Air Traffic Safety Action Program in the US - Research Paper Example

Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP) Abstract The paper’s broad objective will be to analyze the Air Traffic Safety program in the U.S and identify its benefits. The data will be retrieved from online sources, especially ATSAP’s website. Air traffic management, in terms of qualitative measures like perceptions and quantitative measures like accident and incident rates, is a very safe sector. However, to the increase in air traffic and terrorist threats over the past decades, the sector is currently expanding in order to change how its system operation services are provided. The implementation of the Air Traffic Safety Program has been one way that has been adopted to maintain safety performance in the sector. The program involves the Federal Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Its principle purpose is to detect current and past safety risks and then implement system corrective actions and skill enhancement to reduce instances where air safety may be compromised. The main benefit is that the program fosters a non-punitive, voluntary, and cooperative environment where air traffic controllers, after following certain procedures, fill a report form and submit it for analysis by the Event review Committee. There’s a time limit for filling the report and the review committee ensures that all reports are evaluated and appropriate solutions formulated. Credentialed personnel receive training and written guidance outlines so that they can understand the program’s details and provisions. Introduction to ATSAP In the United States, air safety has been a major concern especially since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the year 2001. As a result, the government’s air traffic agencies have formulated more air security measures that will ensure future threats are identified and eliminated. The 9/11 attacks are considered the worst air attacks in America, and they functioned as an eye opener to identifying the weak points in the global power’s security system (FAA, 2011). In addition to this, the fact that the U.S is the world’s super power means that it is responsible for how other nations that make up the globe run. In other words, for the rest of the world to put its trust on the United States nation, the super power must prove that it’s able to control similar security threats and protect the lives of its citizens. In fact, this was the main reason s to why the Air traffic Safety Action Program was established. This paper analyzes this new program in detail in order to identify the benefits it has brought within the nation and its citizens. ATSAP was implemented by the NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers Association) in collaboration with the AOV (Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service) in the year 2009. It was modeled with regard to the original Aviation Safety Action program that had been commissioned by former president, George W Bush, in 2006 (FAA, 2007). Bush established several U.S guidelines, policies, and implementations that were focused on the enhancement of U.S national and homeland security by protecting the nation and its interests from any threats in its air domain. The implementation of ATSAP focused on four pillars; learning from frontline staff in airport organizations, deploying appropriate technology to detect anomalies better , improving analysis of risks and identification of top security priorities, and the embracement of corrective actions regarding safety priorities. The ATSAP reporting system applies to all credentialed personnel, recognized by the Federal Aviation Authority, who are engaged in air traffic services. However, its use only falls to those events that occur while one is acting in the stated capacity (CSSI, 2012). Reporting events that are not compliant with applicable directives of air control, or are not accidental are also not recognized. Consequently, reporting events that involve criminal activity, gross negligence, controlled substances, substance abuse, intentional falsification, or drunkenness are also excluded from ATSAP. ATSAP is now a non-punitive and voluntary reporting system for controlling air traffic in the U.S air domains. According to Bati (2011), the program has been designed on the essentials of a just culture in order to effectively identify and eliminate air safety risks from NAS (NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division) and the whole of U.S air space as a whole. Bati (2011) suggests that it is this organizational design that has enabled the ATSAP to function efficiently and effectively. Fundamentals of ATSAP’s safety structure and culture According to CANSO (1997), safety culture can be defined as the enduring priorities, values, and commitments that have been placed on safety by each group and individual at every level in an organization. It reflects the organizational and employee’s attitudes, behavior, and norms in relation to safe provision of any air navigation service. This culture also has to be based on reasoning and just staff. According to CANSO (1997), this promotes a just culture within an organization; an atmosphere of honesty and trust whereby employees are encouraged for providing crucial information that in our case, has to be related to safety. ATSAP is monitored by the NATCA, ATO, and AOV agencies in the country. AOV provides an independent oversight of air traffic and control. It also monitors the activities of ATO in a bid to establish compliance with the directives and standards of air operations in the country. On the other hand, ATO controls the daily operations in air traffic while NATCA is an employee union that represents air traffic controllers. Majority of the benefits brought about by implementation of ATSAP have been due to maintenance of a just organizational structure and culture in its running. According to Bati (2011), this structure avoids fear of blame and retribution and thus encouraging good flow of information concerning air safety. This also supports learning from previous security threats and promotes trust by the country’s population. He states that these describe the main elements of a just culture in any firm. Consequently, since the ATSAP is neither punitive nor blameless, there will always be a distinction between unacceptable and acceptable behavior among its employees and the public population. The good thing about this is that it promotes constructive attitudes among American citizens and workers, which will function to block future violations. The EUROCONTROL in collaboration with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) describes three main elements that should be considered in the advancement of safety culture, they include; understanding what system safety means, developing new strategies for assessing and improving safety, and the dissemination of the achieved results into the air sector or any other involved industry. This resulted to the establishment of the FAA Action Plan 15, in 2003, which was aimed at researching various safety issues in the American aviation industry. According to FAA (2008), the terms referencing this plan ran up to 2010. Purpose of ATSAP The NATCA and FAA are devoted to improving system safety in air traffic control and is why ATSAP was implemented. The non-punitive nature of this program serves a vital element of an efficient system for safety management. The progrmams purpose is to detect and report any event that may or has already led to a safety breakdown or increased an operation risk. In order for ATSAP to mitigate all risks regarding flight safety, it has to study and evaluate thousands of events that have not been reported in the past. The problem is that these studies may only reveal one crucial safety event that may cause disaster if not controlled. The ATSAP is also aimed at being non-punitive towards airport staff. A worker cannot be decertified and there is no credential action that can be taken if one reports an event that poses no safety risk whatsoever. Thus it’s a systemic strategy for air traffic controllers and system specialists in airway transport who use the program to detect and report safety issues promptly. This self-reporting and cooperative follow-up of safety events can hence, be generally considered to be aimed at overall enhancement of flight safety throughout the United States air domain. ATSAP programs ATSAP was established by the ATO in collaboration with its workers labor organizations. Majority of its elements were acquired from the successful ASAP (Aviation Safety Action Program) that is used in U.S’ aviation industry to identify and eliminate safety risks within its flights. In the U.S, there are over 69 aviation organizations that have ASAP operating systems (CISS, 2012). This provided the main reason why ATSAP was copied from ASAP; there will be no need to educate airport staff on how to use ATSAP software to report safety issues. ASAP has been in operation since the 1970’s functioning as the primary voluntary program for safety reporting within United Airlines. The company uses the input of its employees to identify substantial safety issues and concerns that include; non-compliance with company’s regulations, operational deficiencies, deviations from procedures and policies required by the company and anomalous safety events. In association with the participating aviation companies, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the worker labor agencies, every ASAP report is evaluated and the most appropriate solutions formulated. These actions are implemented on the basis of a non-disciplinary strategy to augment flight safety. Program duration In 2009, after ATO and FAA implemented ATSAP, they considered it as a demonstration program and allocated it a supervision period of 2 years from the time the memorandum of understanding was signed. After two years, the program was subjected to a comprehensive evaluation and review before being determined as successful. Moreover, according to the MOU signed by the involved parties, ATSAP may be ended or modified at any time if the NATCA, FAA, or any other organization involved in the MOU wishes to do so due to certain reasons that will have to be evaluated by a selected event review committee; ERC. Consequently, the MOU states that when a program is terminated or modified, all investigations and reports prior to the modification including those in progress will be controlled under the rules and regulation provisions of ATSAP until they are finished as required. Role and duty of air traffic controllers According to Bati (2011), air controllers may report several impending air safety risks to NAS. These risks include; confusing or poor airport signage, unsafe procedures or policies, problems in automation systems or software, and inadequate or unsafe training practices. In addition to this, these staff may also report particular initiatives in air traffic management that do not address the requirements of the sector properly. The procedures of operating aircrafts and the configurations in the airspace may also be reported if they seem to cause or influence safety risks. In exchange for intentional reporting by air traffic controllers, ATO does not take any disciplinary action towards events that have been accepted into ATSAP. The AO also favors this reporting by using lesser actions or no actions at all based on how the submitted reports comply or do not comply with air traffic provisions. According to Bati (2011), air traffic controllers also have to understand the distinction between safety issues and safety events. This is a mandatory responsibility in order for the submitted reports to be clear and to avoid misinterpretation by the ERC. A safety problem describes the issues at regional, national, or local airports that are related to procedures, policies, publications, automation, and equipment in the systemic running of all flight activities. On the other hand, safety events are those incidents that lead to potential or actual losses of lives or aircrafts. Moreover, the term can also describe any situation that may lead to degradation of safety measures in the NAS. Examples include military facility deviations, go rounds, or spill outs. Reporting procedures According to the CISS (2012), when a credentialed employee experiences or observes an event that is related to safety, he or she has to note the event or issue and describe it in adequate details so that the ERC and ATSAP manager can evaluate it. There are also specific procedures that should be involved during this reporting; The employee has to complete his or her subscription to an ATSAP report form. The involved personnel then has to find an appropriate time during his or her duty and fill the ATO FAA ATSAP form for every safety event or issue. After verification that the entered details are valid and correct, the report has to be submitted to ATSAP’s website before 24 hours are over, from the time the employee’s workday ends. In addition to these conditions, the reports that the review committee regards as “sole-source” reports will have to be permitted under ATSAP’s requirements without considering the time that they have been sent. The reports that will be determined as “non sole-source” also have to meet similar acceptance criteria. The event review committee is made up of NATC, ATO, and AOV, with other experts from fields such as flight services, tech Ops, oceanic procedures, and automation. In each area of service, there’s a single ERC that handles the reports. The ERC’s then meet for about three days of every week in order to make decisions regarding the most suitable safety measure. The reason for this is to carry over complex decisions to succeeding meetings. Benefits of ATSAP Errors in airport operating systems contain little numbers of anomalies that can be used to collect an exact analysis of system safety performance (ATO, 2011). Air traffic controllers only measured a subset of their systems’ performance; a situation that limited their ability to identify air safety risks efficiently. However, ATSAP has eliminated these limitations to enable controllers detect more risks and rectify them. It has fostered a voluntary, non-punitive, and supportive environment that has enabled good reporting of issues concerning safety of flights (CSSI, 2012). Through this reporting, airport authorities within the U.S have unlimited access to valuable information on how to curb safety risks; this information was initially unavailable. According to CSSI (2012), ATSAP will enable safety data to become freely available to air traffic controllers within United States. Consequently, the program also promises that the response to filed reports will both be non-disciplinary and non-punitive for staff and personnel that are involved in a particular air safety event. This means that it is the events that are considered important, not the names reporting the events. As a result, previous stalled cases that had been identified will be reconsidered and implemented as soon as possible. In addition to this, air traffic controllers have become motivated to look for flaws within their operating systems and the fear that their superiors may be intrigued was also been eliminated. As if not all the program also ensures that all participating employees are provided with appropriate feedback regarding the implemented actions on a stated safety threat no matter how big or small it may be. Also, it has ensured that any reporting culture is just; this had maintained a just organizational structure among airport systems and authorities throughout the country. As a result, not only have air safety threats been reduced, airport authorities have also experienced reductions in other issues like corruption and negative workplace apathy within its staff; airports have become a more fun place to work in (CSSI, 2012). ATSAP has ensured quality control of how airport systems run (Ford, 2009). The program allows for enhancement of employees’ skills and system correction actions that have reduced opportunities that may stimulate air safety to become compromised (Ford, 2009). The program also has a toll free number that further facilitates this. The program has subsequently encouraged the institutioning of an informed culture in the aviation industry. This culture develops when certain elements, that have been enabled by ATSAP, exist; a reporting culture where the people in an organization are prepared and motivated to reporting any lapses and potential hazards in safety, a just culture, and a learning culture where an organization has the competence and willingness to get right conclusions from data collected by submitted reports. ATSAP success stories The ATSAP has proved to be able to neutralize air security threats in U.S. according to Bati (2011), it is the biggest safety program in the globe. Furthermore, statistics show that the program has already received 50,000 reports while it has been around for only three years. In Albuquerque, its controllers helped to make an air threat safe before any serious or life threatening accident occurred. In 16th March, this year, Albuquerque experienced confusions with call signs among their staff; Airport workers call signs and identification numbers were similar with certain call signs used in air traffic control operations (NATCA, 2012). Sometimes, there was even two call sign s that had exact numbers as some employees’ ids though in different orders. Air controllers, however, realized that these numbers had to be more distinct in the stated date when two drivers with 42-3 and 42-2 call signs were waiting to cross the Albuquerque Airport runway at two different intersections. One controller cleared 42-3 to cross the runway but 42-2 thought it was him and he started crossing the intersection. The controller realized this just in time before the 42-2’s air craft obstructed a landing aircraft. An ATSAP documenting report was filed and the incident brought before city officials. The report highlighted the safety risk that was identified and they understood the urgent requirement for a change of their workers’ identification numbers (NATCA, 2012). Early this year, in Miami center, ATSAP made Miami’s controllers identify the risk of low altitude air traffic in Florida’s east coast. The Center manages Miami’s airspace and gives aircraft approach controlling services for the two airports in the area, Vero Beach municipal and St. Lucie international airports. Miami controllers filled ATSAP reports and identified the need for raising the issue that radar coverage for aircraft below 18,000 feet was not effectively functional. Air traffic controllers had to use transponders to do this but it only tracked airplanes that operated with beacon codes. Without an efficient primary radar exposure, they could not identify other aircraft that were in the path designated to the aircraft that they were guiding; a big risk where fatal accidents could occur leading to high passenger mortalities and losses. ATSAP provided the controllers with the required means to verify the risk and they received proper attention and funding so that Miami’s radar coverage could be expanded immediately. In Northern Virginia, ATSAP led to the resolution of an automated routing glitch in Dulles international airport. Thanks to air traffic controllers who were filling ATSAP reports, they identified that the automation snag increased their workload as well as threatening the safety of Washington D.C and its surrounding areas. They also identified that the airport’s computer system treated flight plans complying with flight restriction zones as incorrect and several aircrafts had been flying over restricted areas without their knowledge. The result was that the controllers had to reroute as much as 100 aircrafts, away from the restricted zone, manually in each day. This even affected Potomac and Washington centers that helped Northern Virginia controllers in their manual rerouting exercise. As a result, these three airports filled ATSAP reports that highlighted how this extra work may lead to air safety accidents. The computer system was modified and an extra Information technology department established to supervise and maintain the system. Now, according to NATCA (2012), the solution has led to the elimination of about 96 percent of manual reroutes. Conclusion The fact that the data collected by the program is regularly reviewed and evaluated means that the program has facilitated early detection of air security threats. This, and similar programs in other security sectors, has improved the country’s integrity and responsibility. U.S’ security has now become fully aware of all adverse trends and operational deficiencies. In other words, the ATSAP has been a vital element in identification of initial major security flaws in the country. According to recent studies by the Department of defense, overall security threats in U.S have decreased by 63 percent in the past three years (Dunbar, 2012). Consequently, air security has become safer due to a magnificent 99 percent elimination of types of air threats. Moreover, the country has also established more programs in the other security sectors such as the navy and military; it was commissioned in 2001 to the Middle East to fight and capture Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorist leaders, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. However, for the implementation of current security measures by the United States’ Aviation Transportation System Security agency to be effective, there has to be information-sharing and cooperation among State, Federal, Tribal, and local agencies, as well as foreign and industry partners (FAA, 2007). Consequently, resources and funding must also be allocated so as to maintain and enhance the ATSAP and other related security measures in the country. These resources should also be available to researchers for faster and efficient formulation and employment of new security measures as is appropriate. While this ATSAP program was developed in collaboration with the Aviation Transportation System Recovery and Air Operational Threat Response plans, the FAA (2007) states that, “it’s only by the harmonized implementation of these plans that the U.S government will be able to implement the current active defense and layered security in depth.” This is necessary for efficient protection of the country and its interests from criminal, terrorist, and other hostile attacks. References ATO. (2011) ATO safety: Everything you need to know about ATO safety, Retrieved from, < http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/safety/safety_faqs/ > Accessed May 8th, 2012 Bati D. (2011) Introduction to ATSAP, Retrieved from, < http://catsr.ite.gmu.edu/SYST660/Video_Bati_ATSAP_Intro.pptx> Accessed May 8th, 2012 CANSO safety culture working group. (1997) The components of Safety culture, Retrieved from, Accessed May 8, 2012 Computer Storage Services (CSSI). (2012) Air Traffic and Safety program (ATSAP), Retrieved from, < https://www.atsapsafety.com/home.seam?atsapcid=29162 > Accessed May 8, 2012 Dunbar J. (2012) NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division: security publications, Retrieved from, < http://www.nas.nasa.gov/#url> Accessed May 8th, 2012 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2007) Supporting plan to the National Strategy for Aviation Security, Retrieved from, < http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hspd16_transsystemsecurityplan.pdf> Accessed May 8, 2012 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2011) ATO Safety, Retrieved from, < http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/safety/safety_faqs/> Accessed May 8th, 2012 Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). (2008) Safety culture in air traffic management, Retrieved from, Accessed May 8, 2012 Ford K L. (2009) The Northern Lights, Retrieved from, < http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/artcc/anchorage/media/pdfs/AT_Newsletter_20093.pdf > Accessed May 8, 2012 National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA). (2012) ATSAP (Air Traffic Safety Action Program), Retrieved from, < http://66.193.20.39/safety_technology.aspx?zone=Safety%20and%20Technology&pID=2460 > Accessed May 8, 2012 Read More