The first day’s luncheon featured Colonel Charles Knofczynski sharing insights about his role as U.S. Air Force Director of Test for the Joint F-35 Program. (The F-35 Lighting II is a fifth-generation family of single-seat, single-engine stealth combat aircraft.) In this position, Knofczynski leads a 1,700-member gov-ernment, allied partner, and contractor test team in planning, executing, and verifying F-35 war-fighting capability by managing the cost, schedule performance, risk, readi-ness, and safety of a $3 billion, 7,000-sor-tie, six-year F-35 developmental flight test program.

Knofczynski said his experiences have taught him three keys for being success-ful: communicate, be decisive, and main-tain integrity. “I’ve seen way too many people in my career that have not followed these rules and because of that, they have failed—failed utterly.”

First, communicate clearly and concisely across the board with people you work for, your stakeholders, the people who work for you, and your peers, he said. “It’s

so important because everyone speaks a different language across that spectrum—from the folks who take care of the airfield, to the folks who run the tower, to mainte-nance.” In the F-35 program, it’s even more challenging, Knofczynski said, and if he doesn’t provide complete information, the media may fill in gaps or make assump-tions. “Last year, we had more than 50,500 negative stories on the F-35,” he said. “Not because [the media] necessarily wanted to be negative, but because they didn’t have all the information.”

Knofczynski also stressed the impor-tance of making decisions. “People often tell you about a problem and then walk away…Some problems are so big that it’s everybody’s problem…but [also] nobody’s problem. At least make a decision…[It’s] better if you have to adjust rather than not starting at all,” he said.

The F-35 program has had its share of problems, he said. “We’ve had engines go bad, overloaded wings that would not properly fly, unstable software…but we’re very fortunate to have leaders who looked

at the problems…and made a decision to move out. It wasn’t always the right deci-sion…but because of that, we were ahead

of the boss, and by the time people realized there was a problem, we’d already booked a solution.”

For every challenge Knofczynski takes to his boss, he also takes a solution. “I don’t go to him for decisions; I go to him for an endorsement,” he said. “I challenge all of you to do that. You’d be amazed at how much faster things happen and how much better things work.”

Finally, Knofczynski urged attendees

A publication of the Airport Technical Assistance Program of the Center for Transportation Studies at the University of Minnesota Spring 2017 Vol. 17, No. 2

Briefings

To read past issues of Briefings, visit www.AirTAP.umn.edu/publications.

Emergency response: Preparing for 'when,' not 'if'

Special Double Issue: This issue of AirTAP Briefings features highlights of the 2017 Minnesota Airports Conference held in Mankato, MN, April 12–14. For photos, presentations, and other information, visit www.airtap.umn.edu.

In 2016, 24 reportable aviation accidents and incidents occurred in Minnesota. Odds are that something could—and will—happen at any of Minnesota’s airports, said Jason Ceminsky of Pro Train Aviation. “You need to be ready.”

That was the idea behind the emergency response seminar for general aviation (GA) airports, held at the Mankato Regional Airport on the first morning of the Minnesota Airports Conference. Attendees gathered in the City of Mankato’s hangar to get advice and to get oriented to several types of aircraft, including a State Patrol helicopter and Cessna Skyhawk.

In the event of an aircraft crashing or becoming disabled, the first steps are to cut off its power, fuel, and battery, said Mike Hartell of MnDOT’s Office of Aeronautics.

Extreme care should also be taken around a plane’s propeller (for obvious reasons). In addition, the new Cirrus models have a ballistic parachute that could be trig-gered in an accident situation. “It’s like a little rocket,” Hartell said—a reason to be extremely careful cutting into any of those planes’ systems. Attendees were also warned that if an aircraft is burning, its composites can give off dangerous fumes.

When responding to a plane that’s dis-abled or has crashed, it’s safest to approach from an angle. And if a pilot is in the cock-pit, make eye contact first, he added.

Ceminsky, an aviation consultant who works with the Mankato airport, said that while airport operators should look at the big picture and plan for the worst-case scenario, they also need to be prepared for minor events. At the 2015 MN Air Spectacular, for example, planners were prepared for sunburn and dehydration among attendees as well as more serious incidents.

He also urged airport operators to take stock of what is in their hangars. In addi-tion to aircraft, hangars often house fuel and hazardous materials.

Finally, airports need to have an emer-

gency response procedures manual, he said. “It’s important to build it if you don’t have it, then use it—don’t just put it on a shelf. Keep it up to date.”

Kelly Akhund from MnDOT echoed the need for an emergency procedures manu-al—and pointed to the Airport Emergency Guidebook, created by MnDOT, AirportAdmin, and AirTAP in 2011 (and reprinted in 2016), as a good resource. The guidebook outlines the key components of the FAA federal regulations governing emergency response. (Contact MnDOT Aeronautics to request a copy of the guide-book or to schedule a working meeting to get one started.)

An airport emergency plan will help identify an airport’s hazards, community resources, limitations, training, and airport staff’s roles, Akhund said. For example, the guide addresses how the different respond-ing agencies can communicate and func-tion together, and how responders unfamil-iar with the airport can learn the airport’s geometry, how to use the radios, and if an emergency response kit is available. The idea is to make it easy for responders to do their job—and to be safe while doing so, she said.

USAF continued on page 4

USAF speaker stresses communication, integrity

Colonel Charles Knofczynski

2

The federal government movement toward creating some uniformity across all pro-grams related to grant making is also hap-pening at the state level, said Cassandra Isackson, director of MnDOT's Office of Aeronautics. She and assistant director Kathy Vesely shared highlights from the office as it relates to aviation in the state, including grant policy and the budget process.

Isackson told attendees they may notice some changes in MnDOT’s grant policy procedures such as the use of more structured timelines regarding applica-tion periods, performance periods, and close-outs. MnDOT will also be looking for more detailed work plans and amend-ments. She also explained how Minnesota operates with a biennial budget and fiscal year running from July 1 to June 30. The aeronautics appropriation is included in the omnibus transportation bill, and the appro-priation for each year is available in the following year. During the spring of odd years, MnDOT works on bonding projects,

and in even years, all other projects. A key takeaway is that airports need to

plan at least four or five years out on their capital improvement plans (CIPs). “This year in the legislature, we’re asking for a $3 million increase over our regular budget for both FY18 and FY19. And the very first questions we’ll get asked are, ‘Where does the money go? What are the projects?’ So I have to have the projects to show them. And not only [that], but also, ‘Here are all the other projects we don’t have enough money for.’ Because ultimately, that list is influential as well…It helps [legislators] see the big overall need so they can put it into context,” she said.

Vesely highlighted some of the programs on which MnDOT spends that money; the maintenance and operations (M&O) pro-gram is one of the most popular. “We’ve changed this in the last few years,” she said. “You get more money, you get a higher percentage rate, and more things are eligible.”

The M&O is a formula-based fund,

she explained, and there are 134 different answers to the M&O formula (for the 134 airports in Minnesota’s system, not includ-ing MSP). In 2015 MnDOT changed the reporting methodology and asked airports to report quarterly, which is working well, Vesely said.

“We fund [the program] at about $5 million a year. You told us you spend $14 million…That’s a pretty big gap…So over-all we fund about a third of the eligibility needs at the airport, and communities bear the rest,” she said. “This is all data we get from studying that gap, and it’s information the legislature wants to know.”

One concern has been how to prioritize

There are few circumstances in which errors can have consequences as serious as in aviation. For Tim LeBaron, determining what likely caused a plane to crash is a step toward preventing it from happening again.

LeBaron has led or helped in investiga-tions of more than 300 aviation accidents and represented the U.S. in many investiga-tions around the world. He currently serves as the acting Deputy Director of Regional Operations of the Office of Aviation Safety with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At the conference, LeBaron discussed how he led a team from the U.S. to find the cause of a fatal accident involv-ing a Boeing 747 that crashed during take-off from Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan in April 2013, killing all seven crew members aboard.

The airplane was operated by National Airlines, an air carrier conducting all-cargo flights. The cargo included five mine-resis-tant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles: two were 12-ton all-terrain vehicles and three were 18-ton Cougars. These vehicles were considered “special cargo,” requiring special handling and securing procedures.

Initially, it seemed that the crash could have been the result of load shift, LeBaron said. The crew observed that the cargo had moved a few inches, the straps keeping the load from moving backward were loose, and one strap was broken.

LeBaron’s team also investigated the possibility that an explosive played a role. The airplane operator was in line for a large insurance payout from the federal government if it could be proven that a bomb had caused the crash, LeBaron explained. In addition, the Taliban wanted credit for bringing the plane down. However, analysis by experts, eyewitness accounts, and video footage produced no physical evidence of explosives, LeBaron said.

LeBaron explained that the MRAP vehi-cles were loaded on pallets similar to giant cookie sheets. When the vehicle furthest in the back came loose, it slid on the pallet into the tail section of the airplane, damag-ing hydraulic systems and horizontal stabi-lizer components and making it impossible for the flight crew to regain control of the aircraft.

The team, however, needed to determine why the vehicle came loose.

People who are responsible for the load-ing, restraint, and documentation of special cargo loads on transport-category airplanes are called loadmasters. The job requires making numerous calculations to ensure cargo is secured properly.

The team’s investigation revealed that the National Airlines cargo manual—which the loadmaster would have used—contained errors such as incorrect and unsafe methods for restraining cargo. (In addition, National Airlines had never transported a Cougar vehicle previously.) LeBaron said the team looked at other airlines’ manuals and found identical errors in them.

The FAA also lacked guidance on over-sight of loadmaster duties, and its inspec-tors lacked technical expertise in special cargo loads. (The FAA is now conducting additional training in this area.)

As a result, the probable cause of the accident was the air carrier’s inadequate

procedures for restraining special cargo loads, which resulted in the loadmas-ter’s improper restraint of the cargo. Contributing to the accident was the FAA’s inadequate oversight of National Airlines’ handling of special cargo loads.

Besides determining probable cause, the NTSB issued recommendations for the industry—which is its strongest tool, LeBaron said. “The NTSB has no teeth at all. We’re not a regulatory authority.”

Among the six recommendations to come out of the investigation was that the FAA should create a certification for load-masters. Currently, there is no certificated position for the loading of special cargo specified in the FAA’s regulations, and so there are no specific individual standards or training requirements to ensure adherence to operational limitations.

“So what that means is, you can go to Home Depot, find a guy who’s really good at putting salt on pallets, and next week he could be your loadmaster,” LeBaron said. Airline operators are not even required to give loadmasters time—or a place on the plane—to sleep.

“I know I caused a lot of upheaval in the cargo industry…[but] for any critical-to-safety flight position—pilot, mechanic, flight attendant—you have to be certified. So you take the person who’s responsible for doing all these calculations to make sure this load is safe and you’re saying they don’t have to be.”

Another recommendation was that load-masters must use FAA-approved data in their training and that FAA inspectors must review manuals.

In response to an NTSB recommen-dation, the FAA launched an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee in 2016 to determine whether the agency should create a certification for loadmasters.

Boeing 747 down in Afghanistan

Kathy Vesely

Tim LeBaron

‘State of the state’ from MnDOT Aeronautics

MnDOT continued on page 4

3

AirTAP was developed through the joint efforts of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the Minnesota Council of Airports (MCOA), and the Center for Transportation Studies (CTS).

Briefings is published quarterly in print and online. Direct comments to:Amy Friebe, Briefings EditorMindy Carlson, AirTAP ManagerJim Grothaus, AirTAP Director

Center for Transportation Studies University of Minnesota200 Transportation & Safety Bldg.511 Washington Avenue S.E.Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: 612-626-1077

E-mail: groth020@umn.eduWeb: www.airtap.umn.eduWriters: Amy Friebe, Ann JohnsonPhotos: Michael McCarthy Designer: Jamie Hulkonen

Chris Meyer from MnDOT’s Office of Aeronautics moderated a session that high-lighted new tools to help streamline two essential tasks of airport operators—issuing NOTAMs and assessing runway conditions. Steve Meinders, air traffic control special-ist with Young Enterprise Systems, gave an overview of the FAA’s new digital direct entry tool, NOTAM Manager.

NOTAM Manager is available to all public-use airport operators, he said, and it’s a NextGen product that eliminates NOTAM coordination with FAA Flight Services. With it, the airport operator is in complete control of the airport’s digital NOTAMs at no cost to the airport. NOTAM Manager allows automated submittal of NOTAMs to the National Airspace (NAS) and the Federal NOTAM System (FNS) in two to three sec-onds, thereby eliminating any NOTAM wait time or lag in up-to-date information. Other

benefits include NOTAMs that are compli-ant with applicable policy and guidance with an easy-to-use system, Meinders said. In addition, the NOTAM archiving function is helpful for meeting Part 139 requirements, and the system provides increased standard-ization and reduced errors. Lastly, improved sorting and searchable data means more concise NOTAMs.

To activate an account, contact the NISC deployment team at 816-329-2550, email Meinders at steve.ctr.meinders@faa.gov, or register online at https://notams.aim.faa.gov/scert/. Users will be invited to attend an hour-long orientation webinar.

Both Meyer and Meinders reported that nationally, 1,052 airports are using NOTAM Manager, and 84 percent of the nation’s NOTAMs are submitted digitally through the FNS. As of January 2017, more than 300,000 NOTAMs have been issued digi-

tally, allowing for immediate review by the flying public via websites such as NOTAM Search or PilotWeb. And all Minnesota Part 139 airports are using NOTAM Manager, they added.

Following Meinders, a panel of airport rep-resentatives highlighted their experience with digital NOTAMs and the Runway Condition Assessment Matrix (RCAM). As of October 1, 2016, the FAA requires airport operators to conduct runway condition assessments and report those conditions in NOTAMs, and RCAM is the tool they must use to assess a runway surface condition when contaminants are present. Meyer also provided an overview of the Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) initiative, which aims to reduce the risk of runway overruns by giv-ing airport operators a method to accurately and consistently determine conditions when a paved runway is not dry.

On the first day of the conference, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) personnel shared news from the agency and a look ahead to the coming year for Minnesota aviation.

The FAA’s current authorization expires the end of September 2017, said Christina Drouet, FAA Great Lakes Deputy Regional Administrator. The president’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 calls for an overall 13 percent cut in the Department of Transportation budget, and it’s unclear how that will translate to the FAA, she said. Reauthorization for the FAA would include shifting air traffic control to an independent nongovernmental organization, with the goal of improving innovation and efficien-cies. It would also eliminate essential air service, she explained. “When it was first implemented 40 years ago it was intended to be temporary program, and it is still funded quite robustly,” she said. “So those programs certainly will be debated a lot in the coming months.”

One major initiative the FAA is undertak-ing is NextGen—“which will be a trans-formational change to the national airspace system,” Drouet said. “It’s one of the most ambitious infrastructure and modernization projects in U.S. history.”

The FAA defines NextGen as a compre-hensive suite of state-of-the-art technologies and procedures that will enable aircraft to travel more directly and result in mil-lions of dollars in savings, reduced carbon emissions, and more on-time arrivals and departures.

“When all the systems are fully imple-mented, we’re estimating $160.6 billion in benefits,” Drouet said.

NextGen integrates new and existing policies, procedures, and technologies that include satellite navigation and advanced digital communications. The infrastruc-ture includes a satellite-based system—

called Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B)—that will replace radars as the primary means by which air traffic controllers track and manage aircraft.

ADS-B is transforming all segments of aviation. Drouet noted that after January 1, 2020, aircraft flying in most controlled air-space must have ADS-B Out equipage. The FAA is offering $500 rebates for general aviation aircraft equipping with the required systems now. As of April 17, there were 14,792 rebates remaining. [See https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/rebate/ for more on this program.]

Another significant initiative is unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS. “The technology is changing faster than anyone can write regulations to address how they’re used, or how they’re regulated, or who oversees what part of that whole process,” Drouet said. In the Minneapolis Airport Districts Office, two FAA inspectors—Dave Nelson and Kevin Morris—are focused on UAS and available as resources to airports, she added.

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 is intended to safely accelerate the integration of civil UAS in the national airspace system. “Our biggest challenge is to maintain the level of safety that everyone has come to expect in the national airspace system. It’s easy to think of UAS as toys, but that’s not the case,” she said. “There are some serious UASs out there, some interest-ing possible applications, but we have to protect the flying public and those of us on the ground.”

Following Drouet, Susan Mowery-Schalk, division director for the FAA Great Lakes region, shared thoughts about ongoing FAA safety initiatives. In FY16, more than half of the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding went to runways and taxi-ways, and the agency has been looking back at the results of some of those proj-ects. Mowery-Schalk noted that the FAA

AIP focuses on the national priority rating system when considering funding requests. This gives higher priority to safety-related projects—“which is why we’re pushing to have safety investments at your airport,” she said. However, the rating system changes and adapts to the times. For example, an adjustment was recently made to give prior-ity to non-hazard obstruction removal in the approach or departure surfaces.

Next, Andy Peek, manager of the FAA Minneapolis ADO, shared ideas for how airports can better position themselves to compete for funding. “It’s very important that the money we have come into our state gets put to work,” he said. “Period of performance” was a new term included in airport grants last year as a result of the Grant Oversight and Efficiency, or GONE, Act. The act targets inactive grants—those open more than four years—and requires that they are reported back to Congress, Peek explained. “We need to continue the trend of closing on our grants in the period of performance.”

Finally, Peek offered suggestions for a successful project timeline that included allowing time before the application dead-line of July 7 to coordinate with MnDOT, using a word tracking function to help the FAA speed up document review, holding regular project meetings, and ensuring that a project’s environmental approval covers the entire project.

New tools for issuing NOTAMS, assessing runway conditions

‘Transformational change’ coming to aviation, FAA says

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. This publication is available in alternative formats upon request; call CTS at 612-626-1077. Printed on recycled paper with 20% postconsumer waste.

“It’s a waste of money.” “It’s just a paper exercise with no value.” These are some of the arguments airports give for not investing in planning. But Tom Schauer of KLJ’s avi-ation group offered a counterpoint during a panel session on the value of planning. For the airport manager, planning is a tool for business development, ensuring safety, and having a facility that serves the community, he said. Another reason to plan: making poor decisions, like building something in the wrong spot, is expensive.

Gina Mitchell with the FAA gave the agency’s framework and reasons for how planning can best position an airport for a successful project. “We really want to understand what problems you’re trying to solve,” she said. “Sometimes there are ideas on an [airport layout plan] that are not implementable…We pay special atten-tion to that because planning grants are not amendable. We really want to help you set up right from the start.”

“The FAA’s role is ultimately to approve your aviation forecast and critical design aircraft, and the airport layout plan comes out of that process,” she said. “We want [this plan] to be a workable, usable document for the sponsor. And we want it to be written in a way that the sponsor understands.”

From the state perspective, Ryan Gaug of MnDOT tied an airport’s planning process to the State Aviation System Plan (SASP). MnDOT is currently launching the next SASP and is requesting feedback from Minnesota’s airport community. “This is really important—you’re going to send us in the direction you want us to go,” Gaug said.

Gaug also emphasized that an airport’s planning should be considered in tandem with its community. “Planning for an air-port should not be done in a vacuum, absent of the rest of your community’s planning efforts. When your community is updating, maybe, its comprehensive plan or its zon-ing, it should be considering the airport, and the master plan, and ALP—and vice versa,” he said.

MnDOT has tools to help airports achieve that, Gaug said—including a new one called the Zoning Information Warehouse. This online tool (www.dot.state.mn.us/aero/planning/zoning-warehouse.html) contains

all the existing zoning ordinances, maps, text, and shapefiles for use by airports and communities. In addition, MnDOT has a team of planners available to meet with and help airports “to save you time, money, pain—all of that. We’re there for you,” he said.

From the consultant perspective, Marcus Watson of KLJ said planning helps create a vision for the airport and the community it serves. Going through the master planning process brings together the most important stakeholders to talk about the goals of the airport and how they want it to serve the community. “Not everyone may understand the value of the airport—this process pro-vides the opportunity to have conversations and collaborate with those who may not know much about it.”

The planning process also provides a basis for making defendable decisions, he said. “What we’re seeing is a renewed effort to nail down your project justifica-tion…It provides a way for you to study those [issues] and to meet all state and fed-eral requirements. Walk through all those decisions…with your board, and then be able to feed that right into the environmen-tal process so you’re not going back and redoing it,” he said.

Finally, Todd Peterson, community devel-opment coordinator and airport manager with the City of Roseau, led a case study discussion of Roseau’s airport and offered the sponsor perspective on planning. Peterson explained that Roseau’s airport is important because of the critical access it provides local industries such as Polaris and ValleyMed Flight. Among its many chal-lenges is a lack of facilities to serve freight.

The airport recently completed planning with assistance from Gaug and Mitchell, who are optimistic it’s resulted in a plan for the airport to move forward on meeting its highest-priority needs. During the process, Peterson said he learned that the local com-munity needs to be fully engaged and com-mitted. “You can’t turn it over to the engi-neer [to] put a plan together with MnDOT and the FAA,” he said. “Through many of the iterations, there were local needs we had to address that caused things to change.”

“If I see an improvement to the airport in the next 5 to 10 years, I will say it’s a suc-cess,” he said.

NONPROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDTWIN CITIES

MNPERMIT NO. 90155

Planning provides vision, path to success USAF continued from page 1

to tell the truth even when it’s something no one wants to hear. In the F-35 program, everything is cost driven, schedule driven, and “everybody likes it to be neat and pret-ty,” he said. “This is not an easy system…If [others] find something that requires further testing, it’s not what people want to hear. It costs the taxpayer $38 million a month for all of the testing.”

For Knofczynski, it’s his job as a flight tester to say when a schedule won’t work, or when a plan will cost too much money. “I can go to sleep at night at least knowing I’ve told the truth…The day I do not, from then on everything I say will be questioned. The same thing applies to you across the board. If you make a mistake, own up. Tell [people] exactly how it is.”

AIP funding for requests. The old way, Vesely said, means that some things like equipment purchases never get funded. MnDOT is considering using a “bucket system”—such as for obstruction removal, pavement, planning, fuel—so there’s a little bit of money for all the needs. “The advan-tage of buckets is that we can get to some of the things that are lower on the [priority] list. The disadvantage of buckets is that you might have a pavement project, but because that bucket ran dry, we’re instead funding someone else’s fuel project.”

Finally, operational data is becoming more important as the FAA target’s limited funds to eligible and justified projects, Isackson said. “That’s becoming a bigger issue…The choices you make about your facilities will impact which businesses choose your facility.”

MnDOT continued from page 2

Mark your calendar for the 2018 Minnesota Airports Conference, April 18–20 in Duluth!

Airport Technical Assistance ProgramUniversity of Minnesota200 Transportation and Safety Building511 Washington Avenue S.E.Minneapolis, MN 55455-0375