USAF RUNWAY SAFETY: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE TRAINING AND EVALUATION OF AIRFIELD DRIVERS
by
Matthew A. Born
A Graduate Capstone Project
Submitted to the Worldwide Campus
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
Master of Science in Management
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Worldwide Campus
Worldwide Online
December 2010
ii
USAF RUNWAY SAFETY: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE TRAINING AND EVALUATION OF AIRFIELD DRIVERS
by
Matthew A. Born
This Graduate Capstone Project
was prepared under the direction of the candidate‟s Project Review Committee Member,
Dr. Alexander T. Wells, Assistant Professor, Worldwide Campus,
and the candidate‟s Project Review Committee Chair,
Dr. Dee H. Andrews, Adjunct Associate Professor, Worldwide Campus, and has been
submitted for approval to the Project Review Committee. It was submitted
to the Worldwide Campus in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Management
PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE:
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research project is dedicated to my wife, Katie, and our two children, Angie
and Luke. Thank you for allowing me the time to conduct all of my research and for
tolerating my incessant concentration on this project.
Thanks are also in order for my Committee Chair, Dr. Dee Andrews, and my
Committee Member, Dr. Alexander Wells. Thank you for all of your assistance and
advice along the way.
Finally, I‟d like to thank all of the people that helped me with my research. This
includes my various co-workers and supervisors, namely Mr. Lee Hetteroth, SSgt John
Leach, TSgt Chris Owen, Lt Col Lee Landis, and Col Randy Davis. I‟d also like to thank
Mr. Mark Miller and Mr. Jeff Hamiel at Minneapolis International Airport, Mr. Jeff
Miller and Mr. Erik Lind at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, Mr. Eric
Silverman at Philadelphia International Airport, and AC2 Poku at Naval Air Station
Patuxent River. Thank you for the time and effort you put toward contributing to this
project.
iv
ABSTRACT
Researcher: Matthew A. Born
Title: USAF Airfield Drivers' Competency: A Quantitative Study on the
Effectiveness of the Vital Training and Evaluation of Airfield Drivers
Institution: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Degree: Master of Science in Management
Year: 2010
The USAF faces a significant vulnerability to the safety of flight operations on its
airfields. This hazard is created by the threat of runway safety incidents caused primarily
by deviations committed by aircraft, vehicles or pedestrians. Many of these incidents are
initiated by fault of airfield drivers. The level of initial and recurring airfield driver's
training has an immense impact on the overall competency of the airfield driving
population. This study investigates the importance of training and evaluation
administered to USAF airfield drivers. Additionally, the study researches the link
between the strength of bases' airfield driving training programs and their runway safety
records to determine if increased emphasis should be placed on airfield driving training
and evaluation.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
Chapter
I INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Problem 1
Researchers Work Role and Setting 4
Statement of the Problem 4
Subproblems 4
Assumptions 5
Limitations 6
II REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND RESEARCH 7
U. S. Civil Airport Runway Incursion Data Trends 7
USAF Runway Incursion Data Trends 9
Comparison of Civil and USAF Data 10
Airfield Driver Certification and Training Guidance 12
Training Methods and Effectiveness 15
Summary 16
Statement of the Hypothesis 17
vi
III RESEARCH METHODS 19
Research Design 19
Research Model 19
Survey Population 20
Sources of Data 21
The Data Gathering Instruments 22
Instrument Pretest 25
Distribution Method 25
Instrument Reliability 26
Instrument Validity 26
Treatment of the Data and Procedures 27
IV RESULTS 31
Driver Survey Results 31
Correlations 34
Results of Interviews at Other Airfields 39
MSP Airfield Driving Program 39
BWI Airfield Driving Program 41
PHL Airfield Driving Program 44
NHK Airfield Driving Program 45
387th Airfield Driving Program 46
Kuwait DGCA Airfield Driving 47
Comparison of Programs 47
Opinions of Interviewees 49
vii
V DISCUSSION 51
Hypotheses Analysis 51
Research Question Analysis 52
Research Question 1 52
Research Question 2 53
Research Question 3 54
Research Question 4 55
Research Question 5 55
VI CONCLUSIONS 57
Conclusion 1 57
Conclusion 2 58
Conclusion 3 59
Conclusion 4 59
Conclusion 5 60
VII RECOMMENDATIONS 61
Recommendation 1 62
Recommendation 2 64
Recommendation 3 65
Recommendation 4 66
Recommendation 5 66
Further Research 67
Summary 67
REFERENCES 69
viii
APPENDIXES
A BIBLIOGRAPHY 72
B PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH 74
C DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENTS 77
D TABLES 104
E FIGURES 107
F DEFINITION OF TERMS 123
G ACRONYMS 127
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Responses to Written Interviews at Other Airports/Airfields 105
2 Airfield Driving Simulator Benefits/Drawbacks 106
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Driver Respondent Demographics 108
2 ADPM Respondent Demographics 109
3 Driver Survey Results 110
4 ADPM Survey Results 116
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
Airfield safety is critical to the success of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) in
accomplishing its everyday mission. The biggest threats to this safety are runway
incursions and controlled movement area violations (CMAVs), caused either by
operational errors of air traffic controllers or deviations committed by aircraft, vehicles
and pedestrians. The result of runway incursions and CMAVs is the presence of objects
near fast-moving aircraft, normally without the knowledge of air traffic control or the
pilots and operators involved. This can result in a near-miss between aircraft and
vehicles or other aircraft, or in the worst case, an actual mishap. The most frequent
reason for runway incursions and CMAVs in the Air Force is human error associated
with vehicle drivers and pedestrians causing a direct hazard to aircraft operations. When
a runway incursion is initiated by an airfield driver or pedestrian due to human error, the
incursion is classified as a runway intrusion.
Numerous studies have been conducted over recent years by both the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), through the Runway Safety Team, and the Department
of Defense (DoD), through each military branch's flight standards regulatory authority.
For the Air Force, that authority lies in the Air Force Flight Standards Agency (AFFSA),
which has made runway safety a special interest item for its Air Traffic Systems.
Evaluation Program (ATSEP) for 2009 and 2010, as the trend for runway incursions has
shown a mysterious increase over the past year. Since a large number of Air Force
personnel are required to work on the airfield in various support and operational
2
positions, and the deployment tempo of personnel remains high, AFFSA is working to
discover what has caused this increase in incursions and what possible solutions exist.
Airports and airfields outside the USAF are experiencing similar issues with
runway safety. Civilian airports primarily have issues with pilot deviations causing
runway incursions, with over 65% of the total for first quarter 2009 (FAA Runway Safety
Report 2008, 2008b). USAF airfields typically see the problem occur with vehicle
operators deviating from instructions unintentionally to cause incursions. Both situations
present a significant threat to aircraft and airport employee or military crewmember
safety.
Airfield Drivers Training and Evaluation
The safety of the airfield environment is heavily influenced by the competency
and proficiency of the air and ground crews that operate in the airfield environment.
Initial training of airfield drivers is a critical component in ensuring this safety. This
initial training provides the knowledge base of characteristics of the airfield environment,
required procedures, and other highly pertinent pieces of information necessary for all
airfield drivers to know. The effectiveness and retention of the administered training is
standardized and evaluated through different types of tests. Likewise, recurring refresher
training and evaluation are vital to ensuring those people who routinely operate on the
airfield maintain the proper level of proficiency and awareness.
Initial training of airfield drivers is required by the Air Force, but the application
of different types of training and evaluation are not compared adequately to determine if
more stringent requirements should be placed on all drivers pursuing certification to drive
on the airfield. These particular training methods, including one-on-one instruction and
3
practical or simulated driving are not comprehensively prescribed, especially for annual
refresher training. There are no current requirements for specific required frequency of
driving in the airfield environment to remain proficient, unlike aircrews and air traffic
controllers. Although the same depth may not be needed as with air crews and
controllers, this concept, along with requiring more comprehensive records or logs of
airfield driving activities (similar to pilot or controller logs), may offer safety advantages
to assist in maintaining a proficient pool of airfield drivers.
Projected Outcome of Study
This study takes a comprehensive look into the correlation between the
effectiveness of the airfield driving programs at USAF bases and the number of runway
safety incidents (i.e. runway incursions and CMAVs). Additionally, the study attempts to
determine the adequacy of the existing training and evaluation requirements for airfield
drivers, and the methods utilized to accomplish them. Furthermore, the study provides
recommendations for more stringent tracking of training tasks through the use of training
records, and the potential for tracking and logging time driven on the airfield, similar to
aircraft pilots logging flight time, and should there be a minimum required time and
frequency logged to maintain proficiency. Lastly, the study attempts to determine if the
number of airfield drivers is justified, by providing an in-depth look at how often drivers
are using their certifications, which will provide the potential for reducing the
maintenance requirements for the overall airfield driving program. These objectives are
complemented by a comparative analysis of airfield driving training requirements and
programs at USAF, civil airports, and other DoD airfields.
4
Researchers Work Role and Setting
The researcher's qualifications to perform this study are extensive. The researcher
is employed in the United States Air Force as an Airfield Operations Officer at Dover Air
Force Base (AFB), Delaware. The researcher has over six years of experience in the
Airfield Operations field, has received basic airfield driving instruction at two bases, and
has received formal training in the management of airfields and airfield driving programs.
The researcher routinely deals with runway incursions and CMAVs in his work.
Statement of the Problem
The level of initial and recurring airfield driver's training has an immense impact
on the overall safety of the airfield environment. Increased emphasis on initial and
recurring training, standardization and evaluation may lead to fewer runway incursions
and CMAVs caused by human error, and likewise, fewer mishaps.
Subproblems
Five key variables will be studied to guide the research in the study:
1. Is there a correlation between frequency and adequacy of initial and recurring
training for airfield drivers and the level of safety at USAF airfields (i.e.
runway incursions)?
2. What types of training (i.e. one-on-one, classroom, practical, simulator,
computer-based) and evaluations (i.e. verbal, written, practical, computer-
based, simulated practical) should be conducted initially and on a recurring
basis?
5
3. Should the USAF required mandated task coverage and objectives for initial
and recurring training, and should this coverage be tracked with training
records with task line items?
4. Should time driven on the airfield be logged and should there be a minimum
requirement for driving to maintain proficiency (i.e. number of hours logged
monthly, quarterly, etc)?
5. Are drivers that maintain certifications to drive on the airfield actually
spending time driving on the airfield and is the number of certified drivers
justified?
Assumptions
The basis of the study assumes that the researcher will gain a better understanding
of several aspects of airfield drivers training for the USAF. These aspects include
adequacy of (a) training methods and amount of time spent training drivers, (b)
evaluation methods employed and frequency, (c) tracking of training accomplished and
evaluations administered, (d) tracking of time driven on the airfield by individual drivers
and program managers, (e) ability to maintain proficiency, and (f) minimization of
certified airfield drivers to the lowest number possible for each duty section to
accomplish their job objectives.
The potential exists within the study for bias and drastic differences in opinion
between the different experience bases of airfield drivers. This bias will be counteracted
to the maximum extent possible throughout the research by:
1. Reviewing questions used on questionnaires to ensure neutrality and the use
of objective criteria.
6
2. Accurate tracking of interview data and utilizing unbiased questions
throughout the interview process.
3. Utilizing a broad base of respondents to provide a comprehensive
representation of the airfield driver populous.
Limitations
The limitations of the study are driven by the scope of quantitative research and
application of research methods employed. These include:
1. Only drivers from Air Mobility Command (AMC) and Dover AFB were used
as the USAF airfield driver populous.
2. Only five FAA, ICAO and military airports/airfields were utilized for
interviews and comparative analysis of programs outside of the USAF.
7
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND RESEARCH
Runway incursions and the overall safety of airfield environments has been the
subject of countless studies and articles in recent years. The harsh consequences of even
one incursion can mean the deaths of hundreds of passengers, flight crew, or ground crew
members. This has made the topic of runway safety a relevant research topic in many
areas of aviation, both civil and military.
This chapter seeks to relate the data gathered in previous studies, articles, and
presentations pertaining to runway incursions and airfield driver training. The main
focus of the study will be to determine overall airfield driver training program's
effectiveness in meeting the goal of a proficient, competent pool of drivers. The previous
work of gathering runway incursion data will be very helpful in this study to link the
actual number of occurrences of safety violations to the application of airfield driver
training. Additionally, the guidance provided by the FAA and the USAF mandating
maintenance of airfield driving programs provide the baseline of what currently exists
and where opportunities for improvement are.
U. S. Civil Airport Runway Incursion Data Trends
According to the FAA's June, 2009 "Runway Safety Report,” which spanned
fiscal years (FY) 2005 through 2008, U.S. civil saw a 30% increase in the number of
"serious" runway incursions, or those classified as category A or B incursions (FAA,
2009a, Runway Safety Report 2009, p. 6). New International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) standards were adopted by the FAA in 2009 for definitions of
runway incursions and associated categories. The severity varies from category A, where
8
"a serious incident in which a collision was narrowly avoided.," to category D, for an
"incident that meets the definition of runway incursion such as incorrect presence of a
single vehicle/person/aircraft on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing
and take-off of aircraft but with no immediate safety consequences” (FAA, 2009a, p. 6).
The rate of runway incursions per one million aircraft operations has been increasing
each year, spanning from 12.3 in FY 2005 to 17.2 in FY 2008. Only 3% of these
incursions were classified as category A or B during this time period, with only 25 (or .43
per million operations) occurring in FY 2008. The primary cause of runway incursions at
civil towered airports continues to be pilot deviations or actions where a pilot "violates
any Federal Aviation Regulation" (FAA, 2009, p. RD-2). In FY 2008, over 61%, or 637,
were caused by pilot deviations, while 23%, or only 208 were caused by vehicle or
pedestrian deviations when "pedestrians, vehicles, or other objects interfere with aircraft
operations by entering or moving on the movement area without authorization from
ATC" (FAA, 2009, p. RD-1-2). According to the previous year‟s FAA 2008 "Runway
Safety Report,” utilizing the previous FAA runway incursion definition, in FY 2007,
there were only 56 total reports of runway incursions caused by vehicle/pedestrian
deviations, 88% of which involved airport vehicles, construction vehicles, emergency
response vehicles, maintenance taxis, and private vehicles. Forty percent were caused by
the driver not contacting ATC, and 33% were caused by the driver contradicting a correct
read back of instructions to ATC with an incorrect, unauthorized maneuver (FAA, 2008b,
pp. 3-18). There were a total of 216 vehicle/pedestrian deviations between FY 2004 and
the end of FY 2007, with an average of only 54 per FY. In the first six months following
9
FY 2007, ending March, 2008, there were an additional 15 serious runway incursions
(Wald, 2008).
USAF Runway Incursion Data Trends
A study conducted by Air Force Flight Standards Agency (AFFSA) in 2009
illustrates how the USAF has experienced a sharp increase in the number of runway
incursions in recent years. Specifically, the USAF saw a 49% increase in 2008, with a
total of 220. A total of 91% of the 220 were caused by airfield drivers, of which 91%
were trained and certified to drive on the airfield. Twelve of these resulted in "close
calls" between aircraft, vehicles, or pedestrians. Spanning 2005 through 2008, nearly
46% of the 579 incursions that occurred happened at bases in contingency locations or
where air crew training is conducted. More than half of the 579 were caused primarily by
airfield drivers not following or not having adequate experience with air traffic control
movement area procedures. The biggest offenders between 2005 and 2008 functionally
across the USAF, listed along with their typical functions, were aircraft maintenance
(towing aircraft, moving equipment), Security Forces (emergency responders), and Civil
Engineering (sweepers and snow removal equipment). Due to the sheer number of issues
experienced by the top three offending functional areas, AFFSA has recommended
targeted additional training specifically for those "focus agencies" (AFFSA, 2009).
The vast majority of runway incursions in the previous three years occurred at
overseas bases. The primary cause of these incursions were the driver not following
procedures, inadequate driver experience, and the driver mistakenly thinking his or her
request to enter the movement area was approved. The base with the most incursions was
the U. S. Air Force Academy, with over 60; followed by Balad AB; and Ali Al Salem
10
AB. Once the raw number of incursions was weighted against the total number of
aircraft operations and time, the overall base with the most violations was Ali Al Salem
AB, with almost four incursions per 10,000 aircraft operations. Air Bases in the "Area of
Responsibility" (AOR), or those in the Middle East in contingency locations, were the
biggest offenders as a group. Of the total number of those occurring in the AOR, almost
80% occurred at the four bases with the highest total number of incursions. The biggest
reason for incursions at these locations was insufficient airfield driver training (AFFSA,
2009).
All of the data gathered by AFFSA points to the heart of the issue with runway
incursions in the USAF -- airfield drivers. The leading causes of runway incursions are
(a) miscommunication, (b) lack of situational awareness, (c) insufficient training, and (d)
inadequate airfield access restrictions. One of the particular items cited by AFFSA in
their 2009 study as a contributing factor is inadequate tracking of airfield drivers training
and oversight of the training program (AFFSA, 2009).
Safety trends specifically at Dover AFB reveal a high frequency of CMAVs.
Over the past year, there have been 9 CMAVs, one of which was classified as runway
incursions. Similar to the overall USAF, the leading causes of these incidents are (a) lack
of situational awareness and (b) miscommunication.
Comparison of Civil and USAF Data
The biggest difference in the runway incursion data from the FAA and the USAF
is the cause of runway incursions. Civil airports primarily experience issues with pilots
violating ATC instructions to inadvertently cross or enter an active runway. The USAF
sees most of its incursions caused by airfield drivers deviating from ATC instructions.
11
Although there are some common threads between the two causal factors, the sources of
the problems are quite different.
The FAA lists vehicle operators as a component to runway safety, but the data
show that airfield drivers and vehicle operators are not a primary cause of runway
incursions at civil airports. The biggest offenders at civil airports are aircraft controlled
by qualified pilots. As a result, the bulk of the FAA's efforts have been focused on
technological improvements, such as Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X
(ASDE-X) and adjustments to airfield configuration in order to facilitate safer operations
for aircraft. According to the FAA‟s 2009 “National Runway Safety Plan,” the FAA is
aiming to “reduce the potential for human error through awareness, outreach, training,
technological aids and infrastructure improvements that enhance situational awareness”
(FAA, 2009b, Runway Safety Plan). Additionally, commercial airlines are researching
the use of a moving map for flight crews to determine if it can reduce pilot deviations,
and have determined that up to 50% can be eliminated through the use of such
technology (Reducing runway incursions, 2008).
The USAF has focused mostly on improving the airfield driving programs at its
bases in order to lower the number of incursions. This is due to the overwhelming
statistics stating driver deviations are the primary causal factor in USAF runway
incursions. As a result, the USAF has increased its focus on runway incursions, and in
particular, its overall airfield driving program. The most visible applications of this
increased emphasis has been seen by the bases through the establishment of an AFFSA
inspection special interest item for runway incursions, mandated face-to-face training to
every certified driver on every base, and a computer-based training program and records
12
database for airfield drivers. Additionally, AFFSA has increased its participation in
runway incursion prevention workshops and coordination with the FAA's Runway Safety
Action Team. The USAF has also maintained an interest in possible material
technological solutions, including Global Positioning System (GPS)-based tracking
systems currently being developed by the FAA and other civil companies (AFFSA,
2009). The USAF's current focus, however, remains tightening up its base's airfield
driver training, evaluation, and overall program maintenance.
Airfield Driver Certification and Training Guidance
Both the FAA and the USAF mandate appropriate airfield driving certification
requirements, including initial and recurring training for all airfield drivers. The FAA
can only enforce such a requirement at certain ATC controlled airports, but it does so via
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139, Airport Certification, through the FAA
Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5210-20, Ground Vehicle Operations on Airports. The AC
(2008a) contains sections pertaining to vehicle operator requirements for certification and
training, as well as other vehicle operations requirements. The AC calls for a training
curriculum for "initial and/or remedial instruction of all personnel who have access to the
airside of the airport" (2008a, p. 2).
The AC also mentions requirements for annual recurring instruction, suggested
training methods, and testing requirements. Initial training is described as that which is
"provided to an employee or airport user as often as necessary to enable that person to
maintain a satisfactory level of proficiency" (2008a, p. 2). This recurring training is
required to be administered at intervals of no more than one year. Suggested training
materials include training manuals, vehicle operating requirements as part of tenant lease
13
or use agreements, video, and booklets. Training media suggestions include classroom,
personal, or computer-based. Testing requirements include not only "standard question
and answer classroom testing," but also "demonstration of proficiency in operating a
vehicle on the airside" (2008a, p. 2). Additionally, on-the-job training is recommended
by the FAA for all drivers.
Regulatory guidance in the USAF follows the same general theme as FAA
guidance, but USAF guidance is applied universally to every base. Each Air Force Base
is required to establish and maintain a program for airfield driving that provides sufficient
training, testing, certification, and documentation to meet USAF standards. Each base's
Deputy Airfield Manager (DAFM) is responsible for maintaining the program. Air Force
Instruction (AFI) 13-213, Airfield Management, provides program guidance and contains
the required criteria for local airfield driving programs. It mandates (2008):
All base assigned personnel operating a vehicle on the airfield must be trained on
local airfield driving procedures, complete the Airfield Driving [computer-based
training] and be licensed... to operate a... vehicle and possess an AF IMT 483
endorsed for airfield driving (p. 43).
Specific USAF guidance is also provided for local training responsibilities,
procedures, training topics, testing procedures, and overall documentation and
administration of the airfield driving program. Training must be outlined in a local
training curriculum designed specifically for each base. Test development, coordination,
and administration are regulated, and each test must contain specific covered items,
including airfield layout, phraseology for communication with ATC, and color vision.
Each unit is required to appoint a unit Airfield Driving Program Manager (ADPM) to
14
"manage training and testing requirements of unit personnel that are required to operate a
vehicle on the airfield" (USAF, 2008, p. 41). These ADPMs must be properly trained so
they can then train and test their units' personnel as mandated in AFI 13-213. The overall
USAF requirements for airfield driving are strict, yet they give allowance to each base to
tailor their program for their specific mission and configuration of the airfield and base.
Dover AFB specifically has enacted several program enhancements that will
likely increase the overall level of safety and decrease the frequency of violations in
response to the high number of recent CMAVs. It is hoped that these enhancements,
along with a forthcoming rewrite of the local Airfield Driving Instruction, will help
combat the recent trend of increased violations at Dover AFB. According to SSgt John
Leach, acting base program manager for Dover AFB, these program enhancements are
(personal communication, November 19, 2010:
1. All drivers requesting CMA access will receive a practical evaluation at
Airfield Management.
2. Important driver information will be disseminated through a formal Airfield
Driver Information File (ADIF), allowing accurate tracking and referencing of
important information (similar to a Notice to Airmen).
3. A new ADPM training program provides comprehensive training for anyone
being appointed as a unit ADPM.
4. Trouble areas, or areas with a high likelihood for driver confusion, are
highlighted to drivers during initial and recurring training.
5. Written evaluations for initial certification and annual recertification have
increased in difficulty.
15
The U.S. Navy (USN) has also addressed the issue of runway incursions and the
need for airfield driver training. Captain Nikula addressed incursions in his article (n. d.)
outlining whether or not they are simply a lack of situational awareness. This article
contributed to the overall safety effort of the USN Safety Center in addressing these
issues within the USN. Airfield driver training within the USN is outlined in the
"Airfield Vehicle Operators Course (AVOC)" (USN Safety Center, n. d.). This
indoctrination course includes training processes and programs for USN and Marine
Corps personnel, and is meant to "assist... airfields in establishing a comprehensive
airfield driving program” (n. d.). Guidance, instructions, training materials, licenses,
quizzes, and references are posted to assist individual bases. Each base is charged with
maintaining its program, much like the USAF.
Training Methods and Effectiveness
There are many methods for accomplishing training for airfield drivers. Many of
these methods can be applied much like they can in other functional areas. According to
Read and Kleiner (1996), several effective training methods exist that utilize many
different techniques and media: videotapes, lectures, one-on-one instruction,
games/simulation, case studies, slides, computer-based training, audiotapes, and films
(pp. 25-28). Many researchers agree that no single method is most effective (Read &
Kleiner), and that perhaps the most efficient way to train is by using a combination of
those methods. The USAF utilizes all of these methods, but only a few are mandated to
be used. The computer-based training method is required for all drivers to complete, in a
comprehensive presentation available to USAF personnel. This course provides basic
16
knowledge to drivers, presented at individual workstations done at each member's
convenience (Airfield Drivers CBT, 2009).
If it were possible to always execute a training program perfectly with 100%
participation and retention of information, it would not be necessary to evaluate
performance. Unfortunately, perfectly consistent application of a training program, no
matter how effective it is, is not possible. The only way to close the loop on the training
effectiveness is through the utilization of evaluations.
One method that could be especially suited for airfield driving includes the use of
simulation. Adacel has developed a "Flightline Driving Simulator" (n. d.). Adacel
claims this system can provide "cost-effective,...realistic simulation-training.... for flight-
line drivers" (n. d.). The advantage of utilizing a simulated environment for training and
evaluating airfield drivers is that it occurs in a safe, but controlled environment, where a
trainer or evaluator can manipulate the system to provide realistic scenarios. The USAF
currently does not utilize this or any simulation system for airfield drivers, but has looked
into utilizing such a system.
Summary
The presented literature and data figures pertaining to runway incursions and
airfield driver training are interrelated within the safety context. In order to keep civil
and military airports' runways safe and free of incursions, a sound training program must
exist to ensure airfield drivers remain proficient and competent to operate in an
environment with extremely high stakes.
Both the FAA and the USAF have significant problems with limiting
unauthorized access to runways and the airport movement areas (or controlled movement
17
areas for USAF). Although the approaches taken by each are aggressively addressing
different facets of the primary causal factors, the primary cause of these at civil airports is
pilot deviations, whereas at USAF installations the biggest problem area is airfield
drivers. Airfield driving is addressed by both the FAA and USAF, but the USAF, due to
its recurring problems with drivers, has taken more aggressive steps to overhaul its
airfield driving program.
The proposed study will expand the knowledge of training effectiveness for
airfield drivers to determine if the USAF should mandate more strict guidelines for initial
and recurrent training. Additionally, the common objective of "ensuring driver
proficiency" will be investigated determine whether or not existing requirements and
training programs achieve this desired result. Since no requirement exists for drivers to
maintain their proficiency except through minimal annual recurring training, there is a
distinct possibility that drivers can grow less competent by not operating on the airfield
often. Furthermore, experienced drivers can easily become complacent when operating
in the airfield environment on a daily basis.
Statement of the Hypothesis
Based on the review of literature and personal experience, the following two
hypotheses are posed for this study.
Hypothesis One: More comprehensive initial training, as well as increased
frequency and depth of recurring training, will result in a more proficient, competent
airfield driver pool resulting in fewer runway incursions.
18
Hypothesis Two: A large number of certified airfield drivers do not spend an
adequate amount of time in practice driving in the airfield environment to maintain
proper proficiency.
19
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODS
The research methods utilized in this study revolve around the effective gathering
of quantitative data surrounding the competency of airfield drivers and their training and
evaluation. The research design and model aim to use the comparative analysis of the
number of runway incursions occurring across the USAF to the methods, procedures, and
documentation of airfield driver training, standardization, and evaluation.
Research Design
The focus of the overall design of the research centralizes on the ability to
correlate driver experience, frequency of driving, and level of training, with regulatory
requirements and runway incursion incidents. The initial source of research information
comes from recent trend data for runway incursions and CMAVs, especially those
correlated with driver operational error. Special emphasis is placed on training methods,
intensity, and frequency, to assist in determining effectiveness of current training
mandates and what is actually being accomplished in the field. Additional information
was gathered from ADPMs, as well as external equivalents in the FAA and the USN.
The purpose of this design is to ascertain the perceived depth of training to meet
current USAF requirements. The use of existing criteria to measure the effectiveness of
the training program will offer insight into the root of the issues encountered in the
USAF.
Research Model
The study‟s quantitative research model primarily consists of data compiled
through questionnaires and structured interviews. The main focus of the model is toward
20
correlation analysis, but descriptive methods were utilized to ascertain training and
evaluation methods to determine validity and effectiveness. The combination of
correlating data points with one another, along with descriptive analysis of the methods
employed, offer a strong picture of where the USAF stands in its program on a micro
level at Dover AFB within AMC. These results may be able to correlate to the larger
USAF; however, this will be difficult due to the varying missions at different bases
throughout the USAF.
Survey Population
The survey population consists of both airfield drivers and ADPMs at Dover
AFB. The airfield drivers and ADPMs surveyed at Dover AFB total around 2,300. A
sample of 1,200 was drawn from the overall population at the airfield utilizing stratified
random sampling, of which 163 responses were gathered. Drivers were given numbers
and grouped into the functional area they fall into, based on the ratio of their functional
area for the entire base-wide population. They were stratified by their functional area to
allow a focused range of experience and an equal number of drivers in different
functional areas to be surveyed. This stratification enabled the survey to reach a broad
base of functions, which allows the data to be spread along numerous organizations.
Analyzing data from this broad base attempts to correlate training and evaluation
deficiencies in key areas to those functions that statistically have been the most frequent
culprits in causing runway incursions in recent years for the USAF.
The ADPMs were pulled from the pool of base-wide ADPMs using stratified
random sampling. The ADPMs were surveyed on the type of training, standardization,
and evaluation that they provide for their unit‟s drivers. Pulling data from ADPMs
21
resulted in the gathering of information from the managerial point of view of the trainers
and evaluators. This offers insight into whether or not the intent of the USAF regulations
is filtering all the way down through the base program manager, to the ADPMs, and to
the drivers themselves. It also strengthens the overall study, as the data gathered was
taken from both viewpoints: the drivers and the managers. This creates a balanced
study, allowing the quantitative data from both sides to be compared and contrasted to
lessen the possibility of positional bias for either side.
The demographics of both the drivers and ADPMs are depicted in Figures 1 and
2, both of which are located in Appendix E. Ages of the population varied, but were
primarily within the 20-50 year-old range. Drivers were military, civilian, and
contractors, working in numerous functional areas around the base. Airfield driving
experience ranged from less than one year to more than 30 years. Experience was
segmented between those that have extensive experience on airfields around the USAF,
versus those that do not. Additionally, some drivers do have significant overall
experience, without much at Dover due to the constant moving, deployment, and
redeployment of personnel throughout bases in the USAF. ADPMs were primarily
males, ages 25-34, on active duty or in the reserve military. Most of the ADPMs were in
the Maintenance functional area and had between three and 15 years‟ experience in
airfield driving.
Sources of Data
This study relies on data gathered through a combination of both completed
research and a data gathering instrument. The completed research consists of runway
incursion and safety trend data, basic training, and evaluation methods and their
22
effectiveness, and airfield and air traffic control information. This secondary data was
taken from other sources in the FAA and USN.
The Data Gathering Instruments
The data gathering instruments for this study are both researcher-developed self-
completion questionnaires and structured interviews. This offers a broad look at local
procedures and compliance, as well as outside agencies and best practices identified
throughout the aviation system. The self-completion questionnaires and structured
interview questions are included in Appendix C.
The main source of data gathered was captured through questionnaires. This
questionnaire was developed and administered both directly to the drivers themselves and
to ADPMs. It attempts to gather unbiased information about the actual execution of
driver training through surveys.
The questionnaire consists of a series of multiple choice questions, Likert scale,
and fill in the blank. The survey asks simple questions relating to airfield driver
confidence, competency, proficiency, training, and evaluation. The expected responses
for the multiple choice questions were simple, with a short list of possible choices
(typically five). The questionnaires are included in Appendix C. The following are the
question categories and sections that were utilized in the questionnaire:
1. Demographic data (age, gender, military affiliation, experience level,
functional area).
2. Driver‟s experience driving on airfields:
3. Driver‟s recent driving activity on airfield/CMA.
4. Driver perception of overall safety of airfield environment.
23
5. Confidence in driving on the airfield.
6. Confidence in driving on the CMA and communicating with ATC.
7. Confidence in understanding airfield signs/markings.
8. Confidence in understanding ATC procedures.
9. Confidence in understanding local airfield vehicle procedures.
10. Perception of level and intensity of the initial and annual recurring training.
11. Perception of level of comprehensiveness of task coverage and documentation
through training for initial and annual recurring training.
12. Perception of level of the evaluations administered during initial and annual
recurring issuance of approval to drive on the airfield.
13. Description of methods utilized for initial and annual recurring training.
14. Preference ranking of methods of initial and annual recurring training.
15. Description of methods utilized for initial and annual recurring evaluation.
16. Preference ranking of methods of initial and annual recurring evaluation.
17. Description of methods utilized for tracking when driver drives on the airfield.
18. Perception of benefit of tracking airfield driving time.
Additionally, the questions on the ADPM questionnaire were modified for
wording to assist in directing the question toward the training and evaluation they
provide.
In order to supplement questionnaire data, structured interviews were
administered to managers at other USAF bases as well as outside USAF channels. These
interviews asked questions similar to those in the questionnaire to determine the depth,
intensity, and broadness of other driver training programs. Questions were designed to
24
find key differences between FAA, USN, and USAF regulatory requirements and
execution of driver training and evaluation. The structured interview questions are
contained in Appendix C after the questionnaires. The following are the question
categories and sections that were utilized in the structured interviews:
1. Description of the overall driver training program (organizational hierarchy,
responsibilities, reporting).
2. Description of regulatory requirements for the airport/airfield for
administering airfield driver training.
3. Description of functional areas that utilize airfield drivers.
4. Approximate number of drivers at the airport/airfield.
5. Description of initial training process, including training and evaluation
methods utilized.
6. Description of recurring training process, including frequency of training, and
training and evaluation methods utilized.
7. Record keeping and logging of airfield driver training and everyday driving.
8. Thoughts about stricter tracking and logging of training and everyday driving.
9. Opinion of potential impacts and advantages of instituting “proficiency time”
driving frequency requirements in order to ensure driver proficiency.
10. Perception of overall safety of airfield and CMA environment.
11. Level of confidence in the airfield driver program at that airport/airfield.
12. Level of confidence in overall competence of airfield drivers.
25
Instrument Pretest
A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the researcher-
developed questionnaires in order to determine survey validity. Each question was
further refined following the pretest to ensure the best fit to reach desired research
objectives.
The pilot study consisted of a local distribution to a small sample portion of the
airfield driver population at the airfield at the 387th Air Expeditionary Group. The
sample was determined using random sampling. The questionnaire was distributed
electronically via email, and the respondents were given two weeks to return their
completed surveys. Since airfield drivers at the 387th do not transit the CMA or
communicate with ATC, the questions that relate to the CMA and ATC communication
were not included in the pretest.
When the completed surveys were returned, the results were analyzed to
determine question validity. This analysis paired each question with a given objective,
and compare desired correlations to actual results. Questions that did offer any trend data
or contributory information were removed from the final version of the questionnaire.
Questions that were found to be highly useful were analyzed for further expansion into
other questions that could possibly offer more comprehensive data toward the objectives,
though very little expansion of the questionnaire was completed in this manner.
Distribution Method
The research questionnaires were distributed via electronic means. This
distribution will be accomplished through email to access the surveys on a third-party
website, with the intent of allowing respondents easy access to the questionnaires with
26
little inconvenience. The location of the link was disseminated to airfield drivers and the
ADPMs by email.
Instrument Reliability
The reliability of the data gathering instrument was ensured through usage of a
short, simple survey. This survey has not been used before, so analysis of its stability,
internal reliability, and inter-observer consistency was necessary prior to distribution to
the core sample.
The internal reliability requires strength to ensure the variables and indicators are
related and do not lack coherence. This was measured during the pretest utilizing the
split halves method, as outlined by Bryman and Bell (2007, pp. 163-164). If a resulting
score was 0.8 or higher, there were no required adjustments as this degree of correlation
was acceptable. If the score was less than 0.8, the survey required a closer look, and
potentially some adjustments to ensure all variables and indicators are correlated with one
another. Some indicators and survey questions were removed or adjusted, and some
were added to ensure appropriate internal reliability.
Instrument Validity
The validity of the questionnaire was refined throughout the pretest and
application phases. The validity is based on the concepts of driver and ADPM perception
of adequacy of training and evaluation, but the actual increase of airfield safety due to
improvement or expansion of the existing driving program will not be possible to test
except through analysis of other safety information and runway incursion data.
Validity is described by Bryman and Bell (2007) as the “ability of an indicator to
accurately and definitively gauge a measuring concept” (p. 165). In the case of airfield
27
drivers training and the overall safety of the runway and airfield environment, this
research was designed around correlating quantitative data with tangible training and
evaluation methods currently employed by program managers at Dover AFB and
throughout the USAF. Runway incursion trends data were correlated to the effectiveness
of current training and evaluation techniques and USAF mandates. These mandates were
compared to what is actually being employed in the field. The validity of these measures
and indicators were drawn from whether or not it is concurrently valid, as the issue of
runway safety is hinged on the criterion of driver training, standardization, evaluation,
and documentation. Proficiency of airfield drivers was correlated to these criteria, and
conclusions will be drawn from this correlation to ascertain if the USAF should change
the way it handles its training and evaluation of airfield drivers.
The construct validity of the study is based on conclusions drawn in attempting to
address the research questions. The idea that drivers who practice more frequently and
receive more comprehensive training and evaluation are more confident and competent
drivers will require refinement and examination of the relationship between the two
variables.
Treatment of the Data and Procedures
The procedures of the research were structured and detailed in such a way that
another researcher could replicate the study using the outlined procedures. Data was
treated according to their correlation to the research questions in the overall pursuit of
addressing their importance in creating a safe airfield driving environment.
Sources of the Data
28
The sources of data came from three primary pools: airfield drivers and ADPMs
at Dover AFB, along with managers at other USAF bases and outside USAF channels.
Airfield drivers will be selected using outlined criteria through stratified random
sampling via assignment of random numbers. Drivers were stratified based on their
squadron‟s (airfield function) population ratio on the base. ADPMs were also selected
using stratified random sampling using the same method. All drivers and ADPMs were
administered surveys to determine adequacy of driver training and evaluation.
Other managers outside USAF channels were accessed using uniform, structured
interviews, done by the researcher. These managers were selected based on their
geographic location to the researcher, and will be recruited from the following locations:
Baltimore/Washington Thurgood-Marshall International Airport (BWI); Minneapolis/St.
Paul International Airport (MSP); Philadelphia International Airport (PHL); and Naval
Air Station Patuxent River (NHK). These locations offer a broad range of traffic volume
and types, along with airfield size and activity. Additionally, an interview of the Airfield
Manager at the airfield of the 387th Air Expeditionary Group was conducted to identify
program trends, improvement efforts, and best practices. Finally, program aspects in
place at Kuwait International Airport, through the Kuwait Directorate General of Civil
Aviation (DGCA) were researched to identify aspects of an airport operating under
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. All of these areas provide a
broad base of comparative data to be analyzed alongside USAF data.
Permission was obtained to perform research for each of the individual sources
prior to execution. An approval memo was received from the commanders of both the
387th Air Expeditionary Group, and the 436th Operations Support Squadron, to distribute
29
the self-completion questionnaires and gather data at the both the airfield at the 387th Air
Expeditionary Group and at Dover Air Force Base. Each written interview was
conducted after proper coordination through the managers at MSP, NHK, BWI, and PHL.
Testing Procedure
Responses to the self-completion questionnaires and structured interviews were
tested for their validity and correlation with the research questions. The procedure for the
questionnaires and structured interviews were similar, except the tests to determine
correlation of survey questions were much more direct and quantified than the responses
gathered during structured interviews.
Questions contained within the survey were examined for their inter-correlation
with other questions. Relationships were drawn from correlations between groups of
questions. Results from the Likert Scale questions pertaining to driver perception of
airfield safety and abilities as an airfield driver were correlated to questions relating to
demographic, driving frequency, training methods, evaluation methods, and driving
logging. The choices of responses were evaluated based on their strength toward a
higher perception of abilities and training/evaluation quality, i.e. higher correlation for
more confidence and lower correlation for lower perception of training received. If a
correlation was found, i.e. low perceptions of confidence and abilities correlated with low
perceptions of training and evaluation quality, the questions were considered directly
related.
Treatment of Responses
30
Responses were treated according to the scores of the respondents. Higher
correlations related to more confidence in abilities and greater strength of training, and
lower correlations related to less ability and quality training. These responses were
compared across Dover AFB between functional areas to identify programs that have a
perceived superiority and effectiveness. Responses that had little or no correlation
between the two key question buckets were thrown out and were not included in the data
analysis.
Interview responses were included as supplemental information toward the
perception of overall strength of programs across the aviation industry. Responses were
included to identify best practices, key training/evaluation differences, and perceived
effective methods for training and evaluation drivers.
31
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter presents results of primary research working to answer research
questions presented in Chapter II. The data are presented and organized according to
each gathering instrument. The driver and ADPM survey results are examined first,
including direct interpretation of the results and correlations utilizing the driver-
confidence Likert Scale questions, followed by the ADPM survey, interviews with other
airfields, and correlations to safety trend data.
Driver Survey Results
The results from the driver survey are depicted in Figure 3, which can be found in
Appendix E. There were 163 total respondents for the driver survey. The demographics
of the survey were consistent with the researcher's assumptions.
Questions 1 through 4 and question 6 all yielded results without surprises. The
results relating to drivers‟ recent driving activity on airfield/CMA were as-expected. On
question 5, most respondents (95%) had a current Airfield Driver‟s License (AF Form
483). For question 7, most respondents (72%) had driven on the airfield less than one
month ago, and for question 8, the number of respondents that had driven in the CMA
less than one month ago (41%), and the number that had not driven in the CMA in the
last 6 months (42%) were nearly equal.
Most drivers responded that they drove on the airfield a lot, but did not drive
within the CMA very much. The majority of respondents on question 9 (63%) stated
they drive 8 or fewer hours on the airfield per month, with 46% driving less than 3 hours
on the airfield per month. For question 10, the majority of respondents (68%) indicated
32
they drive less than one hour within the CMA per month, with 13.7% driving more than
five hours within the CMA per month.
Most drivers responded to the Likert Scale driver confidence questions that they
were mostly confident in their abilities to drive on the airfield and communicate with
ATC. On question 11.1, the majority (89%) agreed or strongly agreed (31% that strongly
agreed) that the airfield overall is a safe environment. On 11.2, the majority (85%)
agreed or strongly agreed (37% that strongly agreed) that they had a strong understanding
of local airfield vehicle procedures. On 11.3, the majority (77.4%) agreed or strongly
agreed (24% that strongly agreed) that they had a strong understanding of ATC
communication procedures. Finally, on 11.4, the majority (81%) agreed or strongly
agreed (31% that strongly agreed) that they were confident in their abilities to drive
safely in the airfield environment.
Most drivers responded that their training and evaluations were adequate to
prepare them to drive on the airfield. On question 12.1, the majority (76%) agreed or
strongly agreed (17% strongly agreed) that their initial driver training was adequate. On
12.2, the majority (73%) agreed or strongly agreed (18% that strongly agreed) that their
initial evaluation was adequate. For 12.3, the majority (74%) agreed or strongly agreed
(19% strongly agreed) that their annual recurring training was adequate. Last, on 12.4,
the majority (71%) agreed or strongly agreed (16% strongly agreed) that the annual
recurring evaluation was adequate.
Twenty-two comments on question 13 to the above questions primarily indicated
that the training received was not up to the perceived required level. Though a couple of
comments pointed toward a perception of “overkill,” most of the respondents felt that the
33
training and evaluation they experienced in their initial and recurring certification was not
adequate.
Training methods answers to questions 14 and 18 pointed toward USAF-required
computer-based training, along with other methods, including one-on-one, classroom,
and practical. On question 14, the majority (67%) received computer-based, 50%
received one-on-one, 38% received practical, 33% classroom, and 1% received simulator.
Skipping to question 18, the majority (72%) responded that they received computer-based
training, followed by around 10% for one-on-one, classroom, and practical, with less than
1% receiving simulator training, and 16% not having received recurring training as of
yet.
Driver‟s preference for training on questions 15 and 19 was in-line with one‟s
desire for personalized training and practical experience. On question 15, one-on-one
was the most preferred for initial training (52% at number one), followed by practical
(23% at number one, 37% at number two). On question 19, one-on-one again was the
most preferred for recurring training (35% at number one), followed by computer-based
(30% at number 1, and 13% at number 2), and practical (16% at number 1, 31% at
number 2, and 24% at number 3).
On questions 16 and 20, driver evaluations, both for initial and recurring, were
consistent to the USAF-required computer-based evaluation, along with the required
written test and some practical experience. Just over half of the respondents on question
16 (53%) stated they received computer-based evaluation, followed closely by practical
(49%), written (49%), and verbal (45%). On question 20, the majority (66%) received
computer-based evaluation, followed by 20% receiving a written evaluation.
34
Driver preferences for evaluations on questions 17 and 21 pointed once again
toward one-on-one communication, and practical experience. For initial evaluations on
question 17, verbal (one-on-one) was the most preferred (72% at number one), followed
by practical (56% at number one, and 40% at number two). For recurring evaluations on
question 21, verbal (one-on-one) again was the most preferred (55% at number one),
followed by computer-based (40% at number one), and practical (38% at number one).
Simulated practical was the highest at number two, with 34%.
Results from question 22, pertaining to logging of airfield driving yielded
somewhat surprising results. Although over half of the respondents (55%) responded that
they do not utilize any methods for tracking their driving on the airfield, 23% answered
that they utilize a logbook (or similar).
Comments in the final section on question 23 reiterated the general distaste of
training and evaluation among airfield drivers. Although these comments are subjective
and qualitative in nature, they do reveal a general perception of inadequacy and
insufficient intensity in the application of passing airfield driving knowledge to student
drivers both before they drive unescorted on the airfield and as a refresher tool on a
recurring basis.
Correlations
Correlations were calculated using the four-part Likert Scale question 11,
involving driver perception of airfield safety and confidence in their driving
understanding and abilities. The four statements that respondents were asked to rate their
level of agreement were correlated to other non-demographical questions to gauge
35
relationships between driver currency, frequency, training, evaluation, and logging and
the drivers‟ perceived level of competency.
Question 11.1 presented the statement “the airfield overall is a safe environment
in which to operate.” Correlations to this question were mostly intuitive with regard to
expected responses, with a few that were inconsistent with hypotheses. Results
consistent with hypotheses included driver experience and frequency. Twenty of 55
respondents (36%) that have more than 15 years of experience driving on airfields
strongly agreed, and another 30 out of the remaining 35 (54% of total) agreed.
Comparative results existed for drivers at all other experience levels. One hundred two
of 113 respondents (90%) that had driven on the airfield within the last month agreed or
strongly agreed. Only 17 out of 22 (77%) drivers that had not driven on the airfield
within the last six months answered the same. Ninety-three of 105 respondents (89%)
that drive in the CMA less than 1 hour per month agreed or strongly agreed. A slightly
higher percentage, with 20 out of 22 (91%) that drive in the CMA more than 5 hours per
month answered the same. Results inconsistent with hypotheses included responses for
driver license currency and perception of adequacy of training. All four respondents that
did not have a current Airfield Driver‟s License agreed or strongly agreed (4 each). Ten
of 90 respondents (11%) that agreed with 11.1 disagreed with the statement that their
initial training was adequate. Nine of 90 respondents (10%) that agreed with 11.1
disagreed that their annual recurring training was adequate. Overall, there were no major
discoveries resulting from this correlation.
Question 11.2 presented the statement “I have a strong understanding of local
airfield vehicle procedures.” This correlation yielded results consistent with hypotheses.
36
When correlated with driver experience, all 4 respondents that agreed or strongly agreed
had less than 3 years‟ experience driving on airfields. Twenty-one of 22 respondents
(95%) that drive more than 5 hours in the CMA per month agreed or strongly agreed. A
total of 84% of respondents that drive less than 1 hour per month answered similarly.
Fifteen of 16 respondents (94%) that received one-on-one training agreed or strongly
agreed. Twelve of 15 respondents (80%) that received classroom training answered
similarly. Sixty-seven of 81 respondents (83%) that did not use any methods to log their
airfield driving agreed or strongly agreed. Similarly, 89% of drivers use a method to
track airfield driving answered similarly. There were no surprising results or any that
were counterintuitive or inconsistent with hypotheses.
Question 11.3 presented the statement “I have a strong understanding of Air
Traffic Control (ATC) communication procedures.” This correlation yielded consistent
results, with most responses being in the realm of what was expected. 26 of 43
respondents (60%) with less than three years driving on airfields agreed or disagreed,
with 4 of 43 (9%) disagreeing Conversely, 49 of 54 respondents (91%) with more than
15 years‟ experience answered similarly. 80 of 105 respondents (76%) that drive in the
CMA less than 1 hour per month agreed or strongly agreed. Twenty of 22 (91%)
respondents that drive more than 5 hours in the CMA per month answered similarly.
There were no significant results that went against the hypotheses.
Question 11.4 presented the statement “I am confident in my abilities to drive
safely in the airfield environment, including within the Controlled Movement Area
(CMA) and communicating with Air Traffic Control (ATC), in compliance with
regulations.” This correlation yielded similar results, with no data contradictory to
37
hypotheses. More than 75% of respondents of drivers answered agree or strongly agree
on both ends of the spectrum with regards to driving experience, driving frequency, and
those that do or do not use methods to track driving on the airfield. There were no
significant results yielded by this correlation with respect to hypothesis testing.ADPM
Survey Results
The results from the ADP survey are depicted in Figure 4, which can be found in
Appendix E. There were only six respondents for the ADPM survey. This low number is
insufficient to utilize the data to make supported conclusions. However, some of the
results provide insight into aspects of the Airfield Driving Program from the ADPM
perspective.
Only four of the six respondents on question 6 believed that all of their drivers
were current with their training. This shows a fairly low percentage (66%) of ADPMs
that are confident in their ability to maintain current, qualified drivers. With the
confidence level this low, there is a high probability that many of those driving on the
airfield have not received required recurring training.
One of the respondents on question 9 had not driven on the airfield within the last
four months, and on question 10, two had not driven in the CMA within the last four
months. On question 11, two respondents on average drive on the airfield less than three
hours per month, and on question 12, four responded that they drive less than one hour
within the CMA per month.
One of the respondents answered “neutral” to the statement on number 13.4, “the
drivers I manage in my program have a strong understanding of local airfield vehicle
38
procedures,” and the statement on number 13.5, “I am confident in the abilities of the
drivers I manage in my program, to drive safely and in compliance with regulations.”
For the Likert Scale questions on 14.1 through 14.8, pertaining to initial and
recurring training and evaluation, there was at least 1 respondent who answered “neutral”
or “disagree” on six out of the eight statements. One respondent answered “disagree” to
the statement on 14.2, “The level of the evaluations administered during my initial
issuance of approval to drive on the airfield is adequate to ensure I was fit to drive safely
on the airfield.” This implies that a small percentage of ADPMs are not confident in the
overall training and evaluation of drivers.
There was a slight difference in the results of the ADPM survey in reference to
ranking of initial training and evaluation methods on questions 18 and 21. On number
18, threeout of the five respondants that answered the question (60%) ranked “practical”
as number one and “one-on-one” as number two for initial training, whereas 52% of
driver respondents ranked “one-on-one” as number one and 37% with “practical” as
number two. For initial evaluations on number 21, four out of the five ADPM
respondents (80%) ranked “practical” as number one and “one-on-one” as number two,
and 42% of driver respondents ranked the former as number one and 28% with the latter
as number two. These results could be due to the difference in perceived workload by
ADPMs, possibly demonstrating a reluctance to provide one-on-one training over actual
practical driving experience.
39
Results of Interviews at Other Airfields
MSP Airfield Driving Program
MSP has a very robust airfield driving program with over 430 total drivers with
runway and taxiway licenses at MSP. The Manager of Airside Operations is the overall
Program Manager, while the entire Airside Operations Department oversees the training
and testing process. Mr. Mark Miller, the Duty Manager of the Airside Operations
Department, oversees the day-to-day execution of the program. According to Mr. Miller,
the program is governed by 14 CFR 139.329, as well as Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) Ordinance 105, "Air Operations Area Driving Ordinance" (M.
Miller, 2010).
There are several tiers of certification offered, including "Runway," "Taxiway,"
"Tow," and "Pushback." The "Runway" certification is the only tier that does not limit
access to certain portions of the airfield. There are several typical functional areas that
operate on the airport, with those given "Taxiway" or "Runway" certifications being
Airside Operations, Field Maintenance, Police, Fire, Trades (Electricians, Carpenters,
Plumbers and Painters), Airfield Development, Engineers, Contractors, USDA and FAA
personnel (M. Miller, 2010).
Guidance is published for driver training and reference, including a
comprehensive "Movement Area Handbook" and an "AOA Drivers' Guide" (M. Miller,
2010) that outline the following: general information, driver and vehicle requirements,
airport layout, special driving conditions, signs and markings, lighting and navigation
aids, communications, aircraft identification, enforcement and appeals, and MAC
Ordinance 105 (MAC, 2009).
40
For training, MSP offers classroom training, but it is not required for all drivers to
attend. The classroom training runs approximately 2.5 hours and uses a slideshow
coupled with exercises for the students. The Airport Police, Fire, and Field Maintenance
Departments provide testing for their own employees. Recurring training is required
every year, with drivers expected to either attend one of the driver's training sessions or
partake in refresher training with their employer (M. Miller, 2010).
A state-of-the-art, $430,000 Driver Training Simulator, built by Environmental
Tectonics Corporation (ETC), is used to augment classroom and practical driving
experience. This simulator offers a realistic training experience of utilizing a fully-
functional, full-motion cab of an Oshkosh T-3000 aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF)
vehicle along with video screens and realistic audio (Croft, 2005). The instructor
controls each scenario from a separate station, and is able to introduce various elements
that add to the overall training experience (M. Miller, personal communication, July 19,
2010).
For evaluations, all initial drivers are required to pass a computerized test and a
practical driving test. Depending on the type of license, the computerized test is
approximately 110-140 questions and the practical test generally takes 60-90 minutes.
Drivers must have a score of 95% to pass the test. Mr. Miller estimates that the overall
pass-rate for the initial computer test is 60%, with the rate being 80-90% for the practical
test on first attempt. He further explains that approximately 80% of drivers pass the
refresher test on their first attempt (M. Miller, 2010).
MSP utilizes a computers Driver's Record System to track all of the drivers'
certifications. Although this system creates awareness for overall program management,
41
the system does not contain information pertaining to whether a driver attended the
official Drivers' Training Session, or if they received training with their employer (M.
Miller, 2010).
Mr. Miller is confident in the overall program at MSP. He states, " I feel that the
personnel that have passed our tests are safe drivers and that our training/testing program
and the limited number of personnel driving on the airport help ensure the safest
operation possible" (M. Miller, 2010). Mr. Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director for MAC, is
responsible for all of the airports operated by MAC including MSP. He explains, "the
airport driving program is extremely important to maintaining a safe airport operations
environment," and that "he has a high level of confidence in the management of the
program and the abilities of the drivers that were trained through the program" (Hamiel,
personal communication, July 19, 2010).
BWI Airfield Driving Program
BWI holds a large airport driving program with over 530 total drivers with current
authorization to drive in the Movement Area. The regulatory responsibility for the
program lies with the Director of Operations, BWI Airport. Management of the program
is assigned to an Airport Management Officer by the Manager, Airside Operations
Center. The program is governed by 14 CFR 139, BWI Marshall Tenant Directive 202.1,
"Airfield Operators Permit Program," and Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR)
11.03.01.04, “Control of Vehicular Traffic on the Air Operations Area" (J. Miller, 2010).
BWI has three tiers of certification for airport drivers: "V," "T," and "R." Drivers
that operate only on vehicle roadways, without entry to the Movement Area are issued an
Airfield Operators Permit identified with a "V" on the airport identification badge.
42
Employees that are authorized on the Movement Area are divided into the two remaining
groups. Those that are only allowed to operate on taxiways are indicated by a “T” on the
airport ID badge. Those personnel are not permitted to operate on or across an open
runway, and must be escorted by an employee with runway authorization if they require
access to the runway environment. Almost all airline employees get a "T" designation to
allow them to reposition their aircraft from remote overnight parking to the airport gates.
Additionally, most airport maintenance personnel have "T" designation. Runway
authorization is indicated on the airport ID badge by the letter “R.” This group is limited
to personnel from BWI Airport Operations, BWI Fire Department, FAA Tech Ops, and a
limited number of BWI Maintenance supervisors and employees (J. Miller, 2010).
Guidance is provided to BWI drivers in the form of the "Movement Area Driver
Training Study Guide." This comprehensive document gives a brief introduction,
background information about the airport, and information about runway incursions.
Additionally, airport familiarization, radio communications, written exams, and recurrent
training are outlined in detail in this publication (MAA, 2009).
Training is provided by the Airport Operations section for initial driver training,
and is augmented by the driver's employer. This initial training is completed in the
classroom by Airport Operations, and practical driving experience is given by the
employer for on-the-job training. Recurring training and certification is required every
12 calendar months, and is normally accomplished during annual renewal of the Airport
identification badge. There is no formal recurring training requirement, but an evaluation
is conducted (J. Miller, 2010).
43
BWI, like MSP, utilizes a driver simulator to administer training. The system is
manufactured by FAAC, Inc, and includes many of the same features of the MSP
simulator. It offers full-motion, customizable training scenarios, all controlled by a Mr.
Erik Lind, the system's administrator. Mr. Lind states that the system "is very capable of
meeting the training needs of all types of airport drivers" (Lind, personal communication,
September 3, 2010).
Evaluations are administered by the Airport Operations section for initial and
recurrent certification. The initial evaluation is a written, open-book exam of 50
questions. For employees requiring runway access, an oral/practical exam is
administered by Airport Operations personnel requiring the employee to drive around the
airfield while being evaluated on overall knowledge and ability. The pass rate on the
written exam is approximately 94% on the first attempt, with the most common reason
for failure being airfield familiarization and radio communication technique. Recurring
evaluations are administered by the Airport Security personnel during annual renewal of
the airport identification badge. A computer-based test is used, which takes
approximately 40 minutes to accomplish. Mr. Miller estimates that the pass-rate is
around 100% for this evaluation (J. Miller, 2010).
Driver record-keeping is accomplished at BWI through two different databases.
Initial certification is traced in a database with the initial training date listed, along with a
score on the written test and the expiration of the driver authorization. Recurrent training
is accomplished with proprietary software from the American Association of Airport
Executives (AAAE). This system captures the information on a website database that can
be accessed by Airport Operations to track recurrent training (J. Miller, 2010).
44
Mr. Miller is confident in the overall program at BWI. He states that they have
seen dramatic improvement since having the highest occurrence of runway incursions in
the FAA's Eastern Region. He continues, "historical performance is no guarantee for the
future, but our lack of problems in the Movement Area indicates a high level of
competence and our prevention of people from operating on open runways has
contributed to the improved safety of the airfield" (J. Miller, 2010).
PHL Airfield Driving Program
PHL has a similar program to BWI and MSP. The program contains around 400
airfield drivers with AMA access, and is managed by the Airport Operations department.
The program is regulated by 14 CFR Part 139 and local ordinances of the city of
Philadelphia. Access is allowed to the AMA only as allowed by the Airport Operations
department. Those allowed in the AMA are personnel from Airport Operations, Fire,
Police, and maintenance (Silverman, personal communication, November 18, 2010).
Training and evaluation methods are similar to the other airports. PHL uses
AAAE's computer-based Interactive Employee Training (IET) modules, which include
videos, for non-movement area driver training. These courses are required for initial
training, and also must be taken every six months for recurring training. A 30-question,
multiple choice exam is administered, with a minimum passing score of 90% required for
certification. A practical test follows for AMA access, administered by Airport
Operations personnel (Silverman, personal communication, November 18, 2010).
Like BWI, PHL utilizes the AAAE records database for recurring training and
driver records of IET completion. In addition, PHL utilizes a local database for overall
45
program tracking of driver training (Silverman, personal communication, November 18,
2010).
Mr. Silverman believes the program at PHL is sufficient to maintain safety. "The
program is good," states Silverman, "and we are working to constantly improve it as we
go" (personal communication, 2010).
NHK Airfield Driving Program
NHK has a very large program with over 1,200 drivers. The Air Operations
Officer supervises the overall operations on the airfield. This officer designates, in
writing, the Airfield Vehicle Operator Indoctrination Course (AVOIC) Program
Manager, who presently is AC2 Poku. The AVOIC Program Manager is responsible for
training AVOIC instructors, and issuing/revoking licenses. The program is governed by
OPNAVINST 3710.7, NAVAIR 00-80T-114, NASPAXINST 3721.2F, and
NASPAXRIVINST 3750.5U (Poku, 2010).
Drivers only requiring ramp access receive limited training and restrictions on
their licenses. All drivers requiring full airfield access must complete the entire AVOIC.
Many functional areas maintain driving certification, including Airfield Management
Division, Fuels, Weapons, Environmentals, and VQ-4 Flying Squadrons (Poku, 2010).
Training at NHK includes utilizing Local Qualification Standards (LQS), which
total six pages in length, and include information about the program. Students are then
instructed via a 1.5-hour class and an airfield familiarization tour. A refresher course is
required to be taken annually, which includes the same items as initial training (Poku,
2010).
46
Evaluations consist of two written tests: an airfield diagram test, and a 25-
question written exam. AC2 Poku estimates the passing rate to be around 90%, with the
most common reasons for failure being airfield familiarization, airfield signage, and ATC
communications. Those that fail the tests are given another chance to retake and that‟s
normally done the following week. If a person fails the tests twice, he/she is then
scheduled for a retake of the entire class. A similar process is required for annual
recurrent recertification. AC2 Poku estimates that 95% of drivers achieve the recurrent
evaluation process (Poku, 2010).
AC2 Poku believes the AVOIC program at NHK is adequate to maintain safe
operations. He states "I strongly believe the drivers at Pax River are very competent,"
and "the level of driver training has helped in the reduction of mishaps or runway
incursions on the airfield" (2010).
387th Airfield Driving Program
The program at the airfield operated by the 387th Air Expeditionary Group is
substantial for the size of the overall operation. There are more than 700 drivers certified
to drive on the ramp of the international, ICAO-compliant, airport in which it operates.
The program is managed by the Airfield Manager, and governed by the local airfield
driving regulation and AFI 13-213. Larger units also have an ADPM to accomplish
delegated training and testing (Owen, 2010).
Training and evaluation is offered to drivers as they rotate into their positions
through the normal deployment turnover process. In addition, an Air Force computer-
based training and test is required to be completed for initial training. A required written
test is accomplished in the Airfield Management duty section. Recurring training is
47
required for all drivers that maintain certification for more than one year, and consists of
the computer-based training and written test. The estimated overall pass-rate is around
80% (Owen, 2010).
Records are tracked through a database maintained by the Airfield Manager and
unit ADPMs. Training certificates are put in the individuals training records (AF 623)
and the ADPM (Owen, 2010).
TSgt Owen is confident in the program at the 387th Air Expeditionary Group. He
states " With the high ops-tempo we have here, the program is run smoothly" ( 2010).
Kuwait DGCA Airfield Driving
The Kuwait DGCA owns and operates Kuwait International Airport (OKBK).
The program, currently in its early fledgling stages, works to comply with the ICAO
requirements for ensuring there is control over who is allowed to drive and operate on
airports. DGCA‟s program is overseen by the Chief of Safety and Security, and enforced
by its personnel. An “Apron Safety Guide” was published by DGCA to disseminate
operating standards, aircraft safety procedures, and general information about the airport
(DGCA, 2009). It is published in both English and Arabic. Though DGCA‟s program is
very basic and in its infancy, it contains the basic elements to expand on, in order to be
successful and safe.
Comparison of Programs
There were many similarities and dissimilarities between each of the programs
and with the program at Dover AFB. Each program is unique, but each puts forth an
organized effort to keep operations on the airfield safe.
48
Several similarities exist between the programs. The most direct similarity is
centralized program management, as illustrated in question 1, with delegated enforcement
and delivery. Civil airports typically are managed by the Airport or Airside Operations
department and administered through tenant employers and companies. USAF and USN
airfields are centrally managed by Airfield Management, and delivered through ADPMs
or AVOIC instructors.
A second similarity is the use of different certification tiers for airfield driving, as
illustrated in question 4. The basic goal of this is to limit the number of certified
individuals in high-risk areas (i.e. around runways), and limit the amount of training and
evaluation to the minimum amount necessary.
Another similarity is the overall construct of initial training and evaluation, shown
in question 7, followed by recurring annual refresher training and recertification, shown
in question 8. Each of the airports studied utilized this same basic concept, although they
varied in specific methods utilized. Computerized training and evaluation is utilized in
most of the airports, with classroom and face-to-face training applied to the maximum
extent feasible, contingent on available manpower and funding. Some examples of
variances encountered include the use of on-the-job training by individual employers at
BWI, extensive 100-plus question written tests at MSP; and annual recurring computer-
based training in the USAF.
Although all of the overarching guidance is fairly similar in nature, some
differences between the programs exist. The number of drivers varied between
programs, the format of the training and evaluation methods utilized had slight
differences, and the level of published guidance and information made available to
49
drivers varied greatly based on funding availability. Although these differences existed,
no one program showed signs of being unsafe or lacking in any way.
Opinions of Interviewees
Several questions in the written interview attempted to stimulate the opinion of
interviewees on both their own program and the potential for new ideas to integrate with
existing programs. Opinions about the validity of necessity to drive matching total
number of drivers, the effectiveness of training record keeping, and the use of proficiency
or currency requirements and the feasibility of tracking driving time offered valuable
results.
Responses received for questions 6a and 6b, regarding whether the number of
certified drivers accurately reflects the number of personnel that have a bona fide “need
to drive” on the movement area, and whether there is an excessive number of personnel
trained and certified yielded consistent results. Most of the interviewees agreed that
many of the drivers do not have a true need to drive on the airfield, and instead received
the certification due to their employer or unit‟s desire to maximize their number of
certified drivers to keep the utmost in flexibility of scheduling and work assignments.
One respondent replied that "the reason for this is that an airline doesn‟t know at all times
who is available to tow an aircraft, or operate a de-icing truck and they consequently train
everyone so that should a need arise, there will be an employee available." On the
contrary, one of the interviewees took a different viewpoint, stating "No, if anything we
wish that we could provide training and licenses to all personnel that drive on the
airfield..... right now we are limited to training, testing and licensing only Movement
50
Area drivers while Non-Movement Area drivers are trained by their employers with no
testing required by the Airport Authority."
The effectiveness of driver record keeping, asked in question 9b, was indicated to
be spread across the spectrum. One interviewee stated that their program‟s record
keeping was not good enough to fully track all aspects of the program, stating they would
not know “if someone attended our Driver‟s Training session or had training with their
employer or on their own.” Most of the other interviewees stated that they thought the
level of record keeping was adequate.
There were several opinions expressed in question 10a i regarding the feasibility
of enforcing a currency requirement to ensure drivers are driving regularly to maintain
proficiency If such a currency requirement existed, there would also need to be some sort
of logging requirement, asked in 10b i. The interviewees agreed that such a requirement
would be beneficial, but enforcement of such a requirement would not be feasible. One
respondent stated, “it might be beneficial, but the required increase in staff wouldn‟t be
cost effective,” while another stated it “may be difficult to enforce as we would not have
a way to verify if someone actually drove on the airfield, unless we were there
observing.” Another went on to say “plus, what‟s to prevent the requirements from being
“pencil whipped?”
51
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This chapter will discuss the results presented in Chapter IV. This discussion will
attempt to explain why the results occurred and what the results may mean. Analysis of
the hypotheses is included first, followed by discussion of each of the five subproblems,
or research questions, presented in Chapter 2.
Hypotheses Analysis
Research conducted through primary and secondary data gathering instruments
provided quantitative data, suggesting that more comprehensive training will result in a
more competent airfield driving pool. Additionally, it is confirmed that a large number of
certified airfield drivers do not spend an adequate amount of time driving on the airfield
environment to maintain proper proficiency. Basic hypotheses analyses, as well as in-
depth analyses of the research questions, are included in this chapter to present the
study‟s conclusions.
Hypothesis One, as stated in Chapter 2, is “ More comprehensive initial training,
as well as increased frequency and depth of recurring training, will result in a more
proficient, competent airfield driver pool resulting in fewer runway incursions.” This
hypothesis is confirmed, based on the overall results of the research conducted, and
analysis of research questions regarding training/evaluation methods, frequency, and
safety trends.
Hypothesis Two, as stated in Chapter 2, is “A large number of certified airfield
drivers do not spend an adequate amount of time in practice driving in the airfield
environment to maintain proper proficiency.” This hypothesis is confirmed based on
52
both the numbers for total driver population reported by airfields that participated in the
study, questionnaire answers, and comments submitted by respondents.
Research Question Analysis
The primary and secondary data gathering instruments were able to adequately
answer most of the research questions presented earlier. The results of the research
questions are below.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked “Is there a correlation between frequency and
adequacy of initial and recurring training for airfield drivers and the level of safety at
USAF airfields (i.e. runway incursions)?” The conclusion of this question is that there
certainly is a correlation between the adequacy of training and the level of safety,
whether perceived or through actual events.
Regarding perceived airfield safety, driver and ADPM confidence in airfield
safety was gauged. This correlation yielded results showing approximately 10% of
drivers that perceived the airfield to be safe, yet did not feel their initial or recurring
training was adequate. Just two of 156 respondents (1.2%) thought their training and
evaluations were not adequate thought that the airfield was not safe. This proves that the
perception of airfield safety at Dover AFB, and likely other similar airfields, is not based
solely on the perception of adequacy of training and evaluation. Perceptions of safety
and adequacy of programs at other airfields were consistent with perceptions of overall
safety, and were not compared in this study.
Regarding actual airfield incidents at Dover AFB, driver confidence in training
and evaluation hovered near 75%, despite the base experiencing nine CMAVs over the
53
last year. This simply measures perception of adequacy of training and evaluation, but
provides a good measure of sufficiency provided by those on the receiving end. ADPMs,
or those administering and tracking the training and evaluation, indicated a very small
percentage of ADPMs are not confident in the overall training and evaluation of drivers.
With such a high number of violations and an overall perception of adequacy of training
and evaluation, it is clear that there is no direct relationship between the two factors.
In response to this high number of violations, Dover AFB enacted the
enhancements shown in Table 1, located in Appendix D. It is hoped that these tangible
additions to the program, along with codifying to provide an enduring solution, will yield
a safer actual airfield environment. It is conceivable that the program could be improved
and intensified to a greater degree, but this must be balanced with practicality and
availability of resources to administer the program.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked “What types of training (i.e. one-on-one,
classroom, practical, simulator, computer-based) and evaluations (i.e. verbal, written,
practical, computer-based, simulated practical) should be conducted initially and on a
recurring basis?” Based on research data, the primary focus for initial and recurring
training/evaluations should be one-on-one, practical, and verbal, all coinciding with one‟s
desire for personalized training and practical experience.. Additionally, where resources
allow, simulator training coupled with simulated practical evaluations can yield positive
results. As a primer for future practical training and evaluation, computer-based training
can provide an effective platform for instructing airfield layout, basic ATC procedures,
54
and other straight-forward items that can be taught systematically and through computer
media.
Driver and ADPM feedback indicated an overwhelming preference for practical
and one-on-one training, One-on-one was the most preferred at over 40% in total,
followed by practical and computer-based, for both initial and recurring training. Driver
preferences for evaluations pointed to verbal (one-on-one) as most preferred, with over
60% stating as such, with practical and computer-based falling as second and third most
preferred respectively.
Airfield driving simulators have proven to be very useful tools in both providing
training and administering evaluations. MSP and BWI airports utilize full-motion driver
simulator systems. These systems, although costly, can provide a significant boost to
training programs if properly integrated with the overall program. Obtaining and
administering a simulator program has many benefits and potential drawbacks, some of
which are outlined in Table 2, located in Appendix D.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked “Should the USAF require mandated task
coverage and objectives for initial and recurring training, and should this coverage be
tracked with training records with task line items?” The USAF should require broad task
coverage and objectives for training, which should be tracked in some way, either
through established training processes (i.e. training checklists) or in individuals‟ training
records. This will provide an adequate amount of attention for trainers to cover necessary
items, and would ensure all drivers receive a consistent coverage of training topics.
55
Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked, “Should time driven on the airfield be logged
and should there be a minimum requirement for driving to maintain proficiency (i.e.
number of hours logged monthly, quarterly, etc)?” Tracking time driven and requiring a
minimum amount of time driven should not be required.
Although tracking time driven is a good practice, and should be pursued when and
where appropriate, it is not feasible to be required en masse to the entire driver
population. This is not primarily due to the increased workload that the driver would
encounter, but moreso on those that would be charged with tracking and enforcing the
requirement. The time and resources spent tracking this information would not be
directly compensated for with increased proficiency of the driver pool. However, for
front-line supervisors and lower-level managers, having a good feel for how much his or
her drivers are driving on the airfield increases managerial situational awareness.
Therefore, it should be encouraged in certain applications, but not required of all drivers.
There should not be a currency requirement for time driven on the airfield in a
given period of time. Although this would create a more proficient driver pool, it would
create undue hazards on the airfield by encouraging superfluous driving on the airfield.
This is counter to the general push for eliminating any unnecessary airfield driving.
Research Question 5
The fifth and final research question asked “Are drivers that maintain
certifications to drive on the airfield actually spending time driving on the airfield, and is
the number of certified drivers justified?” Most drivers are driving on the airfield
sporadically, but are not driving consistent amounts to necessarily justify certification.
56
Although most drivers (3 out of every 4) reported they had driven on the airfield in the
last month, nearly half reported they drive three or fewer hours on the airfield per month,
and nearly 70% reported they drive less than one hour per month in the CMA.
Additionally, 13% of drivers indicated they had not driven on the airfield within the last
six months.
This shows that many drivers have a certification to drive due to an
unsubstantiated requirement. Drivers such as these should have certifications revoked
due to inactivity and lack of need to hold the license, and program guidelines should
restrict personnel without a valid need from obtaining certification. This tendency to
“over certify” the employee pool appears to be a consistent throughout both military and
civilian units. Although this can create a larger pool of qualified employees, the lack of
practice received from actual driving to maintain proficiency can create a less proficient
pool.
57
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
Five conclusions were deduced from all of the research performed within this
study. These conclusions are based on hypothesis testing, referencing the five research
questions and primary/secondary research data. The five conclusions are listed below,
followed by detailed analysis of each conclusion.
1. Current training and evaluations methods are not adequate or consistent
enough to provide a fully proficient pool of airfield drivers.
2. The number of certified drivers is too high at most airfields.
3. Driver training and certification records are adequate in most applications, but
are not sufficiently standardized within organizations.
4. Driving currency requirements are impractical and would encourage
superfluous airfield driving.
5. Logging requirements, though feasible in some applications, are unreasonable
for most airfield drivers
Conclusion 1
The first conclusion of this study is current training and evaluations methods are
not adequate or consistent enough to provide a fully proficient pool of airfield drivers.
The current lack of standardization and consistency within individual airfields and
organization places undue risk for hazardous airfield operations. Based on USAF
driver/ADPM and USN/civilian program manager feedback, drivers are not consistently
receiving the same types of training. This is due either to lack of empowerment or
established norms, creating an inability for program managers to enforce consistent
58
standards. Furthermore, the application of one-on-one and practical training/evaluation
appears to be extremely limited, likely due to the recent reliance on computer-based
training and written testing.
One-on-one training provides a tailored training experience for each driver,
allowing the instructor to validate trainee understanding of lectured material in real-time
through verbal and non-verbal feedback. Even if one-on-one training is not possible due
to manpower or time constraints, any form of face-to-face training (i.e. classroom)
provides a significant enhancement to the training experience.
Practical training is an essential part of training that appears to have fallen by the
wayside of late. Fundamental practical training is the epitome of realistic instruction,
allowing the instructor to show the student driving procedures, ATC communication,
actual examples of airfield signage, and specific problem areas on the airfield. Requiring
some form of minimum practical training, either through on-the-job training for
employers or unit personnel to administer prior to evaluation, would be a significant
boost to airfield safety. Practical evaluation furthers this realistic experience by
validating absorption of training by the student.
Many airfields are not ensuring all of their drivers are receiving recurrent training
within allowable standards. In most instances, drivers that go overdue for refresher
training and recertification are not aware that they are in violation, and thus are not
discontinuing airfield driving activities.
Conclusion 2
The second conclusion of this study is the number of certified drivers is too high at most
airfields. The data outlines that many drivers do not have a valid requirement to maintain
59
certification. Additionally, it is unknown what drivers are operating at certain times
without a valid need to be out on the airfield, as this was not addressed in the primary
data gathering instrument.
Conclusion 3
The third conclusion of this study is driver training and certification records are
adequate in most applications, but are not sufficiently standardized within organizations.
All of the separate airfields included in the primary and secondary research methods
indicated some sort of driver record keeping. However, there was no single system that
was utilized cross-organizationally or between airports.
Some of the organizations or airports did utilize some of the same systems. Many
USAF bases utilize the ADTP system to track certifications and training, however this
system is limited and does not provide complete line-item task tracking. The AAAE
driver training database was used at both BWI and PHL. Similarly, this does not provide
task tracking, but rather acts simply as a driver database.
Conclusion 4
The fourth conclusion of this study is driving currency requirements are
impractical and would encourage superfluous airfield driving. As stated in the previous
chapter, requiring a certain number of hours driven during a given amount of time would
only increase the safety hazard on the airfield. The trade-off between increasing the
hazard and keeping a proficient pool of drivers would not justify such a requirement.
However, if an airport integrated an airfield simulator and required currency for certain
functional areas that could gain the most benefit (i.e. Fire Department), a great deal of
benefit could be experienced.
60
Conclusion 5
The fifth and final conclusion is that logging requirements, though feasible in
some applications, are unreasonable for most airfield drivers. Although tracking driving
activity can provide situational awareness for front-line supervisors and lower-level
management, levying a blanket requirement for all drivers to log all airfield driving
would be counterproductive. Again, the trade-off for time and resources spent to track
and enforce such a standard would not offset the gains in managerial awareness of
driving activities of subordinates.
61
CHAPTER VII
RECOMMENDATIONS
Five recommendations presented by this study to address the aforementioned
conclusions are outlined in this chapter. The five recommendations are shown below,
and are discussed in subsequent sections.
1. Programs should require systematic, full-spectrum airfield driver training and
evaluation, through an established line of managerial delegation to individual
units or tenants, including consistent emphasis on one-on-one, practical
training and evaluation and more frequent recurrent training.
2. Airfields should reduce the number of certified drivers by analyzing the
current list of drivers, setting firm restrictions for those allowed to gain
AMA/CMA access, and fully scrutinizing all subsequent requests for
AMA/CMA driving privileges.
3. Driver training and certification records systems should be standardized
across airfields/airports to ensure consistent tracking.
4. Driving currency requirements should not be enacted to minimize potential for
airfield hazards, as recurrent training should be realistic and frequent enough
to adequately maintain proficiency.
5. Logging requirements should not be enacted for all drivers, but front-line
supervisors that require logging will enable better managerial awareness of
subordinate driving frequency.
62
Recommendation 1
The first recommendation of this study, and by far the most comprehensive, is for
airfields to require systematic, full-spectrum airfield driver training and evaluation,
through an established line of managerial delegation to individual units or tenants,
including consistent emphasis on practical training and evaluation and more frequent
recurrent training. Consistency and standardization of sequential requirements is key to
this recommendation.
Practical training, including employer- and unit-based on-the-job training, should
be pursued as a way to provide real-world training prior to administration of a practical
evaluation and certification. This practical training provides slower-paced one-on-one
instruction, but would encourage full-coverage of topics through a step-by-step approach
to training, similar to a driver permit system. This practical training should include use
of simulators to the maximum extent possible, to minimize exposure to hazards created
due to a requirement to drive on the airfield. Specific times would be unique to each
airfield, and should be determined at the local level to ensure adequate coverage while
balancing availability of resources. This practical training should be tracked either
through individual training records or a centralized database, and include a process for
progressing through the practical training portion and concluding with the evaluation
phase to validate trainee reception of instruction and overall aptitude.
To complement the addition of practical training, practical drive-along
evaluations should be utilized on a consistent basis, in concert with verbal assessment by
certified testers. This would be completed in the most realistic environment possible,
creating the best setting to administer such an evaluation. This evaluation should include
63
required covered items, using a form of checklist to provide guidance. Once again, if an
airfield utilizes a simulator, it could be used for practical evaluations. This practical
evaluation, including verbal testing, would complement a comprehensive evaluation
process of computer-based or written testing to ensure maximum task validation.
To address the problem of drivers not receiving recurring training and
recertification on-time, managers must maintain an accurate database, consistently apply
sound procedures to monitor driver currency with constant attention, and perform
frequent audits of the driver population. This proactive approach would place
accountability at the lowest level, and would result in more attentive, involved
management of airfield drivers.
Airfields should continue to centralize certain portions of training, while
decentralizing other key components. Overall program management must occur within
one office, preferably Airport Operations or Airfield Management, and if possible, to one
individual. Employers and tenants on civil airports should follow the model of USAF
airfields to utilize a single lower-level manager to provide sound communication and
accountability channels. This gives a clear line of delegation from the overall program
manager down to the individual driver. One potential obstacle to implementing such a
requirement is employer and tenant cooperation, as civilian airports are not able to levy
direct requirements on subordinate units like the military. The tenant would need to
invest its own resources toward adding such a position. The benefits to such cooperation
would be clear lines of communication, more direct reporting channels, and better overall
oversight of the program, leading to a safer airfield environment.
64
Finally, if resources and budgetary constraints allow for investment, airfields
should pursue a driving simulator. Though the costs are high to procure and maintain
such a system, the benefits are numerous and can create a very safe airfield driver pool.
This simulator should be tailored to the individual airport, and integrated with existing
training and evaluation methods to provide a comprehensive, full-spectrum program.
Additional enhancements that provide significant improvements to the training quality
include full-motion capability, multiple driver stations, realistic graphics, multiple vehicle
type availability, and simulated weather capability.
Recommendation 2
The second recommendation of this study is that airfields should reduce the
number of certified drivers by analyzing the current list of drivers, setting firm
restrictions for those allowed to gain AMA/CMA access, and fully scrutinizing all
subsequent requests for AMA/CMA driving privileges. This is essential to keeping the
driver pool to the lowest number possible and minimizing the potential hazards on the
airfield.
Program managers should encourage lower-level managers, including ADPMs
and tenants, to perform a comprehensive validation of their drivers' requirement to drive
on the airfield. Those that are found to lack a valid need to drive on the airfield, based on
the position they hold and their job duties, should have their driving licenses taken away.
In order to keep the driver pool minimized, managers should scrutinize all
applicants, and the supervisors of those applicants, to validate needs.
Programs should set goals to lower the driver numbers and include incentives for
employers to enact the above requirements, as losing qualified positions would create a
65
loss of flexibility and could eventually cost a significant amount in lost available
manpower for airfield driving-specific tasks. These incentives should be considered for
financial reward to tenants, through existing funding mechanisms with either residual or
compensatory funding requirements at airports. If financial incentives are not possible,
airports should look to creative ways to set goals for tenants to receive other incentives,
including marketing, space utilization, and general public relations gains through placing
appropriate emphasis on the issue. Marketing promotions should encourage minimizing
driver numbers, and should target all levels of management to gain full buy-in to make a
concerted effort to decrease the numbers.
Recommendation 3
The third recommendation of this study is that driver training and certification
records systems should be standardized across airfields/airports to ensure consistent
tracking. Although there is some standardization within airports and military
organizations, full consistency across airfields and airports would provide significant
gains in the way of program oversight through open lines of communication between
managers.
The ability to implement such programs varies widely between military airfields
and civilian airports. The USAF and USN could implement systems across their entire
military airfields to ensure full standardization. Currently, the USAF has only a partially-
standardized system, utilized at only some of the airfields. For civilian airports,
standardizing is a much more daunting task, as different entities operate different airports.
Organizations, such as AAAE, are striving to make their database program and IET
modules standard. With the cooperation of the FAA and embracement by major airports,
66
AAAE could come as close as possible to standardizing this database issue within the
civilian airport realm.
Recommendation 4
The fourth recommendation of this study is that driving currency requirements
should not be enacted to minimize potential for airfield hazards, as recurrent training
should be realistic and frequent enough to adequately maintain proficiency. In
comparison to other operators that maneuver on the airfield (i.e. pilots), the level of
competence gained through additional practice does not offset the addition of extra
potential hazards on the airfield.
Recommendation 5
The fifth and final recommendation of this study is that logging requirements
should not be enacted for all drivers. Adding such a requirement would create a burden
on manpower and resources without a great enough gain in safety to justify it. However,
in rare instances where adding this requirement is feasible, front-line supervisors would
be able gain more awareness of driving frequency.
Although a formal requirement may not be feasible, including informal
requirements for drivers to report their driving activity could be beneficial. Involvement
by managers at the lowest level to get a feel for the pulse of their airfield drivers includes
having a sense of how much they are driving on the airfield. A proactive manager is one
that stays involved in ensuring competence of those he or she certifies to drive on the
airfield. This important managerial trait ensures awareness that all certified drivers are
competent to perform their job on a daily basis.
67
Further Research
Several items could be researched in greater depth to better assess airfield driving
programs. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Use of proficiency time monitoring and measuring its effects on actual driver
attitudes and competence.
2. In-depth analysis of training and evaluation methods, utilizing scientific
methods to assess benefits their use versus manpower and resource costs.
3. Creating a scientific experiment to test using mandated currency requirements
for a small pool of drivers, and measure its effect on proficiency.
4. Exploring benefits of increasing the frequency of recurring driver training and
recertification, and weigh those benefits against the increase in resource
requirements.
5. Benefits of utilizing driver simulators, including quantifying increases in
driver proficiency and comparing them to the necessary financial investment.
Summary
The recommendations made in this chapter represent the culmination of all
research conducted during this study. Though each recommendation may not make
sweeping positive changes to the proficiency of airfield drivers or the overall level of
airfield safety, they can have the systematic effect of doing so if implemented in an
organized, concerted fashion.
Airfields are inherently dangerous, and both military airfields and civilian airports
must place the right level of attention on one of the most integral parts to airfield
operations: airfield driving. Great strides have been made in this arena, but in order to
68
continue to make air travel and cargo operations as safe as possible, airfield driving
program managers must be involved and provide a comprehensive program for adequate
training and evaluation of all airfield drivers.
69
REFERENCES
Adacel. (n. d.). Adacel Flightline Driver Simulator. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from
http://www.adacel.com/solutions_services/driver_training.htm
Air Force Flight Standards Agency. (2009). Runway Incursion Prevention Briefing.
Retrieved via email from AFFSA May 30, 2009.
Air Force Flight Standards Agency. (2009). Airfield driving computer-based training
(CBT) course (CD-Rom). United States Air Force.
FAAC, Inc. (n.d.). Airport Ground Vehicle Simulators [brochure]. Retrieved September
12, 2010, from http://www.faac.com/pdf/FAAC_AirportBro3.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration (2008a). Advisory Circular 150/5210-20, Ground
Vehicle Operations On Airports. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://www.faa.
gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/media/150-5210-
20/150_5210_20_chg1.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration (2008b). Runway Safety Report 2008. Retrieved June
21, 2009, from http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/runway_safety/
media/pdf/RSReport08.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration (2009a). Runway Safety Report 2009. Retrieved April
27, 2010, from http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/publications/
media/Annual_Runway_Safety_Report_2009.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration (2009b). National Runway Safety Plan 2009-2011.
Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/
publications/ media/RunwaySafetyReport-kh10-plan.pdf
70
Federal Aviation Administration (n.d.). Runway Safety Statistics. Retrieved October 10,
2010, from http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/statistics/
Kuwait Directorate General for Civil Aviation. (n.d.). Apron Safety Guide. Kuwait City,
Kuwait: Kuwait International Airport Department of Civil Aviation.
Maryland Aviation Administration. (2009, March). Movement Area Training Study
Guide. Baltimore, MD: BWI Airport Operations.
Metropolitan Airports Commission. (2007, April). Airport Operations Area (AOA)
Drivers' Guide. (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: MAC Drivers' Training Center.
Metropolitan Airports Commission. (2007, April). Movement Area Handbook. (2nd
ed.). Minneapolis, MN: MAC Drivers' Training Center.
Miller, J. (2010, August 17). GCP Interview Questions [Written Interview with Follow-
Up Personal Communication].
Miller, M. (2010, July 16). GCP Interview Questions [Written Interview with Follow-
Up Personal Communication].
Naval Safety Center. (n. d.). Airfield Vehicle Operators Course (AVOC). Retrieved July
5, 2009, from http://safetycenter.navy.mil/Aviation/operations/AVOC/
index.asp#training
Nikula, E. W. (n. d.). Runway incursions: a simple lack of situational awareness?
Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://safetycenter.navy.mil/media/
approach/vault/articles/0331.htm
Owen, C. (2010, September 17). GCP Interview Questions [Written Interview with
Follow-Up Personal Communication].
71
Poku, O. (2010, September 11). GCP Interview Questions [Written Interview with
Follow-Up Personal Communication].
Read, C., & Kleiner, B. (1996). Which training methods are effective? Management
Development Review, 9(2). Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://www.emerald
insight.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?contentType=Arti
cle&Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/0110090206.p
df
Reducing Runway Incursions. (2008). Air Safety Week. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_13_22/ai_n24968801/
USAF. (2008). AFI 13-213, Airfield Management. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI13-213.pdf
Wald, M. (2008, April 25). Air safety concerns expand to ground--Runways, taxiways
`most dangerous'. The San Diego Union - Tribune,A.1. Retrieved July 6, 2009,
from http://ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.
com/pqdweb?did=1469006321&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=17916&RQT=309&VN
ame=PQD
72
APPENDIX A
BIBLIOGRAPHY
73
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Psychological Association. (2008). Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (12th ed). Washington, D.C.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods. (2d ed). New York, New
York: Oxford University Press.
74
APPENDIX B
PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH
75
76
77
APPENDIX C
DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENTS
78
AIRFIELD DRIVER TRAINING SURVEY
Email Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010
DAFB Certified Airfield Drivers:
As part of the completion requirements for my Master‟s degree, I am conducting a study
on the effectiveness of initial and recurring training for USAF airfield drivers.
You have been selected, through a random stratified sampling process, to receive a
voluntary survey to aide in this study. Please take a moment to complete the
questionnaire. The estimated time required to complete is 15 minutes. The survey will
be available for 2 weeks, through 3 Sep 10, and may be accessed by clicking on the
following hyperlink: [hyperlink disabled].
Your responses will be used to further knowledge on the adequacy of airfield driver
training and the importance of maintaining airfield driving proficiency. Responses are
submitted electronically to a database that does not identify users, so your answers will
be completely confidential. Findings will be released only as analyzed data or summaries
in which no individual‟s answers can be identified. For questions that do not apply,
please select the “neutral” answer (if an option), or leave blank.
Thank you for taking time from your schedule to contribute to this important research of
airfield driver training. If you would like an executive summary of the study‟s findings,
please contact your Airfield Driving Program Manager (ADPM).
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Born
Graduate Student, Master of Science in Management (Air Transportation)
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Worldwide Campus
Survey Web Address: [website disabled]
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
AIRFIELD DRIVING PROGRAM MANAGER (ADPM) SURVEY
Email Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010
DAFB Airfield Driving Program Managers:
As part of the completion requirements for my Master‟s degree, I am conducting a study
on the effectiveness of initial and recurring training for USAF airfield drivers.
As an Airfield Driving Program Manager (ADPM), you have been selected to receive a
voluntary survey to aide in this study. Please take a moment to complete the
questionnaire. The estimated time required to complete is 20 minutes. The survey will
be available for 2 weeks, through 3 Sep 10, and may be accessed by clicking on the
following hyperlink: [hyperlink disabled]. A similar survey, tailored to non-ADPM
airfield drivers, was sent to 1200 certified airfield drivers on the base. Names were
selected by a random stratified sampling process to ensure appropriate proportions of
functional areas.
Your responses will be used to further knowledge on the adequacy of airfield driver
training and the importance of maintaining airfield driving proficiency. Responses are
submitted electronically to a database that does not identify users, so your answers will
be completely confidential. Findings will be released only as analyzed data or summaries
in which no individual‟s answers can be identified. For questions that do not apply,
please select the “neutral” answer (if an option), or leave blank.
Thank you for taking time from your schedule to contribute to this important research of
airfield driver training. If you or any of your drivers would like an executive summary of
the study‟s findings, please contact me at [data masked].
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Born
Graduate Student, Master of Science in Management (Air Transportation)
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Worldwide Campus
ADPM Survey Web Address: [website disabled]
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
WRITTEN INTERVIEW FOR OTHER AIRPORTS/AIRFIELDS
Emails Sent: Various Dates Throughout 2010
Interview completion coordinated directly with airport driving representatives at MSP,
BWI, NHK, PHL, and the 387th Air Expeditionary Group.
101
102
103
104
APPENDIX D
TABLES
105
Table 1
Responses to Written Interviews at Other Airports/Airfields
MSP BWI PHL NHK 387th
1. Program
Manager
Mgr, Airside
Operations
Airport Mgt
Officer
Airport Mgt
Officer
Afld Vehicle
Ops Indoc Crs
Airfield Mgr
2. Regulations 14 CFR Part
139, MSP
Ordinance 105
14 CFR Part
139, COMAR
11.03.01.04
14 CFR Part
139, local
Philadelphia
ordinances
OPNAVINST
3710.7
AFI 13-213
3. Local
Guidance
Mvmt Area
Handbook,
AOA Driver's
Guide
BWI Marshall
Tenant
Directive
202.1
Several
rules/regs,
IETs
NASPAXINS
T 3721.2F;
NASPAXRIVI
NST 3750.5U
AMAB 13-201
4. Tiers of
Certification
Runway,
Taxiway, Tow,
Pushback,
and Limited
Roadway (V),
Taxiway (T),
and Runway
(R)
Movement
Area and Non-
Movement
Area
Restricted
(ramp only),
full access
Ramp Only
5. Functional
Areas
Afld Ops,
Field Mx,
Police, Fire,
Trades, Afld
Development,
Airport Mgmt,
Engineers,
Contractors,
USDA, FAA
All typical....
Airport Mx
have "T"
licenses,
Airport Ops &
FAA Tech
Ops have "R"
licenses
Airport
Operations,
Fire, Police,
Maintenance,
etc
Afld Mgmt,
Fuel,
Weapons,
Environ-
mentals,
Flying Sqs.
Mx, Pax,
Cargo Team,
Fire, Police,
Force
Protection,
Afld Mgmt
6. # of Drivers 436* 536* 300-400* 1,200 725
7a. Initial
Training Types
Classroom
offered, OJT,
full simulator
Classroom,
practical as
part of OJT,
full simulator
Computer-
based, video,
classroom,
practical
Classroom,
airfield fam
tour
All except
simulator
7b. Initial
Evaluation
Types
Computer-
based test,
practical
driving test
Open-book
exam, oral/
practical for
AMA access
Computer-
based test (30
questions),
practical for
AMA
Closed-book
written exam
(2 parts,
airfield and
25-question)
Closed-book
written test,
computer-
based test
7c. Average
Duration for
Initial Training
2-5 weeks Unknown 3-4 months 2 hours (actual
time)
3-4 days
7d. Estimated
Initial Training
Pass-Rate
60%
computer, 80-
90% practical
94% 50% first-time 90% 80%
7e. Problem
Subject Area
Aircraft ID,
ATC comms
Airfield
familiarity,
ATC comms
Airport layout,
signage
Airfield
layout,
signage, ATC
Airfield layout
8a. Recurring
Training
Frequency
Yearly Yearly Every 6 mo
computer-
based
Yearly Yearly
106
Table 1 (Cont‟d)
MSP BWI PHL NHK 387th
8b. Type of
Proficiency
Training
Classroom
offered, full
simulator
None. Computer-
based (every 6
mos), practical
(each year)
Classroom,
two written
tests
Written test,
computer-
based test
8c. Estimated
Recurring
Training Pass
Rate
80% 100% 100% 95% 80%
9a. Type of
Record
Keeping
Computer
Driver‟s Rcd
Sys
Local/AAAE
databases
Local/AAAE
databases
Basic network
drive database
Individual
records,
master record,
basic database
9b. Outlined in text (anonymous responses).
10a. Currency
Rqmt
None None None None None
10a i. Outlined in text (anonymous responses).
10b. Logging
Rqmt
None None None None None
10b i. Outlined in text (anonymous responses).
11a-c. Outlined in text (anonymous responses).
* = Runway/Taxiway Licenses at MSP, AMA access at BWI, AMA access at PHL
Table 2
Airfield Driving Simulator Benefits/Drawbacks
Benefits Potential Drawbacks
1. Capability to provide a baby-step
approach to training, creating artificial
hazards and environmental situations that
otherwise could not be created safely in
real life.
2. Drivers can maintain proficiency
without creating real-life additional vehicle
hazards on the airfield
3. Emergency responders can receive full-
team scenario training for responding on
the airfield and participate in nearly full-
scale exercises.
1. Initial cost for system acquisition.
2. Recurring costs for upkeep and
maintenance.
3. Additional manpower requirement to
administer simulator and integrate into
existing program (i.e. scenario
development).
4. Human factors preventing full
utilization (i.e. motion sickness).
Note. From Croft, 2005, and FAAC, Inc, n.d.
107
APPENDIX E
FIGURES
108
Figure 1
Driver Respondent Demographics
0 20 40 60
18-24.
25-34.
35-44.
Over 45.
Driver Age
42, 26%
48, 29% 36, 22%
37, 23%
18-24.
25-34.
35-44.
Over 45.
0 50 100 150
Male.
Female.
Sex
132, 81%
30, 19% Male.
Female.
0 50 100 150
Military (Active Duty).
Military (Reserve/Guard).
Civilian (Civil Service).
Contractor.
Employment/Military Affiliation
105, 65% 25, 15%
33, 20%
Military (Active
Duty).
Military
(Reserve/Guard).
Civilian (Civil
Service).
Contractor.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Civil Engineering.
Maintenance.
Aerial Port.
Aircrew.
Security Forces (Police).
Airfield Management.
Other (please specify).
Functional Area 9, 6%
91, 56% 25, 15%
6, 4%
13, 8% 18,
11%
Civil Engineering.
Maintenance.
Aerial Port.
Aircrew.
Security Forces
(Police).Airfield Management.
Other (please
specify).
0 20 40 60
Less than 3 years.
3 to 8 years.
9 to 15 years.
More than 15 years.
Driver Experience
46, 28%
40, 25%
21, 13%
56, 34%
Less than 3 years.
3 to 8 years.
9 to 15 years.
More than 15 years.
109
Figure 2
ADPM Respondent Demographics
0 2 4 6
18-24.
25-34.
35-44.
Over 45.
Driver Age
5, 83%
1, 17% 18-24.
25-34.
35-44.
Over 45.
0 2 4 6
Male.
Female.
Sex
5, 83%
1, 17% Male.
Female.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Military (Active Duty).
Military (Reserve/Guard).
Civilian (Civil Service).
Contractor.
Employment/Military Affiliation
4, 67%
2, 33%
Military (Active
Duty).
Military
(Reserve/Guard).
Civilian (Civil
Service).
Contractor.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Civil Engineering.
Maintenance.
Aerial Port.
Aircrew.
Security Forces (Police).
Airfield Management.
Other (please specify).
Functional Area
4, 80%
1, 20%
Civil
Engineering.Maintenance.
Aerial Port.
Aircrew.
Security Forces
(Police).Airfield
Management.Other (please
specify).
0 1 2 3 4 5
Less than 3 years.
3 to 8 years.
9 to 15 years.
More than 15 years.
Driver Experience
2, 33%
4, 67%
Less than 3
years.
3 to 8 years.
9 to 15 years.
More than 15
years.
110
Figure 2 (Cont‟d)
Figure 3
Driver Survey Results
Questions 1-4 relate to demographics. Results are shown in Figure 1.
Question 6 relates to demographics. Results are shown in Figure 2.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Less than 3 months.
3 to 6 months.
6 to 12 years.
More than 12 months.
Experience as ADPM
1, 16%
1, 17%
4, 67%
Less than 3
months.
3 to 6 months.
6 to 12 years.
More than 12
months.
153, 95%
8, 5% Yes.
No.
117, 73%
16, 10%
6, 4% 22,
13% Less than 1 month ago.
1 to 3 months ago.
4 to 6 months ago.
More than 6 months ago.
7. When was the last time you drove
on the airfield?
66, 41%
15, 9% 12, 8%
67, 42%
Less than 1 month ago.
1 to 3 months ago.
4 to 6 months ago.
More than 6 months ago.
8. When was the last time you drove within the
Controlled Movement Area (CMA)?
5. Is your Airfield Driver's License (AF 483) current? License is
current if it was issued within the last year, or if refresher training is
documented within the last year on the back side of the 483
111
Figure 3 (Cont'd)
74, 46%
28, 17%
19, 12%
41, 25%
Less than 3.
4 to 8.
9 to 15.
More than 15.
9. Please select the response that indicates the
average number of hours you drive on the airfield
per month.
109, 68% 21, 13%
9, 5% 22,
14% Less than 1.
2 to 3.
4 to 5.
More than 5.
10 Please select the response that indicates the
average number of hours you drive within the
Controlled Movement Area (CMA) per month.
2, 1% 5, 3% 10, 7%
90, 58%
49, 31%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
11.1. Select the corresponding response to the
following statement relating to your perception
of the overall airfield environment and your
understanding: "The airfield overall is a safe
environment in which to operate."
2, 1% 2, 1% 18, 12%
76, 49%
58, 37%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
11.2. Select the corresponding response to the
following statement relating to your perception
of the overall airfield environment and your
understanding: "I have a strong understanding
of local airfield vehicle procedures."
2, 1% 9, 6%
24,
15%
83, 54%
37, 24%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
11.3. Select the corresponding response to the
following statement relating to your perception
of the overall airfield environment and your
understanding: "I have a strong understanding
of Air Traffic Control (ATC) communication
procedures."
1, 1% 10, 6%
18,
12%
78, 50%
49, 31%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
11.4. Select the corresponding response to the
following statement relating to your perception
of the overall airfield environment and your
understanding: "I am confident in my abilities
to drive safely in the airfield environment,
including within the Controlled Movement Area
(CMA) and communicating with Air Traffic
Control (ATC), in compliance with regulations.
112
Figure 3 (Cont‟d)
13. Comments (Questions 11.1-11.4, and 12.1-12.4): For those questions in which you answered
“Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree,” please briefly explain your reasoning. Please list the question
number (i.e. 11.1, 11.2, etc), followed by the reasoning for that question. Do this for each question in
which you answered “Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree."
Notable comments (22 total) included “I was never evaluated prior to receiving my ramp stamp,”
“all computer based testing with no practical exam,” “training overkill for those who are not
utilizing the CMA,” “the training is simply a „meet the requirements- type task,” “annual refresher
training should be more intensive,” and “the evaluations have become lax.
3, 2% 17, 11%
17, 11%
92, 59%
27, 17%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
12.1. Select the corresponding response to the following
statements relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
of documentation: "The level and intensity of the initial
training I received when I obtained initial certification to
drive on the airfield was adequate to prepare me to drive
on the airfield."
3, 2% 17, 11%
22,
14%
86, 55%
28, 18%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
12.2. Select the corresponding response to the following
statements relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
of documentation: "The level of the evaluations
administered during my initial issuance of approval to
drive on the airfield is adequate to ensure I was fit to
3, 2% 8, 5%
30, 19%
86, 55%
29, 19%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
12.3. Select the corresponding response to the following
statements relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
of documentation: "The level and intensity of annual
recurring (refresher) training was adequate to prepare me
to drive on the airfield."
2, 1% 13, 9%
30, 19%
85, 55%
25, 16%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
12.4. Select the corresponding response to the following
statements relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
of documentation: "The level of the evaluations
administered during my annual recurring (refresher)
issuance of approval to drive on the airfield was adequate
to ensure I continue to be fit to drive safely and remain
proficient in driving on the airfield."
76, 26%
50, 17%
59, 21% 2, 1%
102, 35%
One-on-one.
Classroom.
Practical.
Simulator.
Computer-based.
14. Select the method(s) utilized for your initial
training as an airfield driver at this base (select all
that apply).
113
Figure 3 (Cont‟d)
91,
52
%
22,
13
%
41,
23
%
7,
4% 14,
8%
27, 19%
23, 16%
51, 37%
15,
11%
23, 17%
One-on-one.
Classroom.
Practical.
Simulator.
Computer-based.
11, 8%
44, 31%
22,
16%
31, 22%
33, 23%
8, 6%
27,
22%
17,
14% 40,
32%
32,
26%
12,
9% 23,
18
%
10,
8% 37,
29
%
47,
36
%
68, 22%
74, 24%
75, 25%
9, 3%
81, 26%
Verbal (One-on-one).
Written.
Practical.
Simulated practical.
Computer-based.
16. Select the method(s) utilized for your
initial evaluation as an airfield driver at this
base (select all that apply).
72,
42%
20,
12%
56,
32%
7,
4% 18,
10%
23, 16%
27, 19%
40, 28%
31, 22%
21, 15%
Verbal (One-on-one).
Written.
Practical.
Simulated practical.
Computer-based.
18,
14%
40,
31%
20,
15%
34,
26%
19,
14%
8,
7%
25,
22%
13,
11% 29,
26%
38,
34%
19,
15%
25,
20%
9,
7%
29,
23%
43,
35%
Select the corresponding response to the following
statements relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
of documentation: "The level and intensity of the
initial training I received when I obtained initial
certification to drive on the airfield was adequate to
prepare me to drive on the airfield."
#1 #2
#3 #4 #5
15. Please rank the
following methods in
order of which you feel
are most appropriate for
initial training (select a
different number per
choice, number 1 being
most effective and
number 5, least
effective).
17. Please rank the
following methods in
order of which you
feel is best for initial
evaluations (select a
different number per
choice, number 1
being most effective
and number 5, least
effective)
#1 #2
#3 #4 #5
114
Figure 3 (Cont‟d)
16, 9%
15, 8%
16, 9%
1, 1% 106, 60%
24, 13% One-on-one.
Classroom.
Practical.
Simulator.
Computer-based.
Haven't yet rec'd.
18. Select the method(s) utilized for your most
recent annual recurring (refresher) training (select all
that apply).
51,
35%
18,
12% 23,
16%
11,
7%
44,
30%
22, 17%
18, 14%
39, 31%
31, 25%
16,
13%
One-on-one.
Classroom.
Practical.
Simulator.
Computer-based.
18,
14%
36,
28%
30,
24%
24,
19%
19,
15%
15,
13%
30,
27%
20,
18%
25,
22%
22,
20%
22,
17%
23,
17%
15,
11% 34,
26%
38,
29%
13.5%, 11%
19.6%,
15%
10.8%, 9%
1.4%
, 1%
65.5%, 51%
16.9%,
13%
Verbal (One-on-one).
Written.
Practical.
Simulated practical.
Computer-based.
20. Select the method(s) utilized for your most
recent annual recurring (refresher) evaluation
(select all that apply).
19. Please rank the
following methods in
order of which you
feel is best for
recurring (refresher)
training (select a
different number per
choice, number 1
being most effective
and number 5, least
effective)
#1 #2
#3 #4 #5
Select the corresponding response to the following
statements relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
of documentation: "The level and intensity of the
initial training I received when I obtained initial
certification to drive on the airfield was adequate to
prepare me to drive on the airfield."
115
Figure 3 (Cont‟d)
23. If you have any additional comments on the overall program, training, or evaluations, please use the
space below to share your thoughts.
Notable comments (18 total) included “the more practical the better,” “the classroom training
should always be accompanied by a flightline drive,” “the reoccurring training is a little weak,”
“the training and qualification questions seem redundant,” “initial classes should include a bus or
van ride on the flightline,” “the initial test seemed very subjective and informal,” and “I believe
[computer-based training courses] are useless.”
55,
36%
16,
10% 38,
25% 5,
3%
40,
26% 19, 15%
23, 19%
28, 23%
34, 27%
20, 16%
Verbal (One-on-one).
Written.
Practical.
Simulated practical.
Computer-based.
20,
15%
33,
25%
32,
24%
31,
24%
16,
12%
12,
11%
29,
27%
18,
16%
22,
20%
29,
26%
22,
17%
26,
21%
10,
8%
32,
26%
35,
28%
55.1%,
53% 23.1%,
22%
9.5%, 9%
17.0%,
16%
None.
Logbook (or similar).
Verbal with ADPM.
Other (please specify).
22. Select the method(s) utilized for the
tracking of your driving on the airfield
(select all that apply).
#1 #2
#3 #4 #5
21. Please rank the
following methods in
order of which you
feel is best for
recurring (refresher)
evaluations (select a
different number per
choice, number 1
being most effective
and number 5, least
effective).
116
Figure 4
ADPM Survey Results
Questions 1-4 relate to demographics. Results are shown in Figure 2.
Questions 7 & 8 relate to demographics. Results are shown in Figure 2.
6, 100%
Yes.
No.
5. Is your Airfield Driver's License (AF 483) current? License is
current if it was issued within the last year, or if refresher training
is documented within the last year on the back side of the 483.
4, 67%
2, 33%
Yes.
No.
6. As Airfield Driving Program Manager (ADPM), do you
believe all of your drivers are current with their training?
5, 83%
1, 17% Less than 1 month ago.
1 to 3 months ago.
4 to 6 months ago.
More than 6 months ago.
9. When was the last time you drove on the
airfield?
4, 67% 1, 16%
1, 17% Less than 1 month ago.
1 to 3 months ago.
4 to 6 months ago.
More than 6 months ago.
10. When was the last time you drove within
the Controlled Movement Area (CMA)?
2, 34%
2, 33%
2, 33%
Less than 3.
4 to 8.
9 to 15.
More than 15.
11. Please select the response that indicates the
average number of hours you drive on the airfield per
month.
117
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)
4, 67%
2, 33%
Less than 1.
2 to 3.
4 to 5.
More than 5.
12. Please select the response that indicates the
average number of hours you drive within the
Controlled Movement Area (CMA) per month.
2, 33%
4, 67%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
13.1. Select the corresponding response to the
following statement relating to your perception of the
overall airfield environment and your understanding:
"The airfield is overall a safe environment in which to
operate."
1, 17%
5, 83%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
13.2. Select the corresponding response to the
following statement relating to your perception of the
overall airfield environment and your understanding:
"I have a strong understanding of local airfield vehicle
procedures."
1, 17%
5, 83%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
13.3. Select the corresponding response to the
following statement relating to your perception of the
overall airfield environment and your understanding:
"I am confident in my abilities to drive safely in the
airfield environment, in compliance with regulations."
1, 16%
1, 17%
4, 67%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
13.4. Select the corresponding response to the
following statement relating to your perception of the
overall airfield environment and your understanding:
"The drivers I manage in my program have a strong
understanding of local airfield vehicle procedures."
1, 17%
2, 33%
3, 50%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
13.5. Select the corresponding response to the
following statement relating to your perception of the
overall airfield environment and your understanding:
"I am confident in the abilities of the drivers I manage
in my program, to drive safely and in compliance with
regulations."
118
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)
1, 17%
2, 33%
3, 50%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
14.1. Select the corresponding response to the following
statement relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
of documentation: "The level and intensity of the initial
training I received when I obtained initial certification to
drive on the airfield was adequate to prepare me to drive
on the airfield."
1, 17%
2, 33%
3, 50%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
14.2. Select the corresponding response to the following
statement relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
of documentation: "The level of the evaluations
administered during my initial issuance of approval to
drive on the airfield is adequate to ensure I was fit to drive
safely on the airfield."
1, 17%
2, 33%
3, 50%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
14.3. Select the corresponding response to the following
statement relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
of documentation: "The level and intensity of my annual
recurring (refresher) training was adequate to prepare me
to drive on the airfield."
2, 33%
1, 17%
3, 50%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
14.4. Select the corresponding response to the following
statement relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness of
documentation: "The level of the evaluations administered
during my annual recurring (refresher) issuance of
approval to drive on the airfield was adequate to ensure I
continue to be fit to drive safely and remain proficient in
driving on the airfield."
2, 33%
1, 17%
3, 50%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
14.5. Select the corresponding response to the following
statement relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness of
documentation: "The level and intensity of the initial
training that the drivers I manage in my program currently
receive to obtain initial certification to drive on the airfield
is adequate to prepare them to drive on the airfield."
119
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)
15. Comments (Questions 13.1-13.5, and 14.1-14.8): For those questions in which you answered
“Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree,” please briefly explain your reasoning. Please list the question
number (i.e. 13.1, 13.2, etc), followed by the reasoning for that question. Do this for each question in
which you answered “Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree."
Comment (1 total) included “I feel like i was sort of just thrown into this by my squadron, so it
took some time for me to get all that I felt like i needed to succeed.”
3, 50% 3, 50%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
14.6. Select the corresponding response to the following
statement relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness of
documentation: "The level of the evaluations currently
administered to drivers I manage in my program, during the
initial issuance of approval to drive on the airfield, is
adequate to ensure they are fit to drive safely on the airfield."
3, 50% 3, 50%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
14.7. Select the corresponding response to the following
statement relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness of
documentation: "The level and intensity of annual
recurring (refresher) training that the drivers I manage in
my program currently receive is adequate to ensure they
continue to be fit to drive safely and remain proficient in
driving on the airfield."
1, 17%
2, 33%
3, 50%
Strongly Disagree.
Disagree.
Neutral.
Agree.
Strongly Agree.
14.8. Select the corresponding response to the following
statement relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness of
documentation: "The level of the evaluations currently
administered to drivers I manage in my program, for
annual recurring (refresher) issuance of approval to drive
on the airfield, is adequate to ensure they continue to be fit
to drive safely and remain proficient in driving on the
airfield."
3, 25%
1, 8%
3, 25%
5, 42%
One-on-one.
Classroom.
Practical.
Simulator.
Computer-based.
16. Select the method(s) utilized when you received your
initial training as an airfield driver at this base (select all
that apply).
4, 27%
2, 13%
4, 27%
5, 33%
One-on-one.
Classroom.
Practical.
Simulator.
Computer-based.
17. Select the method(s) you currently utilize to train the
drivers you manage in your program for their initial
airfield driver training (select all that apply).
120
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)
1,
20%
3,
60%
1,
20%
3, 60%
2, 40%
One-on-one.
Classroom.
Practical.
Simulator.
Computer-based.
1, 20%
1, 20% 3, 60% 4,
80%
1,
20%
4,
100
%
3, 20%
4, 26% 4, 27%
4, 27%
Verbal (One-on-one).
Written.
Practical.
Simulated practical.
Computer-based.
19. Select the method(s) utilized for your initial
evaluation when you were certified as an airfield
driver at this base (select all that apply).
4, 25%
4, 25% 4, 25%
4, 25%
Verbal (One-on-one).
Written.
Practical.
Simulated practical.
Computer-based.
20. Select the method(s) that you currently
utilize to evaluate the drivers you manage in
your program for their initial airfield driving
certification (select all that apply).
1, 20%
4, 80% 4, 80%
1, 20%
Verbal (One-on-one).
Written.
Practical.
Simulated practical.
Computer-based.
5, 100%
2,
40% 3,
60% 2,
50%
2,
50%
18. Please rank the
following methods in order
of which you feel are most
appropriate for initial
training (select a different
number per choice,
number 1 being most
effective and number 5,
least effective):
21. Please rank the
following methods in
order of which you feel
is best for initial
evaluations (select a
different number per
choice, number 1 being
most effective and
number 5, least
effective).
#1 #2
#2
#3
#1
#4 #5
#3 #4 #5
121
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)
1, 14%
1, 14%
5, 72%
One-on-one.
Classroom.
Practical.
Simulator.
Computer-based.
Have not yet rec'd.
22. Select the method(s) utilized for your most
recent annual recurring (refresher) training
(select all that apply).
1, 14%
1, 14%
5, 72%
One-on-one.
Classroom.
Practical.
Simulator.
Computer-based.
23. Select the method(s) that you currently
utilize for the drivers you manage in your
program for annual recurring (refresher) training
(select all that apply).
2,
40% 3,
60%
2, 40%
1, 20%
1, 20%
1, 20%
One-on-one.
Classroom.
Practical.
Simulator.
Computer-based.
2, 40%
2, 40%
1, 20% 1,
25%
1,
25%
1,
25%
1,
25%
2,
50%
2,
50%
1, 12%
1, 12%
1, 13% 5, 63%
Verbal (One-on-one).
Written.
Practical.
Simulated practical.
Computer-based.
Have not yet rec'd.
25. Select the method(s) utilized for your most
recent annual recurring (refresher) evaluation
(select all that apply).
2, 22%
1, 11%
1, 11%
5, 56%
Verbal (One-on-one).
Written.
Practical.
Simulated practical.
Computer-based.
26. Select the method(s) that you currently
utilize to evaluate the drivers you manage in
your program for annual recurring (refresher)
training/certification (select all that apply).
24. Please rank the
following methods in
order of which you feel
is best for initial
evaluations (select a
different number per
choice, number 1 being
most effective and
number 5, least
effective).
#3 #4
#2
#5
#1
122
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)
32. If you have any additional comments on the overall program, training, or evaluations, please use the
space below to share your thoughts. (No replies to this question).
2,
40% 3,
60%
2, 40%
1, 20%
1, 20%
1, 20%
Verbal (One-on-one).
Written.
Practical.
Simulated practical.
Computer-based.
4, 80%
1, 20%
2,
40%
1,
20%
2,
40%
1,
25%
1,
25%
2,
50%
4, 80%
1, 20%
None.
Logbook (or similar).
Informal.
Other (please specify).
28. Select the method(s) utilized for the tracking
of your driving on the airfield (select all that
apply).
4, 80%
1, 20%
None.
Logbook (or similar).
Informal.
Other (please specify).
29. Select the method(s) that you require be
utilized by the drivers you manage in your
program to track their driving on the airfield
(select all that apply).
4, 80%
1, 20%
No benefit.
Some benefit.
Significant benefit.
Unsure.
30. Please select the response that best describes
your view of the potential benefit for you, as an
airfield driver, tracking your airfield driving
activities.
4, 80%
1, 20%
No benefit.
Some benefit.
Significant benefit.
Unsure.
31. Please select the response that best describes
your view of the potential benefit in requiring
drivers to remain "current" in driving on the
airfield and/or within the Controlled Movement
Area, similar to the currency requirements of
pilots, mandating that drivers log a set amount of
time driving within a given time period (i.e. 2
hours per month).
27. Please rank the
following methods in
order of which you feel
is best for recurring
(refresher) evaluations
(select a different
number per choice,
number 1 being most
effective and number
5, least effective).
#1 #2
#3 #4 #5
123
APPENDIX F
DEFINITION OF TERMS
124
DEFINITION OF TERMS
AF Form 483 – USAF certificate granted to signify approval to operate vehicles on the
airfield.
Airfield – A defined area on land or water (including any buildings, installations and
equipment) intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure,
and movement of aircraft.
Airfield Management – USAF duty section responsible for management of the airfield
and oversight of the daily operations on the airfield.
Airfield Management Operations (AM Ops) – USAF facility responsible for the day-to-
day operation of USAF airfields and ensuring compliance with airfield criteria
outlined in applicable directives and regulatory guidance (includes Airfield
Manager and Deputy Airfield Manager).
Airfield Operations Instruction – USAF directive issued for each base outlining local
procedures for Airfeild Management, Air Traffic Control, and aircraft operations.
Control Tower -- Air Traffic Control (ATC) facility responsible for air traffic control at
and around an airfield. This definition includes all positions within the control
tower, including local controller, flight data, and ground controller.
Controlled Movement Area – any portion of the airfield requiring aircraft, vehicles and
pedestrians to obtain specific air traffic control approval for access (normally via
two-way radio contact with the control tower). Include, but are not limited to,
areas used for takeoff, landing and as required taxiing of aircraft. Used in lieu of
the FAA term "Movement Area" within USAF channels.
125
Controlled Movement Area Violation – An airfield infraction caused by aircraft, vehicles,
or pedestrians entering the controlled movement area without specific control
tower approval. This definition includes runway incursions and infractions caused
by communication errors.
Ground Controller – ATC position in the Control Tower that is responsible for
controlling all aircraft, vehicular, and pedestrian traffic on the ground within the
CMA (except for active runways) at USAF or FAA airfields equipped with
operable Control Towers.
Local Controller – ATC position in the Control Tower that is responsible for controlling
all activities on the active runways and in its delegated airspace at USAF and
FAA airfields equipped with operable Control Towers.
Runway – A defined rectangular area on a land airport prepared for the landing and
takeoff run of aircraft along its length. Runways are normally numbered in
relation to their magnetic direction rounded off to the nearest 10 degrees.
Runway Incursion – Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of
an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the
landing and take-off of aircraft. For the purpose of this proposal, the protected
area is the same as the CMA. These are further classified into three operational
categories:
1) Operational Error (OE) – A failure of the ATC system that results in
loss of separation.
2) Pilot Deviation (PD) – The action of a pilot that results in the violation
of ATC instructions, AFIs and/or FARs.
126
3) Vehicle/Pedestrian Deviation (V/PD) – Any entry or movement on the
controlled movement area by a vehicle (including aircraft operated by
non-pilots) or pedestrian that has not been authorized by ATC.
Uncontrolled Movement Areas – Taxiways and ramp areas not under the control of ATC.
Used in lieu of the FAA term "Non-movement area" in USAF channels.
127
APPENDIX G
ACRONYMS
128
ACRONYMS
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
ADI Airfield Driving Instruction
ADIF Airfield Driver Information File
AFFSA Air Force Flight Standards Agency
AFM Airfield Manager
AFB Air Force Base
ADI Airfield Driving Instruction
ADPM Airfield Driving Program Manager
AFI Air Force Instruction
AM Airfield Management
AMC Air Mobility Command
AM Ops Airfield Management Operations
AOI Airfield Operations Instruction
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATO Air Traffic Organization
AVOIC Airfield Vehicle Operators Indoctrination Course
BWI Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport
CMA Controlled Movement Area
CMAV Controlled Movement Area Violation
DAFM Deputy Airfield Manager
DGCA Kuwait Directorate General of Civil Aviation
DoD Department of Defense
129
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
HATR Hazardous Air Traffic Report
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IET Interactive Employee Training
MSP Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport
NTSB National Transportation and Safety Board
OE Operational Error
PHL Philadelphia International Airport
USN U. S. Navy
USAF United States Air Force""