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
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:

ii
 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.

iii
 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.

iv
 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

v
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

vi
 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

vii
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

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Responses to Written Interviews at Other Airports/Airfields 105

2 Airfield Driving Simulator Benefits/Drawbacks 106

ix
 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

x
 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 Mgr, Airside Airport Mgt Airport Mgt Afld Vehicle Airfield Mgr
Manager Operations Officer Officer Ops Indoc Crs
2. Regulations 14 CFR Part 14 CFR Part 14 CFR Part OPNAVINST AFI 13-213
139, MSP 139, COMAR 139, local 3710.7
Ordinance 105 11.03.01.04 Philadelphia
ordinances
3. Local Mvmt Area BWI Marshall Several NASPAXINS AMAB 13-201
Guidance Handbook, Tenant rules/regs, T 3721.2F;
AOA Driver's Directive IETs NASPAXRIVI
Guide 202.1 NST 3750.5U
4. Tiers of Runway, Roadway (V), Movement Restricted Ramp Only
Certification Taxiway, Tow, Taxiway (T), Area and Non- (ramp only),
Pushback, and Runway Movement full access
and Limited (R) Area
5. Functional Afld Ops, All typical.... Airport Afld Mgmt, Mx, Pax,
Areas Field Mx, Airport Mx Operations, Fuel, Cargo Team,
Police, Fire, have "T" Fire, Police, Weapons, Fire, Police,
Trades, Afld licenses, Maintenance, Environ- Force
Development, Airport Ops & etc mentals, Protection,
Airport Mgmt, FAA Tech Flying Sqs. Afld Mgmt
Engineers, Ops have "R"
Contractors, licenses
USDA, FAA
6. # of Drivers 436* 536* 300-400* 1,200 725
7a. Initial Classroom Classroom, Computer- Classroom, All except
Training Types offered, OJT, practical as based, video, airfield fam simulator
full simulator part of OJT, classroom, tour
full simulator practical

7b. Initial Computer- Open-book Computer- Closed-book Closed-book

Evaluation based test, exam, oral/ based test (30 written exam written test,
Types practical practical for questions), (2 parts, computer-
driving test AMA access practical for airfield and based test
AMA 25-question)
7c. Average 2-5 weeks Unknown 3-4 months 2 hours (actual 3-4 days
Duration for time)
Initial Training
7d. Estimated 60% 94% 50% first-time 90% 80%
Initial Training computer, 80-
Pass-Rate 90% practical
7e. Problem Aircraft ID, Airfield Airport layout, Airfield Airfield layout
Subject Area ATC comms familiarity, signage layout,
ATC comms signage, ATC
8a. Recurring Yearly Yearly Every 6 mo Yearly Yearly
Training computer-
Frequency based
 106
Table 1 (Cont‟d)

MSP BWI PHL NHK 387th

8b. Type of Classroom None. Computer- Classroom, Written test,
Proficiency offered, full based (every 6 two written computer-
Training simulator mos), practical tests based test
(each year)
8c. Estimated 80% 100% 100% 95% 80%
Recurring
Training Pass
Rate
9a. Type of Computer Local/AAAE Local/AAAE Basic network Individual
Record Driver‟s Rcd databases databases drive database records,
Keeping Sys master record,
basic database
9b. Outlined in text (anonymous responses).
10a. Currency None None None None None
Rqmt
10a i. Outlined in text (anonymous responses).
10b. Logging None None None None None
Rqmt
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 1. Initial cost for system acquisition.

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
2. Recurring costs for upkeep and
maintenance.
3. Additional manpower requirement to
administer simulator and integrate into
existing program (i.e. scenario
development).

3. Emergency responders can receive full- 4. Human factors preventing full

team scenario training for responding on utilization (i.e. motion sickness).
the airfield and participate in nearly full-
scale exercises.

Note. From Croft, 2005, and FAAC, Inc, n.d.

 107
APPENDIX E

FIGURES
 108
Figure 1

Driver Respondent Demographics

Driver Age
18-24.
Over 45. 37, 23% 42, 26%
25-34.
35-44.
25-34. 36, 22% 35-44.
48, 29%
18-24. Over 45.
0 20 40 60

Sex
30, 19%
Male.
Female.
Male.
Female.
132, 81%

0 50 100 150

Military (Active
Employment/Military Affiliation Duty).

33, 20% Military

Contractor. (Reserve/Guard).
Civilian (Civil Service). 25, 15%
105, 65%
Civilian (Civil
Military (Reserve/Guard).
Service).
Military (Active Duty).
Contractor.
0 50 100 150
Civil Engineering.
Functional Area 9, 6% Maintenance.
Other (please specify). 13, 8% 18, Aerial Port.
11%
Airfield Management.
Security Forces (Police). 6, 4% Aircrew.
Aircrew. 25, 15% Security Forces
91, 56%
Aerial Port. (Police).
Airfield Management.
Maintenance.
Civil Engineering. Other (please
specify).
0 20 40 60 80 100

Driver Experience Less than 3 years.

More than 15 years.

56, 34% 46, 28% 3 to 8 years.
9 to 15 years.
3 to 8 years.
40, 25%
9 to 15 years.
Less than 3 years. 21, 13%
More than 15 years.
0 20 40 60
 109
Figure 2

ADPM Respondent Demographics

Driver Age
18-24.
1, 17%
Over 45.
25-34.
35-44.
25-34. 35-44.
5, 83%
18-24. Over 45.
0 2 4 6

Sex
1, 17%
Male.
Female.
Male.
Female.
5, 83%

0 2 4 6

Military (Active
Employment/Military Affiliation Duty).
Military
Contractor. (Reserve/Guard).
2, 33%
Civilian (Civil Service). Civilian (Civil
Military (Reserve/Guard). 4, 67% Service).
Military (Active Duty). Contractor.

0 1 2 3 4 5
Civil
Functional Area Engineering.
Maintenance.
Other (please specify). Aerial Port.
1, 20%
Airfield Management.
Security Forces (Police). Aircrew.
Aircrew. Security Forces
Aerial Port. 4, 80% (Police).
Maintenance. Airfield
Civil Engineering. Management.
Other (please
0 1 2 3 4 5 specify).

Driver Experience Less than 3

years.
More than 15 years. 3 to 8 years.
2, 33%
9 to 15 years.
3 to 8 years. 4, 67% 9 to 15 years.
Less than 3 years.
More than 15
0 1 2 3 4 5 years.
 110
Figure 2 (Cont‟d)

Experience as ADPM Less than 3

months.
1, 16% 3 to 6 months.
More than 12 months.
6 to 12 years. 1, 17%
3 to 6 months. 4, 67% 6 to 12 years.
Less than 3 months.
More than 12
0 1 2 3 4 5 months.

Figure 3

Driver Survey Results

Questions 1-4 relate to demographics. Results are shown in Figure 1.

5. Is your Airfield Driver's License (AF 483) current? License is 8, 5% Yes.

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 No.

153, 95%

Question 6 relates to demographics. Results are shown in Figure 2.

7. When was the last time you drove 6, 4% 22,

13%
Less than 1 month ago.
on the airfield?
16, 10% 1 to 3 months ago.
117, 73% 4 to 6 months ago.
More than 6 months ago.

8. When was the last time you drove within the Less than 1 month ago.
Controlled Movement Area (CMA)? 67, 42% 66, 41% 1 to 3 months ago.
4 to 6 months ago.
More than 6 months ago.
12, 8% 15, 9%
 111
Figure 3 (Cont'd)

9. Please select the response that indicates the Less than 3.

average number of hours you drive on the airfield 41, 25% 4 to 8.
74, 46%
per month.
19, 12% 9 to 15.
28, 17% More than 15.

10 Please select the response that indicates the 9, 5%

22, Less than 1.
14%
average number of hours you drive within the
Controlled Movement Area (CMA) per month. 2 to 3.
21, 13%
109, 68% 4 to 5.
More than 5.

2, 1% 5, 3%
11.1. Select the corresponding response to the 10, 7% Strongly Disagree.
following statement relating to your perception Disagree.
of the overall airfield environment and your 49, 31%
understanding: "The airfield overall is a safe Neutral.
90, 58%
environment in which to operate." Agree.
Strongly Agree.

2, 1% 2, 1%
18, 12% Strongly Disagree.
11.2. Select the corresponding response to the Disagree.
following statement relating to your perception
of the overall airfield environment and your 58, 37% Neutral.
understanding: "I have a strong understanding 76, 49% Agree.
of local airfield vehicle procedures."
Strongly Agree.

2, 1% 9, 6% Strongly Disagree.
11.3. Select the corresponding response to the
following statement relating to your perception 24, Disagree.
of the overall airfield environment and your 37, 24% 15%
Neutral.
understanding: "I have a strong understanding
of Air Traffic Control (ATC) communication
83, 54% Agree.
procedures." Strongly Agree.

1, 1% 10, 6%
11.4. Select the corresponding response to the Strongly Disagree.
following statement relating to your perception
18,
of the overall airfield environment and your 12% Disagree.
understanding: "I am confident in my abilities 49, 31%
Neutral.
to drive safely in the airfield environment,
including within the Controlled Movement Area 78, 50% Agree.
(CMA) and communicating with Air Traffic
Control (ATC), in compliance with regulations. Strongly Agree.
 112
Figure 3 (Cont‟d)

3, 2% 17, 11%
12.1. Select the corresponding response to the following Strongly Disagree.
statements relating to your perception of the level and 27, 17% Disagree.
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness 17, 11%

of documentation: "The level and intensity of the initial Neutral.

training I received when I obtained initial certification to 92, 59%
Agree.
drive on the airfield was adequate to prepare me to drive
on the airfield." Strongly Agree.
3, 2%
12.2. Select the corresponding response to the following 17, 11% Strongly Disagree.
statements relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness 28, 18%
22,
Disagree.
of documentation: "The level of the evaluations 14%
Neutral.
administered during my initial issuance of approval to 86, 55%
drive on the airfield is adequate to ensure I was fit to Agree.
Strongly Agree.
3, 2% 8, 5%
12.3. Select the corresponding response to the following Strongly Disagree.
statements relating to your perception of the level and
29, 19% Disagree.
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
30, 19%
of documentation: "The level and intensity of annual Neutral.
recurring (refresher) training was adequate to prepare me 86, 55%
to drive on the airfield." Agree.
Strongly Agree.
2, 1% 13, 9%
12.4. Select the corresponding response to the following
statements relating to your perception of the level and Strongly Disagree.
25, 16%
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness Disagree.
of documentation: "The level of the evaluations 30, 19%
Neutral.
administered during my annual recurring (refresher)
85, 55%
issuance of approval to drive on the airfield was adequate Agree.
to ensure I continue to be fit to drive safely and remain
Strongly Agree.
proficient in driving on the airfield."
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.

14. Select the method(s) utilized for your initial One-on-one.

training as an airfield driver at this base (select all 76, 26% Classroom.
that apply). 102, 35%
Practical.
50, 17%
Simulator.
2, 1% 59, 21%
Computer-based.
 113
Figure 3 (Cont‟d)

#1 #2
7,
15. Please rank the 4%
14, One-on-one.
8%
following methods in 23, 17% 27, 19%
Classroom.
order of which you feel 41,
91,
15,
23 11%
are most appropriate for %
52 23, 16% Practical.
initial training (select a %
51, 37%
Simulator.
different number per 22,
choice, number 1 being 13 Computer-based.
%
most effective and
number 5, least #3 #4 #5
effective). 11, 8% 8, 6% 12,
9%
32, 47, 23,
26% 27,
22% 36 18
33, 23% % %
44, 31%
31, 22% 17, 10,
40,
14% 37, 8%
22, 32%
16% 29
%

Verbal (One-on-one).
16. Select the method(s) utilized for your
initial evaluation as an airfield driver at this 81, 26%
68, 22% Written.
base (select all that apply). Practical.
9, 3% 74, 24%
75, 25% Simulated practical.
Computer-based.

#1 #2
17. Please rank the 7, 18,
4% 10% Verbal (One-on-one).
following methods in
72, 21, 15% 23, 16%
order of which you Written.
42%
feel is best for initial
evaluations (select a 56, 31, 22% 27, 19% Practical.
32%
different number per 20, Simulated practical.
choice, number 1 12% 40, 28%
being most effective Computer-based.
and number 5, least
effective) #3 #4 #5
8,
19, 18, 7% 19,
14% 14% 38, 43, 15%
25,
34% 35%
22%
25,
34, 40, 20%
26% 31%
13,
20, 29, 11% 29, 9,
15% 26% 23% 7%
 114
Figure 3 (Cont‟d)

16, 9%
18. Select the method(s) utilized for your most One-on-one.
24, 13%
recent annual recurring (refresher) training (select all 15, 8%
Classroom.
that apply).
16, 9% Practical.

106, 60%
Simulator.
1, 1%
Computer-based.
Haven't yet rec'd.
#1 #2
19. Please rank the 16,
One-on-one.
following methods in 44, 13% 22, 17%
30%
51, Classroom.
order of which you 35%
feel is best for 31, 25% 18, 14% Practical.
recurring (refresher) 11, Simulator.
training (select a 7% 23,
18,
12% 39, 31%
different number per 16% Computer-based.
choice, number 1
being most effective #3 #4 #5
and number 5, least
effective) 19, 18, 22, 15, 22,
15% 14% 20% 13% 38, 17%
29%
24, 23,
36, 30,
19% 17%
25, 27%
28%
22%
34, 15,
30, 20, 11%
24% 26%
18%

13.5%, 11%

20. Select the method(s) utilized for your most 16.9%,

Verbal (One-on-one).
recent annual recurring (refresher) evaluation 13%
19.6%, Written.
(select all that apply).
15%
65.5%, 51%
Practical.
10.8%, 9%
Simulated practical.
1.4%
, 1% Computer-based.
 115
Figure 3 (Cont‟d)

#1 #2
Verbal (One-on-one).
21. Please rank the
40, 20, 16% 19, 15%
following methods in 26% 55, Written.
order of which you 36%
feel is best for 23, 19% Practical.
34, 27%
recurring (refresher)
evaluations (select a 38, 16, Simulated practical.
10% 28, 23%
5, 25%
different number per 3% Computer-based.
choice, number 1
being most effective #3 #4 #5
and number 5, least 16, 12,
20, 22,
effective). 12% 15% 29, 11% 35, 17%
26% 28%
31, 29,
24% 33, 27% 26,
25% 21%
22,
20% 32,
32, 18,
26% 10,
24% 16%
8%

22. Select the method(s) utilized for the None.

17.0%,
tracking of your driving on the airfield 16%
(select all that apply).
9.5%, 9% Logbook (or similar).

23.1%,
55.1%, Verbal with ADPM.
53%
22%
Other (please specify).

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.”
 116
Figure 4

ADPM Survey Results

Questions 1-4 relate to demographics. Results are shown in Figure 2.

5. Is your Airfield Driver's License (AF 483) current? License is Yes.

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. No.

6, 100%

6. As Airfield Driving Program Manager (ADPM), do you Yes.

believe all of your drivers are current with their training?
2, 33% No.
4, 67%

Questions 7 & 8 relate to demographics. Results are shown in Figure 2.

9. When was the last time you drove on the 1, 17% Less than 1 month ago.
airfield?
1 to 3 months ago.

4 to 6 months ago.
5, 83%
More than 6 months ago.

10. When was the last time you drove within 1, 17% Less than 1 month ago.
the Controlled Movement Area (CMA)?
1 to 3 months ago.
1, 16% 4, 67%
4 to 6 months ago.

More than 6 months ago.

11. Please select the response that indicates the Less than 3.
average number of hours you drive on the airfield per 2, 33% 2, 34%
month. 4 to 8.

9 to 15.
2, 33%
More than 15.
 117
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)

12. Please select the response that indicates the Less than 1.
average number of hours you drive within the 2, 33%
Controlled Movement Area (CMA) per month. 2 to 3.

4, 67% 4 to 5.

More than 5.

13.1. Select the corresponding response to the Strongly Disagree.

following statement relating to your perception of the 2, 33% Disagree.
overall airfield environment and your understanding:
"The airfield is overall a safe environment in which to Neutral.
4, 67%
operate." Agree.
Strongly Agree.

13.2. Select the corresponding response to the Strongly Disagree.

1, 17%
following statement relating to your perception of the Disagree.
overall airfield environment and your understanding:
"I have a strong understanding of local airfield vehicle Neutral.
procedures." 5, 83%
Agree.
Strongly Agree.

13.3. Select the corresponding response to the Strongly Disagree.

1, 17%
following statement relating to your perception of the Disagree.
overall airfield environment and your understanding:
"I am confident in my abilities to drive safely in the Neutral.
5, 83%
airfield environment, in compliance with regulations." Agree.
Strongly Agree.

13.4. Select the corresponding response to the Strongly Disagree.

1, 16%
following statement relating to your perception of the
Disagree.
overall airfield environment and your understanding:
1, 17%
"The drivers I manage in my program have a strong Neutral.
4, 67%
understanding of local airfield vehicle procedures." Agree.
Strongly Agree.

13.5. Select the corresponding response to the Strongly Disagree.

1, 17%
following statement relating to your perception of the Disagree.
overall airfield environment and your understanding: 3, 50%
"I am confident in the abilities of the drivers I manage Neutral.
2, 33%
in my program, to drive safely and in compliance with Agree.
regulations."
Strongly Agree.
 118
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)

Strongly Disagree.
14.1. Select the corresponding response to the following
statement relating to your perception of the level and 1, 17% Disagree.
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness Neutral.
3, 50%
of documentation: "The level and intensity of the initial
2, 33%
training I received when I obtained initial certification to Agree.
drive on the airfield was adequate to prepare me to drive Strongly Agree.
on the airfield."

14.2. Select the corresponding response to the following Strongly Disagree.

statement relating to your perception of the level and 1, 17% Disagree.
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
of documentation: "The level of the evaluations 3, 50% Neutral.
administered during my initial issuance of approval to 2, 33%
Agree.
drive on the airfield is adequate to ensure I was fit to drive
safely on the airfield." Strongly Agree.

14.3. Select the corresponding response to the following Strongly Disagree.

statement relating to your perception of the level and 1, 17% Disagree.
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness
of documentation: "The level and intensity of my annual 3, 50% Neutral.
recurring (refresher) training was adequate to prepare me 2, 33% Agree.
to drive on the airfield."
Strongly Agree.

14.4. Select the corresponding response to the following Strongly Disagree.

statement relating to your perception of the level and
Disagree.
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness of 2, 33%
documentation: "The level of the evaluations administered 3, 50% Neutral.
during my annual recurring (refresher) issuance of
Agree.
approval to drive on the airfield was adequate to ensure I 1, 17%
continue to be fit to drive safely and remain proficient in Strongly Agree.
driving on the airfield."

14.5. Select the corresponding response to the following Strongly Disagree.

statement relating to your perception of the level and Disagree.
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness of 2, 33%
documentation: "The level and intensity of the initial 3, 50% Neutral.
training that the drivers I manage in my program currently Agree.
receive to obtain initial certification to drive on the airfield 1, 17%
is adequate to prepare them to drive on the airfield." Strongly Agree.
 119
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)

14.6. Select the corresponding response to the following Strongly Disagree.

statement relating to your perception of the level and
Disagree.
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness of
documentation: "The level of the evaluations currently 3, 50% 3, 50% Neutral.
administered to drivers I manage in my program, during the
Agree.
initial issuance of approval to drive on the airfield, is
adequate to ensure they are fit to drive safely on the airfield." Strongly Agree.

14.7. Select the corresponding response to the following Strongly Disagree.

statement relating to your perception of the level and
Disagree.
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness of
documentation: "The level and intensity of annual 3, 50% 3, 50% Neutral.
recurring (refresher) training that the drivers I manage in
Agree.
my program currently receive is adequate to ensure they
continue to be fit to drive safely and remain proficient in Strongly Agree.
driving on the airfield."

14.8. Select the corresponding response to the following Strongly Disagree.

statement relating to your perception of the level and
intensity of training/evaluations and comprehensiveness of 1, 17% Disagree.
documentation: "The level of the evaluations currently Neutral.
3, 50%
administered to drivers I manage in my program, for
2, 33%
annual recurring (refresher) issuance of approval to drive Agree.
on the airfield, is adequate to ensure they continue to be fit
to drive safely and remain proficient in driving on the Strongly Agree.
airfield."

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.”
One-on-one.
16. Select the method(s) utilized when you received your 3, 25% Classroom.
initial training as an airfield driver at this base (select all 5, 42%
that apply). 1, 8%
Practical.
Simulator.
3, 25%
Computer-based.

One-on-one.
17. Select the method(s) you currently utilize to train the
drivers you manage in your program for their initial 4, 27%
Classroom.
5, 33%
airfield driver training (select all that apply). Practical.
2, 13%
Simulator.
4, 27%
Computer-based.
 120
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)

#1 #2 One-on-one.

18. Please rank the 1, 1, Classroom.

following methods in order 20% 20%
2, 40%
of which you feel are most Practical.
appropriate for initial 3, 60%
3,
training (select a different 60%
Simulator.
number per choice,
number 1 being most Computer-based.
effective and number 5, #3 #4 #5
least effective):

1, 20% 1,
20%

3, 60% 1, 20%
4, 4,
80% 100
%

19. Select the method(s) utilized for your initial Verbal (One-on-one).
evaluation when you were certified as an airfield 3, 20% Written.
driver at this base (select all that apply). 4, 27%
Practical.
4, 26%
4, 27% Simulated practical.
Computer-based.

20. Select the method(s) that you currently Verbal (One-on-one).

utilize to evaluate the drivers you manage in
Written.
your program for their initial airfield driving 4, 25% 4, 25%
certification (select all that apply). Practical.
4, 25% 4, 25% Simulated practical.
Computer-based.

#1 #2
Verbal (One-on-one).
21. Please rank the Written.
1, 20% 1, 20%
following methods in Practical.
order of which you feel
is best for initial 4, 80% 4, 80% Simulated practical.
evaluations (select a Computer-based.
different number per
choice, number 1 being #3 #4 #5
most effective and
number 5, least
effective). 2,
3, 40% 2, 2,
60% 50% 50%

5, 100%
 121
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)

22. Select the method(s) utilized for your most One-on-one.

recent annual recurring (refresher) training 1, 14% Classroom.
(select all that apply). Practical.
1, 14%
Simulator.
5, 72%
Computer-based.
Have not yet rec'd.

23. Select the method(s) that you currently One-on-one.

utilize for the drivers you manage in your 1, 14%
Classroom.
program for annual recurring (refresher) training
(select all that apply). 1, 14% Practical.
5, 72%
Simulator.
Computer-based.

#1 #2
One-on-one.
24. Please rank the
following methods in 1, 20% Classroom.
2, 2, 40%
order of which you feel 40% Practical.
is best for initial 3, 1, 20%
60%
evaluations (select a Simulator.
1, 20%
different number per
Computer-based.
choice, number 1 being
most effective and
number 5, least #3 #4 #5
effective).
1, 20% 1, 1,
2, 40% 25% 25%
2, 2,
2, 40% 1, 1, 50% 50%
25% 25%

25. Select the method(s) utilized for your most Verbal (One-on-one).
recent annual recurring (refresher) evaluation 1, 12% Written.
(select all that apply). Practical.
1, 12%

5, 63% 1, 13% Simulated practical.

Computer-based.
Have not yet rec'd.

26. Select the method(s) that you currently Verbal (One-on-one).

utilize to evaluate the drivers you manage in
2, 22% Written.
your program for annual recurring (refresher)
training/certification (select all that apply). 1, 11%
Practical.
5, 56%

1, 11%
Simulated practical.
Computer-based.
 122
Figure 4 (Cont‟d)

#1 #2
Verbal (One-on-one).
27. Please rank the 1, 20% Written.
following methods in 2, 2, 40%
order of which you feel 40% 1, 20% Practical.
3,
is best for recurring 60% Simulated practical.
1, 20%
(refresher) evaluations
(select a different Computer-based.
number per choice,
number 1 being most #3 #4 #5
effective and number
5, least effective). 1, 20%
1,
2, 2,
2, 25%
40% 40%
50% 1,
4, 80%
25%
1,
20%

28. Select the method(s) utilized for the tracking None.

of your driving on the airfield (select all that 1, 20%
apply). Logbook (or similar).

4, 80%
Informal.

Other (please specify).

29. Select the method(s) that you require be None.

utilized by the drivers you manage in your 1, 20%
program to track their driving on the airfield Logbook (or similar).
(select all that apply).
4, 80%
Informal.

Other (please specify).

30. Please select the response that best describes No benefit.

your view of the potential benefit for you, as an 1, 20%
airfield driver, tracking your airfield driving Some benefit.
activities.
4, 80%
Significant benefit.

Unsure.

31. Please select the response that best describes No benefit.

your view of the potential benefit in requiring 1, 20%
drivers to remain "current" in driving on the Some benefit.
airfield and/or within the Controlled Movement
Area, similar to the currency requirements of 4, 80%
Significant benefit.
pilots, mandating that drivers log a set amount of Unsure.
time driving within a given time period (i.e. 2
hours per month).
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).
 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""