The rapidly evolving aviation environment, driven by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, encompasses smart operations, communication technology, and automation. Airports are increasingly developing new autonomous innovation strategies to meet sustainability goals and address future challenges, such as shifting labor markets, working conditions, and digitalization (ACI World, 2019). This paper explores high-level governance strategies, a benchmarking study, that facilitates this transition. It aims to identify the key characteristics and features of the benchmarking study applicable to the development of autonomous airside operations. It also examines areas for improvement in operations, focusing on Key Performance Areas (KPAs) and strategic objectives related to airside automation. The findings highlight several essential performance areas and formulate it to a tailored benchmarking study that airports or aviation stakeholders can adopt to develop automation in airside operations. These criteria and features are summarized into a benchmarking framework that reflects strategy objectives. This paper contributes a valuable benchmarking methodology, supporting the growing global aviation demand for improvements toward more sustainable and smart autonomous airside operations. This outcome motivates aviation stakeholders to innovate to meet environmental and social sustainability goals.
This paper proposes an amendment of the classification of safety events based on their controllability and contemplates the potential of an event to escalate into higher severity classes. It considers (1) whether the end-user had the opportunity to intervene into the course of an event, (2) the level of end-user familiarity with the situation, and (3) the positive or negative effects of end-user intervention against expected outcomes. To examine its potential, we applied the refined classification to 296 aviation safety investigation reports. The results suggested that pilots controlled only three-quarters of the occurrences, more than three-thirds of the controlled cases regarded fairly unfamiliar situations, and the flight crews succeeded to mitigate the possible negative consequences of events in about 71% of the cases. Further statistical tests showed that the controllability-related characteristics of events had not significantly changed over time, and they varied across regions, aircraft, operational and event characteristics, as well as when fatigue had contributed to the occurrences. Overall, the findings demonstrated the value of using the controllability classification before considering the actual outcomes of events as means to support the identification of system resilience and successes. The classification can also be embedded in voluntary reporting systems to allow end-users to express the degree of each of the controllability characteristics so that management can monitor them over time and perform internal and external benchmarking. The mandatory reports concerned, the classification could function as a decision-making parameter for prioritising incident investigations.
Modern safety thinking and models focus more on systemic factors rather than simple cause-effect attributions of unfavourable events on the behaviour of individual system actors. This study concludes previous research during which we had traced practices of new safety thinking practices (NSTPs) in aviation investigation reports by using an analysis framework that includes nine relevant approaches and three safety model types mentioned in the literature. In this paper, we present the application of the framework to 277 aviation reports which were published between 1999 and 2016 and were randomly selected from the online repositories of five aviation authorities. The results suggested that all NSTPs were traceable across the sample, thus followed by investigators, but at different extents. We also observed a very low degree of using systemic accident models. Statistical tests revealed differences amongst the five investigation authorities in half of the analysis framework items and no significant variation of frequencies over time apart from the Safety-II aspect. Although the findings of this study cannot be generalised due to the non-representative sample used, it can be assumed that the so-called new safety thinking has been already attempted since decades and that recent efforts to communicate and foster the corresponding aspects through research and educational means have not yet yielded the expected impact. The framework used in this study can be applied to any industry sector by using larger samples as a means to investigate attitudes of investigators towards safety thinking practices and respective reasons regardless of any labelling of the former as “old” and “new”. Although NSTPs are in the direction of enabling fairer and more in-depth analyses, when considering the inevitable constraints of investigations, it is more important to understand the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each approach from the viewpoint of practitioners rather than demonstrating a judgmental approach in favour or not of any investigation practice.
