot report, other)
Date/Time of FOD Detection Date and time the FOD was detected and when it was removed
and Retrieval
Description of FOD Retrieved A description of the item(s), including category, size, and color to assist with
and/or Image (if Available) determining origin or cause
Location of FOD Object Location on the airport
[Coordinates and Reference to
Airport Operations Area
(AOA) Location]
Possible Source Following examination, identify possible source
Name of Personnel Detecting/ Name of person who discovered FOD and who dealt with the FOD
Investigating FOD Item
Operations and Weather Data Pertinent operations data (wind, rain, snow, etc., and if the airfield was being
operated in any special configuration)

EXAMPLE: AIRFIELD FOD

Given that Part 139 airports collect and manage the information about the FOD
they collect, there will be significant similarities in what is collected and how the
information is managed from airport to airport. There are recommendations on
the information that should be collected in the AC on FOD, and a synthesis of
airport practices relating to FOD can be found in ACRP Synthesis 26: Current Airport
Inspection Practices Regarding FOD (Foreign Object Debris/Damage (Prather 2011).
However, there are no technical requirements for data management and sharing
of FOD information. This allows the airports to be innovative in what information
they collect, how they collect it, and how they share the information.
The following is an example of how FOD information might be collected, analyzed,

acted on, and shared in an effort to proactively mitigate this safety risk that all
airports face.
During a routine inspection of the ramp area, an airport operations specialist parks
and walks the area around the gates leased by Airline A. The operations specialist
looks at the contents of the FOD buckets positioned near or on each boarding bridge.
In one of the buckets, the operations specialist finds several luggage zipper parts
along with an assortment of food wrappers, pebbles, and a couple of small bolts.
The luggage zipper parts intrigue the operations specialist who continues to
conduct an FOD walk around the other gates. During the walk, the operations
specialist finds more than a dozen additional luggage zipper parts on the deck and
in the concrete expansion joints. The zipper parts are collected, and the pertinent
information is entered into the FOD reporting system.
The following day, the operations specialist speaks with a supervisor about the
findings. Based on the discussion, the operations supervisor assigns an analyst in
the Operations Department to review the FOD trends for the last 12 months for
occurrences and sources of luggage zipper part FOD. The analysis reveals that
zipper parts are found frequently on the ramp by airport employees and around
all gates, but Airline A and Airline C have a higher number of occurrences than the
other four airlines that serve the airport.
The airport Operations Manager is briefed on the analysis and the decision to
take additional steps that involve data sharing, evaluating the value of the data,
and discovering the root causes of the FOD hazard.
These steps include the following:
• Sharing the results of the analysis with all airline station managers and other
airport stakeholders in the baggage handling process
• Calling for an airport safety committee meeting to discuss the FOD analysis
• Designing a month-long FOD campaign to study the extent of the luggage zipper
part FOD problem and assess the risk and the causes
• Sharing the results of the campaign and FOD analysis with other regional airports
with whom they regularly communicate on safety issues
• Contacting multiple luggage manufactures to investigate their awareness of
the issue
With such a process in place, an airport can determine a number of data-related

aspects that might need improvement or greater attention. The data sharing
process with other airports will lead to the discovery of lessons learned and perhaps
more effective practices from other airports that can be adopted.

open data sharing between the airport and tenants regarding FOD and safety in general. It also
assumes that the airport has an established FOD management program in accordance with
AC 150/5210-24 and that the airport plays a leading role in airportwide FOD management.
For such a scenario and process to work effectively across several airports, it is important for
the airports to provide the following information in addition to the data elements outlined
in the AC:
• Number of FOD inspections performed daily
• Number of categorized pieces of FOD collected with periodicity (e.g., number of zipper parts
collected daily)
• Number of passenger bags handled daily (for comparison purposes and normalization of
the data)
• Specific information on the FOD pieces collected (e.g., luggage manufacturer, zipper
manufacturer)
This list provides enough information for the airports to determine if a similar situation
exists at their airport. The challenge is that broken baggage parts may be viewed as trash
rather than as a safety hazard, and therefore may be discarded rather than analyzed for root
causes. Additionally, airlines leasing gates at the airport may collect their own data and not
share the information with the airport. Thus, an airportwide program with the means to share
data produces better outcomes. Potential data elements that could be shared are illustrated
in Table 3-9.
3.1.6 Baggage Handling Area Inspection Reports

Many airports have implemented baggage handling area inspections. This was a topic of
interest during the FAA-sponsored SMS Pilot Studies in 2010−2012 featuring SMS data from
24 airports (FAA 2019c). Baggage handling areas represent an important component in over-
all airport operation. The equipment and staff that operate in these areas provide a much
misunderstood, yet critical path for airline performance. In those areas where the airport is
responsible for the maintenance of baggage handling equipment, it is vital that this equip-
ment operate with a high rate of reliability. To this end, the equipment should be inspected
regularly.
Inspections of baggage handling areas, ramps, and other facility provide valuable data regard-
ing sources of FOD, unreported property damage, and hazardous conditions. Inspecting these
areas regularly can produce analytical data about airlines that are not keeping their lease space
clean and identify issues associated with the handling process itself that can damage bags or
cause debris to get outside the area and become FOD on the airfield.
FOD How FOD Frequency Sources of FOD Monthly Shared Data Benefit
Type Was (FOD Pieces Passengers/Bags
Detected Found per Handled
Month)
Baggage: FOD bucket 256 zippers High frequency of 350,500 passengers/ • Results of root cause FOD removal from
Zipper contents: collected in zippers from 466,165 checked bags analysis and fixes are the AOA, reduced
Parts boarding May ACME luggage, handled shared (key sources, baggage damage
gate area, highest numbers process changes) claims, reduction in
visual localized to two • Share: practices aircraft and vehicle
inspections sets of leased gates causing FOD, tire damage
zipper FOD rate
per passenger or
per bags handled

EXAMPLE: BAGGAGE HANDLING EQUIPMENT

By tracking and trending baggage handling equipment issues, airports can review
what equipment has a higher reliability factor and, therefore, what equipment
should be invested in for the future. Airports can gather and share the results of
baggage handling equipment performance. Even airports that contract out the
maintenance of this equipment can and should be receiving performance reports
from their contractor. Equipment data shared across airports will help drive system
upgrades and maintenance practices going forward. This information can help to
identify faulting equipment and help airports learn from one another and perhaps
avoid similar mistakes.

The data needs to reflect the equipment being inspected, issues and/or faults with it, frequency
of those faults, and time needed to correct (see Table 3-10).

The collection requirements for baggage handling data include type of equipment, manufac-
turer, age, and use order of magnitude (such as hours of operation and/or run time). Collecting
this information can help airports understand the complete picture of managing and maintain-
ing a baggage handling system. The performance of baggage handling equipment is crucial to
the operational flow of any commercial airport.
3.1.7 Ramp Inspection Reports

While ramp inspections are not required under Part 139, many airports inspect ramps for
safety-related reasons and for lease compliance. Ramp inspections were a topic of interest
during the FAA-sponsored SMS Pilot Studies in 2010–2012 featuring SMS data from 24 air-
ports (FAA 2019c). In general, airports are looking at aircraft parking, fueling, ground service
equipment (GSE) operation, condition and location, and FOD control. All these factors con-
tribute to safe ramp operations.

Table 3-11 provides high priority items routinely reviewed during ramp inspections.

The data collection requirements are relatively straight forward; using the GSE example, one
would capture the type of equipment and the issue identified, location, time of day, and origin
of the issue. This information can help an airport identify systemic issues with the operation or
Table 3-10. Data items.

Equipment: Baggage Identifying the location; equipment information (condition, type, model, age); issue(s);
Belt, Motors, etc. and time needed to correct are all pertinent to trending problems and finding root causes
to be avoided in the future.
FOD Location, Type, By identifying the type of FOD, location, and its source (a particular airline), the airport
Source can track and trend this information and put corrections in place going forward.

Table 3-11. Data items for ramp inspections.

Aircraft Parking Note if airlines are parking aircraft in accordance with ramp markings and
if the size of aircraft is correct for the gate area.
Ground Service Equipment (GSE) Equipment parked in the designated locations.
Parking
GSE Operations Operators obeying speed limits and staying on designated roadways.
GSE Condition GSE in good condition (not leaking fluids, tread on tires, etc.).
Personal Protective Equipment Airlines and GSP wearing appropriate PPE (such as reflective vests).
(PPE)
Night High Mast Lighting Working lights providing sufficient lighting or too much illumination.
EXAMPLE: GSE CONDITION

The condition of GSE is a product of the age and care the equipment has and is
given. Most airports have established standards for the condition of GSE; they
typically center around safety and environmental issues, such as tires, leaks, seatbelts,
and the like. By inspecting and tracking the results of these inspections with enough
detail, airports can begin to build a picture of who and what are causing the
most GSE issues. Further, it is very important that this equipment remain in good
conditions so as not to negatively impact the operations of the airport.
an operator. Corrective actions can then be made, and lessons learned can, and should, be shared
across multiple airports.
3.1.8 Terminal and Landside Inspection Reports

Terminal and landside inspections are not a requirement of Part 139; however, they are
required by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (International Civil Aviation
Organization 2004). To this end, airports that wish to set up terminal or landside inspections
could use ICAO inspection requirements as guidelines. Several airports have organized formal
terminal and landside inspection programs. Several U.S. large hub airports even have split
operations departments into one dedicated to terminals and the other to landside. Inspection
protocols are not required or regulated in the United States; it is up to the individual airport
operator to establish them.

The data necessary to collect and make useful for terminal and landside inspection reports
is wide ranging and will vary widely from airport to airport (see Table 3-12). The basic data for
these areas is as follows:
• Landside: Facility conditions (roadway paint markings, curbing and sidewalks, signage, and
lighting)
• Terminal: Equipment operations (moving walks, escalators, elevators, lights, signage, etc.)
By gathering this data, airports can begin to trend areas and equipment that might be, by their
nature, problematic. Further, the issues might begin to trend based on time of day, or year, or as
associated with events in the community that impact airport operations.

Table 3-12. Data items for terminal and landslide inspections.

Roadway Paint Markings The condition of lane dividers, cross walks, turn arrows, etc.
Curbing and Sidewalks The condition of these areas can introduce trip hazards to pedestrians.
Signage The condition of all traffic and informational signage, that is, clear and easy to read
and see, etc.
Lighting Roadway lights are clear and in good working order, same for traffic signals.
Terminal Equipment Passenger conveyance systems are operating properly.
Terminal Lighting Lighting is working as it should.
Terminal Signage Signage, both static and digital, is working as it should.

The data collection requirements for terminal and landside areas include type of equipment
(manufacturer), location, time of day, and issue. This information helps an airport identify
systemic issues with the operation and or an operator. Corrective actions can then be made, and
lessons learned can, and should, be shared across multiple airports.
3.1.9 Safety and Incident Reporting

Monitoring safety accidents and incidents is important for revealing systemic problems or
issues within an organization that need to be addressed, in addition to reporting to regulators
and insurance companies. The collection and sharing of specific safety data available to the
airport operator can be a challenging and, in many ways, complicated process. There are many
factors that impact the ability to collect such data as well as additional factors that impact the
ability to share such information. The move toward airports developing and implementing the
processes that constitute an SMS is having a positive effect on collecting and sharing of such
safety information. Airports that have yet to implement an SMS can learn a great deal from
those that have.
EXAMPLE: TERMINAL EQUIPMENT

Passenger conveyance equipment such as elevators, escalators, and moving walkways
present several hazards to passengers and employees alike. If a moving walkway
or an escalator is constantly out of service, then people are forced to walk farther,
and customer service goals are not being met. Moving walkways are particularly
challenging because they should be checked to ensure the safety equipment is in
place and correct, such as the guards to prevent a foot from getting caught. Signage
that signals the end of the moving walkway (or voice cues) are crucial to ensuring
proper safety.
The information gained from recurring inspections of these facilities and equipment
can shed light on what equipment is performing better than others across the
industry. Also, when this data is compared with passenger data and the number
of users on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual basis, one can begin to paint an
overall picture of performance.
Lastly, the performance of terminal equipment can also be used along with accident
and incident data (slips, trips, and falls), and combined with individuals’ data,
such as age, to determine what equipment works best with a certain demographic.

For the purposes of this section, the term Safety Records will be used to refer to required
reports and records an airport must create and archive, and in certain cases, report to specific
governmental organizations.

For safety and incident reporting, nearly all airports capture information to create data
records as required by law, rule, or regulation (see Table 3-13). Airports with an SMS in place
are more likely to have a formalized system for reporting safety hazards such as reports of
conditions that could result in an incident or accident involving injury to personnel or damage
to airport assets.
Safety hazard reports are not required. They rely on the proactive actions of those working or
observing operations on the airport and are more likely to be in a narrative, subjective format.
In general, safety records have two common characteristics:
• Safety records are reactive in nature in that an undesirable event must occur for data to be
captured.
• Safety records are only required to capture the who, what, when, and where of a safety-related
incident.
Thus, data can be used to compare safety performance in the form of numbers of incidents
from month to month, or year to year. The sharing of such information with other airports or
airport stakeholders will allow the airport operator to compare numerical results on undesirable
outcomes with those of organizations of similar size and complexity. The real value of safety
record data rests in the rigor an airport operator puts into investigating the reason a report was
submitted.
3.1.9.2 OSHA Recordkeeping Characteristics

If an airport is required to report under Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) regulations, the information required in the reports include the following:
• Employee name and job title
• Date and time of the event
• Location of the event
• Result of the event (amount of time away from the job)
• Type of injury or illness
• Descriptions of what happened to cause the injury or illness (short one or two sentence
responses)
These reports are required to be kept by the organization for 5 years. More detailed infor
mation on OSHA requirements can be found on the OSHA Injury and Illness Recordkeeping
and Reporting Requirements website (https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/).
Table 3-13. Data records for safety and

incident reports.
Data Record
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) logs and records
(or similar recordkeeping required by state or local requirements)
Property damage reports
Incident and accident reports (non-aircraft-related)
Safety hazard reports

Airport Property Damage Reports and Incident and Accident Reports (Non-Aircraft-
Related). Safety data collected on airport property damage incidents and incidents and
accidents not involving aircraft will vary from airport to airport depending on their oper-
ating rules and regulations. In many cases, the data will be collected by local law enforcement
personnel called to respond to the incidents. Law enforcement personnel will be trained in
investigation processes but may not be intimately familiar with airport operations or with
airport safety management processes. The information captured regarding these types of events
will likely be similar to the information required by OSHA.
The data elements can include the following:
• Type of safety event
• Date and time of the event
• Location of the event on the airport
• Personnel and equipment involved
• Descriptions of the damage and/or injuries
• Narrative description of the incident and its causes
Safety records are reactive reports of events that have occurred and are reliant on personnel
at the airport to report them to the proper people within the organization. The quantitative
data captured in such reports, analyzed by airport personnel, and potentially shared with other
organizations is limited in general to counts of events.
Safety Hazard Reports. With the introduction of SMS, more airports are collecting
safety data in the form of Safety Hazard Reports. Safety hazard reports differ from incident and
accident reports in that damage or injury is not a prerequisite for submitting such a report.
A safety hazard report is a proactive way for airports to collect safety data that could result in
damage or injury if left uncorrected, thus allowing the airport to implement mitigations to
correct the conditions before they result in a reportable accident.
The information collected and the forms used for safety hazard reporting vary from airport
to airport. Two sources of examples of safety hazard reporting forms are the FAA’s Draft
AC 150/5200-37A: Safety Management Systems for Airports (FAA Draft Advisory Circular
2016) and ACRP Report 1: Safety Management Systems for Airports, Volume 2: Guidebook
(Ayres et al. 2009).
The data recommended to be collected in each example is nearly identical and includes the
following:
• Date and time of discovery
• Location of the hazard
• Narrative description of the hazard
• Witnesses (yes or no)
• Type of hazard (health/safety, property damage, environmental, near miss, other)
• Potential outcomes (fatality, hospitalization, first aid, other)
The form also includes the following optional information:
• Name of the person reporting
• Position of the person reporting
• Contact information for the person reporting
• Names of witnesses
This information is optional to allow the reporter to remain anonymous and avoid potential
repercussions for reporting.

EXAMPLE: SAFETY RECORDS DATA

To illustrate how safety records data can be collected, analyzed, and shared for
the betterment of airport processes, the following example of airport-to-airport
information sharing is presented to describe a scenario where cooperative efforts
may lead to the successful use of safety records information for airport improvement.
ABC Airport collects injury information on passengers using the terminal. The
information collected is in line with state and local safety incident reporting laws
and regulations. Over the course of an 8-month period, the Safety Manager of
ABC notices a trend where the number of passenger injury claims has increased by
20% over the same period from the previous year and is higher than at any point
in the airport’s history. While the information available in the reports varies in
how it is reported (the descriptions use different words and phrases to describe
what seem to be similar types of events), the Safety Manager decides that a more
formal investigation of the incidents occurring over this period is warranted.
The results of the investigation showed that 60% of the injury cases occurred
when passengers used escalators, and more than 40% of the escalator incidents
occurred when only a single escalator located in Terminal A was available. With
this information, the Safety Manager contacts his fellow Safety Manager at
XYZ Airport. XYZ Airport implemented an airportwide SMS just over 2 years
ago. The XYZ Safety Manager explained that they noticed a similar problem at
their facility and convened a Safety Risk Assessment Panel to assess the risk and
develop mitigation strategies for safer use of their escalators. In this sharing of
safety information, the two airports discovered that they had similar numbers
of injuries and claims during the periods of the highest frequency of incidents.
XYZ Airport had acted on their safety data analysis and implemented two airport
terminal changes: (1) signs describing the hazards posed by using the escalator
were enlarged and placed in more visible locations, and (2) cameras were installed
so that activity on the escalators could be monitored and additional information
on the use of the escalators could be analyzed. Since the mitigations were put
into place, XYZ Airport had 60% fewer injury incidents occur, and their insurance
underwriter reduced their rates and deductible. The ABC Airport Safety Manager
took the information to the Airport Manager, and subsequently proceeded to
empanel a Safety Risk Assessment Panel (with the assistance of XYZ Airport)
to study and more thoroughly assess a revised approach to terminal safety and
escalator use.

For the example to benefit the airport, no additional information needs to be captured on
the front end; however, how the numerical data is used and analyzed can improve investiga-
tion results.
However, with the introduction of an airport SMS, additional data on incidents and hazards
can be collected to enhance the analysis, trending, and sharing of safety information. This
additional data captured can include the following (see Table 3-14):
• Hazards impacting the incident
• Frequency of similar incidents (running total per month)

Table 3-14. Data sharing example.

Incident Location Date/Time Frequency Root Causes Cost of Mitigation Status
Type Claim
Passenger Terminal A July 25/1930 4 to date • Slippery surface $7,000.00 TBD Open
Injury escalator due to rain
• Improper use
with large
luggage
• Root causes of the hazards (recorded post-investigation)

• Cost of repairs or equipment replacement
• Cost of medical treatments
• Mitigations implemented (information provided during event follow-up and close out)
Two ways in which safety records data can be valuable to an airport in analyzing individual
airport data is to (1) discover correctable trends in airport processes and personnel actions,
and (2) compare safety records data with similar airports to provide a catalyst for correcting
like deficiencies. To realize these positive effects, an airport must not only track the number
of safety-related occurrences but also ensure that thorough, effective safety investigations and
data analyses be conducted.
Tracking safety events is a required task for nearly all airports to comply with governmental
regulations. When an airport takes the next steps to analyze these numbers and associated infor-
mation for root causes and trends, deficiencies in airport processes and rules can be discovered
and corrected. These corrective actions will result in fewer injuries and less damage to airport
property which in turn can lead to lower costs for repairs and replacements, and potentially
lower insurance rates from airport underwriters.
When an airport shares and compares safety statistics with airports of similar size and com-
plexity, operational deficiencies and hazards may be discovered through the process of asking
why there are differences in the data. No airport is the same, and small airports may not have the
operational exposure to reveal existing hazards, because they have yet to result in a bad outcome.
Thus, comparing data with other like airports, and then analyzing the reasons for the differences,
may provide a proactive means to correct deficiencies before they result in an accident.
3.2 National Data Sources

A variety of operations and safety data sources are available online that airports can use
for identifying and comparing characteristics of peer airports and other evaluations (see
Table 3-15). Many of these databases are in the public domain and can be queried or down-
loaded at no expense. Data sources relevant to airport operations and safety include aircraft
Table 3-15. National data sources.

Section # Data Source
3.2.1 Airport Data (FAA Form 5010)
3.2.2 Operations Network (OPSNET)
3.2.3 Passenger Enplanements and Cargo (BTS T-100)
3.2.4 Airport Financial Data (via CATS)
3.2.5 Airport Weather
3.2.6 Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)
3.2.7 NTSB Accident Reports
3.2.8 FAA Aviation Incident Data System (AIDS)

operations, airport characteristics, passenger enplanements, airport financial data, weather,

aviation safety reports (FAA 2019a), aviation accident reports from the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB), and accident and incident reports from the FAA. Publicly available data
sources, including data content, how to access and query the data, and examples of how the
data may be applied, are described in the following subsections.
3.2.1 Airport Data (FAA Form 5010)

The FAA maintains a comprehensive database of information on all active civilian, joint-use
military, and private-use airports, heliports, seaplane bases, and other facilities in the United States.
The database contains physical and operational characteristics as well as ownership and manage-
ment contacts and other data about each facility. The facility data is primarily recorded and
reported using FAA Form 5010, Airport Master Record, which is updated regularly through
onsite inspections and form reviews (FAA 2003). The FAA Form 5010 data is maintained by the
FAA’s Office of Airport Safety and Standards and can be accessed through the Airport Data and
Information Portal (ADIP).
Data obtained from the FAA Form 5010 database can be used to compare and contrast physical
and operational characteristics of peer airports. Factors for comparison may include ownership,
runway dimensions, based aircraft (including jets), aircraft operations, and control tower facilities
among other data. Airport data can be useful as part of a broader analysis of operations and safety
issues because the data provide context for representing airfield characteristics and other criteria.

A variety of airport-specific data is contained in the Form 5010 database from ownership
details to runway dimensions and based aircraft and operations. Principal data contained
on Form 5010 is included in Table 3-16. The Form 5010 data is used to update other FAA
publications such as the U.S. Chart Supplements, formerly known as the Airport/Facility
Directory (AFD), and aeronautical charts (FAA 2019m). The database is also source data used
by many other non-FAA entities such as AirportIQ 5010 (AirportIQ5010.com), AirNav.com
(AirNav.com 2019), and Airport-Data.com (Airport-Data.com 2019).
Table 3-16. Airport data.
Data Item Description

General
Ownership Public/Private
Owner Name/Address/Phone
Manager Name/Address/Phone
Runway
Dimensions Length/Width
Pavement Condition/Weight Capacity/Pavement Classification Number
Lighting and Approach Aids Lights/Marking/Visual Aids and Angle
Obstructions Controlling Obstructions to Runway Approaches, including Clearance Angle
Declared Distances Take Off Run Available (TORA)/Take Off Distance Available (TODA)/
Accelerate-Stop Distance Available (ASDA)/Landing Distance Available (LDA)
(for non-standard runway design criteria)
Services and Facilities
Services Fuel/Repairs/Storage
Facilities Beacon/Universal Communications (UNICOM) Frequency/Control Tower
Based Aircraft and Operations
Based Aircraft Type/Number
Operations Type/Number
Remarks
Special Conditions Example: Noise Abatement/Wildlife
Restrictions Example: Aircraft Weight Limitations

EXAMPLE: FINDING DATA SPECIFIC TO AN AIRPORT

To find data for a specific airport, a search can be initiated through the FAA’s ADIP
at https:/adip.faa.gov. The user enters the airport location identifier or airport
name as shown in Figure 3-2.
For example, to obtain airport data for Orlando Melbourne International Airport,
the user would search for “MLB” in the [Search Facilities] box. The resulting data
is shown in Figure 3-3.
Once the query is entered, the user has the option to view detailed information
regarding available facilities and services. The FAA Form 5010 information can be
downloaded in a PDF format (Figure 3-4).
Another option is to view a base map of the airport environs with an overlay of the
runway(s). Various base maps can be selected, including recent aerial photography,
topographic details, or a street map.
A PDF version of the results can be downloaded using the link in the upper right
hand corner (see Adobe PDF logo). The resulting pdf report or Airport Master Record
is shown in Figure 3-4. The current and complete 5010 airport database can also be
downloaded following the instructions found at: https://www.faa.gov/airports/
airport_safety/airportdata_5010/#5010 under Airport Data and Information Portal—
Repository Search (FAA 2019e).
Airport data contained in the Form 5010 database is useful for comparing physical or
operational characteristics among airports as a benchmarking tool. The data is also useful
for quickly finding airport contact information.
3.2.1.2 Data Collection Requirements

Airport data is updated on a regular basis. Information is collected by airport owners, state
aviation agencies, FAA, or others through onsite inspections. Changes are reviewed by airport
management and submitted via the ADIP (formerly Airport GIS) (FAA 2019d) and delivered
to the FAA’s repository database for storage and dissemination (FAA 2019e).
3.2.2 Operations Network (OPSNET)

For airports with air traffic control towers, daily aircraft operations (arrivals and departures)
are recorded by the ATCT controllers based on three descriptors. These data points can be
accessed through the FAA’s OPSNET (FAA 2019f). Aircraft operations data is useful for a
variety of analytical purposes because the data represents the principal activity on the airfield.
Operations are a main component driving Part 139 certification responsibilities and require-
ments, safety, and justification for facility improvements. The data can be used to identify weekly
or seasonal patterns, changes from period to period, and emerging trends. Operations are often
used as a component for developing key performance indicators (KPIs) initially to establish a
baseline metric and then for subsequent evaluation of the effectiveness of a change. Comparisons
of operations types (e.g., air carrier) with other airports can help identify peer airports for
benchmarking and further analyses.

Figure 3-2. FAA ADIP search form (example).
Figure 3-3. FAA ADIP search results (example).

Figure 3-4. FAA Form 5010—Airport Master Record (example).


FAA classifies aircraft operations based on a description of the flight’s operator, purpose, and
weather conditions. Table 3-17 lists these classifications of class, category, and condition.
Operations data can be obtained daily, monthly, or annually [calendar year (CY) or fiscal
year (FY)] or based on day of the week, or for a custom range of dates.
Within the OPSNET interface, there are eight modules that generate a series of reports.
The most useful module for an airport is the [Airports Operations] module. This module reports
aircraft movements, including IFR and VFR itinerant operations as well as local operations as
logged by ATCTs. [Tower Operations] will include all takeoffs and landings at the airport,
as well as overflights handled by the ATCT. [Facility Information] includes the official name of
the facility, its classification, and hours of operation. The [Delays] function includes summa-
rized information about reportable delays (FAA 2019f).
Aircraft operations data is useful for a variety of purposes. An airport can review the data
and identify weekly or seasonal patterns, changes from period to period, and emerging trends.
Operations data can be used as a component for developing KPIs to establish a baseline metric
and then for subsequent evaluation of the effectiveness of change. Comparisons of operations
types (e.g., air carrier) with other airports can help identify peer airports for benchmarking and
further analyses.

Aircraft operations data is collected by ATCT personnel on a contemporaneous basis and
submitted daily to the FAA OPSNET central database. In some cases, missing data can be
identified by the airport and corrected through the ATCT facility.
3.2.3 Passenger Enplanements and Cargo (BTS T-100)

Airline data is perhaps the most significant topic of interest to airports because it is an indicator
of a broad variety of airport activity. Decisions related to capital funding [Airport Improvement
Table 3-17. Data items for aircraft classifications.
Data Item Description

CLASS
Air Carrier Operation carrying passengers or cargo for hire or compensation (commercial) using an aircraft with
a passenger seating capacity of more than 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of more than
18,000 pounds.
Air Taxi Operation carrying passengers or cargo for hire or compensation (commercial) using an aircraft with a
passenger seating capacity of up to 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of less than 18,000 pounds.
GA Operation performed by any noncommercial civil aircraft.
Military Operation performed by any non-civilian aircraft.
CATEGORY
Itinerant Operation performed by an aircraft arriving from or departing to another airport.
Local Operation performed by an aircraft that remains in the local traffic pattern, executes simulated instrument
approaches or low passes at the airport, or arriving from or departing to a designated practice area
within a 20-mile radius of the airport.
Overflight Operation that transitions through the airspace controlled by the air traffic control tower (ATCT)
but not taking off or landing at the airport.
CONDITION
VFR Operation conducted under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), as described in Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 91, where specific minimum weather conditions are extant. Generally, these conditions
include a ceiling of 1,000 feet above ground level and 3 statute mile visibility.
IFR Operation conducted under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), as described in FAR Part 91, where the
aircraft is flown in contact with ATCT and following a filed IFR flight plan often in weather conditions
requiring reference to instruments in the aircraft.

EXAMPLE: PEAK-YEAR AIRPORT OPERATIONS

The FAA’s OPSNET database provides an airport access to historical aircraft operations
from the previous month (posted after 20 days) and as far as the fiscal year for
any airport with an ATCT. Access to the FAA’s OPSNET is available at the following
link: https://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/main.asp. Figure 3-5 shows a screenshot of the
OPSNET website (FAA 2019f).
Using the previous example of Orlando Melbourne International Airport, or MLB,

accessing OPSNET allows the user to identify airport characteristics for the peak year
(FY 2014−2018).
First, under [Output], the user checks the necessary boxes to retrieve data points.
From the display, the user will highlight [Standard Report] with the option to
[Show Itinerant] and [Show Local], choosing the format as [MS Excel]. Next, the user
selects the [Dates] for the report. In this example, under Years, from [2014] and to
[2018], selecting [Fiscal Year] and [All Days]. The third step identifies the airport;
the user selects the airport(s) to report under [Facilities] and enters the airport
code, [MLB]. The fourth step requires the user to select the filters for the report;
for this example, the user would select [No filters] (default). The next step, under
[Groupings], allows the user to select the sorting criteria. Then, the user chooses the
available fields by [+ Date]. Lastly, the user selects [Run] to generate the report.
A pop-up window will notify the user that “You have chosen to open:
Web-Report-nnnnn.xls,” and offer an option to open or save the report file.
For this example, using the resulting report (see Figure 3-6), FY 2014 was a peak
year for operations at MLB. In reviewing the data within the report, the user can
see that the following year (FY 2015) recorded the least number of operations
for the period. Further review identifies that the decline can be attributed to
a significant decrease in GA itinerant and local operations.
Program (AIP), Passenger Facility Charges (PFC), etc.], parking and ground transportation,
safety and security, airfield operations, and revenues are just a few examples of where airline
data is important.
Passenger enplanements and cargo carried are reported to the U.S. DOT Bureau of Trans-
portation Statistics (BTS) by U.S. scheduled and non-scheduled certificated air carriers,
commuter air carriers, and small certificated air carriers (Bureau of Transportation Statistics
2019). The term “enplanement” is broadly defined as a passenger boarding a commercial
aircraft; however, there is a distinction regarding how enplanements are reported. Enplane-
ments can be classified based on whether the travel was paid for or not. This includes a
revenue enplaned passenger (i.e., traveling by a paid ticket or other remuneration) and a
non-revenue enplaned passenger (traveling by voucher or pass, an airline employee, a lap child,
or other person traveling for free). In most cases, only revenue enplanements for specific
airports are reported by the U.S. DOT. While airlines are not required to report non-revenue
enplaned passengers to the U.S. DOT, the airlines will report this data to each airport.
Enplaned passengers can also be categorized based on their trip characteristics. An origin
and destination enplanement is a passenger boarding an aircraft at the first or last point of their
one-way itinerary. A connecting enplanement will include a passenger boarding an aircraft at an

Figure 3-5. OPSNET form (example).
Figure 3-6. OPSNET airport operations report (example).

intermediate stop for their ultimate destination. Enplanements can also be classified as domestic
if the itinerary remains within the borders of the United States as opposed to an international
enplanement where the origination or destination is outside the United States.
One other distinction among enplanements is whether the air travel occurs on a scheduled
or non-scheduled commercial air service provider. Scheduled and non-scheduled air carriers
certified to operate under 14 CFR Part 121 will use Form 41, Schedule T-100, U.S. Air Carrier
Traffic and Capacity Data by Nonstop Segment and On-Flight Market, to report their enplane-
ments. Non-scheduled commuter and on-demand (charter) air carriers operating under 14 CFR
Part 135 can voluntarily report their enplanement using FAA Form 1800-31, Airport Activity
Survey (FAA 2019n).
Passenger enplanement counts are one factor used to categorize commercial service airports
and determine the amount of funding an airport receives from the AIP as annual entitlements.
Commercial airports are categorized based on the percentage of local enplanements to total
U.S. enplanements. The categories are described in Table 3-18.
Another airport classification the FAA uses is “cargo service” airport. Cargo service airports
accommodate all-cargo aircraft (such as FedEx, UPS, etc.) in addition to commercial and
GA aircraft and record a total annual landed weight of 100 million pounds or more. The landed
weight is measured by the maximum gross landed weight of each cargo aircraft regardless of
specific load carried. Similar to enplanements, the cargo airport classification helps determine
the amount of cargo entitlement funding an airport receives from the AIP.
Commercial airlines file Form 41, Schedule T-100, monthly, and this data is compiled
and published in the U.S. DOT’s BTS database. Quarterly T-100 data filed since 1991 for
enplanements is accessible at https://www.bts.dot.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/
bts-publications/data-bank-21-form-41-schedule-t-2-t-100 (Bureau of Transportation Statis-
tics 2019). This database is used for a variety of intergovernmental uses. For example, the
FAA uses the T-100 data for the Air Carrier Activity Information System (ACAIS), which
serves as a database for enplanements at commercial service airports (FAA 2019g). An ACAIS
report is published for each airport annually. It includes enplanement data for each operator
in the following categories:
• Large certificated air carriers (operate air carrier aircraft with seating capacity of more than
60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds)
• Small certificated air carriers
• Non-scheduled/on-demand air carriers (charters)
• Foreign air carriers
Unlike aircraft operations data, which is reported annually for the fiscal year and is current
up to the previous month, the FAA only reports enplanement and cargo data from ACAIS for
the previous calendar year. Many airports publish their own up-to-date enplaned passenger and
other data from monthly airline reports and other sources.
Table 3-18. FAA commercial airport classifications.

Category Criteria
Large Hub Primary Greater than/equal to 1%
Medium Hub Greater than/equal to 0.25% but less than 1%
Small Hub Greater than/equal to 0.05% but less than 0.25%
Nonhub Greater than/equal to 10,000 but less than 0.05%
Non-Primary Commercial Service Airport Greater than/equal to 2,500 but less than 10,000
Note: Percentages are in terms of percent of total U.S. enplanements.

Airline data is useful for assessing the state of the airport’s air service market measured in the
level of passenger activity collectively and for specific markets, for instance, load factors (percent
of passengers versus available seats) between city-pairs to demonstrate the relative strength of
that market. A consistently high load factor may indicate that additional service could be con-
sidered, whereas a low load factor may trigger efforts to stimulate the market. Enplanements
are a common component used for developing KPIs for evaluating the effectiveness of change.

The annual ACAIS passenger and cargo data is published by the FAA twice a year; first as
preliminary data during late July, which provides an opportunity for airports to update and
reconcile their records, and then as final data in September. This operations data goes as far back
as CY 2000 and can be downloaded from the site. Current ASIAS passenger and cargo data can
be accessed in hard copy or spreadsheet format (FAA 2019g).
There is more current and robust airline data available online through the U.S. DOT BTS
database (Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2019). However, the data is reported in a raw
format and requires substantial manipulation to extract data useful for specific analyses.
Form 41, Schedule T-100, contains several data points that are relevant to airport interests.
Table 3-19 describes these query variables and the report data.
The Form 41, Schedule T-100, data can report data on other airline activities such as freight
(cargo) and mail, in addition to many other variables, such as the number of departures
(scheduled versus performed) and distance between segments.

Enplanement data is collected by the U.S. DOT through airline’s filing of their Form 41,
Schedule T-100. The FAA uses the U.S. DOT’s data to support the ACAIS database, which is used
Table 3-19. Commercial airline data.
Commercial Airline Data

FILTERS
Filter Year Year Period of data set to be reported
Filter Period Month Period of data set to be reported
VARIABLES
Variable Field Name Description

Time Period Month Period of reported data (quarter or year)
Carrier UniqueCarrier International Air Transport Association (IATA) Code

for reporting air carrier
UniqueCarrierName Name of reporting air carrier
Segment Origin Originating airport of trip segment
Dest Destination airport of trip segment
Aircraft Type Aircraft Type FAA aircraft type
SUMMARIES
Field Name Description

Seats Available seats per segment per period
Passengers Enplaned passengers per segment per period

EXAMPLE: PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS

The process to identify the number of passenger enplanements by a specific airline
at an airport in a time period can be completed using the BTS T-100 database
(Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2019). For example, to determine Delta’s
passenger load factors and passengers per departure at Orlando Melbourne
International Airport (MLB) for the month of November 2018, the user would
access data from the BTS T-100 database.
First, the user selects the [Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic) - U.S. Carriers]
database. Next, the user chooses the [T-100 Domestic Segment (U.S. Carriers)] list
and selects [Download]. From here, the user has a choice of filters found at the
top of the page. From the available filters, the user selects:
Filter Geography: [All] (Default/specific states can be selected)

Filter Year: [2018] (Default = current year/specific year can be selected)
Filter Period: [All] (Default/months can be selected)
In addition, the user should also select other specific data filters as follows:
Summaries: [DepPerformed]
[Seats]
[Passengers]
Carrier: [UniqueCarrier]
[UniqueCarrierName]
Origin: [OriginAirportID]
[Origin]
Destination: [DestAirportID]
[Dest]
Time Period: [Month]
Lastly, the user enters [Download] from the upper right-hand corner. The data
report can be downloaded as a compressed (.zip) file. The extracted file provides a
comma delimited (.csv) text file that can be opened or imported into a spreadsheet.
The data report file contains the entire Form 41, Schedule T-100 data for every
airline and every airport for the period, which may be useful for a variety of analyses.
The data can be indexed to facilitate sorting, analysis, and reporting. When using
MS Excel, [Data] [Filter] are the options used to index the data. There are many
other analyses that can be conducted from the raw data using spreadsheet tools
(e.g., Pivot Tables, etc.).
For this example, filtering the raw airline data Delta at MLB would include
[UniqueCarrier = DL] and [Origin = MLB]. The results yield the following data:
Seats = 17,476
Passengers = 15,486
Load Factor = (15,486/17,476) = 88.6%
Passengers per Departure = 15,486/142 = 109
(Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2019).

Table 3-20. Airport financial data (revenues).

Aeronautical Operating Revenue Non-Aeronautical Operating Revenue
Airline Revenue Non-terminal facility and land leases
Passenger airline landing fees Terminal (food and beverage)
Terminal arrival fees, rents, and utilities Terminal (retail and duty free)
Terminal area apron charges/tiedowns Rental cars
Non-Airline Aeronautical Revenue Parking and ground transportation
Landing fees Hotel
FBO revenue; contract or sponsor-operated Non-Operating Revenue
Cargo and hangar rentals Interest income
Fuel sales net profit/loss or fuel flowage fees Grants
Security reimbursement from federal government Passenger facility charges (PFCs)
Capital contributions
primarily to establish AIP funding levels among the commercial airports (FAA 2019g). Airports
are given an opportunity to correct preliminary ACAIS enplanement data each year based on
locally reported numbers.
3.2.4 Airport Financial Data (via CATS)

Since the mid-1990s, the FAA has collected detailed financial data from commercial service
airports via its Certification Activity Tracking System (CATS). The FAA requires all commercial
service airports (2,500 or more annual enplanements) to file two forms. FAA Form 5100-126,
Financial Government Payment Report, is used to report any payments made to governmental
entities for services rendered or for services the airport performed for other governmental entities,
including the value of any land and facilities the airport provides to such entities (FAA 2019h).
FAA Form 5100-127, Operating and Financial Summary, is used for reporting the airport’s
annual revenues, expenses, and other financial information (FAA 2019i). Both forms are
completed online by airports via CATS.
Reports are due no later than 90 days after the end of the airport’s fiscal year. The information
contained in the reports must be certified as accurate by the airport’s chief financial officer or
designated representative.

The data contained on FAA Form 5100-127 resembles an airport income statement but with
additional information for characterizing airport activity. The data is used by the FAA primarily to
monitor the financial performance of commercial airports particularly for assessing if an airport
is financially self-sustaining (i.e., operating revenues meet operating expenses). The fact that the
data is publicly accessible makes the CATS a useful tool for performing financial analyses.
Tables 3-20 and 3-21 present outlines of the major categories of data included in FAA
Form 5100-127. As can be seen, the focus is on revenues from specific activities at the airport
(Table 3-20), while expenses are not broken out by the same activities (Table 3-21).
Table 3-21. Airport financial data (expenses).
Operating Expenses
Personnel compensation and benefits
Communications and utilities
Supplies and materials
Contractual services
Insurance claims and settlements
Depreciation

Table 3-22. Other airport data.

Other Airport Data
Enplanements
Landed weights in pounds
Signatory landing fee rate per 1,000 lb
Annual aircraft operations
Passenger airline cost per enplanement
Full-time equivalent employees
Security and law enforcement costs
ARFF costs
Repairs and maintenance
Marketing/Advertising/Promotions
Form 5100-127 also contains information as shown in Table 3-22 that is helpful for trend
analysis benchmarking against other airports.
Data from the CATS can be reported for individual airports or collectively by airport hub
category (large, medium, etc.).
Airport financial data contained in the CATS database can be used for a variety of purposes,
such as comparing financial characteristics among airports as a benchmarking tool as well as
assessing revenue and expense trends against operations, enplanements, full-time employees,
and so forth. For example, the data could be used to compare a specific airport’s revenue per
enplanement with that for all nonhub airports. Other examples can include identifying average
ARFF costs, landing fees, or personnel costs as a percentage of total operating expenses. Readily
available financial data for commercial airports can be employed as a part of a broader analysis
of operations and safety issues.
Concurrent with the filing of Form 5100-127, Form 126 is designed to provide FAA with data
related to payments to other governmental units in cash, services rendered, or other compensa-
tion to municipalities, including internal departments, county, state, federal agencies, and other
political subdivisions. Compensation may be for cash, inter-departmental transfers, use of
property, or for services using airport personnel and equipment. For payments other than cash,
the fair market value rents of airport property, or the value of personnel and/or equipment
expenses as in-kind services, are reported.
EXAMPLE: PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS FINANCIAL RECORDS

Accessing the financial reports of passenger enplanements at an airport for a
given time period can be easily done using the Form 5100-127 database. For
example, to obtain downloadable financial reports for passenger enplanements
at Orlando Melbourne International Airport (MLB) for FY 2017−2018, the user
would access data from the Form 5100-127 database. Airport financial data can
be accessed via CATS (FAA 2019j). Figure 3-7 illustrates the data from the CATS
search form.
For a specific airport, a search can be initiated by entering the airport location
identifier or the airport name. The range of years is also required. Options for
the report results include a screen view or an Excel spreadsheet. For this example,
searching [MLB] for [FY 2018] and [FY 2017] with a screen view yields the results
found in Figure 3-8.

Figure 3-7. CATS search form (example).

Financial data is collected by the FAA through each commercial airport’s annual filing of
their Forms 126 and 127, certified by the airport’s chief financial officer.
3.2.5 Airport Weather

Most airports use an automated weather observation system for weather reporting. There
are currently over 2,000 automated weather observation systems at airports throughout the
United States that are owned and maintained by the National Weather Service, FAA, and airport
sponsors (Switzer et al. 2019). An Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) is a weather
reporting system owned and operated by the federal government. An Automated Weather
Observing System (AWOS) can have similar components as an ASOS and, while some of them
are also federally owned and operated, the majority of AWOS units belong to airport sponsors.
Regardless of ownership, the distinction between the two systems is primarily in their capabilities.
An ASOS will have a complete array of weather sensors that monitor and report data continu-
ously, including the type and intensity of precipitation and wind gusts. AWOS units may have
fewer components and lesser capabilities. Each of these stations report weather data to a central

Figure 3-8. Airport financial data using CATS (example).

database maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s)

National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). The FAA identifies ASOS and AWOS
station types located across the United States by state or airport identifier (FAA 2019k).
Typical weather data that are reported by these stations include the following:
• Date and time of observation
• Temperature
• Dew point
• Wind speed and direction
• Barometric pressure
• Visibility
• Cloud ceiling
• Cloud cover
• Weather conditions (rain, snow, thunderstorms, etc.)
Weather reports are usually transmitted to the central database on a 1-min- or 5-min-interval
basis; however, the data may be reported as an hourly average. Weather data can be useful for
a variety of purposes from evaluating specific observations as part of an accident or incident
investigation to analyzing evidence regarding long-term climatic impacts that may be affecting
airport operations, for example, measuring the number of closures or delays related to adverse
weather, identifying snow removal activities as a function of cumulative snowfall, or identifying
periods of extended visibility constraints.
The FAA, airports, and their consultants use wind data for determining the need for cross-
wind runways and ceiling and visibility data for justifying navigation instrumentation. Weather
data is also useful for determining the prevailing conditions at a specific time or cumulatively
over an extended period. Weather may have been a contributing factor for a major incident
and having official weather data could help describe the environment during the event. Using
weather data to determine the number of rain days during a construction period could be useful
when analyzing project management issues.

Historical weather data reported by these weather stations are archived by NCEI and available as a
downloadable file. Table 3-23 presents the categories of data included in the weather station report.
The velocity of wind gusts, amount of precipitation (e.g., rainfall), and other data may also be
reported if the sensors are available.
Table 3-23. Airport weather data.
Data Description
Date and Time Date and time of averaged observation (no adjustment for Daylight Saving Time
(DST)
Altimeter Setting Barometric pressure (in Hg)
Temperature Ambient air temperature (in ⁰F)
Dewpoint Temperature water vapor condenses
Relative Humidity Ratio of dewpoint to temperature
Wind Direction Direction wind is coming from (in 10⁰ increments)
Wind Speed Speed (in knots)
Visibility Distance to farthest known visible object (in statute miles)
Sky Condition Characteristics of observed clouds
Cloud Cover Percent of clouds (FEW (1/8 to 2/8 cloud coverage); SCT (SCATTERED,
3/8 to 4/8 cloud coverage; BKN (broken sky, 5/8 to 7/8 cloud coverage);
OVC (OVERCAST, 8/8 complete cloud coverage)
Ceiling Height to cloud cover base (in feet)
Weather Type Classification and intensity of precipitation or another obscuration

EXAMPLE: WEATHER DATA

Weather data for a specific airport can be accessed through the NCEI’s Climate
Data Online at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/lcd (NOAA 2019).
The NCEI website uses a commerce-based platform; however, there is no fee
associated with accessing the data. The website provides a series of search tools
to allow the user to download the raw weather data from a specific query that
can then be used for further analysis.
An airport can search for weather data as part of an investigation of a vehicle

incident. For example, an aircraft/ground service vehicle mishap occurred at MLB
on the morning of December 4, 2018. To determine prevailing weather conditions
at MLB, the user would need to know the date and time of the incident.
• Date of incident: 2018-12-04

• Time of incident: 0635
Using the Map Tool, the user selects the [Zip Code] location search parameter
and enters the 5-digit zip code for MLB [32901], as shown in Figure 3-9.
The user selects [Melbourne International Airport, FL, US] and [ADD TO CART].
The next steps are based on data relevant only to MLB. After adding to
cart, the user selects the link in the upper right corner. Then, the user selects
the Output Format. Selecting [LCD CSV] will deliver a comma delimited (.csv) text
file that can be imported into a spreadsheet for analysis. To identify the date,
select the date range using the calendar feature. The user selects [Year] [Month]
[Day] for both start and end dates of the data. Once entered, the user selects
[Apply] and then [Continue].
After checking the Requested Data Review, the user enters their email address
(first time users will be asked to validate an email address) and then selects
[Confirm Order]. A confirmation page will indicate the request was successfully
submitted, and an email with a link to the requested data will be sent shortly.
When the data request has been completed, the [Download] option should be
available for selection. Once the document has been downloaded, the user can
access the data by opening or importing the file as a spreadsheet and looking up
the specific date and time for weather observations.
Table 3-24 presents the weather observations for the date and time of the MLB incident
example.
A review of the weather data indicates a thunderstorm occurred in the area beginning around
06:10:00 with rapidly diminishing visibility down to ½ mile due to heavy rain and fog. These
conditions may indicate that the incident occurred while ramp activities should have been
suspended.
There are many forms of analyses that can be conducted using the raw data using spreadsheet
tools (e.g., pivot tables, etc.).

Weather data is collected through various sensors located at the airport and automatically
transmitted to the NCEI database where the data is archived. Current weather observations from
each station are disseminated to the FAA and other outlets for flight planning purposes.

Figure 3-9. Weather report data page (example).
3.2.6 Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) ASRS was established in
1976 as a joint venture with FAA to collect voluntarily submitted aviation safety reports from
pilots and flight crews, ATC, aircraft mechanics, and others. The primary purpose of the ASRS is
to collect data to identify potential safety issues relevant to the National Airspace System (NAS)
that will help FAA and others consider mitigation measures and thus enhance the safety of the
Table 3-24. Select weather data.
Date/Time Altimeter Dew Temperature Precipitation Type Visibility Wind Wind

Point Direction Speed
2018-12-04T06:02:00 29.97 72 74 0.01 -RA:02 BR:1 |RA |RA 3 340 5

2018-12-04T06:10:00 29.98 71 73 0.01 TS:7 |TS TS | 10 320 6
2018-12-04T06:16:00 29.98 71 73 0.09 TS:7 BR:1 |TS TS | 1.75 330 5
2018-12-04T06:24:00 29.98 72 73 - TS:7 BR:1 |TS | 1 340 5
2018-12-04T06:31:00 29.98 71 73 0.39 TS:7 BR:1 |TS TS | 0.75 290 7
2018-12-04T06:39:00 29.99 71 72 0.52 +RA:02 FG:2 |FG RA |RA 0.5 300 5
2018-12-04T06:46:00 29.99 71 72 0.53 RA:02 BR:1 |RA |RA 2.00V 290 5
2018-12-04T06:49:00 29.99 72 72 0.53 -RA:02 BR:1 |RA |RA 4 300 5
2018-12-04T06:53:00 29.99 71 72 0.52 -RA:02 |RA |RA 7 320 5
TS = thunderstorm; BR = mist or light fog; −RA = light rain; RA = moderate rain; +RA = heavy rain; FG = fog.

NAS (NASA 2019b). The ASRS database is a public repository serving the research needs of
a variety of governmental, organization, and academic interests.
ASRS data can be useful for identifying similar incidents of safety-related issues. Common
issues affecting airport operations can reveal a pattern of concerns that relate to the operation of
the airport. A series of search tools enable the user to download relevant ASRS reports based on
a specific query. The results can then be used for further analysis.

The ASRS database contains a broad set of variables that can be used in queries. Table 3-25
presents the major categories of data included in the ASRS database.
Any number and mix of these variables can be used to define a query of the database. Querying
the ASRS database is initiated by identifying the lookup values for a data category. Selecting
each variable of interest will return specific instances where an ASRS report has been submitted.
Null selection will return all incidents of other selected variables going as far back as the ARSR
has records for.
The ASRS has a robust set of incident reports affecting safety. Even though ASRS is a volun-
tary reporting system, the information contained therein is considered comprehensive and
reliable given its overwhelming use and industry acceptance. The data is useful for identifying
the number of and extent of the incidents in question as well as common circumstances and
other factors contributing to the issue. While the ASRS appears to be focused on flight activity,
there are also substantial records related to reported ground operations that could useful in
analyzing issues.

ASRS data is collected by NASA through the submittal of reports by individuals who observed
or were involved in a circumstance where safety was compromised. The data is archived and
made available publicly to serve research interests involving aviation safety.
Table 3-25. ASRS data.

Data Description
Date and Report Number Period of Research (or report number if known)
Place Location (LOCID) and/or State
Environment
Lighting Dawn/Daylight/Night, etc.
Weather Conditions (Rain/Snow/Fog, etc.)
Person
Reporter Organization Air Carrier/FBO/Personal, etc. (Note: Airport not a choice)
Reporter Function Air Traffic Control (ATC)/Flight Crew/Ground Personnel, etc.
Aircraft
Operation (FAR) Regulatory Authority (FAR Part 91/121/135, etc.)
Flight Phase Takeoff/Landing/Taxiing/Parked, etc.)
Flight Plan VFR/IFR, etc.
In-Flight Characteristics of observed clouds
Make/Model Aircraft Type (B737-800/Challenger 650, etc.)
Mission Passenger/Cargo/Training, etc.
Event Assessment Classification and Description
Event Type Anomaly (Ground incursion/excursion, etc.). Also, Critical versus Less Severe
Detector Automation versus Person [also ATC, air conditioning (A/C) equipment, etc.]
Primary Problem Procedure, staffing, airport, etc.
Contributing Factors Company policy, human factors, environment (non-weather), etc.
Human Factors Distraction, fatigue, situational awareness, etc.
Result ATC/Flight crew (also Issued Advisory/Provided Assistance, etc.)
Text (Narrative/Synopsis) Keywords with Boolean functions (“AND”, “OR”) and Wildcards (“%”)

EXAMPLE: RAMP INCIDENTS INVOLVING MARSHALLING

AIRCRAFT TO GATES
To determine the magnitude and extent of ramp incidents reported to ASRS at
an airport, one can access data from the ASRS database. The ASRS database can be
accessed through NASA’s website at https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html
(NASA 2019a). For example, an airport can obtain data on all ramp incidents reported
to the ASRS involving marshalling aircraft to the gate. Figure 3-10 shows the search
page for the ASRS database.
Using the ASRS search interface (see Figure 3-10), the user should select the
following variables:
Flight Phase: [Taxi]

Mission: [Passenger]
Human Factors: [Distraction] OR [Situational Awareness]
Result: [Aircraft Damaged]
Text contains: [Marshall] OR [marshalling]
Once the variables are selected, the database search returns all incidents that match
the criteria selected. For this example, 14 incidents matched the criteria. The ASRS
system provides options for reporting the data as shown in Figure 3-11.
An example of the narrative report using the retrieved weather data follows:
As we pulled into the gate area, we both looked closely at the Safety Zone; our aircraft was a
scimitar equipped -800 and it appeared clear. The Ramp Agent had Wing Walkers and wands.
We followed the Ramp Agent’s guidance closely and parked directly and right on the spot.
After setting the parking brake and shutting down, the First Officer noticed the Wing Walker
trying to communicate something. After the completion of our Parking Checklist, I went down
to the ramp to investigate. Apparently, the nose cone of our aircraft had made contact
with the top of a pushback tug. Maintenance and Dispatch were notified.
The Marshalling Ramp Agent needs to walk to the back-end of Safety Zone to double check
that no part of the pushback tug hangs over the line, before focusing attention on guiding the
aircraft in on the line. All Company pushback tugs need to have a flag installed on the front so
we know their exact location at eye level. The weather data indicated there was a thunderstorm
in the area beginning around 0610 with rapidly diminishing visibility down to ½ mile due to
heavy rain and fog. These conditions may indicate that the incident occurred while ramp
activities should have been suspended.
3.2.7 NTSB Accident Reports

The NTSB was created in 1967 as an independent agency within the U.S. DOT. Later, it became
a fully independent investigative agency outside of other governmental administrations. The
NTSB is charged with “conducting thorough, accurate, and independent investigations and
for producing timely, well-considered recommendations to enhance transportation safety”
(NTSB 2017).
In most cases, the NTSB (or its assignees) will investigate aircraft accidents where a person is
fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains significant damage or structural failure, or the
aircraft goes missing. Certain incidents that do not fit the description of an accident are also
included if the event is considered significant to aviation safety. The investigation and subsequent
report of their factual findings and opinion regarding probable cause are documented with the
goal of ensuring that similar accidents never happen again.

Figure 3-10. ASRS search form (example).
Figure 3-11. ASRS search results (example).

As part of this mission, the NTSB maintains a public searchable database of aviation accidents
and certain significant incidents that have been investigated or otherwise reported. The data goes
back to 1962, and it ranges from preliminary accident reports posted only a few days after an
accident to a fully detailed description of the accident, including its probable cause.
The NTSB data can be highly effective in identifying similar incidents where safety was
compromised, providing substantial information about events that have been classified as
accidents and which tend to have more significant consequences.

The NTSB database contains detailed factual data regarding aviation accidents, including the
categorization of the conditions and circumstances relevant to the event, the type of accident,
time and place, physical and environmental conditions, and affected people and property. A text
narrative is also available that describes the event and adds context. The NTSB database contains
a broad set of variables that can be selected for queries, as shown in Table 3-26.
Any number and mix of these variables can be used to define a query of the database.
Querying the NTSB database can be initiated by selecting or specifying the lookup values
among the various categories. Null selection will return all incidents of other selected vari-
ables going as far back as NTSB has records for. Full narrative data may not be available for
reports dated before 1993.
The NTSB’s set of accident and incident reports are useful for identifying the magnitude
and extent of the events involving common circumstances and other factors contributing to
the case. The data may be useful for assessing the consequences of ground operation accidents
and other circumstances where the airport was directly or indirectly involved, such as accidents
Table 3-26. NTSB aviation accident database.
Data Description
Accident/Incident Information
Event Dates Period of Research
Location City/State/Country
Investigation Type Accident/Incident
Injury Severity Fatal/Non-Fatal
Aircraft
Category Airplane/Helicopter/Glider, etc.
Amateur Built Include in Search? (Yes/No)
Make/Model Example: Boeing/B737-800
Registration U.S. or International A/C Tail Number (Example: N123X/C-DNEK)
Damage Minor/Substantial/Destroyed
Number of Engines 1/2/3, etc.
Engine Type Reciprocating/Turbo Fan/Electric, etc.
Operation
Operation (Regulatory) Part 91/Part 121/Part 135, etc.
Purpose of Flight Business/Instructional/Personal, etc.
Schedule Scheduled/Non-Scheduled
Air Carrier Specific Air Carrier Name (American/Delta, etc.)
NTSB Status
Accident Number Specific NTSB Report Number (Example: DCA06MA064)
Report Status Preliminary/Factual/Final
Probable Cause Issue NTSB Issues Probable Cause
Event Details
Airport Name Specific Airport Name
Airport Code LOCID (example: MLB)
Weather Condition Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC)/Instrument Meteorological
Conditions (IMC)
Broad Phase of Flight Takeoff/Approach/Taxi, etc.
Narrative/Synopsis Search Keywords with Boolean Functions (“AND”, “OR”) and Wildcards (“%”)

EXAMPLE: AIRCRAFT RAMP ACCIDENTS

An airport can review the aircraft ramp accidents occurring at their airport by
accessing the NTSB database: https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx
(NTSB 2019). Figure 3-12 illustrates the data search form.
Using the NTSB search interface, the user can select from a variety of variables.
For this example, the following variables were selected:
Operation: [Part 121: Air Carrier]

Broad Phase of Flight: [Taxi]
Text contains: [vehicle]
After selecting the variables, the user runs a search from the search form. For this
example, the NTSB database search returned 60 incidents that matched the criteria.
An example of one accident report is shown in Figure 3-13.
The NTSB database system provides options for reporting the data as an XML
or comma delimited (.csv) text file.
occurring on the ramp during snow removal operations, or where facility deficiencies may have
been identified.

The NTSB files preliminary reports, factual details, and final reports for each accident
investigation in which the NTSB participates. The objective data from the factual details are
categorized, and the narrative report text is published in a searchable database that is publicly
available.
3.2.8 FAA Aviation Incident Data System (AIDS)

The FAA’s AIDS database contains records for incidents involving aircraft that do not meet
the thresholds defined by the NTSB for the level of aircraft damage or the severity of an injury.
The FAA AIDS database serves as a repository for minor aircraft mishaps to help quantify
persistent and emerging aviation safety issues and to provide context for further analyses. The
FAA AIDS database contains incidents that occurred between 1978 and the present, with full
narratives for all incident reports occurring from January 1, 1995, to the present. The data in
the FAA AIDS database is gathered from a variety of sources, including incident reports on
FAA Form 8020-5. The FAA AIDS database contains accident information that may reflect the
same incident from the NTSB database (FAA 2019l).
The FAA issues a separate report for each aircraft involved in an aviation incident. For
example, as the FAA receives reports of bird strikes, subsequent investigations reveal that the
aircraft damage did not meet the NTSB’s definition of an accident. While these incidents are
not significant to the NTSB, they are still considered valuable information by the FAA (e.g.,
they add to a cumulative total of similar bird strike events near a particular airport revealing
a potential wildlife hazard that can be mitigated to improve aviation safety).
Like the NTSB and ASRS data, the FAA AIDS data is helpful in identifying similar circum-
stances where safety has been compromised. While limited in detail and searchable content, the

Figure 3-12. NTSB search form (example).
FAA AIDS data provides insightful information about mishaps that had a lesser consequence
than an accident but could have resulted in significant property damage, injuries, or worse.

While the AIDS database contains a limited set of variables compared with NTSB data,
facts related to specific aviation incidents include the time, place, and type of the incident,
and operational conditions. A text narrative is also available describing the event and adding
context. Table 3-27 presents the searchable data contained in the AIDS database.

The FAA AIDS data is collected and maintained by the FAA’s Aviation Data System Branch,
Regulatory Support Division, Flight Standards Service. The data comes from the FAA’s
investigations and standardized reporting of aircraft mishaps that do not exceed the NTSB’s
threshold for significance.

Figure 3-13. NTSB aviation accident final report (example).
3.3 Data Analysis

Operations and safety benchmarking and trend analysis are used to provide a systematic
method to determine safety performance of a process. Understanding how benchmarking and
trend analysis relate to business processes and then adapting these practices to help organizations
improve their performance are the major benefits associated with benchmarking and trend
analysis. Further, a robust benchmarking process can ultimately result in continual improve-
ment of safety systems and a cultural sustainability.
3.3.1 Benchmarking and Trend Analysis

Benchmarking and trend analysis are activities that use data for improvement, produc
tivity, and efficiency enhancements. Benchmarking refers to comparing performance of one
airport to another in the same time period. Trend analysis refers to analyzing performance

Table 3-27. AIDS data.
Data Description
Narrative Text (search keywords)
Event
AIDS Report No. If Known
Event Start Date Date Range
Event End Date Date Range
Location
State Incident State
Airport Name Incident Airport
Operations
Flight Conduct Regulatory Authority (FAR Part 91/121/135 etc.)
Flight Phase Takeoff/Landing/Taxiing/Parked, etc.
Operator Name Commercial/Charter Operator (Delta Airlines/NetJets, etc.).
Flight Phase Characteristics of Observed Clouds
Aircraft
Aircraft Registration # If Known
Aircraft Make Manufacturer (Boeing, Cessna, Canadair-Bombardier, etc.)
Aircraft Model 737, CE 172, CRJ900, etc.
Aircraft (Sub)Model 800, All Models, etc.
EXAMPLE: AIRCRAFT VERSUS VEHICLE MISHAPS

While the FAA AIDS database can be searched for any number of the categorized
selections, the most useful search for airports is to use a text search of the narrative
reports. Date ranges may also be effective to omit older reports. Aircraft incident
reports can be accessed using the following link: https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/
f?p=100:12 (FAA 2019l). Figure 3-14 illustrates the FAA AIDS data search form.
An airport can retrieve FAA AIDS data on accidents or incidents occurring at

their airport from the FAA AIDS database. To retrieve available data on incidents
involving aircraft and vehicles, the user accesses the FAA AIDS search form. For this
example, the user adds the term [vehicle] in the [Narrative Search] box and then in
the upper right-hand corner, selects [Search AIDS].
For this example, the AIDS database search returned 370 incidents. An example of
one incident report includes the following narrative report:
AT APPROXIMATELY 10:35 AM ON OCTOBER 8, 2011 A SKYWEST AIRLINES BOMBARDIER
CL-600-2B19 AIRCRAFT, REGISTRATION NUMBER N952SW, FLIGHT NUMBER 6478 SUSTAINED
MINOR DAMAGE TO RIGHT WING TIP AND WINGLET DURING DEICING OPERATIONS IN
DENVER, CO. A SERVISAIR SINGLE OPERATOR DEICE VEHICLE STRUCK THE AIRCRAFT WHILE
PARKED ON THE DEICE PAD. NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. THE CREW AND PASSENGERS
DEPLANED THROUGH THE MAIN CABIN DOOR AND WERE BUSSED BACK TO THE TERMINAL.
TEMPORARY REPAIRS WERE INSTALLED AND THE AIRCRAFT WAS MAINTENANCE FERRIED TO
SALT LAKE CITY FOR PERMANENT REPAIRS.
The FAA AIDS system provides an option for reporting the data as a comma delimited
(.csv) text file.

Figure 3-14. FAA AIDS search form (example).
over time. Benchmarking and trend analysis of a data set requires organizations to establish
performance goals with standards and measures for a specified time period. Comparison
of the actual performance with the performance goals provides the means to identify best
practices that lead to improved operating levels, improved organizational efficiency, and
performance.
Airport benchmarking and trend analysis are categorized into two types of comparisons:
• Internal (or self-benchmarking) is when an airport compares its performance of a process
against the performance of other similar/related processes at the airport.
• External (or peer benchmarking) is when an airport compares its performance against other
airports, either at a single point in time or over a period of time.
Examples of airport benchmarking are shown in Table 3-28.

Table 3-28. Examples of benchmarking and trend analysis.

Category Trends Analysis Comparisons
(Benchmark over Time; (Benchmark Against Peers)
e.g., Year to Year)
Internal • Incidents • Wages (comparing internal wages to similar
(Benchmarking • Accidents departments)
Against Self) • Security line queue times • Staff per operation (staffing requirements and
efforts to improve efficiencies)
External • Passengers serviced • Wages (comparing internal wages to similar
(Benchmarking • Operations per day sized airports)
Against Peers) • Staff per operation (staffing requirements and
efforts to improve efficiencies)
• Wildlife
• Ramp space
• Number of facilities
• Cargo throughput
• Passenger throughput
3.3.1.1 Process for Operations and Safety Benchmarking

and Trend Analysis
The process of benchmarking and trend analysis can be performed in four sequential steps.
Step 1. Establish Goals and Implementation. The first phase in the benchmarking process
consists of establishing the goals and objectives of the benchmark. These goals can be based on
one or more of the following:
• Performance assessment/process improvement
• Risk assessment
• Regulatory compliance reporting
• Emerging trends analysis
• Competitive analysis
• Strategic planning
During this step, it is necessary to obtain a full understanding of these goals and how they
are measured. The airport must then decide what data is required and the method of data
collection.
Step 2. Data Collection. The second step relates to data collection, and the methods used
to collect the data. Research is conducted to identify the metrics that will be used, to select
candidates for the benchmark process, and to collect the data used in the benchmarking perfor-
mance process. Understanding the function of the airport’s core competencies and processes
is essential to the success of this step.
Data collection can be achieved in a variety of ways. Many data sets are now collected auto-
matically and are available in digital format. Other data is available from checklists, surveys,
interviews, questionnaires, and published data. Data collection should be conducted in a uniform
manner to ensure that results will be continually consistent. It is also crucial to obtain accurate
data from reliable sources; otherwise, the interpretation of the results may be skewed.
Step 3. Analysis. There are two classes of benchmarking: trend and comparative.
• Trend benchmarking evaluates performance and safety over time, specifically looking for
decaying or improving performance.
• Comparative benchmarking evaluates performance and safety by comparing the same
or similar processes. Comparative benchmarking is generally performed across airports but

could also be performed by comparing the same process internally year to year to gauge
improvements.
From this information, strategic planning can be used to make improvements to the pro-
cesses. Understanding the reasons why the benchmark performance was superior to actual
performance will expose the root cause of problem areas and allow for subsequent modification
and improvement. The results should be analyzed to determine whether there are any gaps
between the airport’s processes and those that have been used for benchmarking purposes.
This analysis can be conducted within various timeframes, depending on whether an airport
is looking at current trends or focusing on long-term trends.
Step 4. Adaptation. The final phase of the benchmarking process is specifically linked to
the adaptation of best practices and continuous improvement practices. Support of the various
stakeholders involved in the process is necessary to ensure that newly acquired best practices
can be applied. This can be achieved through effective communication with the relevant parties
involved. Goals can then be set, and an action plan can be implemented to address the task of
closing performance gaps and instituting processes for continuous improvement.
3.3.1.2 Notes on Benchmarking and Trend Analysis

The benchmarking process is not a one-time event. It must be sustained to ensure that con-
stant improvement is being made and that best practices are continually benchmarked against.
Care should be taken when using voluntarily reported data. Counts of voluntarily reported data
should not be benchmarked for trends or for comparison, because the data may not include
all events, or may include all events for one period but not for others. Benchmarking from the
voluntary reports can highlight the type of incidents reported. The sequence of events leading
up to the event, environmental circumstances, and response to the event can be shared and used
for lessons learned.
The development and use of safety and performance “dashboards” can significantly enhance
and provide real-time, hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly visualizations of an airport enterprise.
One of the applications of these dashboards can include benchmarking. Linking the business
process to customer needs is an essential part of benchmarking.
It is also important to address confidentiality because organizations may consider certain
information and data to be sensitive and for internal uses only. To maximize the effectiveness
of the process, reciprocity with other airports and enterprises should be considered in order to
capitalize on the quantity of data in the benchmark. It may be necessary to de-identify the data
if it is made public.
3.3.1.3 Benefits of Operations and Safety Benchmarking

Airports and enterprises interviewed rely on benchmarking to evaluate enterprise perfor-
mance to
• Better understand and manage the business elements of airport processes.
• Anticipate potential problem areas or issues to be more responsive to the service requirements
of tenants and users.
• Reflect airport performance accurately to their governing bodies.
• Understand their competitive position in the marketplace.
• Monitor individual performance of stakeholders.
• Achieve performance standards (which can be the deciding factor when determining who is
awarded business or how to route air cargo in or out of a country or region).
• Advance technology and improve supply chain and modal transportation processes. These
coupled with forecasted growth in the air cargo business present airports with many challenges.

EXAMPLE: WILDLIFE STRIKE BENCHMARKING

A wildlife strike is the collision of one or more animals [i.e., birds, flying mammals
(bats), terrestrial mammals, or reptiles] with an aircraft determined by direct
observation of the collision or by indirect evidence (i.e., animal carcass or remains)
found on the aircraft or on the ground. The FAA reported about 115,000 wildlife
strikes from 1990 to 2011. Of these, the vast majority (97%) involved birds, 2%
involved terrestrial mammals, and less than 1% involved flying mammals (bats) or
reptiles (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-3B 2013). Bird and other wildlife strikes
annually cause more than $380 million in damage to aircraft in U.S. civil and
military aviation (direct and indirect costs vary annually) and place the lives of the
aircraft crew and passengers at risk, and more than 300 people have been killed in
the United States as a result of bird strikes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018).
Class I, II, and III Part 139 airports must comply with Part 139 regulations for
Wildlife Hazard Management, whereas Class IV airports are exempt. Class I, II, and III
airports are required to conduct an assessment (that should be followed by creation
of a WHMP) only when triggering events are experienced. An airport can be in
compliance regardless of whether it has an assessment or a WHMP.
This benchmark example (see Table 3-29) is derived from data contained in

“Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990–2018” (Dolbeer et al. 2019).
Step 1. Establish Goals of Benchmark
The purpose of benchmarking is to determine bird strike risk at the airport and
guide improvements to the airport WHMP for bird strike risk. Benchmarking is
conducted by making comparisons with other airports.
Step 2. Data Collection
Collect strike incidents and categorize as follows:
• Region: airport environment (i) < 1,500 ft, (ii) approach and climb above 1,500 ft
• Impact: (i) damage, (ii) negative impact on flight (e.g., aborted takeoff,
precautionary/emergency landing, engine shutdown)
• Species: (i) swallow, (ii) goose, etc.
• Evidence: (i) property damage, (ii) carcass, etc.
Step 3. Analysis
• The example airport has an adverse effect strike rate of 0.6. An adverse effect
strike rate of 0.6 puts this airport at the low risk end of the scale.
Step 4. Adaptation
• Is there a relationship between aircraft movements and adverse effect bird strikes?
This example airport experienced a lower percentage of strikes with adverse
effects below 1,500 ft (2.2%) than the national average (5.9%) of strikes. This
airport experienced a lower percentage of strikes with adverse effects at or
above 1,500 ft (7.6%) than the national average (11.9%) of strikes. There is no
relationship between aircraft movements and adverse effect strike rate for the
100 busiest airports.

EXAMPLE: WILDLIFE STRIKE BENCHMARKING (Continued)

• Do we need a separate benchmark for strikes on approach/departure at >1,500 ft
above ground level?
These strikes occurred >8 km from the airport. These strikes are important for
risk analysis and mitigation, but they are not typically addressed in an airport’s
WHMP. By creating a separate benchmark, the airport will assess the risk for
these off airport strikes. Separate benchmarks also provide an objective basis to
incorporate mitigation strategies for “off airport” strikes into the WHMP. The
WHMP should include all mitigation measures and responsible parties to ensure
effectiveness; this is inclusive of any off airport mitigations, which, in many cases,
are the most effective.
• What is an objective benchmark for the airport’s performance in mitigating risk?
Comparison of the reported strike rate at an airport in relation to rates at
other airports is not a valid metric because airports may vary in hazard level of
species struck (e.g., swallow versus goose), completeness of reporting all strikes
(e.g., carcasses found on runway), or number and type of migrating bird species
over an airport.
• Should the benchmark be the adverse effect strike rate?
The bottom line of an airport’s WHMP is to reduce adverse effect strikes.
Comparison of adverse effect strike rate at an airport in relation to rates at
other airports is a valid metric because adverse effect strike rates incorporate the
hazard level of species struck (e.g., swallow versus dove versus goose). There is
also less bias among airports in reporting adverse effect strikes compared with
all strikes.
3.3.2 Key Performance Indicators for Operations and Safety Data

Airport operations and safety data typically collected by Part 139 and non-Part 139 airports,
such as GA airports large enough to invest in collecting operations data, provide the basis for
operations and safety data. This data can be used for benchmarking, contextual analysis, and
common situational awareness. Examples of operations data may include number of days
required for snow removal, number of aircraft “turns” per aircraft parking area/gate, runway
use, taxi times, and so forth. This type of data can provide valuable context when making crucial
decisions that impact airport operations efficiency.
Knowledge and tracking this type of information can help airports analyze and learn
from data to manage operations and safety risks. Using the right data for benchmarking can
help airports improve operating levels, efficiency, and performance. Analysis of operations
and safety data can help airports identify trends to assist with strategic planning for needed
improvements and can also be used to raise awareness for potential hazards before they
become an issue.
Table 3-29. Sample national benchmark.
Location of Strike % Strikes with Adverse Effect

<=1,500 ft 5.9%
>1,500 ft 11.9%
Source: Dolbeer and Begier 2012.

KPIs are a set of quantifiable measures used to gauge or compare performance in terms of
meeting strategic and operations goals. KPIs vary between companies and industries, depend-
ing on their priorities or performance criteria. In addition, there are also Safety Performance
Indicators (SPIs). An airport needs the means and methods to identify their safety perfor-
mance. The indicators need to be measurable and in line with an organization’s goals and
objectives. These indicators can change and should be updated as progress is made toward
established goals and objectives.
The following list contains narrative examples of data fields associated with both Part 139 and
non-Part 139 airports. These examples also contextualize the value of the data itself. Table 3-30
includes a list of airport data sources and the types of analysis that could be performed. This list
identifies KPIs, SPIs, and other potential metrics that all airports should consider collecting,
organizing, and analyzing.
• Part 139 inspection data sources allow for the measurement of the airport operator’s effi-
ciency at maintaining compliance with federal airfield standards. Measuring performance of
compliance should allow an airport operator to ensure successful Part 139 compliance during
annual inspections. By measuring the time and resources invested, the airport operator can
quantify the cost of compliance. This is critically important when determining the true costs
of the airfield.
• ARFF inspection data is similar to Part 139 inspections data; it accounts for compliance costs
and can be shown to stakeholders and business partners (such as airlines). This data provides the
airport operator the tools and information needed to discuss operational improvements with
fueling and fuel storage companies, enabling a better understanding of how well the individual
organizations are conducting their operations in terms of operations and safety efficiency.
• Having an established FOD program that tracks and determines the root cause of FOD
(where it originated) allows the airport operator to set goals and objectives and manage them
at their source. This allows for the costs associated with the FOD program to be accounted
for and justifies the investment made into the FOD program. This data also provides valuable
operations data for the airlines and other aircraft operators at the airport about how well their
internal systems are working.
• Monitoring OSHA-reportable accidents and incidents is important for revealing systemic
problems or issues within an organization that need to be addressed, in addition to reporting
to regulators and insurance companies.
• Much like OSHA, reportable property damage reports can and should be used to look for
systemic problems and issues that need to be addressed.
• Maintaining training records is crucial. For example, these records can be reviewed after an
event in a restricted area to determine whether or not the staff who accessed the area during
the event had the required training to do so. If a significant number of staff did not have the
required training to enter the area, there could be a higher likelihood of an event occurring.
Or if staff with access to the area had undertaken training, an assessment of the effectiveness
or ineffectiveness of the training for this event could be made. Training records provide an
important metric when determining the effectiveness of training.
• Baggage handling areas, ramps, and other facility inspections provide valuable data regarding
sources of FOD, unreported property damage, and hazardous conditions.
• Hazard reports provide information about what the local airport community is reporting
or willing to report, and the types and trends of hazards. These reports should be addressed
to reinforce a collaborative culture at the airport (e.g., if someone reports a condition,
a response to that person indicating the condition has been or will be investigated is an
important reinforcement).
• Landside operations reports such as number of parked cars by parking product provide key
context for how landside operations are performing in terms of operations and safety efficiencies.

Table 3-30. 14 CFR Part 139-related airport data sources and analysis.

Source Type of Data Trend Analysis Results/Benefits
Part 139 Self- • Number of • Location (assets/systems) • Identify systemic issues
Inspections discrepancies • Physical circumstances • Identify facility issues
Reports • Time to correct (winter, night, etc.) • Monitor corrective
• Reason for time to correct actions for effectiveness
(organization/dept. responsible for
corrective action, parts, tools, access
to area, etc.)
Fueling • Number of • Location (e.g., fuel trucks) • Identify responsible
Operations discrepancies by • Type party’s
Inspection location and tenant • Responsible party shortcomings
Reports • Time to correct • Identify
systemic issues
• Prioritize funds
ARFF Runs • Number of runs • Location • Identify responsible
(Non-Aircraft- • Runs by topic (fire, • Physical circumstances party’s
Related) alarm, system • Tenant and operation shortcomings
Reports alarms, etc.) • Identify
systemic issues
• Prioritize funds
ARFF Runs • Number of runs • Location • Identify responsible
(Aircraft- • Operator • Physical circumstances party’s
Related) • Aircraft type • Tenant and operation shortcomings
Reports • Type of emergency • Identify
or incident systemic issues
• Response times • Prioritize funds
Medical Runs • Number of runs • Location • Identify responsible
(Only • Type (heart, slip • Physical circumstances party’s
Completed by trip fall, accident, • Tenant and operation shortcomings
Designated etc.) • Identify
ARFF Staff) systemic issues
Reports • Prioritize funds
Training • Number of • Organizations, other than airport staff • Identify responsible
Records individuals trained with the most/least number of party’s
• Testing results individuals trained, (helps to shortcomings
• Recurring or initial understand which organizations have • Identify
only the most potential to impact systemic issues
compliance) • Prioritize funds
• Compare accidents and incidents
• Compare organizations with pass/fail
results
FOD Program • Amount • Amount by source (identify • Identify responsible
Reports • Location root cause) party’s shortcomings
• Type • Measure the results of cleanup • Identify systemic issues
• Source efforts, stop-at-the-source efforts, • Prioritize funds
• Environmental or both
factors
Baggage • Number of completed • Number of inspections for a relative • Areas to improve
Handling Area, inspections sample size (less damage, less
Ramp, • Results (FOD, damage, • Participation FOD, improved results
Terminal, and lease violations, etc.) • Result trends over certain time from implementing
Landside • Tenant and airline periods mitigation measures)
Inspection participation
Reports
Airport Owner/ • Reportable/ • Jobs and activities with the highest • Identify departments
Operator non-reportable events event rate and individuals who
OSHA • Lost time • Type of events need improvement
(Personnel • Type of injuries • Individuals and/or departments • Effectiveness of
Safety • Jobs and activities • Costs over time mitigation measures
Standards) when events occurred • Cost reduction (ideally)
Logs/Records • Costs associated with
injuries

Source Type of Data Trend Analysis Results/Benefits

Property • Locations • Trends in the type of data over time • Effectiveness of
Damage • Responsible mitigation measures
Reports organization or put in place
individual
• Severity of event
• Root cause (ideally)
• Physical conditions
(weather, etc.)
Hazard Reports • Types of reports • Number of reports by organization or • Progress toward safety
include: individual goals and objectives
o Public reports • Time spent on investigations • Feedback loop to
o Internal airport • Time spent on actions reporters
reports • Insight into the safety
o Tenant and culture
airline reports
• Time to investigate
• Time to corrective
action completion
Incident and • Public reports • Number of reports by organization • Identify organizations
Accident • Internal airport or individual that might need
Reports operator reports • Time spent on investigations assistance
(Non- • Tenant and airline • Time spent on actions • Effectiveness of
Aircraft- reports mitigation measures
Related) • Time to investigate • Systemic issues with
• Time to corrective physical plant/
action(s) completion facilities that need to
be addressed
Safety • Number of tenant • Number of individuals and • Training
Training or airline employees organizations trained effectiveness
Records trained in safety • Test results over time • Effectiveness of
(Non- reporting orientation • Number of individuals requiring improvements and/
OSHA) • Airport operator retraining or redirection of
staff and employees training efforts
trained in safety
reporting
Parking Revenue • Revenue by product • Product sales by time of year, day of • Demographics
o Long- and short- the week, and time of day (manage willingness to spend
term, valet, garage, demand) for convenience
or shuttle operations • Demands modeling
o Off-airport to maximize revenue
companies
Ground • Revenue by product • Product sales by time of year, day of • Demographics
Transport o Shared ride the week, and time of day (manage willingness to
Revenue o Uber/Lyft demand) spend for
o Taxis convenience
• Demands modeling
to maximize
revenue
Concessions • Sales per enplanement • Product sales by time of year, day of • Cross-compare results
and Retail o Revenue by week, and time of day (manage with passenger
Sales area (terminal demand) demographics—
and concourses) • Sales by passenger type (assumptions maximize offerings
o Type of products can be made based on flight times, to specific passenger
sold days of week, and time of year about types
whether passengers were on leisure or
business). Airlines know most of their
frequent flyers are business travelers,
and agreements can be considered that
will allow the exchange of this
information
Property Rent • Square foot revenue by • Gross and net revenue by property • Benchmarking with
space surrounding areas that
have similar type
properties

CHAPTER 4
Developing an Operations
and Safety Database
Chapter 4 describes considerations for developing an operations and safety database, asso
ciated challenges, and a method for collecting and sharing operations and safety data internal
to airports for the purpose of improving risk-based decisionmaking at an airport.
4.1 Motivation
The collection of operations and safety data internal to airports is primarily driven by the
federal mandates of 14 CFR Part 139, Airport Certification. Under Part 139, safety data is
collected through daily self-inspection reports and maintenance work orders to address defi
ciencies. Some of the safety issues are reported to the FAA; however, many of the issues are not
publicly reported. The FAA’s SMS concept at airports is designed to help airports detect and
correct safety problems before an accident or incident occurs. The SMS program encourages
the collection of safety data by airports and operators as a systematic process for identifying
and quantifying potential hazards and risks and for managing and mitigating them. Sharing data
collected from Part 139 compliance requirements, the SMS, and other areas of the operation can
contribute to a broader awareness of the potential risks and strategies for mitigation that have
a common thread among airports.
The existing aviation safety databases are focused on the airspace (such as ATCTs) and the
operator components of the NAS. The collection of operations and safety data occurs every day
at hundreds of airports around the country; however, airports currently do not have a venue for
sharing their operations and safety data. Based on interviews with airport personnel conducted
for this and other ACRP projects, there appears to be an interest in participating in a collective
database of operations and safety data if there were opportunities to do so. Airport operators
share a common responsibility to identify and provide a safe environment for their users and
are constantly looking for ways and means to mitigate risks that would compromise their
mission. They have collectively expressed interest in the ability to determine if their issues
are unique or shared by the other airports. Having access to a database to identify the extent
of problems would be of great value.
4.2 A Method for Collecting and Sharing Operations

and Safety Data
Developing a standard method to collect and share airport operations and safety data would
enable the airport community to analyze characteristics and trends with a goal to developing
improvement strategies. To do this requires a common metadata platform and taxonomy that
conform with existing internal data collection.
63

Operations data at airports is generally measured in terms of the volume and character of
aircraft movements or passenger activity and is recorded on a regular basis (daily/monthly/
annually) by the airport or through a variety of federal resources. In the latter case, this data is
available online in the public domain. The data is quantified in terms of the number of aircraft,
people, or vehicles moving among the facilities and services at the airport at risk for safety
issues. Aircraft operate within the airspace, on the airfield (i.e., runways and taxiways), and on
the ramp and gates. Inside the terminal, passengers, staff, and others flow through the building
for check-in, screening, enplaning and deplaning, and claiming baggage. Landside events occur
on the access roads, terminal curb, and parking areas. Anything (people and property) moving
within these areas can be exposed to risk, a victim to compromised safety.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the relationship operations and safety data have in a typical commercial
airport’s day-to-day activity. The figure also shows where the activity generally occurs and
indicates the activity’s exposure to risk. The consequences related to events where safety may
have been compromised can be connected to the levels of activity and to the services and facilities
of the airport. Stakeholders are identified based on their relationship to the activity, and legal
considerations affecting the collection of the data are also shown.
A/C = air conditioning; ARFF = aircraft rescue and firefighting; ATC = air traffic control; EMT = emergency medical technician; FOD = foreign object
damage/debris; LEO = law enforcement officer; Pax = passengers; SMS = Safety Management System; SRM = Safety Risk Management.
Figure 4-1. Airport operations and safety data relationships.

Developing an Operations and Safety Database 65
At an individual airport, the data can be useful for discerning unforeseen conditions, and
to identify policies, practices, and trends that may require mitigation. By sharing the data
with others, the collective understanding of common safety risks that can be avoided may be
achieved, and in many cases, the development of a forum for sharing lessons learned and best
practices to avoid future safety-related events.
The platform used to store operations and safety data locally can be as simple as a spreadsheet
or commercially available database. For the database to be useful for retrieving specific data, the
data must be coded in a way that it can be easily queried. For the data to be shared collectively
with other entities, a common database platform needs to be identified. In addition, a standard
taxonomy accepted by the airport industry for standardizing the data to be included in the
database is required.
The development of any database requires long-term commitments by a sponsor to take
ownership of the complete product and process. Candidates for sponsorship of an operations
and safety database may be found in governmental agencies (such as FAA, NASA, etc.); industry
organizations (such as the National Association of State Aviation Officials); academic institu
tions; and private sector interests. However, the primary question that needs to be addressed is
“what’s in it for them?”
4.2.1 Collection Mechanisms

Collecting external operations data will require manually accessing any number of data
sources as discussed in Chapter 3. This may occur on a regular basis, such as monthly or
annually, although shorter or more recent intervals may be available. The data may be in the
form of a text file (e.g., comma delimited format) or spreadsheet, which can easily be entered
into the local database.
On the other hand, safety data is primarily event driven, and collection will require some
form of reporting mechanism to categorize specific details of the occurrence in a recordable
format. Reporting safety data could be through an online form prompting the reporter for
details about the event. A physical form could also be used to collect the same information;
however, the data would have to be entered later into the database.
When an event occurs or where a safety issue is identified, data can and should be reported
in significant detail to (1) document the conditions and circumstances for what occurred,
(2) describe the consequences, and (3) record what corrective actions were taken or recom
mended for implementation to avoid future events. Safety data about specific events might
include information about who is providing the report, circumstances that describe the event
(what, where, and when), and the resulting consequences. Contributing factors, such as human
factors and physical conditions, may also be provided to enhance report details. A narrative
report describing the event from the reporter’s perspective might include details that would be
difficult to categorize or otherwise be missed.
4.2.2 Safety Reporting

Safety data can be collected through various forms, depending on the need for ease, detail,
and end use. For example, a verbal report from an observer can immediately communicate
certain aspects of a safety-related incident to a supervisor; however, this may preclude any
documentation for collecting, analysis, and reporting purposes, and result in a loss of specific
details. It has been said that the faintest ink is more powerful than the strongest memory.
This suggests that a written report is more useful and reliable than a verbal account.
Written safety reports can be prepared in several ways. A paper form can be simple and
effective for collecting data in an objective format. Aside from the reporter’s information and
a narrative summary of the event, which would be handwritten, all other data regarding the

specific circumstances can be entered by checking the appropriate boxes. The report data will
eventually have to be manually transcribed and entered into a digital database to be useful.
The use of computers and mobile devices can ease data entry by providing a digital form to
be completed so that the initial report is handled only once. Desktop and laptop computers
can be used to collect safety data reports; however, these will usually require the reporter to
enter data at the end of a shift or another point in time. Tablets and mobile phones may provide
more functionality for submitting safety data by allowing real-time data entry. Certain devices
may also allow pictures, GPS coordinates, and other data to be added to the report.
4.3 Challenges Associated with Collecting

and Sharing Operations and Safety Data
4.3.1 Standardization
The form and format in which operations and safety data are currently collected and
stored vary across airports, depending on size and need. They are also diverse as a result of the
technology and resources available. The framework for collecting and sharing operations and
safety data requires common denominators that will allow for the standardized input of data
to be organized, stored, and retrieved for a variety of analytical purposes. The data needs to be
uniformly categorized, collected, stored, and reported. To do this requires a closer examination
of the nature of the data in the context of metadata and its taxonomy.
4.3.1.1 Metadata
Metadata is the principal concept of how data is organized. It primarily focuses on the end
user and on how the data will be retrieved. Metadata considers the hierarchy of each data point
or field and categorizes the data from the broadest perspective and filters down. For example,
all data related to construction safety would fall under the “construction safety” category as a
metadata filter as the first order sorting of data for a user looking for data on construction safety
issues. A second order sort might include “airfield” to put the focus on safety issues related to
runway or taxiway construction projects.
4.3.1.2 Taxonomy
Taxonomy is the classification of data based on an objective system of organization that
provides a framework for data contributions, retrieval, and analysis. The taxonomy for the
development of an operations and safety database should conform to commonly accepted
principles and practices for organizing data in a form that can be accessible and useful for the
purpose it has been created.
Some of these principles include the following:
• Data is relevant to the intended audience (stakeholders).
• Data is easily collected and stored.
• Data is easily accessible.
• Data is organized in a searchable format.
• Data should not be redundant with other data sets.
• Data should be easily classified, cataloged, and indexed where applicable.
• Data should have limited stratification.
4.3.2 Disclosure
Legal concerns related to collection of sensitive data are tied to Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) and various Sunshine laws enacted by most states. Many municipalities are required

by their state laws to disclose public records (upon request). Under the federal FOIA, there
are two distinct exceptions related to aviation safety data. One FOIA exception “permits the
FAA to withhold safety or security information provided voluntarily from disclosure if the FAA
determines that is consistent with the FAA’s safety and security responsibilities (see 49 U.S.C.
§40123 and 14 CFR Part 193)” (Landry et al. 2014). This FOIA exception is central to the
FAA’s Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) (https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/asap/).
The second FOIA exception resulted from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2010
(P.L. 112-095) and noted that aviation safety data is exempt from disclosure under FOIA
if the information such as “reports, data, or other information produced or collected for
the purposes of developing and implementing a safety management system acceptable to the
Administrator (of the FAA)” is provided voluntarily (Landry et al. 2014). The act clearly notes
that this exception is only applicable if the information, such as reports, data, or other infor
mation, “is submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration voluntarily and is not required
to be submitted to the Administrator under any other provision of law (see 49 U.S.C. §44735)”
(Landry et al. 2014).
However, even with both FOIA exceptions, the many state and local Sunshine laws appli
cable to airports owned and operated by state or local governments and authorities cannot be
modified. Sunshine laws do not have any exceptions that allow airports to withhold safety or
security information provided voluntarily by airport stakeholders.
States and local governments have enacted Sunshine laws that provide, with limited exceptions,
that any public record must be disclosed if a request is made for that record. Applicable public
records include any information, data, documents, and other materials held by a governmental
entity; these public records are subject to disclosure when a person makes a request for the record,
unless such data is subject to an exception set forth in the law. Presently, safety data is not subject
to a statutory exception to allow it to be withheld from disclosure (Landry et al. 2014).
The most effective means to facilitate an airport’s ability to share safety information without
being subject to disclosure through FOIA requests is for airports to have the ability to provide
reports directly to the federal agency for data collection and storage. The exceptions in FOIA
allow federal agencies, like FAA and NASA, to collect safety data and protect it from disclosure
until it is compiled, de-identified, and published. For example, in the case of FAA’s ASAP,
“the data and other information gathered at the corporate level before they are submitted to
the ASAP program are not subject to any state Sunshine laws, and once such data are submitted
to the FAA, they are protected by the statutory exception from FOIA” (Landry et al. 2014).
In the case of NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), “data in public reports issued
under ASRS are gathered directly from individuals in the aviation system who are not subject to
state sunshine laws, including pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, and maintenance
personnel. Such data are protected from disclosure when reported to NASA and is deidentified
when the reports are issued” (Landry et al. 2014).
Regardless of FOIA and Sunshine laws, maintaining some level of confidentiality of data is
crucial to the functionality for any form of safety reporting system. The challenge for developing
the ability for airports to share safety-related information through a national database requires
the ability to collect and store standardized data locally. Although in many states Sunshine
laws compel public entities such as an airport to provide copies of specific existing documents
upon request, the airport is not required to compile data, prepare special reports, or otherwise
produce new documents.
4.3.3 Sample Database Taxonomy

Examples exist today for demonstrating how operations and safety data can be effectively
collected, stored, and shared. NASA’s ASRS has provided a platform for individual contributors

to anonymously report safety-related incidents. The ASRS database is available for querying
and reporting relevant data to specific inquiries.
A common taxonomy would assist airports to collect, store, and compare operations and
safety data. Table 4-1 through Table 4-8 show how data points can be collected and organized
into a structured taxonomy database usable by all airports. These tables closely follow the
taxonomy of the ASRS database but are expanded to specifically address airport-related data
points and issues.
4.3.4 Reporter Data

Data regarding the reporter, either as an entity or individual, should be collected. Reporter-
related data points (Table 4-1) can include the following:
• Airport ID—while the actual airport can be kept confidential, the characteristics of the
airport (medium hub, northeast region, etc.) can be given for reporting purposes.
• Responsibility of the reporter—the role of the reporter, either as a general entity or individual,
should be identified. For individuals, their affiliation with the airport can be established with
fields dedicated for airports, airlines, aircraft operators, or contractors. Other details can be
collected such as event observer or participant, years of experience, and so forth.
The opportunity for a follow-up conversation with the reporter may be provided if contact
data, such as address, telephone, and email address, is collected. This data would be kept
confidential as a default, but the reporter could opt in to allow disclosure of the data to validated
parties interested in the event. Table 4-1 provides an example of the data obtained from the
reporter of an event.
4.3.5 Event Conditions

Details on the conditions related to the event are helpful to include in the data collected
(Table 4-2). Conditions can include the date and time of the event, seasonality (e.g., winter
operations), weather, visibility, and lighting. In addition, the parties involved in the event can be
categorized such as a single aircraft, vehicle, person, or a combination of parties (aircraft/aircraft,
aircraft/vehicle, etc.).
4.3.6 Human Factors

Another aspect of data collection to be considered are the human factors related to the event.
Although perhaps subjective, attempts to identify contributing factors are helpful for adding
context to the data (see Table 4-3). Circumstances such as confusion, distraction, fatigue, and
other factors could help describe the scenario that led to the event or resulting reactions.
Citing communications failures among the parties could be a significant factor for describing
underlying factors leading to the event. These data points are relevant for sharing safety infor
mation with the intent of identifying risks and providing lessons learned from the event so that
future events can be avoided.
4.3.7 Physical Conditions

Describing the physical conditions of the event can allow for comparisons within the data
base (see Table 4-4). The location of the event could range from the airfield, ramp, terminal,
terminal curb, roadways, or parking lot. The nature of the event can also be identified, whether
it was a runway or taxiway incursion, wildlife threat, environmental spill, slip and fall, and
so forth.

Table 4-1. Reporter data related to event.

Field Name Code Format Remarks
Reporter Note: All personal information to
be kept confidential unless reporter
opts in to allow contact.
Name NM Alpha Report validation (Source)
Mailing Address 1 MA1 Alpha
Mailing Address 2 MA2 Alpha
City CIT Alpha
State ST ST
Zip ZP Zip
Phone (Preferred) PH1 (NNN) NNN-NNNN
Phone (Alternate) PH2 (NNN) NNN-NNNN
Best Time to Call TTC HHMM
Email EM Alpha@Alpha
Allowed to Contact (Opt in) AC Checkbox (Y/N) OK to contact reporter (Default = N)
Intake Date ID YYYY/MM/DD System generated
Intake Time IT HHMM System generated
No Interview IN Checkbox (Y/N)
Interview Attempted IA YYYY/MM/DD
Interview Completed IC YYYY/MM/DD
Airport Department (AP)
Operations AP1 Checkbox (Y/N)
Facilities AP2 Checkbox (Y/N) Snow Removal Equipment (SRE)/
Grounds keeping
Public Safety AP3 Checkbox (Y/N) ARFF/Law Enforcement Officer (LEO)
Management AP4 Checkbox (Y/N)
Other APX Checkbox/Alpha Planning, Engineering, etc.
Airline (AL)
Ramp AL1 Checkbox (Y/N)
Operations AL2 Checkbox (Y/N)
Management AL3 Checkbox (Y/N)
Other ALX Checkbox/Alpha e.g., Flight Crew
Construction (CW)
Work Crew CW1 Checkbox (Y/N)
Supervision CW2 Checkbox (Y/N)
Management CW3 Checkbox (Y/N)
Other CWX Checkbox/Alpha
Other (AO)
FAA/Government AO1 Checkbox (Y/N)
Consultant AO2 Checkbox (Y/N)
FBO AO3 Checkbox (Y/N)
Aircraft Operator AO4 Checkbox (Y/N)
Other AOX Checkbox/Alpha
Experience (EX)
2 years or less EX1 Checkbox (Y/N)
3 to 5 years EX2 Checkbox (Y/N)
more than 15 years EX5 Checkbox (Y/N)

Table 4-2. Conditions related to event.

Airport ID LOC XXX
Event Date (ED) ED YYYMM
Event Time (ET) HHMM
0000 – 0600 ET1 Checkbox (Y/N)
ZZZ ETZ Null Unreported
Weather/Visibility (WX) Correlate with METAR data
Clear/Partly Cloudy WX1 Checkbox (Y/N)
Overcast WX2 Checkbox (Y/N)
Fog WX3 Checkbox (Y/N)
Icing WX4 Checkbox (Y/N)
Rain WX5 Checkbox (Y/N)
Snow WX6 Checkbox (Y/N)
Thunderstorm WX7 Checkbox (Y/N)
Severe (Tornado/Hurricane) WX9 Checkbox (Y/N)
Other WXX Checkbox/Alpha
Lighting Conditions (LC)
Dawn LC1 Checkbox (Y/N)
Daylight LC2 Checkbox (Y/N)
Dusk LC3 Checkbox (Y/N)
Night LC4 Checkbox (Y/N)
Party No. 1 (P1)
Aircraft
Airplane P1R Checkbox (Y/N)
Helicopter P1H Checkbox (Y/N)
Make/Model P1A Alpha {Describe}
Vehicle
Operations P1O Checkbox (Y/N) Ops
Maintenance P1M Checkbox (Y/N) SRE, runway (RW) sweeper, mowers
Medical/ARFF/LEO P1E Checkbox (Y/N)
A/C Ground Equipment P1Q Checkbox (Y/N) Tugs, bag loaders, fuelers, catering
Construction P1C Checkbox (Y/N) Loader, grader, bulldozer, dump trucks
Other P1X Alpha {Describe}
Person
Airport P1T Checkbox (Y/N) Operations, maintenance
Airline P1L Checkbox (Y/N) Ramp
Construction P1C Checkbox (Y/N) Laborers, equipment operators
Other P1Z Alpha {Describe}
Party No. 2 (P2)
Aircraft Checkbox (Y/N)
Airplane P2R Checkbox (Y/N)
Helicopter P2H Checkbox (Y/N)
Make/Model P2A Alpha {Describe}
Vehicle
Operations P2O Checkbox (Y/N) Ops

Maintenance P2M Checkbox (Y/N) SRE, RW sweeper, mowers
Medical/ARFF/LEO P2E Checkbox (Y/N)
A/C Ground Equipment P2Q Checkbox (Y/N) Tugs, bag loaders, fuelers, catering
Construction P2C Checkbox (Y/N) Loader, grader, bulldozer, dump trucks
Other P2X Alpha {Describe}
Person
Airport P2T Checkbox (Y/N) Operations, maintenance
Airline P2L Checkbox (Y/N) Ramp
Construction P2C Checkbox (Y/N) Laborers, equipment operators
Other P2Z Alpha
A/C = air conditioning; LEO = law enforcement officer; METAR = Meteorological Aerodrome Reports; SRE = snow removal
equipment.
4.3.8 Results
Allowing the user to identify results related to the event can also assist with lessons learned.
Details on physical injuries, damage to aircraft vehicles or equipment, and evasive maneuvers
or similar data resulting from the event should be identified to establish the significance and
importance of the event. The immediate response to the event such as dispatching ARFF or
medical assistance can also provide enriched data about the significance of the event. Table 4-5
identifies data entries for results related to an event.
4.3.9 Contributing Factors

Although possibly considered subjective, attributing other contributing factors could be
useful for ascertaining causal factors that led to the event (see Table 4-6). As a postmortem
Table 4-3. Human factors related to event.

Human Factors (HF) Multiple Entries Allowed
Confusion HFC Checkbox (Y/N)
Distraction HFD Checkbox (Y/N)
Fatigue HFF Checkbox (Y/N)
Physiological Conditions HFP Checkbox (Y/N)
Situational Awareness HFS Checkbox (Y/N)
Time Pressure/Workload HFT Checkbox (Y/N)
Training/Qualification HFQ Checkbox (Y/N)
Equipment Failure HFE Checkbox (Y/N)
Other HFX Alpha
Communications Failure Between (CO)

Party 1 & ATC CO1 Checkbox (Y/N)
Party 2 & ATC CO2 Checkbox (Y/N)
Party 1 & Party 2 CO3 Checkbox (Y/N)
Other COX Alpha
ATC = air traffic control.

Table 4-4. Physical conditions related to event.

Event Location (EL)
Runway (Active) EL1 Checkbox (Y/N)
Runway (Closed) EL2 Checkbox (Y/N)
Taxiway (Active) EL3 Checkbox (Y/N)
Taxiway (Closed) EL4 Checkbox (Y/N)
Terminal Ramp EL5 Checkbox (Y/N)
FBO Ramp EL6 Checkbox (Y/N)
Hangar Area EL7 Checkbox (Y/N)
Terminal Building EL8 Checkbox (Y/N)
Terminal Curb/Access Road EL9 Checkbox (Y/N)
Other ELX Alpha
Event Conflict (EC)
Runway Incursion ECR Checkbox (Y/N) Active Runway Intrusion
Surface Incident on a Taxiway ECT Checkbox (Y/N) Active Taxiway Incident
Aircraft Conflict ECA Checkbox (Y/N) Aircraft Movement Interference
Vehicle Conflict ECV Checkbox (Y/N) SRE, GSE, ARFF Interference
Pedestrian Conflict ECP Checkbox (Y/N) Unauthorized pedestrian
Wildlife Conflict ECW Checkbox (Y/N) Deer, hogs, birds, reptiles
FOD Conflict ECF Checkbox (Y/N) Construction debris, dropped item
Airport Equipment ECQ Checkbox (Y/N) Cable cut, signage, lighting
NAVAID Conflict ECN Checkbox (Y/N) IFR signal interference
Obstruction Conflict ECO Checkbox (Y/N) Crane operations
Environmental Spill ECS Checkbox (Y/N) Fuel spill, hydraulic failure
Slip and Fall ECL Checkbox (Y/N) Wet floor, obstacle
Pedestrian/Vehicle ECD Checkbox (Y/N) Automobile, golf cart, Segway, etc.
Terminal Equipment ECE Checkbox (Y/N) Escalator/elevator
Other/NA ECX Alpha
GSE = ground service equipment; IFR = instrument flight rules; NAVAID = navigational aid; SRE = snow removal equipment.
perspective, the reporter can cite weaknesses that could serve as cautionary details to prevent
similar events from occurring. Examples could include inadequate training, supervision, signage,
or confusing or inaccurate procedures.
4.3.10 Narrative
This data field, which allows the reporter to describe the event and circumstances leading up
to it, can offer details about conditions extant that cannot otherwise be coded and categorized
(see Table 4-7). They can also provide their own perspective on the cause, results, and reactions
to the event. A reasonable limitation on the length of the narrative could be imposed, but the
limit should allow ample space for the reporter to tell the story. The raw narrative report would
be searchable based on keyword criteria.
4.3.11 Synopsis
An abbreviated summary or synopsis can be derived from the event narrative based on
keywords (see Table 4-8). The synopsis would serve as a searchable field and be useful for
determining the context for searches of related events.

Table 4-5. Results related to event.

Event Results (ER) Multiple Entries Allowed
Physical Injury ER1 Checkbox (Y/N)
Aircraft Damage ER2 Checkbox (Y/N)
Vehicle Damage ER3 Checkbox (Y/N)
Equipment Damage ER4 Checkbox (Y/N)
Abort/Go-Around ER5 Checkbox (Y/N)
Evasive Maneuver ER6 Checkbox (Y/N)
Verbal Confrontation ER7 Checkbox (Y/N)
Physical Confrontation ER8 Checkbox (Y/N)
Environmental Contamination ER9 Checkbox (Y/N)
Other/NA ERX Alpha
Event Response (ES) Multiple Entries Allowed
Supervisor Dispatched ET1 Checkbox (Y/N)
LEO Dispatched ET2 Checkbox (Y/N)
Security Dispatched ET3 Checkbox (Y/N)
Medical Dispatched ET4 Checkbox (Y/N)
ARFF Dispatched ET5 Checkbox (Y/N)
ATC Call Down (ARFF Alert ET6 Checkbox (Y/N)
for Aircraft Emergency)
Airline Dispatched ET7 Checkbox (Y/N)
FBO Dispatched ET8 Checkbox (Y/N)
Other/NA ETX Alpha
Table 4-6. Contributing factors related to event.

Contributing Factors (CF) Multiple Entries Allowed
Confusing Procedures CFC Checkbox (Y/N) Construction Safety and Phasing Plan
Inadequate Training CFT Checkbox (Y/N) New workers
Inadequate Supervision CFB Checkbox (Y/N) Inexperienced foreman, supervisor
Inadequate Equipment CFE Checkbox (Y/N)
Inadequate Staffing CFS Checkbox (Y/N) No flagman
Weather CFW Checkbox (Y/N) Fog, snow
Airport Markings and Signage CFM Checkbox (Y/N) Construction barriers, stakes, etc., visible
and/or present
Airport Facilities CFF Checkbox (Y/N)
Time of Day CFD Checkbox (Y/N) Dusk, dark
Language Barriers CFL Checkbox (Y/N)
Equipment Failure CFQ Checkbox (Y/N) Vehicle/radio breakdown
Inadequate Communications CFO Checkbox (Y/N) Failure to read NOTAM
Other CFX Alpha
NOTAM = Notice to Airmen.

Table 4-7. Narrative of event.

Narrative NAR Alpha Describe what happened
Table 4-8. Synopsis of event.

Synopsis SYN Alpha Brief summary (system generated)
The metadata for each of these basic categories can be subdivided into specific data fields
that serve as the taxonomy for the operations and safety database. Tables 4-1 through 4-8 are
examples of a proposed taxonomy for an operations and safety database. Each event record will
have a series of data fields following the metadata organizational structure that will allow it to be
collected as input, and data categorized and indexed, with the filters established for data retrieval
and reporting.
Each of these components of a safety-related event can yield a robust sample that, when
combined with similar events, will offer a much deeper understanding of their causes, circum
stances, and consequences.

CHAPTER 5
The Path Forward
There are clear benefits to collecting airport operations and safety data. At the highest level,
collecting operations data provides the means for process improvement, resulting in reduced
operations costs and reduced maintenance costs. Likewise, collecting safety data provides the
means to proactively address emerging safety issues, possibly reducing insurance and liability
costs. By leveraging cloud-based storage and visualization tools, the costs of data collection
are orders of magnitude lower than the savings generated by productivity enhancements
and improved safety. This is evident by the fact that several airports have begun to prepare
dashboards to provide an innovative way of evaluating and presenting information on airport
performance. This enables cooperative efforts between airports to share data and leads to
improved airport information collection, evaluation, and sharing.
Finding methods to visualize and analyze the data collected can lead to actions by all relevant
stakeholders. The ability to visually depict data can assist airport section managers in meetings
with airport leadership. Dashboards would filter data from the previous day, week, month, or
year with the data coming directly from the airport’s data warehouse where it is modeled and
made available to end users using software tools. Other visualizations could include a dashboard
providing information related to the efficiency (or inefficiency) of deicing operations on deicing
pads at an airport or FOD at a particular airport location.
To enable better analysis and sharing of data, an important consideration for data collection is
a need for publicly available operations and safety databases accessible to the aviation industry.
Airports may be reluctant to capture information, particularly safety information, if the data
collected is discoverable and could possibly open the airport up to litigation or to negative press.
Airports with a mature SMS in place, primarily airports outside the United States, such as in
Canada and Europe, have found that SMS processes have led to the desire to collect more
safety information even though their laws are more intrusive than those in the United States.
Some airports that have implemented SMS have seen a reduction in their insurance rates over
time because the number of claims has dropped, and the airports are doing a better job with
accident and incident investigations. This has led to a decrease in accidents, fewer claims against
the airport, and lower insurance premiums and deductibles. The willingness to share safety
information, however, may take time to become the norm, because currently there is no require
ment for an airport to implement an SMS. For airports that have adopted SMS, their insurance
companies have shared these opinions and observations. This has long been a topic at industry
conferences and workshops. As the industry becomes more and more SMS compliant; this
trend will be quantifiable and acknowledged.
Without the availability of an industry organization that is able to serve as a repository and
host for an airport operations and safety information sharing system, a potential path ahead may
be to start with an existing data sharing platform and allow the processes to evolve as a result
75

of use and innovation. Airbus has developed a platform as part of their Air Transport Safety
Destination 10X Together initiative called D10X. D10X is an application for electronic devices,
particularly mobile devices, that allows the user to share information on the air transportation
system that could be valuable to enhance safety for fellow users. Currently, the primary users
of the D10X platform are airlines whose pilots report information on airports from which they
operate in an effort to share information on the facilities that can enhance the safety of future
flights. The information shared is vetted by safety committees within the airline before it is
made available to other D10X application users. Airbus is looking for other airport partners to
explore future practical uses of the information captured within the D10X system. Note: D10X
is not a common platform for airports and is being provided as context.
Such an approach might provide a means by which airports can initially mine information
about their facilities, in essence use the D10X application (or similar system) to identify or
confirm the existence of hazards. In the near term, the platform provides a means for airports
to communicate future changes designed to minimize risks. The uses of an information plat
form could be developed through use, analysis, and follow-on innovation.
This approach also provides a means for airports to share data through a private third party
and thus allow for restricted access to safety information, similar to the ASIAS process. The
first step along the path forward may be through an existing platform that can be modified and
expanded for airport use, bringing professional industry organizations onboard as the data
sharing processes advance.
Funding the administration and support of a standalone database would be at a nominal cost,
yet apart from obtaining grants or sponsorships, or perhaps paid advertising, there are limited
to no opportunities to generate adequate revenue to cover the cost of this database. If the FAA
or other federal agency were willing to sponsor a standalone database, funding the expenses
of the operations and safety database would require some form of continuous grant or a line-
item budget expenditure. An alternative would be to seek an opportunity for the database to be
assimilated into an existing data collection program similarly aligned with aviation safety.
Moving toward a data-driven culture will require software tools and dashboards to continue
evolving. Airports will move toward developing the tools to collect, assess, and act on the data
to enhance the safety of their operations and facilities. Airports will most likely be willing
participants in sharing operations and safety data with other airports as a communal activity
for the collective good of all airports.
The process for developing a shared data platform may come as a result of federal mandates,
whereby the industry would be compelled to develop one. Attempts to expand the scope of
what data is to be collected and reported will be met with some resistance given perceived
risks, but these can be overcome by a logical and persuasive argument that the data will serve
purposes that will benefit all airports and the traveling public.
While there may be opportunities to add airport data to existing databases (such as ASIAS
and other opportunities through NASA’s ASRS), the establishment of an operations and safety
database for airports will require many champions. Data collection and information sharing
should be widely promoted to gain supporters and garner funding for its creation and mainte
nance. The need to collect and share airport operations and safety data exists and is necessary
for identifying and mitigating risks and hazards. With continued research, planning, and imple
mentation, together, we can create and look forward to a platform in which we can embrace
operations and safety data sharing.

Acronyms
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives

AC Advisory Circular
ACAIS Air Carrier Activity Information System
ACI Airports Council International
ACM Airport Certification Manual
ADIP Airport Data and Information Portal
ADO Airports District Office
AE Adverse Effect
AFD Airport/Facility Directory
AIDS Aviation Incident Data System
AIP Airport Improvement Program
AL Airline
AO Other
AOA Airport Operations Area
AP Airport Department
ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting
ARP Office of Airports
ASAP Aviation Safety Action Program
ASDA Accelerate-Stop Distance Available
ASIAS Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing System
ASOS Automated Surface Observing System
ASRS Aviation Safety Reporting System
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATCT Air Traffic Control Tower
ATO Air Traffic Organization
AWOS Automated Weather Observing System
BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics
CATS Certification Activity Tracking System
CDM Collaborative Decision Making
CF Contributing Factors
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Communications Failure Between
CSV Comma Separated Values
CW Construction
EC Event Conflict
ED Event Date
EL Event Location
ER Event Results
77

ES Event Response
ET Event Time
EX Experience
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulation
FBO Fixed-Base Operator
FOD Foreign Object Damage/Debris
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
GA General Aviation
GSE Ground Service Equipment
GSP Ground Service Provider
HF Human Factors
IATA International Air Transport Association
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
ILS Instrument Landing System
IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LC Lighting Conditions
LDA Landing Distance Available
LED Light Emitting Diode
LEO Law Enforcement Officer
LOCID Location
MLB Orlando Melbourne International Airport
MRO Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul
NAS National Airspace System
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NAVAID Navigational Aid
NCEI National Centers for Environmental Information
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOTAM Notice to Airmen
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
OPSNET Operations Network
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PFC Passenger Facility Charges
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
SMS Safety Management System
SPI Safety Performance Indicator
SRE Snow Removal Equipment
SRM Safety Risk Management
TODA Take Off Distance Available
TORA Take Off Run Available
TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control
TSA Transportation Security Administration
UNICOM Universal Communications
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions
VOR Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range
WHMP Wildlife Hazard Management Plan
WX Weather/Visibility
Y/N Yes or No Checkbox

Bibliography and Other Resources
14 CFR Part 139—Certification of Airports. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?

c=ecfr&SID=8313bccee050ec81d7e8fb3377331177&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:3.0.1.1.14&idno=14.
AirNav.com. (2019). AirNav.com. Retrieved from http://airnav.com/.
Airport-Data.com. (2019). Airport-Data.com. Retrieved from One-stop Aviation Info: http://www.airport-
data.com/.
Ayres, M., Jr., H. Shirazi, S. Cardoso, J. Brown, R. Speir, O. Selezneva, J. Hall, T. Puzin, J. Lafortune, F. Caparroz,
R. Ryan, and E. McCall. (2009). ACRP Report 1: Safety Management Systems for Airports, Volume 2:
Guidebook. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. https://doi.org
/10.17226/14316.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2019). Data Bank 21 - Form 41 Schedule T-2 (T-100) Quarterly Traffic and
Capacity Data of U.S. Air Carriers, Summarized by Aircraft Type. Retrieved from https://www.bts.dot.gov/
browse-statistical-products-and-data/bts-publications/data-bank-21-form-41-schedule-t-2-t-100.
Dolbeer, R.A., and M.J. Begier. (2012). Comparison of Wildlife Strike Data Among Airports to Improve Aviation
Safety. 50th International Bird Strike Committee Conference, Stavanger, Norway.
Dolbeer, R.A., M.J. Begier, P.R. Miller, J.R. Weller, and A.L. Anderson. (2019). Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft
in the United States 1990–2018, National Wildlife Strike Database Report Number 25. U.S. Department of
Agriculture and FAA National Wildlife Strike Database.
FAA. (2003). Form FAA 5010-1—Airport Master Record (Existing Public Use Airports). Retrieved from
https://www.faa.gov/forms/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/185474.
FAA. (2019a). FAA Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) System. Retrieved from About
ASIAS: https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:1::::::.
FAA. (2019b). Part 139 Airport Certification. Retrieved from Airports: https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_
safety/part139_cert/.
FAA. (2019c). External SMS Efforts—Part 139 Rulemaking. Retrieved from Documentation from Airport
SMS Pilot Studies: https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/safety_management_systems/external/
pilot_studies/documentation/.
FAA. (2019d). Welcome to the Airport Data and Information Portal. Retrieved from ADIP: https://airports-gis.
faa.gov/agis/public/#/public.
FAA. (2019e). Airport Data & Contract Information. Retrieved from Airport Safety: https://www.faa.gov/
airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/#5010.
FAA. (2019f). The Operations Network (OPSNET). Retrieved from FAA Operations & Performance Data:
https://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/main.asp.
FAA. (2019g). Collection & Use of Data: Passenger Boarding (Enplanement) and All-Cargo Data for U.S.
Airports—Airports. Retrieved from Passenger Boarding and All-Cargo Data: https://www.faa.gov/airports/
planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/collection/.
FAA. (2019h). Form 5100-126—Financial Governmental Payment Report. Retrieved from Document Information:
FAA. (2019i). Form 5100-127—Operating and Financial Summary. Retrieved from Document Information:
FAA. (2019j). (CATS) View Reports and Spreadsheets. Retrieved from https://cats.airports.faa.gov/Reports/
reports.cfm.
FAA. (2019k). Surface Weather Observation Stations. Retrieved from ASOS/AWOS: https://www.faa.gov/
air_traffic/weather/asos/?airportId=KMLB.
FAA. (2019l). FAA Accident and Incident Data System (AIDS). Retrieved from https://www.asias.faa.gov/
apex/f?p=100:12:::NO:::.
79

FAA. (2019m). Chart Supplements. Retrieved from Digital Projects: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/

aeronav/digital_products/dafd/search/.
FAA. (2019n). Airport Activity Survey with Form 1800-31. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/airports/
planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/activity_survey/.
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-18D. (2019). Airport Safety Self-Inspection. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_150_5200-18C.pdf.
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-28C. (2008). AC 150/5200-28C, Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) for Airport
Operators. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A
%2F%2Fwww.faa.gov%2FdocumentLibrary%2Fmedia%2Fadvisory_circular%2F150-5200-28D%2F150_
5200_28d.doc.
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-3B. (2013). Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes. Washington, DC.
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5210-20A. (2015). Ground Vehicle Operations to Include Taxiing or Towing an
Aircraft on Airports. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/
Advisory_Circular/150-5210-20A.pdf.
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5210-24. (2010). Airport Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Management. Washington DC.
FAA Draft Advisory Circular 150/5200-37A. (2016). Safety Management Systems for Airports. Retrieved from
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/draft-150-5200-37a.pdf.
FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans. (2007). Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions,
a Guide, Chapter 4, Operating Costs. Washington DC: FAA. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_
policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/econ-value-section-4-op-costs.pdf.
International Civil Aviation Organization. (2004). Aerodomes Volume 1—Aerodome Design and Operations,
Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. International Civil Aviation Organization.
Landry, J.M., D.Y. Bannard, C. Stockon, and C. English. (2014). ACRP Synthesis 58: Safety Reporting Systems
at Airports. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
https://www.nap.edu/read/22353/chapter/1.
NASA. (2019a). ASRS Database Online. Retrieved from Aviation Safety Reporting System: https://asrs.arc.
nasa.gov/search/database.html.
NASA. (2019b). ASRS Program Briefing. Retrieved from https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/ASRS_Program
Briefing.pdf.
NOAA. (2019). Data Tools: Local Climatological Data (LCD). Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
cdo-web/datatools/lcd.
NTSB. (2017). History of the National Transportation Safety Board. Retrieved from https://www.ntsb.gov/
about/history/Pages/default.aspx.
NTSB. (2019). Aviation Accident Database and Synopses. Retrieved from Investigations: https://www.ntsb.gov/_
layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx.
Prather, C.D. (2011). ACRP Synthesis 26: Current Airport Inspection Practices Regarding FOD (Foreign Object
Debris/Damage). Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington DC. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.17226/14572.
Switzer, A., W. Kelly, and K. DeJarnette. (2019). ACRP Synthesis 105: Airport Surface Weather Stations. Transpor
tation Research Board, Washington, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2018, April 18). Aircraft. Retrieved from Migratory Bird Program: Collisions:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds/collisions/aircrafts.php.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
ISBN 978-0-309-48182-3
NON-PROFIT ORG.
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
90000
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
9 780309 481823

The National Academies Press: Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data (2020)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press: Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data (2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25969 SHARE

Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data (2020)

90 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Collecting and

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 222

Booz Allen Hamilton

Faith Group, LLC

George Mason University

Quadrex Aviation, LLC

Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 222

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 222

ACRP PROJECT 03-45 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

63 Chapter 4 Developing an Operations and Safety Database

75 Chapter 5 The Path Forward

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data

1.1 How to Use This Guidebook

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.2 Organization of the Guidebook

1.3 Benefits of Effective Data Usage

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 2-1. Aviation stakeholders.

Stakeholder Description and Data Relationship with the Airport

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Stakeholder Description and Data Relationship with the Airport

(continued on next page)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data

Stakeholder Description and Data Relationship with the Airport

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Operations and Safety Data

Figure 3-1 is a flowchart of steps to take when an inspection report indicates a concern in

3.1 Internal Data Sources

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data

Figure 3-1. Flowchart for addressing an operations or safety

Table 3-1. Internal data sources covered in this Guidebook.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Operations and Safety Data and Their Uses 9

3.1.1 Part 139 Self-Inspection Reports

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

10 Collecting and Sharing of Operations and Safety Data

3.1.1.1 Data Description

3.1.1.2 Data Collection Characteristics

Table 3-2. Data items from airport inspection areas.

Data Items Description

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Operations and Safety Data and Their Uses 11

EXAMPLE: DATA SHARING FOR AIRFIELD LIGHTING

3.1.2 ARFF and Aircraft Fueling Equipment

EXAMPLE: TRAINING RECORDS