The reporter has raised safety concerns in relation to inadequate and forged training records for [team] staff at [Location] airport.
The reporter states, 'There are significant discrepancies and potentially fraudulent activities concerning the training documentation at [Operator] at [Location] airport. Specifically, there have been instances where training records have been forged. This involves records to suggest that employees have completed required training modules when, in fact, they have not'. The reporter provided the following example:
To acquire a category [x] [airside drivers' licence] (perimeter road and aprons), applicants are required to conduct a minimum of eight hours of airside familiarisation training as part of the application process. The reporter advised, they completed no more than one hour in total which was signed off as eight hours on the airside [training document]. The reporter advised there are high risk areas that airside drivers require competence such as various live taxiway crossings encountered along the perimeter road. Training requirements of the airside [training document] also include familiarisation of areas such as the [apron 1], [apron 2] and [apron 3], maintenance and freight facilities as well as various other rules and procedures associated with the safe operation of vehicles airside at [Location] airport. This is not able to be completed in as little as one hour.
The reporter states they are required to complete aerobridge operation training and further advises the training is inadequate and staff are signed off prior to being deemed competent with nil supervision immediately following training.
The reporter finally states, 'This premature certification raises concerns about the depth and thoroughness of [Operator]’s training processes. In some cases, employees themselves have expressed a lack of confidence in their own capabilities but have been cleared regardless. This practice undermines the very purpose of training and assessment, which is to ensure that all personnel are fully prepared to perform their duties safely and effectively'.
[Division] was engaged to conduct a training compliance [audit] activity on behalf of [Operator]. The activity focused on [team] staff who operate equipment to support [Operator] operations at [Location] airport.
In [Location], the [team] staff are employed by [Operator], in the [section]. There is a [Position title 1] [Operator] and [Position title 2] who are both based in [Location] and manage the team.
The activity involved ascertaining responsibilities associated with conducting identified and required training, and the process for deeming staff members competent, prior to being placed in the operation.
[Location] airport defines the training requirements for operating aerobridges and driving vehicles, airside on the apron.
Three points underpinned the focus of this [audit] activity; that the:
1. records provided an accurate representation of training delivered
2. [training documents] used for airside driving provided an accurate reflection of hours accrued
3. trainers verified and signed off a true record of airside driving hours accrued.
Aerobridges
In relation to aerobridge training, records and interviews conducted with staff members provided evidence to suggest full compliance to [Aerodrome operator] requirements.
The activity found that [Operator] [Position title 3], [xx] in total, were trained by third-party contractor; [Contractor] (a different contractor has since been engaged) to operate two types of aerobridges. Under the [Aerodrome operator] [Aerobridge document] they were deemed competent to train and assess [Operator] [team] staff. Interviews conducted with [Position title 3] aerobridge trainers, and new staff confirmed compliance to the process for being certified to conduct training and operations of the aerobridge. This was further validated by records sighted by the [audit team].
There is no evidence to suggest there are gaps or inconsistencies in this area.
[Airside drivers' licence]
In relation to obtaining an [Airside drivers' licence] from [aerodrome operator], evidence was provided to demonstrate the process for obtaining the licence. This includes the minimum number of hours of airside driving familiarisation noted as 'FAMIL', which occurred before the [airside drivers' licence] exam and licence issue.
The requirement for an [airside drivers' licence] application involves the applicant completing the mandatory 8 hours airside driving famil, which could be obtained by either driving or being an observer.
The application process involves the [Position title 3] booking an available slot on the [aerodrome operator] system, [program 1], for the new staff member to sit the [airside drivers' licence] exam. These slots may be limited, and it could be several weeks before a slot is available. Part of applying for the licence and booking the exam involves submitting a [training document] to demonstrate that a minimum 8 hours of airside famil training has been completed.
In consultation with the [Position title 4], the [audit team] obtained training documentation for the most recent five [Position title 5]'s employed.
There were minor discrepancies with three [training documents] sampled. Taking into consideration the identified discrepancies, it was found that 2 of the 5 trainees’ [training documents] were short of 1 and 0.75 hours respectively. However, this review verified additional hours had been achieved (while not notated in the [training documents]) and would have resulted in these two individuals meeting the minimum requirement. These hours were identified within the tasking of driving to remote bays in [Location] airport as confirmed in the assigned tasks records discovered during the onsite visit to [Location].
[Training documents] were found to be signed off by [Position title 3] as the Dept Supervisor on the [training document]. The [Position title 3] is reliant on the entries being correct by the buddy and applicant. There is no requirement for a certified ‘trainer’ in assisting the applicant to obtain the hours, it requires only another [Position title 5] with an [airside drivers licence] to sign in the ‘Trainer Name’ section of the [training document]. This [Position title 5] may not be the only person who has accompanied the new staff member, however, and relies on accurate entries being made by all involved in the buddy training.
Verification of [training document] entries
The verification of hours accrued involved reviewing two sets of historical records which were provided for the selected staff members. The records related to shifts completed between the date of the [airside drivers' licence] application/submission of the [training document], and the date they obtained their [airside drivers' licence].
1. Rosters
The completed rosters for the sampled staff members were cross-checked with the entries in the [training document]. It was verified by reviewing the logged entries, that there were two staff members with 1 and 0.75 hours short of the requirement (after taking into consideration the minor discrepancies).
2. Assigned [aircraft] flights
Evidence in the form of flights assigned for the [aircraft] operation were provided. They operate 80 per cent of the time from remote bays and the [Position title 5] are required to access these bays via a buggy or car.
Verified [training document] entries and additional entries missed from the [aircraft] flights has made up the shortfall in hours and confirmed the minimum hours were achieved. (Supplied to the ATSB and CASA)
Interviews with staff members who had obtained their [airside drivers' licence], confirmed they had adequate opportunities to observe or drive a vehicle to meet the airside famil driving requirement.
Conclusion
The activity concluded that no gaps were identified with the aerobridge training.
With respect to the [airside drivers' licence] licencing, the activity concluded and verified that most entries in the sampled [training documents] were true and reasonable. From the 5 [training documents] sampled, 3 had minor discrepancies found during the verification process. This included instances where the roster did not have an entry for that day or where the times did not match the time as provided on the roster.
Opportunities for improvement
1. The [team] to improve the process for recording hours in the [training document] to account for all airside famil driving.
2. Increased [audit activity] through supervisory monitoring and quality control activity to verify the completeness and integrity of this [airside drivers' licence] process.
3. Independent [audit] on training records across the respective ports to ensure confidence in the training system.
New [Position title 5]'s - onboarding
[First week] - schedule of activities required to be completed in the first week.
It includes a reminder - tarmac driving. [Airside drivers' licence] tests are now being booked at end of the first week of buddy training, so, if possible, try to give trainees driving practice.
It contains the requirement to complete:
- Tarmac familiarisation - bays, [apron 1], [apron 2]
- Perimeter drive
- [Program 2] courses - general, [type 1] and [type 2] online aerobridge training ([Aerodrome operator] courses)
- Aerobridges - [type 1] and [type 2], mock up
It is signed by the [First week] trainer, who could have up to 4 new staff members in a single week.
In addition to the above first week, the next 5 weeks of onboarding consist of a week’s training in [duty title] software and 4 weeks of buddy training.
Aerobridge familiarisation sessions could be undertaken in the first week and between weeks 3-6 when being assigned a buddy trainer, with most being signed off as competent over a 6-8 week period.
The first week task form encourages tarmac famil driving 'to give trainees driving practice' and a 'perimeter drive'.
The first week checklist includes the need to complete a perimeter drive.
During the interview with the [Position title 3], they stated that they would endeavour to complete two perimeter drives for onboarding, where time permitted.
All five sampled [Position title 5] records included entries for completing the perimeter drive.
Category [x] [airside drivers' licence] licence requirements
[Team] staff must complete the requirements associated with obtaining a Category [x] [airside drivers' licence] before they can drive in specific airside areas. A Category [x] licence involves familiarisation of areas which they will frequent as part of their role, predominantly driving to and from aircraft situated on the remote bays. However, part of the list of areas involves those in which the staff would very rarely, if at all, be required to visit. These areas include:
Airside road - [apron 2] / [area]
Airside road - [apron 3]
Airside road - maintenance facilities
During the interviews conducted with the [Position title 3], they confirmed that as part of the first week, new staff are taken on a tour around the perimeter roads (as per the airside driver’s [training document]). This would invariably take a minimum of 1.5 hours to complete. It covers the requirement to complete familiarisation in the following areas. (Table of Category [xx] airside driving areas provided to the ATSB and CASA)
It was confirmed through interviews conducted with four [Position title 5]s that they did complete the perimeter drive in or around their first week in the role.
The next section of the [training document] is required as the [Position title 5]’s role includes driving in and around the aircraft stands. (Additional requirements for Category [x] driving provided to the ATSB and CASA).
[Airside drivers' licence] exam
The [Position title 3] stated that during the period where a substantial amount of [Position title 5] recruitment was being undertaken in [year], there were very limited slots to book the exam and the wait times could be up to 8 weeks.
At the time of the [audit] activity, an available [airside drivers' licence] exam slot could be 6 weeks or more after a new starter has commenced employment.
The [airside drivers' licence] exam has an [xx] per cent pass mark before a licence is granted.
Buddy Trainer
In terms of completing the airside famil driving requirement, this requires another [Position title 5] who has their [airside drivers' licence] to be present. During interviews with four staff members, they confirmed their buddy trainer accompanied them during the driving famil. Buddy trainers are not necessarily someone who is a certified trainer. The buddy training is conducted in week 3-6 of their onboarding.
[Aerodrome operator] documentation for applying for an [airside drivers' licence]
[Aerodrome operator] requires the following to be completed and submitted at the same time as the [airside drivers' licence] exam is booked:
- [Airside drivers' licence] application form
- [Aerodrome operator] airside operations - [driver training document]
The [training document] contains the following requirement: (Supplied to the ATSB and CASA)
Completed [airside drivers' licence] application forms and [training documents] were provided for all [Position title 5]s being sampled.
The [airside drivers' licence] application forms were signed by the [Position title 2], as per the requirement to be signed by a manager.
The requirement on the [training document] form is for a Dept Supervisor to sign and this was done by the [Position title 3] in all sampled [training documents].
Aerobridge Training
Currently, there are [xxx] [Position title 3] or [Position title 5]s trained and endorsed by [Aerodrome operator] (via [Contractor] at that point) to on-train to new and existing [team] staff.
The [Operator] [Position title 3] who is an aerobridge trainer stated, they believed all new staff were provided with sufficient time during their training. They explained that they would normally ascertain if the person was completely new to aerobridge operations or had prior experience and that would assist in tailoring the training. They would cover off how the aerobridge works, safety compliance, the sensors, and the observations that needed to be done before they are operated and encouraged questions to be asked. They explained that there could be about 6 in the team, but more time would be spent with those with limited exposure. Escalation points, if there are any issues, are also captured.
The trainer explained the process of being signed off as a [instructor] for aerobridge training. This involved theory online courses in addition to being observed training staff. They stated it was not a short course with a duration of 2-3 hours. It included two practical sessions on each aerobridge type. The [aerobridge training document] consisting of 6 pages for a newly [Aerodrome operator] certified [instructor] was sighted as completed during interviews with the [Position title 3]. Once signed off as a [instructor], the documentation is retained, and [Operator] records updated.
Interviews with 4 staff members, 2 of which had been employed for 12 months or less, confirmed they had received training on both aerobridges. The requirement is to complete a minimum of two movements on each type of aerobridge.
The [Position title 5]'s were asked several questions, in relation to the training material, practical assessments, duration, and quality of the training. All had positive comments, articulating that they believed the duration was sufficient, they completed 3-5 movements on each aerobridge. One [Position title 5] asked for further assistance and support on the ‘apron’ type 2 weeks after being signed off. They felt comfortable in asking for more support. The other [Position title 5] completed 7 movements on the same aerobridge before feeling confident. They stated they would have no hesitation in asking for more support.
New [Position title 5]'s could undertake aerobridge training with 1 or more [Position title 3]/[Position title 5] ([instructor]) until they are deemed competent and confident to operate the equipment. The buddy sessions are sometimes extended for identified new employees to provide more support in their early weeks. Feedback was sighted where a trainee was saying thank you for having an extra 2 weeks of buddy training.
It must be noted that the last 12 months of safety reports have been reviewed for any occurrences relating to the operation of the aerobridges or driving events in [Location], with nil results.
CASA has reviewed the REPCON and the operator’s response. Based on the information provided, CASA has no further safety concerns.
CASA will review vehicle control arrangements at the aerodrome, including the effectiveness of systems responsible for the oversight of peer training and familiarisation activities conducted by third parties, through scheduled surveillance activity.