Spring 2010 AirportConsulting by ACC

Spring 2010

Consulting

A Quarterly Publication of the Airport Consultants Council

NEW DIRECTIONS IN AIRPORT SAFETY CLARIFYING SMS, SRM AND THE SAFETY CASE By Dave Fleet, Dave Fleet Consulting; Joanne Landry, Landry Consulting; Deirdre Cowden-Templeton, Cowden-Templeton Consulting (CTC); and Kevin Vandeberg, Barge, Waggoner, Sumner & Cannon, Inc.

irport consultants have likely heard about the FAA-driven safety initiatives that are beginning to impact airport clients: Safety Management Systems (SMS), Safety Risk Management (SRM) and Safety Cases. These are exciting efforts but, as with any significant change, their implementation has generated confusion. Over the past year, there have been many questions from airport consultants and operators about these programs. What do SMS, SRM and Safety Cases require of airports? How do they differ? What is their impact to airport operators both now and in the future? The new FAA safety initiatives will reach not only into operations, but planning, environmental, design/engineering and construction activities. As a result, consultants should understand these terms, along with their similarities and

differences, to answer the questions that will undoubtedly arise from colleagues and clients.

SMS, SRM and Safety Case — What’s the Difference? In Advisory Circular 150/5200-37, the FAA defi nes SMS as “the formal, top-down, business-like approach to managing safety risk. It includes systematic procedures, practices and policies for the management of safety (including safety policy, safety risk management, safety assurance and safety promotion).” At its essence, SMS is a Quality Program (otherwise referred to as a “System”) focused on proactively managing and controlling safety at (in this application) airports. The FAA’s defi nition identifies the four elements that comprise an SMS: Safety Policy, Safety Risk Management, Safety Assurance and Safety Promotion. Although the integration

page 4

page 6

page 12

SPECIAL FEATURE:

CONSULTANT PERSPECTIVE:

PHOTO REVIEW OF 31ST ANNUAL ACC CONFERENCE & EXPOSITION

NEXTGEN FOR AIRPORTS

CLOSING THE COMMUNICATION GAP

and deployment of each element is critical to a successful SMS implementation, the SRM element is the lynchpin of the program. SRM is a set of processes, procedures and practices that is adopted to identify hazards, to assess and analyze the risks, and to mitigate all unacceptable risks. As previously stated, SRM is a component of the larger SMS Program, and it provides the structure, methods and tools by which hazards and the associated risks can be identified and treated. It also includes the standards and templates for documenting the output of the SRM process — the Safety Case. The Safety Case is one of the primary tools employed in SRM. When airports are proposing changes or new projects, a Safety Case can help to proactively identify and document potential See AIRPORT SAFETY on page 16

EXECUTIVE UPDATE

“I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it is.” — WAY N E G R E T Z K Y

his simple wisdom captures ACC’s need for vision, strategy and execution as we anticipate marketplace and industry changes that could be ahead.

Ronald L. Peckham, P.E. C&S Companies ACC 2010 Board of Directors Chair

evolved to new clarity…to deliver excel- biggest, strongest or even having the lence in airport development. And while most resources to flout in the industry. most of our members have built their Strategy is about being present to current organizations by providing excellent trends and marketplace forces that are consulting services, our stated vision has beyond our control. Further, strategy is changed its focus from an internal one to about being both intelligent and intenNicknamed “The Great One,” Gretzky an external one; from who we are to how tional as we develop a game plan for both is generally regarded as the best player we can make our world better by what our respective firms and ACC on the fly. in the history of the NHL and has been we do. Just as Wayne’s focus changed and I believe the collective intelligence and called “the greatest hockey player ever” expanded from the backyard to the NHL, ingenuity of the membership can deal by many sportswriters. Wayne honed ACC’s focus may be more sustainable as effectively with whatever marketplace his skills on a backyard rink that his we continue to evolve our focus from changes occur. father built. Ironically, Gretzky’s basic credibility to contribution. athletic abilities were not considered Once strategies are selected, it’s the impressive. He was 6 ft. tall, weighing Second, I believe that strategy played energy of execution that powers progress only 160 pounds as an 18-year-old NHL a key part in Gretzky’s game. Strategy toward the vision. In ACC, committees rookie in 1979, and 185 pounds at the must be designed with the end in mind, are the lifeblood of collaboration and end of his career in 1999. At the begin- intent to accomplish the vision. It must progress. More than twenty committees, ning, many critics opined that Gretzky be flexible and responsive to changing led by committed chairs and vice chairs, was too small, too wiry, and too slow conditions and meet the ultimate test… and powered by committees as large as to be a force in the NHL. Despite his effectiveness. ACC has five strategies to 60 members, move ACC towards our unimpressive stature, strength, and realize its vision, which are: goal of being the “go-to” organization of speed, however, Gretzky’s intelligence airport development. Committees are the and reading of the game were unrivaled. • Be the “go-to” organization on medium of collaboration and the vehicle He was adept at dodging checks from airport development; to leverage diverse and valuable airport opposing players, and he could consisdevelopment skills for the benefit of our tently anticipate where the puck was • Provide networking opportunities industry. This year each committee has going to be and execute the right move for our members; been challenged to focus on the vital few at the right time. It was no surprise initiatives that can be accomplished in that Canada would choose him to be • Advance international order to make “measureable progress in the most celebrated torch lighter for the engagement and collaboration; reasonable time.” In these turbulent eco2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. nomic times, I recognize what a challenge • Facilitate innovative and valuable it can be to make time for ACC commitI believe there are several lessons in the educational offerings, and; tee leadership or participation even for Gretzky story as we work to make ACC a limited number of goals. However, all sustainable for the future. The first is the • Maximize the value of ACC of us involved in ACC truly appreciate need for vision. Although Wayne started membership and benefits. the commitment of dozens of members on a backyard rink and ACC started as whose efforts take us closer to realizing a small cohort group, both developed a Strategy involves using our knowledge our organizational vision. vision that dwarfed their humble begin- of the airport industry to evolve ACC nings. ACC was originally formed by a into an organization that is as relevant Vision, strategy and execution… a trio handful of airport consultants seeking tomorrow as it is today, or even more that is as effective in winning hockey professional credibility and collaboration so. Strategy is not about “skating” faster games as it is in building a sustainable to advocate for a dependable funding while chasing the “puck” in the midst future for an organization. Thank you stream for airports. Although both origi- of an economic period that has been for the privilege and honor to serve as nal goals are still part of the benefits of labeled the Great Recession. As Wayne your ACC Board Chair this year. ACC membership, our vision has now demonstrated, it’s not about being the

Consulting, Spring 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS Spring 2010

Consulting

…bringing experts together

ACC 2010 Board of Directors CHAIR Ronald L. Peckham, P.E. C&S Companies

VICE CHAIR Terry A. Ruhl, P.E.

A Quarterly Publication of the Airport Consultants Council

Cover Story

Inside This Issue

8–9

New Directions in Airport Safety

CH2M HILL

By Dave Fleet, Dave Fleet Consulting; Joanne Landry, Landry Consulting; Deirdre Cowden-Templeton, CowdenTempleton Consulting (CTC); and Kevin Vandeberg, Barge, Waggoner, Sumner & Cannon, Inc.

SECRETARY/TREASURER Courtney A. Beamon, P.E.

Delta Airport Consultants, Inc.

IMMEDIATE PAST BOARD CHAIR Evan Futterman

Futterman Consulting, Inc.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Michael R. Arnold, LEED AP ESA Airports

Don Bergin

Blast Deflectors, Inc.

Roddy L. Boggus, NCARB, AIA Gresham, Smith and Partners

Special Feature 4–5

Thomas B. Duffy

NextGen for Airports: The Far-Term Perspective By Diana Khera, Director Airport and Airspace Planning, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.

Safegate Airport Systems, Inc.

Carol Lurie, LEED AP, AICP Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Enrique M. Melendez

Out & About with ACC

2010 ACC Committee Leadership

12 – 13 ACC 31st Annual Conference & Exposition Photo Review 14 – 15 ACC Members 16 – 17 Cover Story (continued from page one) New Directions in Airport Safety

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Andy Platz, P.E.

Mead & Hunt, Inc.

Solomon Wong

InterVISTAS

ACC Staff Paula P. Hochstetler President

T.J. Schulz

• ACC Sustainability Corner — A Sustainability Resource for Consultants

Consultant Perspective 6–7

Closing the Communication Gap: The Right People, Using the Right Words, at the Right Time

ACC Spotlight • Upcoming ACC Institute Training Events

Jacobs

A. Bradley Mims

Member Spotlights This issue highlights ACC Executive Member Environmental Resource Solutions, Inc. and ACC Associate Member Elkington Gatic.

After All... A Guide for Success: Updates to the AASHTO Audit Guidelines and What it Means for You

By Michael Kenney and Paul Sanford, KB Environmental Sciences

Vice President

Sharon D. Brown

Director, Programs and Finance

STAY CURRENT ON ACC NEWS

Emily VanderBush

Coordinator, Marketing and Membership

John B. Reynolds

Coordinator, Communications

Follow ACC on Twitter @ACC_HQ

Subscribe at www.ACConline.org

AirportConsulting EDITOR T.J. Schulz AirportConsulting is published quarterly. The next issue will be distributed in June. For advertising information, contact Emily VanderBush at 703-683-5900. Please send your feedback, comments or suggestions to the editor at: Airport Consultants Council, 908 King Street, Suite 100, Alexandria, VA 22314, or e-mail TJS@ACConline.org. ©2010, ACC www.ACConline.org

SPECIAL FEATURE

By: Diana Khera, Director Airport and Airspace Planning, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.

NextGen for Airports

The Far-Term Perspective

any of the near-term applications and plans under the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) NextGen initiative are widely understood within the aviation industry. The implementation of new Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) routes and procedures will lead to enhancements in the use of airspace, resulting in increased safety, efficiency and environmental benefits. The latest version of FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan will provide additional detail and clarity on these near-term applications. But what about longerterm NextGen initiatives and what will they mean for airport facilities? FAA currently defi nes the “far-term” for NextGen as 2018 and beyond. The Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) is tasked with developing the far-term plans. Looking ahead, airport consultants should be aware of several concepts, technologies and policies that are directly related to airports or will have significant impact on airport operations and design. CLOSELY SPACED RUNWAY OPERATIONS: NextGen applications are expected to allow more closely spaced runway operations at airports across the country. The JPDO is currently developing a roadmap for deriving the far-term benefits from these closely spaced operations. This includes determining the benefits and costs for operations in marginal visual and instrument meteorological conditions (MVMC and IMC), along with assessing the readiness of associated enabling technologies and supporting policies. The ambitious and complex evaluation will identify opportunities for closely spaced operations at the 35 airports named in the FAA’s

Consulting, Spring 2010

Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) plan. The JPDO will: • Synthesize all research and analysis on this subject by the FAA, NASA, and their respective contractors, as well as other organizations such as the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) and Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA); • Develop a description of capabilities at various separations of parallel runways for arrival and departure procedures, as well as wake turbulence mitigation; • Identify candidate airports for implementation. Priority airports will be those that are currently capacity-constrained as well as those that are expected to have capacity challenges in the far-term; • Conduct a high-level, low fidelity operational analysis for these candidate airports under various operating configurations and meteorological conditions to determine the feasibility of the proposed operating procedures; • Study in greater detail the airports that prove feasible in the low fidelity exercise to determine a cost/benefit relationship of such procedures given the diversity of aircraft fleet mixes, flight schedules, parallel runway configurations and weather conditions; and • Identify implementation issues such as environmental considerations, infrastructure enhancements, requirements for additional navigational and visual aids, and fi nally the development of resulting procedures and associated certification issues.

FAR-TERM LANDSIDE CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Another airport-specific project underway at the JPDO is the far-term landside capacity study for the OEP 35 airports. The study will take a look at the available landside improvements for the 35 OEP airports in the 2018 timeframe. This is a unique enterprise because previous capacity analyses at the JPDO have centered on airside improvements. The results of this study will be used by the JPDO Interagency Portfolio and System Analysis (IPSA) division in modeling curbto-curb system capacity, identifying system choke points and substantiating the ongoing NextGen business case activities. It examines capacity potential of the passenger and cargo terminals and synthesizes trends in passenger flow in terminal buildings. The study also examines baggage claim and ticketing areas, roadway access and parking accommodations. This effort will supplement the previous airside capacity studies and will allow a more comprehensive analysis of system bottlenecks. BENEFITS OF NEXTGEN TO SUPPORTING AIRPORTS: In response to industry feedback, the JPDO is also taking a look at NextGen benefits that will be derived in the far-term by medium and small airports, including non-OEP airports in 15 congested metropolitan areas as well as other public use general aviation airports. Safety, efficiency, security and access benefits are expected at these locations from an increased use of relatively inexpensive NextGen technologies, procedures and infrastructure upgrades. AIRPORT OPERATIONS CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS (CONOPS): An Airport Operations ConOps is also under development by the JPDO. This will describe the improved

situational awareness resulting from integration of airport operational functions into a NextGen Net Centric Operations (NCO) environment. Information regarding ramp operations, airfield maintenance and inspections, de-icing/antiicing operations and runway snow clearing, emergency response, airport command centers, security, safety and resource management will be integrated and made readily available.

federal support for preservation of the existing system infrastructure and enhancements to airport system capacity.

• Increasing the role of the federal government, and, in particular, the FAA, in advocacy for airport preservation and capacity enhancements; and

It is clear that the public’s perception of their metropolitan airports as simply a local asset • Changing to a more systematic funding apneeds to be altered. This can happen through proach, as well as changing legislation to a coordinated effort between airport operaallow the FAA to take a more prominent and tors, users and government officials at all levels. proactive role in aviation system planning and All of these parties need to work together to airport development initiatives. POLICY DEBATE: A critical component in the educate the public and gain popular support feasibility of long-term NextGen benefits is for the idea that airports are a national asset Certainly these are difficult issues to resolve and federal and local support for new initiatives. and an economic driver for the local, regional the JPDO has a long road ahead before these Two major areas of federal level policy are be- and national economy. To that end, the debate concepts and policies can be implemented by ing debated at the JPDO that directly impact includes: FAA. However, these ambitious far-term plans airports: a national policy on airport advocacy are critical for realizing a NextGen program and a national policy on the role of the federal • Increasing the role of state, regional and that goes beyond air traffic modernization. government in supporting national level system metropolitan system plans for aligning local wide planning. The debate considers strategies community needs with national aviation for increasing the local, state, regional and system interests;

NextGen in the Near Term EN V IRONMEN TA L IMPAC T S OF NE X T GEN OPER AT IONS

By: Bob Miller, Senior Vice President, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.

C A S E S T U DY: D E N V E R I N T E R N AT I O N A L A I R P O R T

In a recent presentation at the Transportation Research Board’s Annual Meeting, Lourdes Maurice of FAA’s Office of Environment and Energy acknowledged that one of the major challenges to implementing nearterm NextGen will be meeting environmental review requirements, even for projects that provide a net environmental benefit. While consolidation of flights through RNAV and other advanced navigational procedures will reduce noise in most locations, it will also increase noise levels in some concentrated locations. This may require numerous NEPA reviews to assess the impacts from the consolidated flight tracks. Denver International Airport’s (DIA) recent work with FAA provides a good case study in how collaborative engagement between the FAA and an airport can result in improved procedures. DIA must comply with an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and County of Denver and Adams County that defines annual average Noise Exposure Performance Standards at 101 points northwest, west and southwest of DIA. Exceedance of these thresholds by more than two decibels in a year results in fines of $500,000 per occurrence.

www.ACConline.org

The noise exposure levels must be computed with “ARTSMAP”®, which uses radar data to model the actual flight path and climb profile for every aircraft taking off or landing at the airport. Novel mitigation measures, developed with DIA staff, the FAA and major carriers, have been key to reducing multi-million dollar penalties over the 15 years that DIA has been operational. FAA’s first NextGen action at DIA is modification of DIA departure procedures to include RNAV “overlays.” DIA and its consultants are continuing to meet with FAA, airlines and other stakeholders to fine-tune the procedures to minimize noise impacts over sensitive locations. The FAA expects to incorporate this analysis in its Environmental Assessment. Looking ahead, ACI-NA has recommended that FAA engage a ‘Go-Team’ that would include various FAA offices (e.g., ATO, AEE, ARP, AGC) to integrate environmental responsibility for implementing NextGen procedures. The experience at Denver shows that early and substantive involvement by the local ATO leadership is critical to effective implementation.

CONSULTA N T P ERSP EC T I V E

By: Michael Kenney and Paul Sanford, KB Environmental Sciences

Closing the Communication Gap: T HE RIGH T PEOPL E, USIN G T HE RIGH T WOR DS, AT T HE RIGH T T IME

eorge Bernard Shaw, the 19th century Nobel Prize and Oscarwinning journalist, playwright and social commentator often remarked that “The problem with communication…is the illusion that it has been accomplished.” Even the most knowledgeable, experienced and articulate among us can fail to communicate important information to the very audiences that have the greatest need to know and understand it. Unfortunately, this disconnect, or “gap”, between the messenger and recipient makes it increasingly difficult to communicate with the public on the environmental impacts of airport operations, especially when talking about risks to human health. Recognizing these different languages of risk communication makes it easier to defi ne this challenge and construct a remedy.

Public Perceptions With greenhouse gases (GHG) and climate change emerging as leading environmental threats world-wide, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tightening environmental regulations at a record pace, and the economic and technological roller coaster moving full speed, it’s understandable that society can approve of the aviation industry in one moment and oppose it the next. Although aviation reportedly represents only two to three percent of man-made GHGs globally, and even less of the EPA “criteria” pollutants locally, airports are now plainly visible on community “radars” as a potentially significant (and growing) menace to the public’s health and welfare. It is also becoming clear that many residents are getting more concerned about whether their proximity to commercial and general aviation airports are resulting in elevated exposures to airborne contaminants. The writing on the wall, as shown in the following newspaper headlines, is ominous: • Study Uncovers Harmful Air Around Teterboro Airport, New Jersey StarLedger, Feb. 12, 2008.

Consulting, Spring 2010

• Life Under the Flight Path Is More Toxic, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, Nov. 19, 2008.

Three Propositions on Communicating Risk

• People Who Live Near the Santa Monica Airport Exposed to Unusually High Levels of Air Pollution, Santa Monica Daily Press, Nov. 19, 2009.

❯ The aviation industry is failing to implement good risk communication. ❯ This failure is due to a gap between how “experts” and citizens perceive risk and which words they choose to discuss it.

Think of Will Rogers’ (also an early social commentator and aviator) self-admonition that “All’s he knew was what he read in the newspaper.” It is then easy to understand the public’s growing unease with aviation’s footprint on the environment as well as their own health and welfare.

❯ We can shrink this gap by having the right people use the right words at the right time.

Languages of Risk Communication Basically, there are two distinct languages used to describe health and environmental risks: (i.) the scientific and statistical language of the “experts” on the one hand and (ii.) the intuitivelygrounded language of the public on the other. The so-called “experts” bring their specialized training, knowledge and terminology pertaining to atmospheric science, environmental toxicology and statistical probability. In contrast, the public’s assessments of risk are based largely on their everyday experiences. The “expert” presents multi-dimensional graphs and cites the Federal Register; the citizen sees and hears aircraft arriving and departing the airport above their head. In another example, the “expert” might say… “A lifetime 70-year exposure to formaldehyde from aircraft exhaust

at a concentration of 20 parts per billion yields an estimated excess carcinogenic risk to the exposed population of one in a million.” By comparison, the public citizen might say… “Will my children be safe?” This is certainly not a case of trying to establish one side being right and the other wrong. Both languages are necessary in communicating risks, and the work cannot be conducted with either one alone. Good risk management is to break down these barriers, reduce the communication “gap” and facilitate the productive exchanges between the two.

LANGUAGES OF RISK COMMUNICATION AND PERCEPTION “Expert’s” View of Risk + Scientiﬁc + Probabilistic + Comparative + Within standards + No signiﬁcant impact

Public View of Risk

GAP

- Intuitive — Yes or No - Discrete events - Is it safe? - How does it affect me? - How does it affect my family?

“What we have here is a failure to communicate...” — Paul Newman Cool Hand Luke

Closing the Gap When it comes to managing their health and welfare, the public (like nature) abhors a vacuum. Often, information and data is limited or confusing, making it hard to deliver a credible explanation. As a result, a vacuum (or gap) is created and then fi lled with inferences, emotions and gossip. The challenge is how to go beyond simply presenting the data and move toward communication that is meaningful to the public and reduce the gap. Make no mistake, this is not about developing a better “spin” on telling the public what we think they ought to know. Only the most cynical and shortsighted manager would emphasize spin over substance. It is also not about “dumbing-it-down” to their level. Citizens give little credibility to a condescending or patronizing presenter and will little tolerate risk unless they understand it. This understanding must come on their terms and from a trustworthy source. In the case of the Santa Monica Airport study from the headline above, higher than normal

Keys to Better Risk Communication ❯ Know what the public audience already knows. ❯ Use everyday language — avoid acronyms and technical jargon. ❯ Make the message simple, brief and clear. ❯ Place the risk in appropriate context. ❯ State the limits of the information and the existence of uncertainty. ❯ Don’t trivialize people’s concerns. Banish the “no-risk” message.

www.ACConline.org

concentrations of ultrafi ne particles (<0.1 microns or 0.00004 inches in diameter) were detected well into nearby residential neighborhoods. Separate health studies show that particles of this size are the most damaging to the human respiratory system, especially in high concentrations and over extended time periods. The intersection of this new information resulted in an outpouring of public alarm, community rallies and other residential campaigns intended to expose the problem and, eventually, close the airport. In response, the “expert” will likely point out that the EPA has no air quality standards or benchmarks for ultra-fi ne particles. Without these standards, the health risk is indefi nable from regulatory and legal standpoints. The issue of exposure, and what it means to the airport’s neighbors, is further complicated by recognizing that these small particles also originate from motor vehicles, trains and ships. While both of these claims are true, they fail to answer the resident’s fundamental question — “How does this affect me, my children, my neighbors?” An “expert” could reduce this communication gap by (i.) conceding that just because there are no regulatory standards for ultrafi ne particles, it does not mean there is no risk; (ii.) accept the probability that most particles are originating from the airport, given its proximity; but also (iii.) clarify the significant roles of dose (e.g., varying concentrations) and exposure (e.g., discontinuous time periods) when assessing the health risk. With this approach, the community’s concerns are both acknowledged and tempered by the science and reality. As a result, the risks are placed in reasonable context.

Right People, Right Words, Right Time All industries (including aviation) are obliged to communicate effectively about the potential impacts and risks of their actions on the natural and human environments. This doesn’t mean touting the superiority of their own technical expertise or assessments, but making an

honest effort to understand public perception and develop constructive ways to reduce the communication gap. In most cases, the gap will not be closed completely, or in other cases even appreciably, but the effort must be made. Making this effort successful often requires three important factors coming together: • RIGHT PEOPLE Even the most accom-

plished expert or the savviest spokesperson can stumble and fall when at a public meeting. Unfortunately, most people tend to judge the messenger before the message, especially when angry or anxious. As a result, the right person should be prepared to respond to criticism about the information they present and how they present it. Instrumental to this is recognizing that individuals are going to fi lter whatever message they hear with their own knowledge and experience. • RIGHT WORDS A spokesperson who com-

municates risk well gauges the appropriateness and impact of the words used. For example, are words like “toxic,” “cancer risk” and “one in a million” necessary when more accurate, less dramatic words like “potentially hazardous,” “health effects” and “low probability” are better? • RIGHT TIME The right time for risk com-

munication is best characterized as a two-way street between the various stakeholders. Both parties should listen and speak in a way that doesn’t reduce the other’s ability to do the same. If you hear yourself describing risk to the general public out loud, and it’s the fi rst time, it’s too late. The key ingredients of persuasive communication do not come to most people naturally and cannot be manufactured with technique alone; it must be demonstrated with deeds and done so consistently by the right people, using the right words, at the right time.

MEMBER SPOTLIGHT

ACC EXECUTIVE MEMBER

E N V I R O N M E N TA L R E S O U R C E S O LU T I O N S , I N C .

1597 The Greens Way, Suite 200 Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250 USA Tel: (904) 285-1397 Fax: (904) 285-1929 E-mail: kallerton@ersenvironmental.com Web: www.ersenvironmental.com

nvironmental Resource Solutions, Inc. (ERS) is a woman-owned business located in Jacksonville Beach, Florida. For nearly 15 years, ERS has used its extensive aviation experience, specifically in the area of Wildlife Hazard Assessment Management and training, to provide superior environmental services to clients throughout the United States.

The founding principals of ERS have over 75 years of environmental consulting experience. The strong, technically competent ERS staff specializes in environmental assessment planning and permitting and includes wildlife biologists, wetland scientists, ecologists, marine scientists, botanists, GIS analysts and CADD operators. Since its inception, ERS has successfully completed more than 400 public sector and 2,500 private sector projects. As a result, the fi rm has developed and maintained a strong rapport with resource and regulatory agencies. ERS is recognized by clients as being responsive, highly competent and technically diverse. The wide range of environmental services offered by ERS includes, but is not limited to: ❯ Aviation Wildlife Hazard Assessments, Management Plan Development, Audits and Training; ❯ Wetland Delineation ❯ Wildlife Surveys ❯ NEPA Documentation

Consulting, Spring 2010

❯ Permitting ❯ Mitigation Design & Implementation ❯ Preliminary Environmental Assessments ❯ Renewable Energy Siting & Consultation Services ❯ Expert Witness Testimony ERS expertise encompasses the physical, biological and ecological aspects of natural resources; a thorough understanding of the intent and implementation of regulations affecting those resources; and knowledge of the bridge between the science and agency administration of natural resource regulations. By possessing both the field expertise and scientific knowledge components of natural resource regulation, ERS provides the highest quality consulting services possible. For over ten years ERS has conducted on-call environmental consulting services for numerous public sector clients, including wildlife hazard assessments, annual Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Audits and annual training of airport personnel at all four airports of the Jacksonville Aviation Authority. ERS is pleased to have on staff two qualified airport wildlife biologists: Ms. Amy Wester and Ms. Amy Johnson. Ms. Wester has worked in project management for over twelve years, nine of which have been in the environmental consulting field. Due to her airport wildlife hazard expertise, Ms. Wester was asked by Jacksonville International Airport staff to help start and become a member of its Wildlife Management Group (WMG). As

a member of this group, she actively consults with airport operations staff in order to identify and resolve potential wildlife hazard issues on airport property. She is currently assisting in the completion of Wildlife Hazard Assessments in Amarillo, Texas, Monterey, California, Gainesville, Florida and Ocala, Florida. Ms. Johnson is a wildlife biologist who is currently conducting 12-month surveys at several airports. Recognizing that clients’ accounting and reporting needs are specialized, ERS routinely customizes its system to meet individual client needs. Environmental Resource Solutions, Inc. is certified as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) by the Florida Department of Transportation and as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) by the state of Florida. Prepared by Ms. Kim Allerton, President, Environmental Resource Solutions, Inc.

ACC ASSOCIATE MEMBER

MEMBER SPOTLIGHT

E L K I N G T O N G AT I C 6084 Kantor Street, Suite 8 San Diego, CA 92122 USA Tel: (909) 962-5010 Fax: (909) 962-5010 E-mail: usasales@slotdrain.com Web: www.slotdrain.com/usa

fficient surface drainage in airside pavement areas is one of the most important considerations necessary to ensure a safe landing surface and facilitate ease of movement around runway, taxiway and hard-stand areas — especially at airports experiencing regular rainfall and extreme weather conditions. Gatic Slotdrain by Elkington Gatic, has recently been introduced into the U.S. market and meets all the important criteria for efficient drainage on airports. Established almost one hundred years ago, Elkington Gatic has supplied products to over 100 major airports in 40 countries. With international offices, production facilities and distributors, the Gatic name has become the leading global brand for access and surface drainage systems at airports. Gatic Slotdrain is a proven product, having been installed on over 70 airports — civil and military — around the world. These include regional, tourist, cargo and major international airports. Now available in the U.S. and manufactured from steel at several locations around the U.S., Gatic Slotdrain fully complies with ‘Buy America’ provisions relating to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant funded projects.

www.ACConline.org

Gatic Slotdrain also complies with FAA Advisory Circulars relating to ‘slotted drainage’, design and maintenance of airport surface drainage and structures for heavy aircraft. Channels can be configured to meet NFPA 415 fi re regulations and the system has been fully tested in accordance with EN: 1433, the only international quality standard that relates specifically to trench and slot drainage. There are three channel types available in the U.S. range: UltraSlot F900KN, PaveSlot D400KN and FacadeSlot A15KN; which provide options for airside and landside applications. The UltraSlot channel system, used in airside locations, has been successfully tested in excess of F900KN (202,320lbs), thus complying with the 200,000lb proof load test requirement for airport rated products in the U.S. To assist airport design and construction professionals in the U.S., a comprehensive Hydraulic & Drainage Design Software program is available free of charge, along with a detailed Technical Brochure regarding Gatic Slotdrain. Both support mechanisms can help professional engineers save a significant amount of time in the design of an airport drainage scheme. A company representative has also been appointed in the U.S. to provide support specifically to the airport sector.

An important issue for all responsible companies and industry professionals is the environment. A significant proportion of the raw materials that go into Gatic Slotdrain products are taken from recycled sources. With every effort made to maximize the recycled content, the system is also 100% recyclable. The use of Gatic Slotdrain can assist in the assignment of credits, based on the LEED rating system. Reference to the Technical Brochure will provide more information. The product design and subsequent evolution of innovative Gatic Slotdrain channel features has come about through close work with airport consultants, engineers and airside contractors, over a period of many years. The result is an intuitive system that meets the needs of all parties involved in airport design and construction. Gatic Slotdrain helps achieve significant time and costs savings regarding the design, installation and maintenance of drainage and overcomes the recognized problems associated with ‘cast in-place’ and ‘modular pre-cast’ grated trench drain systems. Prepared by Mr. Stuart Jamie Kershaw International Business, Elkington Gatic

OUT & ABOUT WITH ACC

Planning Redefined Course and NEPA Workshop

More than 130 representatives from airports, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and consulting firms attended the ACI-NA/ACC/FAA Planning Redefined Course and NEPA Workshop in Kansas City, Missouri in early December, 2009. Each course featured technical training on the latest in airport planning and environmental reviews, along with interactive sessions and problem-solving exercises. Airport planners and environmental experts participated in joint sessions on December 9 and learned ways to better integrate the planning and NEPA process. For the first time,

Wright Memorial Dinner

ACC hosted a table at the 2009 Wright Memorial Dinner at the Hilton Washington on December 11, 2009. ACC President Paula Hochstetler and Vice President T.J. Schulz attended and were joined by several ACC members at the annual event held by the Aero Club of Washington. The dinner honored 2009 NAA Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy recipient Mr. Steven F. Udvar-Hazy, who was recognized for his â&#x20AC;&#x153;innovative aerospace business practices, improved aircraft design, piloting skills and selfless philanthropy ensuring preservation of our aerospace history.â&#x20AC;?

the courses offered American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) credit hours.

ACC Meets with FAA Airports Leadership

ACC Board Chairman Ron Peckham with C&S Companies, President Paula Hochstetler and Vice President T.J. Schulz explored relevant airport development issues with Kate Lang, FAA Acting Administrator for Airports, and Ben DeLeon, Director of the FAA Office of Airport Planning, last month in Washington, D.C. ACC conveyed the need to pass a long-term FAA reauthorization bill and received an update on the status of economic stimulus grants that have been obligated for airport projects. Wildlife management plans and FAA involvement in airport sustainability initiatives were also discussed.

2020

vision f ocus on t he f u t ure > S t r a t e g i c D i r e c t i o n f o r a v i a t i o n L e a D e r S

Consulting, Spring 2010

November 8 - 10, 2010 SAWGR ASS MARRIOT T RESORT PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FLORIDA

>>> b ri n g i n g t h e e x p e r t s t o g e t h e r

2010 ACC Committee Leadership COMMITTEE TECHNICAL

CHAIR

VICE-CHAIR

Engineering

J. J. Morton Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Quintin Watkins Prime Engineering, Incorporated

Environmental

Tom Klin CH2M HILL

Rob Adams Landrum & Brown, Inc.

Information Technology & Systems

Manik Arora Arora Engineers, Inc.

Todd Lambert Daktronics, Inc.

Planning

Mark Kuttrus Wilbur Smith Associates

Damon Smith Mead & Hunt, Inc.

Safety & Security

Patricia Krall L-3

Ann Barry Ross & Baruzzini, Inc.

Terminal

Pat Askew Perkins + Will

Bruce Anderson Landrum & Brown, Inc.

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Legislative & Regulatory

Carlos Maeda PBS&J

Todd Knuckey Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Inc.

Procurement

Marc Champigny The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Tom Butcher WALKER Parking Consultants

Project Delivery

Tom Darmody HOK

Steve Riano Bechtel Corporation

ACC Institute

Laurie Cullen HNTB

Matt Wenham C&S Companies

Awards

Gloria Bender TransSolutions

Pam Keidel-Adams Wilbur Smith Associates

International

Steve Peters Jacobs

Vinnie Khera Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.

ACC/AAAE Airport Planning, Design & Construction Symposium

Christine Bodouva William Nicholas Bodouva & Associates

Don Bergin Blast Deflectors, Inc

Summer Workshop Series

Wayne J. Seiler All About Pavements, Inc.

Mary Ellen Eagan Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.

ACC Annual Conference

Mike Floyd Jacobs

Corey Knight Flow Design Concepts

Bylaws

Courtney Beamon Delta Airport Consultants, Inc.

Enrique Melendez Jacobs

Marketing/ Membership

Kevin Quan Engineered Arresting Systems Corp. (ESCO)

Dale Wilde Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.

Nominating

Ron Peckham C&S Companies

Evan Futterman Futterman Consulting, Inc.

Strategic Planning & Implementation

Roddy Boggus Gresham, Smith and Partners

Andy Platz Mead & Hunt, Inc.

Summer Workshop S e r i e S

Dialogue with industry and agency experts.

SERVICES

Stay ahead in the changing world.

EVENTS

ACC Committee Meetings

Evan Futterman Futterman Consulting, Inc.

Mike DeVoy RW Armstrong

Sustainability

Carol Lurie Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

David Full Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Inc.

AL AVIA T

ISTRA

July 13, 2010

Past Board Chair

www.ACConline.org

Crowne Plaza, Washington National Airport

N IO

SPECIAL PROJECTS

Arlington, VA

OPERATIONS

July 14 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 15, 2010

ACC EVENTS

PHOTO REVIEW

November 9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 11, 2009 L AKE L AS VEGAS N E VA DA

< 2010 BOARD

< PASSING THE

LEADERSHIP (Left to right) Terry Ruhl, CH2M HILL, 2010 ACC Board of Directors Vice Chair; Courtney Beamon, Delta Airport Consultants, Inc., 2010 ACC Secretary/ Treasurer; Evan Futterman, Futterman Consulting Inc., Immediate Past Chair; Ron Peckham, C&S Companies, 2010 ACC Board of Directors Chair.

GAVEL Evan Futterman, (left) Futterman Consulting Inc., 2009 ACC Board of Directors Chair, welcomes incoming chair Ron Peckham, C&S Companies.

THE CAULDRON OF CHANGE David Aitken (far right) and his son Geordie Aitken demonstrate the steps toward personal and professional change and development in their program, The Cauldron of Change.

KEYNOTE AND FRIENDS (Left to right) Evan Futterman, Futterman Consulting Inc., 2009 ACC Board of Directors Chair; Paula Hochstetler, ACC President; Geordie and David Aitken, Aitken Leadership Group; Brenda Tillmann, RW Armstrong, 2009 ACC Annual Conference Committee Chair; Ron Peckham, C&S Companies, 2010 ACC Board of Directors Chair.

2010 ACC COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP (see page 11) 12

Consulting, Spring 2010

Aviation Award of Excellence 2009 (Left to right) Evan Futterman, Futterman Consulting Inc., 2009 ACC Board of Directors Chair; Edmund S. “Kip” Hawley, Former TSA Administrator; Paula Hochstetler, ACC President; Woodie Woodward, Woodward & Associates, 2009 ACC Awards Committee Chair.

Woodie Woodward (lef t), Woodward & Associates, ACC Awards Committee Chair, presents the 2009 ACC Aviation Award of Excellence to former TSA Administrator Edmund S. “Kip” Hawley.

BOARD CHAIR AWARD Susan Prediger, CAGE, Inc., was honored by Evan Futterman, Futterman Consulting Inc., 2009 Board of Directors Chair, with the 2009 Board Chair Award. The award acknowledges Prediger’s dedication to the board and committees, and her effort to build and strengthen a relationship between TSA and ACC.

BUSINESS SPEED DATING Damon Smith (left) and Andy Platz from Mead & Hunt, Inc. discuss possible business opportunities with Chris Brooks from Flint Trading, Inc. The Business Speed Dating event was a successful new feature of the Annual Conference that maximized potential teaming, partnering and business relationships within the ACC membership.

> (1)

MAKING CONNECTIONS

(1) Steve Riano (left), Bechtel Corporation and Tom Darmody, HOK. (2) Arnie Rosenberg (left), Parsons Brinckerhoff and Vesta Rea Gaubert, Vesta Rea & Associates, LLC. (3) Mike DeVoy (left), RW Armstrong and Claudio Manissero, FMC Corportation/Lithium Division. (4) Steve Moulton (left), Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. and Manik Arora, Arora Engineers, Inc.

(2)

www.ACConline.org

(3)

(4)

ACC MEMBERS

New Members

Executive Members AVIATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. Ms. Chris Ferrell, Aviation Consultant 1101 King Street, Suite 325 Alexandria, VA 22314 United States Tel: (703) 518-9923 Fax: (703) 518-9936 Email: cferrell@avmgt.com Web: www.avmgt.com

Since 1984, Aviation Management Associates, Inc., (AMA) has provided strategy, marketing and technical assistance to airlines, airports, aviation manufacturers and service providers, government and others. AMA has tremendous success in helping clients and the government work together to achieve their goals. Let the extensive knowledge of AMA help you succeed.

CUMMING CORPORATION Mr. Michael Jensen, President 16744 W. Bernardo Drive San Diego, CA 92127 United States Tel: (858) 829-6651 Fax: (858) 673-9263 Email: mjensen@ccorpusa.com Web: ccorpusa.com

Cumming is an international project and cost consulting firm that delivers creative, customized solutions to a vast portfolio of clients in the aviation industry. Since opening business nearly two decades ago, Cumming has grown consistently and substantially. Today, Cumming has nearly 250 team members located at our offices and project sites across the U.S.

DAVE FLEET CONSULTING LLC Mr. Dave Fleet, Principal PO Box 2995 Indianapolis, IN 46206 United States Tel: (317) 490-0050 Email: dfleet@davefleetconsulting.com

Dave Fleet Consulting LLC specializes in airport safety with particular expertise in FAA Safety Management Systems (SMS), Safety Risk Management and Safety Cases. Among the other airport operations-related services offered by the firm are creating and updating Airport Certification Manuals, snow removal plans, land use plans and policy guidance. The 18 years of airport management and five years of airport planning consultant experience provides a broad range of perspectives and a valuable combination of hands-on and policy know-how.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC. Ms. Kim M. Allerton, President 1597 The Greens Way, Suite 200 Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 United States Tel: (904) 285-1397 Fax: (904) 285-1929 Email: kallerton@ersenvironmental.com Web: www.ersenvironmental.com

Natural resource consulting including wetland delineation, wildlife surveys (including protected species), NEPA documentation, wetland and wildlife permitting, due diligence services, expert witness testimony and wildlife hazard assessments.

Consulting, Spring 2010

Between November 2009 and February 2010, ACC released e-mail supplements to this publication. These supplements are also available at www.ACConline.org.

KB ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Ms. L. Carrol Fowler, Sr. Project Manager 9500 Koger Boulevard, Pinellas Building, Suite 211 Saint Petersburg, FL 33702 United States Tel: (727) 578-5152 Email: cfowler@kbenv.com Web: www.kbenv.com

KB Environmental Sciences, Inc. (KBE) provides reliable, state-of-the-art and cost effective environmental consulting services. Specialized areas include air quality, climate change, noise, hazardous materials and environmental risk. KBE is also a certified Woman Business Enterprise (WBE) in all 50 states.

PGAL Mr. Jeffrey A. Weiner, AIA, Principal 1425 Ellsworth Industrial Dr., Suite 15 Atlanta, GA 30318 United States Tel: (404) 602-3800 Fax: (404) 602-3810 Email: jweiner@pgal.com Web: www.pgal.com

PGAL is a prominent national architectural practice with 11 offices nationwide. PGAL’s aviation design studio has been responsible for the design and management of a variety of projects — large and small. Its designers understand the challenges that face airports and airlines.

Associate Member COGENT, INC. Mr. James J. Jasinski, Executive Vice President 1881 Campus Commons Drive, Suite 404 Reston, VA 20191 United States Tel: (703) 483-4600 Email: jjasinski@cogentsystems.com

Cogent provides first class automated biometric identification systems and biometric access control solutions to governments, law enforcement agencies and commercial customers worldwide. Cogent provides secure, real time identification results in the field.

ACC Updates

Legislative News

LN 9-08

• House Introduces Second Stimulus/Jobs Bill with $500 Million in AIP Funding • Congress Approves Three-Month Authorization Extension for FAA through March 31 • Congress Clears FY 2010 DOT/ FAA Spending Bill; $3.5 Billion for AIP

On the Move And the Winner Is… MR. EDWARD G. BLANKENSHIP, A.I.A. (GARY) has retired from the aviation consulting industry after over 16 years with Landrum & Brown, Inc. (L&B) and over 30 years in the airport consulting industry. Blankenship is a nationally recognized authority on planning of airport terminals whose book, The Airport: Architecture-Urban Integration Ecological Problems, developed a methodology for the planning of airport terminals. He was also a member of the planning team that created the FAA’s fi rst terminal planning guide, The Apron-Terminal Complex (FAA-RD-73-82). Blankenship has accepted a full-time position with John Wayne Airport (JWA) in Orange County, California and will continue his affi liation with L&B as an Emeritus Member of the Board of Directors. MS. TRACIE BLASER has joined the William Nicholas Bodouva & Associates, Inc. (WNB+A) aviation and transportation practice as Vice President of Business Development. Blaser will use her 10 years of experience in business development exclusively within the aviation sector to represent WNB+A across the U.S., as well as in the Middle East and Asia. MR. JERRY FARRAR has rejoined CH2M HILL as Aviation Market Segment director for the Transportation Business Group (TBG). Farrar brings more than 37 years of airside, landside, terminal and airport facilities experience to CH2M HILL. He is responsible for strategic planning, business development and operations for the company’s domestic and international aviation practice. Before high level positions at Earth Tech, Inc. and AECOM, Farrar spent 14 years with CH2M HILL as a project manager and aviation chief engineer on many of the fi rm’s aviation design projects. He will be working out of CH2M HILL’s Tulsa, Oklahoma office. MR. TODD A. KNUCKEY, P.E. has joined the Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. Aviation Program and will serve as Vice President, Aviation Great Lakes Region Manager. Knuckey has more than 20 years of experience in planning, surveying, design, construction, construction management and program management for aviation projects. Knuckey has served as

www.ACConline.org

Project Officer and Project Manager for multidisciplined projects at airports throughout the Midwest, including Louisville International, Nashville International, Memphis International, O’Hare International and Indianapolis International airports. He will work out of the RS&H offices in Chicago, IL. MR. STEPHEN M. PELHAM has also joined Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Inc.’s Aviation Program and will serve as a Senior Aviation Consultant. Pelham has more than 20 years of experience in aviation business and marketing airport security equipment both domestically and internationally, giving him experience with the TSA and terminal security requirements. He has extensive exposure to airport management and facilities throughout the United States and overseas. MS. SUSAN PREDIGER has accepted a position with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Prediger is a computer engineer with 20 years experience in planning, design and construction of a wide range of aviation systems. Since 2001, she has worked at CAGE, Inc., where she served as Vice President responsible for business development, contract administration and technical support to the evolving baggage handling and security industry. Prediger was the recipient of the 2009 ACC Board Chair Award and was beginning her second term on the ACC Board of Directors. Mr. Solomon Wong, InterVISTAS, replaces her on the board. MR. STEVE L. STRETCHBERRY has joined TranSystems as a vice president/market sector leader in support of the fi rm’s aviation group, bringing proven experience in supporting large airport development programs. Stretchberry has over 30 years of experience in airport planning, engineering design and program management. He has worked not only as a consultant to support the development of more than 20 Airport Master Plans, but has also been responsible for implementing them on the airport owner and operator side. His long-term recognition and leadership within the aviation community allows him ready access to the full range of industry leaders both on the public and private side. He will work out of the fi rm’s San Francisco office.

AIR TRANSPORT IT SERVICES, INC., (AIRIT) has been recognized for the Excellence in Sustainability through Information Technology Award. ITFlorida and its Board of Directors, whose mission is to make Florida a leader in high tech advancement, has acknowledged AirIT with its Excellence in Sustainability through Information Technology Award at its 7th Annual Awards Gala and Tech Forum. The award recognizes AirIT for creating new information technologies and applications which have contributed to better energy practices and policies through efficiencies and conservation. AirIT has a complete operational suite of products that allow airports to reclaim airport assets and take control of the gate, ticket and ramp resources while reducing operational cost and improving customer service. AirIT solutions provide the airport operator with a more effective means of reducing aircraft taxi and dwell times, thus reducing aircraft fuel burn and carbon emissions. Additionally, the systems allow airports to handle more aircraft capacity which reduces their carbon foot print by eliminating the need for the construction of new facilities. CONVERGENT STRATEGIES CONSULTING, INC. (CSC) has been awarded a contract to develop a campus IT modernization assessment for San Antonio International Airport. CSC will review the cabling infrastructure, identify areas of potential improvement and provide the approximate costs of improving conditions. The scope includes the existing Terminal 1 and outside plant cabling.

COVER STORY

AIRPORT SAFETY continued from page 1

hazards and help the team to measure risks, mitigations and alternatives in a structured and methodical way.

remainder of this article. It is recommended that consultants also use this term when discussing the subject with colleagues and clients.

It is important to note that the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) has been heavily focused on the Safety Case in the SRM element of their SMS implementation. The ATO Safety Case is manifested in one of two documents:

ATO and the Safety Case: A Brief History

• Safety Risk Management Document (SRMD) • Safety Risk Management Decision Memorandum (SRMDM) The SRMD is required if new hazards are introduced into the National Airspace System (NAS) and is a lengthy, detailed product with specific documentation requirements for those hazards, the risk(s) associated with them and the mitigation that was identified to lessen the risk(s). The SRMDM is required if no new hazards are identified. The SRMDM is much shorter, less detailed and merely documents that no new hazards will be introduced into the system. In general conversation, the term “SRMD” is often used interchangeably with SMS and/or with SRM. However, it is important to note that the Safety Case (as documented in the SRMD or SRMDM) is the output of SRM processes. For simplicity’s sake, unless specifically discussing one of the documents, the generic term “Safety Case” will be utilized throughout the

Among the FAA’s divisions, the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization is by far the furthest along in implementing SMS. ATO started its initiative in 2004 and has had the opportunity to test and refine the four elements of a typical SMS program. ATO’s SMS includes processes to collect and analyze safety data; conduct safety reviews, audits and evaluations; investigate air traffic incidents; and continuously monitor data to manage NAS safety. Specifically, ATO has developed a formalized and proactive SRM process that is used to monitor changes made to the NAS and their impact on safe operations. As part of ATO’s SRM process, a panel consisting of appropriate Subject Matter Experts (SME’s) may be convened and results documented in a Safety Case for proposed changes to the NAS. Whether or not a panel is formed and who participates on the panel is directly related to the type and complexity of the proposed change. Also, ATO does not convene panels and create Safety Cases for those changes that already have processes and procedures in place, such as a new generator being installed for an ILS system. In many of the Safety Case panels, SME participation from the local airport owner and and FAA’s Airports Office (ARP) representation,

SMS, SRM and Safety Case Relationships

PRO DUC T

PRO CES SES PR OG RA

Consulting, Spring 2010

E Y CAS SAFET RMDM) /S D (SRM

SRM SMS

such as certification personnel, has been requested. This has been the case for physical changes to an airfield (a runway extension is a good example). Through its SRM, ATO has the means and mechanisms in place to conduct such a Safety Case panel and has therefore taken the lead on these types of projects. Over the past three years, ATO has generated numerous Safety Cases through its SRM process and airport owners have been asked to participate in panels as stakeholders and SME’s. Airports participate in the panel; assist in identifying hazards; assess and analyze the risk(s); and review and approve the final Safety Case document, (either the SRMD or the SRMDM). In the current state of implementation, ATO is the owner of the SRM process and the resulting Safety Case and airports are participants in the process. The future of ATO’s leadership on these projects is not yet known. It is possible that ATO will continue to lead and own SRM for all projects with impact to the NAS. It is likely, however, that some responsibility will be transferred to FAA’s ARP and/or airports. Ultimately, airports may take more ownership and accountability for driving the SRM process, generating the Safety Case, and ultimately accepting any risks that remain following mitigation efforts.

Convergence of SMS at Airports FAA’s Airports Office has recently initiated a process to adopt SMS. As it moves forward with an SMS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), processes and products similar to ATO’s SMS activities will likely be required of airports. Before discussing these programs further, it is important to note that ARP has delineated and frequently speaks of the forthcoming SMS requirements as “internal” and “external” programs. This language may be confusing to airport clients and is therefore an important distinction to understand. The SMS “internal” program requirements will include processes that ARP implements within its own organization and will be formally introduced via an Executive Order within the FAA. SMS “external” program requirements will be those that airports are required to implement and will be formally introduced via the NPRM.

“External” to ARP SMS — Airport Daily Operations

“Internal” OR “External” to ARP SMS — Safety Case for Construction Projects

AIRPORT

ATO SMS — Safety Case for Changes to the NAS

“Internal” to ARP SMS — Safety Case for AIP and Planning

Although the questions of “when” and “how” are largely still unanswered, airports will be a central point in a convergence of SMS programs.

whether a Safety Case for major construction projects would fall under the requirements for SMS “internal” or under SMS “external.”

SMS “Internal” SMS “External” In the future, the scope of ARP’s “internal” ARP anticipates issuing the NPRM requiring SMS implementation may be for local airport SMS implementation by airport owners and owners or ARP to convene and conduct a panel operators in late 2010. It is expected, but not for projects supported through federal grant confi rmed, that the FAA’s SMS rule will require funds (AIP). The interaction between projects airports to conduct SRM by convening Safety and changes to the facility will likely be the Case panels and creating a SRMD or SRMDM point at which ARP and local airports “meet” (as appropriate) for any projects that impact in their Safety Case development. the NAS. How will the “internal” SMS initiative manifest itself within the FAA grant program? To date, there have been discussions surrounding airports’ need to generate a preliminary Safety Case for the preferred alternative developed during the master planning process. Additional discussion has focused on the possibility of generating a Safety Case as validation of the preferred alternative during the Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An additional opportunity for ARP to require a Safety Case panel may be at the project design phase for the preferred alternative. It is expected that local airports will need to convene a Safety Case panel prior to major construction projects impacting the NAS. It is likely that this will take the form of a review of the construction plan and will either incorporate or replace the current construction safety plan process. However, it is unclear at this time

www.ACConline.org

Still unknown is whether the scope of the requirement will include the Movement Area, the Non-Movement Area, or both. It is additionally unclear whether airports will be required to produce a Safety Case for projects that do not directly impact the NAS, but that do have local airport operational impacts such as changes to commercial airline operations on the main ramp. Regardless of the NPRM outcome, airport owners are strongly encouraged to consider developing processes and procedures within its SMS that address local changes and ramp safety as well as movement area changes. These processes will be an important piece in the development of an SMS at airports if it is truly expected to become part of an airport’s culture.

Now What?

manner in which airport owners conduct their business. The SRM processes and resulting Safety Case products will be the areas in which airports experience the most overlap and potential confusion between requirements for their own SMS and requirements for ATO and ARP SMS. It is critical for the FAA to have consistency and standardization across SRM processes. Because airports will need to comply with ATO along with “internal,” and “external” ARP SMS requirements, the rules must be straightforward, detailed and aligned with one another. Even the most straightforward regulations may constitute a major change for airport clients. Airport consultants should develop an understanding of the existing ATO processes; learn and correctly use important new terminology to ensure consistency among the industry and clients; and closely monitor progress on the ARP SMS implementation so that guidance, leadership and solid expertise to the airport community can be provided. Consultants should also understand how the new SMS program requirements will impact the products and services provided to clients. Proactively anticipating additional scope and/ or cost items, along with any changes to services resulting from SMS implementation, will prevent unpleasant surprises to clients.

The implementation of SMS across the national system may pose a significant change to the

3806 Airport Ad

25/1/10

09:56

Page 1

Gate & Operator Systems Complete System Solutions THE ULTIMATE CONCEPT IN SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE

Designed & tested as systems to over 200,000 cycles UL325 listed operators combined with the highest quality gates built to comply with ASTM F2200-05 Closing openings 4 to 400 feet!

Installed at 70 airports in 20 countries, the world's most popular airside slotdrain system is now manufactured in the US.

Pedestrian Gates Full Range of High Security Gates

Aluminum or Steel

www.tymetal.com 800-328-GATE FREE HYDRAULIC DESIGN SOFTWARE AVAILABLE!

MEETS ‘BUY AMERICA’ PROVISIONS

We Close

Openings

Allow your message to TAKE-OFF with ACC Advertise in AirportConsulting

Elkington Gatic

CONTACT John Reynolds, ACC Coordinator of Communications: JohnR@ACConline.org, ph: 703-683-5900

www.slotdrain.com/usa usasales@slotdrain.com

An OSI Systems Company

More BAGGAGe.

SCAN

SECURE

More BAGGAGe.

RTT - Real Time Tomography - A Breakthrough in High-Speed Baggage Screening To learn more visit www.rapiscansystems.com/rtt 18

Consulting, Spring 2010

ACC SPOTLIGHT

Looking Ahead… EVENT

DAT E S

LO C ATI O N

Airfield Pavement Maintenance & Rehabilitation Workshop

June, 2010

TBD

May, 2010

Atlanta, GA

August, 2010

Arlington, VA

ACC/ACI/AGC Airport Project Delivery Systems Summit

June 16 – 17

Indianapolis, IN

AAAE/ACC Conference on Airport Information Technology & Systems

Aug. – Sept., 2010

TBD

ACC/ACI/FAA Airport Planning Workshop

December, 2010

TBD

ACC/ACI/FAA NEPA Workshop

December, 2010

TBD

Airport Pavement Design & Evaluation Workshop

LIVE ONLINE TRAINING Seminars for 2010 The ACC Institute is enhancing training opportunities with new e-learning programs in the form of webinars and online training. ACC members will soon enjoy more convenient access to excellent on-going training — by the experts, for the experts.

ACC Sustainability Corner A Sustainability Resource for Consultants The recently-unveiled Sustainable Aviation Guidance Alliance (SAGA) database enables consultants to provide organized and catalogued sustainability solutions for airport clients. The database includes almost 1,000 sustainability practices and applications at airports. While this is a daunting amount of information, the resource is extremely flexible, allowing data to be reviewed, searched and sorted in numerous ways. In fact, the database was used with great success on a recent airport master plan update in helping to identify and categorize a menu of sustainability and conservation initiatives. When the project was being scoped, it became apparent that the master plan had to incorporate sustainability and conservation measures. However, the shape and form of an implementable program was not pre-determined. The SAGA database was used to prepare a Sustainability and Conservation Initiatives Framework that was tied to existing countywide sustainability measures. There were three primary goals: provide a framework that reduced energy consumption; reduce environmental impact; and enable implementation of LEED® criteria, regardless of the ability to achieve LEED® certification.

By William Keller, AICP, LEED-AP (BD+C), Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Inc.

The resulting document, created as an appendix to the master plan update, serves as a guide for the airport to balance their internal and external need to achieve existing goals, while maintaining the ability to create a pathway for future action items. In applying the SAGA database, the consultant team reordered selected elements of the database into a Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Framework that guides, rather than prescribes, investments in sustainability and conservation.

• Finally, Tertiary Framework Initiatives are the specific implementable operational, maintenance and construction practices. Tertiary Framework Initiatives directly support Secondary Framework Initiatives and indirectly support the Primary Framework Initiatives. An example of a Tertiary Framework Initiative drawn from the SAGA database is to clean or change furnace filters monthly. This specific activity supports both the Primary and Secondary Frameworks regarding air quality.

• The Primary Framework consists of highlevel analysis, research and plans that lead to broad initiatives. An example of a Primary Framework Initiative drawn from the SAGA database is to undertake an overall air quality improvement plan.

Using this “drill down” approach, the three Frameworks were referenced to the Planning and Design, Demolition and Construction and Operation and Maintenance elements of the master plan update. The SAGA database criteria can now be applied to site planning, landscaping, lighting, site development, water quality, air quality, material usage and material re-use. Thanks to this useful resource, the airport client has flexibility to mix and match the SAGA database elements while achieving sustainability and conservation goals.

• The Secondary Framework consists of midlevel analysis, research and plans that support the Primary Framework Initiatives and result in focused goals, policies, operational strategies and/or objectives. An example of a Secondary Framework Initiative drawn from the SAGA database is to target indoor air quality, based on the broad Primary Framework Initiative to undertake an air quality improvement plan.

{ For more information visit www.airportsustainability.org } www.ACConline.org

AFTER ALL

A Guide for Success The Updated AASHTO Audit Guide and What it Means for You By Dan Purvine, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Is your firm compliant with the latest guidance on determining indirect cost rates? How are you evaluating executive compensation? Is your CPA firm qualified to conduct an audit? Cost accounting procedures are a critical part of doing business with public clients such as airports. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recently updated its Uniform Audit and Accounting Guide for Audits of Architectural and Engineering Consulting Firms. Consultants should become familiar with the new audit guide, since state agencies and airports may use it as the standard framework for evaluating overhead audits of consulting firms.

Responsibilities. If using a CPA firm, make sure they understand the FAR and all the applicable auditing standards. They should also be familiar with the entire guide. Using a qualified CPA allows the A/E firm to focus on addressing potential risk areas. COST PRINCIPLES (CHAPTER 4) This chapter

gives a good overview of key FAR cost principles, specifically allowability, reasonableness and allocability. COST ACCOUNTING (CHAPTER 5) The updated

guide includes expanded direction on uncompensated overtime and development of field office overhead rates. The guidance on field rates is an example of a preferred method, but not the only possible approach. The FAR has no detailed guidance on field rates; firms should develop a reasonable, supportable approach and apply it consistently.

Read this chapter carefully and discuss the requirements with your CPA firm. SELECTED AREAS OF COST (CHAPTER 8) The accounting staff within a firm should read this section carefully to record expenses properly as FAR-allowable or unallowable. This chapter can be used for reference, but always refer to the FAR if there are any questions about the allowability of specific costs. GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPING AUDIT PROCEDURES (CHAPTER 10) This chapter

establishes the “minimum recommended audit procedures” that state DOT auditors will expect CPA firms to use in performing the overhead audit. Deviations from those standards may be allowed if justified and documented.

The revised audit guide was issued partly in response to issues raised by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of the CPA WORKPAPER REVIEW PROGRAM This is a Inspector General (OIG) audit of consulting crucial section of the guide for a CPA firm to firms’ indirect costs. The OIG audit was pubread and understand before starting any work. lished in 2009 and cited concerns in the areas LABOR CHARGING SYSTEMS (CHAPTER 6) Since This section provides the standard against of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) unal- labor charging is so critical to the A/E industry which their audit work will be judged by the lowable costs, compensation reasonableness, and how clients are billed, the concepts in this primary user(s) of the audit report. CPA audit quality and state DOT and federal chapter are crucial. This section includes a labor oversight. In revising the AASHTO guide, the charging checklist. Additional controls or better INTERNAL CONTROL QUESTIONNAIRE For firms intent was to address many of those issues and documentation of controls may be needed at that work in multiple states, this tool allows provide additional clarification to sections of times. Auditors love documentation, so give the preparation of a single internal control the FAR and applicable auditing guidance, such them plenty to read. questionnaire (ICQ) rather than several variaas the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) tions for different states. It’s designed to make Contract Audit Manual, to assist architectural/ COMPENSATION (CHAPTER 7) This is one of the process more efficient for states and engineering (A/E) firms and their CPAs in pre- the most important sections of the guide. consultants alike. paring quality overhead audits. Compensation is the most complex area in the FAR, the area of highest perceived audit risk, Understand that the revised guide does not There are a few areas where new concepts or and the one that keeps state DOT auditors up at change the FAR or related audit guidance, interpretations are introduced and should be night. Most of the concepts in the chapter are but simply clarifies and explains it. Still, it is understood. not new — the rules have been in the FAR and recommended that firms become aware of DCAA audit guidance for years — but the guide key components of the guide as a means to ADEQUACY OF ACCOUNTING RECORDS presents them in a way that is easier to follow. accurately determine indirect costs rates. (CHAPTER 2) Those responsible for develop- The guide introduces a new requirement for ing a firm’s overhead rate should become consultants to prepare an analysis to evaluate The Audit Guide is available at the AASHTO familiar with this chapter, which includes a the reasonableness of executive compensation Internal/External Audit Subcommittee website section on Management and CPA’s Roles and costs annually, as part of the overhead audit. http://audit.transportation.org

Consulting, Spring 2010