Premium On Safety - Issue 10, 2013 - (Page 5)

(continued from page 4) Having workers who are not fully acculturated performing line service roles increases the need for active supervision and standardized training. injuries is added in. Efforts like GAP have produced gains, but operators continue to experience significant preventable damage attributable to line activity. The GAP study confirmed the glowing hot coal of line service hazards: Eighty percent of incidents involve collisions between ground service equipment and airplanes. A review of USAIG claim history revealed that 56 percent of ground damage monetary costs stem from a parked aircraft being struck by vehicles or aircraft, and another 20 percent come from other “notin-motion” events such as weather damage or aircraft hopping chocks and sliding into trouble. Thirteen percent related to theft and vandalism. Aircraft towing tends to get a lot of safety attention and that’s clearly important, but this data implies it’s at least equally important to scrutinize where and how you park, and who exactly will be manipulating equipment near your aircraft. It’s worth the time and effort to ensure policy and procedural rigor in your own line service functions, and to carefully set and adhere to standards of what you’ll accept away from home. Some best-practice defenses involve: - having flight crew present at transient facilities during fueling and aircraft repositioning whenever possible - placing cones with reflective tape to mark wingtips and tail surfaces as collision hazards to drivers of ramp vehicles - using a post-flight checklist to crosscheck adequate chocking and locking of aircraft, and - integrating forecast weather systemically with dispatch functions into decisions about where aircraft will lay over Like operational mishaps, human factors IN THE NEXT ISSUE underlay most line service incidents. High job turnover creates a constant challenge to have enough trained line personnel who are culturally aligned with organizational policies and goals. Alignment takes time, and there may not be enough exposure for some line service employees to fully “join the family” before they move on and a replacement must be found. Acculturated workers instinctively meet expectations because there’s mutual understanding of what’s expected, and tacit support for the company way. Less-invested employees may bring a ton of good intentions, but are more apt to surprise you with what they do or how they do it. Major benefits of achieving a just and welldeployed culture are that standardization and confidence in performance rise, while the need for supervision shrinks. Having workers who are not fully acculturated performing line service roles increases the need for active supervision and standardized training. USAIG policyholders eligible for Performance Vector safety services recently gained an option designed to help with this issue. Program users select annually from a menu of safety services, and reimbursement of up to $500/ trainee for industry-recognized line service training has been added as one of the program’s individual course options. To learn more about Performance Vector and review available options visit https://www.usau. com/caf_safety_performance_vector.php or email safety@usaig.com. Paul Ratté, USAIG Director of Aviation Safety Programs, served 25 years as a U.S. Coast Guard aviator, where he logged more than 5,000 helicopter flying hours, commanded two Air Stations, and was twice awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for lifesaving rescues. Emergency response plan ASI mESSAGE Push the Buttons— Capiche? By BRUCE LANDSBERG I came across an interesting ASRS report from a bizjet pilot a bit overwhelmed by reprogramming arrival or departure procedures: “I fly Garmin, Honeywell, and Collins products and the problem is the same for all. For takeoffs, we do not find out the runway to load until we have all engines running (a waste of fuel) or, if they change runways, we have to stop taxiing to re-program the FMS. For arrivals, we do not find out the landing runway until we are in the descent mode and should be heads outside, but instead, we are once again programming with our heads down.” I’ve felt there are times when ATC really doesn’t allow pilots a lot of time to sort things out, especially for single pilots flying sophisticated equipment at moderately high speeds. Outbound on the ground this shouldn’t be a huge issue—the aircraft can be stopped and programs reloaded. I think all aircraft with an FMS should have ground power or clearance delivery capability that allows one comm radio and the ability to load flight plans and DPs before engine start. Ideally, ATC should be able to predict the departure runway 15 minutes in advance unless the wind changes drastically. Arrivals are a bit more complex; is it possible to get the word out sooner? Maybe the equipment should be easier to program? It would be nice to set up the arrival and approach once, and then just manage the aircraft when flying single-pilot to a busy place with the weather down. Once within 50 miles of the airport inbound at anywhere between 180 and 240 knots—flying the aircraft should be the first priority. Remember, the buttons have to be pushed, but the brain needs to understand headings and altitudes to be flown. Has a late change during arrivals or departures spiked your workload? Safe Flights… Bruce Landsberg President, AOPA Foundation 5 https://www.usau.com/caf_safety_performance_vector.php

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Premium On Safety - Issue 10, 2013

Premium On Safety - Issue 10, 2013
Contents
Best Practices: The Accident Number
Accident Prevention: Putting It All on the Line
ASI Message: Push the Buttons—Capiche?
Flight Vis: Wildlife Awareness
ASI Online: Heads Up! Improving Runway Safety

Premium On Safety - Issue 10, 2013