CHAPTER 5
Conclusions and Suggested Research

Safety at airports is essential and airports of all sizes are implementing programs, policies, and requirements to monitor, track, and improve safety on ramps. Airports are using observations, training, and incident reviews to evaluate safety performance on ramps where the potential for ground incidents is high. The surveys and case example interviews conducted for this synthesis indicate that, across airport size, performance measures (e.g., injury rates, employee completion of training, and safety incident trends) are common. By analyzing reports and patterns in operational behavior, airport safety personnel and departments are gaining insights that enable them to identify hazards proactively and implement corrective actions. This hands-on, evidence-based approach is helping to foster a stronger safety culture. Airports are using common activities (e.g., FOD walks, communication with airlines, and incident reporting) to develop baselines for data collection, performance measures, growing the safety culture, and evaluating the effectiveness of initiatives.

Communication and outreach are being used to integrate safety into airport operations. Airports hold safety meetings, many of them monthly or biweekly, with airlines, contractors, tenants, airport staff, air traffic control, and other key stakeholders. Sessions about extreme weather or emergency safety concerns are being held as needed. As an airport becomes larger and busier, communication through meetings and other outreach increases. Smaller airports take advantage of the ability to personalize relationships with airlines and those providing ramp services. Smaller airports also indicate that more frequent downtime of ramp workers (in the context of less frequent flights) can be used for updating safety training, FOD checks, equipment maintenance, and other activities to support safe operations.

An airportʼs commitment to developing the safety culture on the airfield benefits airlines and GSPs. Consistent identification and removal of FOD reduces equipment damage, which can reduce downtime of equipment or aircraft for maintenance and could extend the life of equipment. Reducing the number and kind of injuries on the ramp could reduce workersʼ compensation claims and rehabilitation time and save money for the ramp tenants. In building the safety culture, these benefits should be highlighted and successful programs celebrated.

Airports frequently consider human factors components in policies, procedures, and operations on ramps. Surveys and case examples show airports actively considering human factors issues (e.g., weather, worker distraction, awareness of surroundings, cell phone use, miscommunication, responsibility of tasks, standardization of procedures, worker fatigue, vehicle and equipment design, and worker stress). Case examples show that revised procedures are being implement—from the large hub airports to the smaller non-hubs.

Staff in the front lines of ramp safety are active in outreach, initial training, ongoing training, audits, and reviews of ramp operations. In working with the tenants, being able to share data is critical for airports to identify and mitigate hazards. However, data for airlines and GSPs is often

proprietary, and companies do not want others to view the data that, if provided to the airport, could become public due to legislative requirements for public disclosure laws. Comparing airport metrics is also difficult—there is no accessible database for safety managers to see other airportsʼ performance measures and some airport SMS plans are not fully public because consultants seek to protect their work, thus leading to less transparency in airport and ramp safety.

New technologies may affect safety if such technologies are not properly vetted through safety and constituent reviews. For example, one case example airport is taking a strategic approach to the electrification of the ground service fleet by (1) focusing on developing the necessary ramp area charging infrastructure and (2) addressing safety considerations, including readiness for incidents involving lithium-powered equipment. Airport ramp policies may need to be adjusted, considering the varying policies, operating procedures, and potential equipment limitations faced by ramp workers when using electric vehicles compared to diesel equipment. Ramp technologies used by workers will continue to evolve as airlines and GSPs seek to make ramp operations more efficient.

Airport ramp policies may need to be adjusted, considering the varying policies, operating procedures, and potential equipment limitations faced by ramp workers when using electric vehicles compared to diesel equipment. Ramp technologies used by workers will continue to evolve as airlines and GSPs seek to make ramp operations more efficient.

In the case examples, airports emphasized that unique or infrequent events can hamper airfield safety operations. One airport described an incident in the movement area that required a fire department response. Although the site remained controlled during ARFFʼs presence, after ARFF completed its duties, maintaining safety and operational control became challenging. This experience prompted the safety manager to identify the need for clearer protocols and coordination during transitional periods following emergency response activities.

Similarly, airports in areas unaccustomed to snow and ice face greater challenges than airports in regions prone to snow and ice—the latter airports have well-established procedures (e.g., detailed planning, documentation, and pre- and post-event coordination meetings). Unanticipated weather events (e.g., ice in southern climates, high winds, or other rare occurrences) can reveal that ramp policies and emergency procedures are inadequate to address extreme or atypical events.

Research on standard approaches and effective practices for managing low-frequency, high-impact events at airports could be useful. This research might include developing adaptable emergency protocols, enhancing interdepartmental coordination during and after response activities, and incorporating scenario-based training that prepares staff for rare but disruptive conditions in various airport environments.