ZRH Safety NewsletterUnique (Flughafen Zürich AG)

Airport construction sites and flight operations6|2009

3Contents

· Editorial

Case Study· Collision between two aircraft

during apron construction work

Expert Perspectives· A discussion with six building

and construction specialists

Safety Basics· Construction site markings

and signs

Accidents and Incidents· Occurrences at Zurich· Occurrences worldwide

Occurrence Reporting

Editorial

As the warmer temperatures arrive, we are faced once again with numerous construction sites at Zurich Airport. Airports are always being further developed and refined, of course; and pilots, drivers, marshallers and the controllers of our air and apron traffic need to deal with this and the resulting procedural changes in their usual professional way. To do so, everyone involved must be kept constantly updated on the latest status of all these activities, and all the changes made must be clearly marked. Safe flight operations should then be maintainable throughout any construction work.

At Zurich, while we have had a few minor incidents, misunderstandings and uncertainties with taxiing traffic, we have suffered hardly any accidents to date as a result of construction activity. In view of this, for this issue’s “Case Study” we have travelled farther afield, to another European airport where construction work on the ground was a contributing factor in a serious collision between two aircraft.

In our “Safety Basics” section in this issue we focus on the fundamental rules and procedures for dealing with building sites during flight operations. In doing so, we take another look at the various actions that the resulting access restrictions demand in signage and marking terms. And, as in our two previous issues, our third ZRH Safety News-letter also highlights a number of incidents that have occurred in the last few months, both at Zurich and around the world.

We hope our latest ZRH Safety Newsletter enables us all to draw the lessons from past experi-ences and raise our awareness of airport construction sites and how to deal with them, and thereby helps us further enhance the safety of our flight operations at Zurich Airport. And we hope you find it useful and interesting reading.

Marc KeuschDeputy Safety OfficerUnique (Flughafen Zürich AG)

Photo: Unique

2

Collision between two aircraft during apron construction work

Case Study

In this section we look at a concrete exam-

ple of a safety incident relating to our focus

topic, describing the incident in detail and

highlighting the lessons to be learned.

In briefA British Aerospace BAe 146-300 collided with a parked aircraft (also a BAe 146-300) when taxiing away from its stand at Konrad Ade-nauer Airport, Cologne-Bonn on 11 September 1997. Both aircraft sustained serious damage.

In detailThe stands on which the aircraft involved were parked were subject to temporary modifica-tions as a result of local construction activity. No Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) had been is- sued, however, on these modified stand ar- rangements. This meant that the current ar- rangement and designation of these stand positions no longer corresponded with those published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).The two aircraft were parked next to each other on stands P07 and P06 on the airport’s Ramp E (the cargo apron area). The aircraft were parked in an “angled nose-out” position, i.e. at a 45° angle to the taxilane (see dia-gram). The distance between the stand centre- lines here was 26.5 metres. Three metres before the taxilane edge, this centreline tur- ned 45° to the right, to cross the taxilane edge at 90° (see the green dotted line in the dia- gram). The nosewheel position for the two stands was 2.1 metres from the point at which the stand centreline made its 45° turn. The area up to 10 metres in front of the nosewheel is very diffi- cult to see from a seated position in the air- craft’s cockpit. In view of the size of the two aircraft (wing spans 26.4 metres) and their parking positions, the left wingtip of the air- craft on P07 was behind the right wingtip of the aircraft on P06 in straight-line terms. For its taxi away from the stand, Ramp Control decided that the aircraft on P07 should follow the stand centreline, cross the taxilane and the (empty) stand opposite at 90° and proceed directly to Taxiway Alpha (this is shown as the dotted green line in the diagram). But Ramp Control merely said (in German) to Ground Control, which is responsible for providing the pilots with clear and precise information: “They just need to go straight to Taxiway Alpha”. Ground Control then informed the

flight: “Taxi holding point Runway 14L via Alpha, taxi straight ahead to join Alpha.” The first officer then proceeded to taxi – with-out a marshaller, and without paying due re- gard to the modified centreline with the 45° turn. In other words, the flight taxied “straight ahead” (along the red line in the diagram). The commander, who was busy checking the apron vehicles around the aircraft, failed to notice their proximity to the aircraft on P06. The two aircraft’s wingtips collided, causing major damage to both.

P 06

45°

2.1 m

3 m

26.5 m

Aircraft wing span 26.4 metrestaxi route selected by Ramp Control route taken by crewpoint of collision

Taxiway Alpha

Further stands

Ramp E

Taxilane

P 07

Schematic diagram, not to scale.

3

Results of the investigation1. The cockpit crew did not pay adequate at-

tention to obstacles and taxied away from its stand without marshaller assistance.

2. The changes in stand and centreline arrangements in the cargo apron area had not been published in any NOTAM or in the AIP.

3. The taxi instructions issued to the crew were unclear.

4. The aircrafts were parked too closely together.

ConclusionsThe stand positions in the cargo apron area had been modified during local construc-tion work. This had not been communica-ted, however, via the relevant publications. Ground Control had the wrong information about the taxi manoeuvre to be performed.

Source: BFU Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau,

Germany, www.bfu-web.de

Case Study

Photo: BFU (Germany)

Photo: BFU (Germany)

4

An interview with six building and construction specialists

Expert Perspectives

In this section we present the views and

experiences of various staff members at

Zurich Airport on the topics we cover in

our Newsletter.

What kind of dangers do airport construction si-tes and building activity pose to runway and apron operations?Martin Eichenberger: Planning is half the battle. Every construction site is different, and needs to be constantly assessed and reas-sessed in its own terms. The danger points to watch out for, though, are poor planning, mis- information internally and/or externally and inadequate markings, signage and lighting. Frangible barriers and equipment that are insufficiently anchored or resistant to stormy winds are another constant concern. Also, construction sites with hazards such as tren- ches and machinery must not be allowed to encroach on our obstacle-free zones unless this is done under strict supervision: we don’t want to create danger areas in the midst of our flight operations. And it’s tremendously important, too, that everyone involved, from the cockpit crews to the fire services, is constantly aware of the latest status and situation. Walter Mullis: Any materials, dust or gravel that are left lying on the tarmac can cause a huge amount of damage if they get caught in the jet blast of an aircraft’s engines – as can any barriers that are loose or haven’t been adequately secured. And we should never underestimate the weather, either: strong westerly winds and stormy gusts can blow barrier planking or the materials covering freshly-laid concrete straight onto the taxi- ways. On a runway, a single loose stone can cause a disaster: that’s why, if we’ve had con- struction work at night, we always clear the runway the following morning and the con- tractor, Construction Safety and the airport manager inspect its surface before we give the green light for flight operations. The whole construction process can also create new hazards – like the spoil heaps that will accu- mulate if we’re digging a shaft. That’s why all obstacles of this kind have to meet very strict criteria. Manuela Durussel: The airlines and their pilots need to know where the building sites are. It can get quite dangerous if we’re taxiing off somewhere and suddenly find that the taxiway is closed owing to construction work.

In fact, the better you feel you know the air- port, the greater the risk here. So any building activity needs to be communicated as clearly and simply as possible. Are there specific rules for signing and marking a construction site?Martin Eichenberger: Well, our service road traffic is basically subject to the same con- ventions as road users anywhere in Switzer-land. And for our flight operations, ICAO has issued its own extensive documentation, which I’d rather not go into further here.

Walter Mullis: Depending on the location and the extent of the site, we’ll take entire taxi- ways out of commission and deactivate their centreline lighting. We may also put “X” mark- ings on them to show they’re closed. And we’ll additionally cordon off the building site itself with low planking and mark it with red lamps. If the work is only of short duration, Apron Control can activate the “stop bars” that are built into our runway and taxiway system to block off part of a taxiway. On the roads within the airport area, we use the same signage and markings as you would get on any road else- where.André Renaud: If a flight crew is uncertain about where a building site is located, they can radio up for a “follow-me” truck, and the mar- shaller will then guide them safely around the construction area. Thomas Zimmerli: Centrelines will need to be temporarily removed, to make sure they don’t lead an aircraft straight up to a building site. We also need to mark the entrances to the site for the construction vehicles, so that all the drivers know exactly where they’re going.Jakob Sieber: The new taxiway markings, some of which will be only temporary, are

The specialists

Manuela DurusselPilot and Safety Awareness Manager, Swiss International Air Lines

Martin EichenbergerHead of Operations & Construction, Unique

Walter MullisHead of Construction Safety, Unique

André RenaudDeputy Head of Apron Services, Unique

Jakob SieberHead of Signage and Markings, Unique

Thomas ZimmerliEngineering Consultant, Locher Engineers

Photo: Unique

5

generally applied in the night hours when flight operations are suspended. We’ll also take out any existing markings that we need to remove at the same time. We use the same approach here for our construction phases – rerouting taxiways and so on – and for the final marking arrangements once the work has been completed.

As a pilot, Manuela, where do you get the information on any building activity on the ground at the airports you’re flying to?Manuela Durussel: From the NOTAMs, or No- tices to Airmen. And from the TOIs: the Transi- tory Operation Information, which is a docu-ment SWISS compiles for its own cockpit crews. We also use “Temporary Instructions” charts, which show us when there will be building work at a particular airport. We have to study all this before we land, or even before we start our flight.

Do you recall any accidents or incidents at Zurich where building sites were involved?Martin Eichenberger: I remember a few iso- lated incidents, like when we created a tempo- rary taxiway around the eastern side of the Dock E building site to allow the construction work to start as soon as possible. We marked the edge of the new taxiway beside the ex- cavation with red lighting. But the first flights

to land the next morning on Runway 14 and leave it via what was then Taxiway C stopped while they were still in the runway zone be- cause they assumed the red lights meant that the taxiway was closed. We promptly changed these lights to blue, and that solved the pro- blem. Looking back on my 14 years at the air- port, though, I can’t recall a single accident that was attributable to building activity. But that’s the result of the excellent collaboration between all the partners who come together to make any airport work. Let’s hope it stays that way, and let’s all help ensure it does. Walter Mullis: The greatest dangers are in the way the construction site is set up, and when things are subsequently shifted around. We had one Boeing 747 that taxied straight through a building site because there were two taxiway centrelines – the “permanent” one, and the one that had been provided to bypass the site. From a 747’s cockpit, the pilots can’t see anything on the ground for about 25 metres in front of the aircraft, and they just didn’t see the Xs indicating that the permanent route was out of use. Luckily, all the aircraft suffered was a burst tyre when it went over the site lighting. But it did mean a two-hour delay for the flight. Thomas Zimmerli: I had an experience in the northern part of the airport, next to Runway 16. We were working on Taxiway Echo, beside the runway; and when one aircraft took off, it threw up masses of loose sand. Nobody was hurt, but it reminded us all just how strong a jet blast can be. Which is one reason tidiness is so important on any construction site…Thomas Zimmerli: Absolutely. You can’t avoid a certain amount of dust and dirt, of course; but wherever you are at an airport, you need to keep things clear and tidy. Everyone needs to play their part here. And if the ground does get soiled in some way, it needs to be cleaned up with water as quickly as possible.André Renaud: That’s right: the ground has to be as clean as possible, because a jet engine will suck up dirt like a vacuum cleaner – espe-cially on aircraft with low-slung engines like the Airbus A318 and A319. Their engines are

Expert Perspectives

Photo: Unique

Photo:

6 Expert Perspectives

less than half a metre above the ground, and the smallest stone that gets into them can cause thousands of francs worth of damage.

When it comes to airport construction sites, what would you say are your biggest concerns in flight operations terms?Martin Eichenberger: I’d say it’s vitally impor- tant that everyone can be sensitised to the changed situation in good time. The “straight-forward” building sites for us are the ones that are big and long-term and can be managed largely independently of our flight operations. It’s the smaller and shorter-term sites which are created in the midst of an apparently fami- liar operational infrastructure that are more of a problem, and can cause a lot of operating disruption. On top of this, an international airport that’s open 365 days a year is heavily dependent on shiftwork operations. The spe- cialists – pilots, air traffic controllers, mar-shallers, construction safety officers and so on – come to their very demanding work from their vacation or their days off and have to fa- miliarise themselves once again with all the changes that have been caused through con- struction activity. This is where I’m particularly concerned that our network should function well, and that everyone involved should always get the briefing they need in good time to cope

with this rapidly-changing working environ-ment. Walter Mullis: To me the main thing is getting all our various partners to keep to our rules. That’s the only way we can ensure not just safe flight operations but their own safety, too. If we all keep to the established procedures, not much can go wrong. And if an exception does need to be made or a special request consid-ered, that’s what our Construction Safety unit is for: we have all the expertise and experi-ence and all the resources we need to find a solution to any problem that should be to everyone’s satisfaction. André Renaud: We need to keep all our build- ing sites neat, tidy and controlled; we should all make one check too many rather than one too few; and we need to keep constantly alert, and not slip into unthinking routines.

Thomas Zimmerli: What’s important to me is that everyone working on the site observes all the regulations. That, and getting rid of any loose items, to avoid any cases of foreign ob- ject damage and all the costs and disruption they can cause.Jakob Sieber: Good collaboration and coordi- nation among all the partners right from the start: that’s what I think we need most. Manuela Durussel: From a pilot’s perspective, we like to see the work done as quickly as possible, to minimise the disruption. We also need to have clear communication in good time of any phased building work that’s plan- ned. The “Temporary Instructions” charts I mentioned earlier are very useful here: they show the various building phases so the pilots know precisely what is closed where and when. That’s a huge help for our pilots in safety terms.

Photo: Unique

Photo: Unique

Photo: Unique

GeneralThe markings and signage that are used at an airport are immensely important, providing orientation, guidance and instructions for air- craft and ground traffic alike. By installing new markings and removing existing ones at and around its construction sites, the airport au- thority shows flight crews where the site is and what taxiways and parking positions can- not be used (or must be used with caution) as a result. ICAO has issued a set of binding standards and recommendations on how airport construction sites and other obstacles should be arranged, marked and signed, which it has published in its Annex 14.

ICAO markings and signage and their use at Zurich AirportZurich Airport uses the markings and signage prescribed and recommended by ICAO, but also modifies these to meet the airport’s spe- cific conditions and requirements. This means, for example, that all distances, traffic light heights, barrier planking and markings are closely aligned to the airport’s existing struc- tures and to each construction site’s specific characteristics.All frangible barriers on airport premises at Zurich is low and close to the ground (at a height of 25-30 centimetres), to ensure that it does not come into accidental contact with any aircraft’s engines or wings. If placed higher, the planking could also be blown away by jet exhausts or strong gusts of wind. The planking is also laden down with sandbags to prevent this happening.The frangible barriers are further provided with lighting to clearly show where the site is

located at night or in poor visibility. The dis- tance between these lights is specified by the site management in charge of the construction concerned, depending on the site’s size and specific situation. Runways or taxiways that are closed owing to the construction activity will generally be marked with a small yellow “X” to show pilots that they are currently unusable.Chevrons are ano-ther form of signage, used on the airport’s roads. The white arrows on a red background, which are similar to those found on Swiss roads in general, are used to guide traffic around airport construction sites.

Construction site markings and signs

7 Safety Basics

“Safety Basics” is the section in each Safety

Newsletter where we provide key informa-

tion on the rules, regulations and procedures

for the safety item we’re focusing on.

ICAO Annex 14 Vol. I Chapter 7Unserviceability markers shall be displayed wherever any por- tion of a taxiway, apron or hold- ing bay is unfit for the move-ment of aircraft but it is still possible for aircraft to bypass the area safely. On a movement area used at night, unservicea-bility lights shall be used. Un- serviceability markers and lights shall be placed at inter- vals sufficiently close so as to delineate the unserviceable area. Unserviceability markers shall consist of conspicuous up-standing devices such as flags, cones or marker boards. An un- serviceability light shall consist of a red fixed light. The light shall have an intensity sufficient to ensure conspicuity consider-ing the intensity of the adjacent lights and the general level of illumination against which it would normally be viewed. In no case shall the intensity be less than 10 cd of red light. Where a temporarily unserviceable area exists, it may be marked with fixed-red lights. These lights should mark the most potenti-ally dangerous extremities of the area. A minimum of four such lights should be used, ex- cept where the area is triangu-lar in shape where a minimum of three lights may be emplo-yed. The number of lights should be increased when the area is large or of unusual con- figuration. At least one light should be installed for each 7.5 m of peripheral distance of the area.

Photo: Unique

14.5 m

1.8 m

36 m

Runway centreline

Photo: Unique

Photo: Unique

The “closed runway” marking (ICAO Annex 14)

Airbus A319 collides with airbridgeAfter an uneventful flight, the aircraft con-cerned taxied to Stand A07, where it stopped as indicated by the dock guidance system. The handling agent then went to place the chocks around the nosewheel, but was forced to take evasive action when, after coming to a brief standstill, the aircraft began to move forward again. The pilot in command noticed on look- ing out that the aircraft was moving and tried again to stop it using the parking brake. This failed, however, owing to insufficient hydraulic pressure. The aircraft’s left engine then colli- ded with the airbridge, which had been incor- rectly positioned because a car was parked behind it which had not been removed in time.

The Safety Office addsAll handling personnel are reminded that an aircraft is only effectively brought to a standstill once the wheel chocks have been applied.

Two aircraft come close during pushbackTwo aircraft came close to colliding when a pushback tractor driver at Stand E56 was in- structed to push back his Boeing 737 just as the driver at adjacent Stand E54 was told “Ausholen und schräg stossen” (“Swing out and angled push”), a move designed to in- crease the distance between the two manoeu-vring aircraft. The E54 driver understood “Schräg ausholen” (“Swing out at an angle”), however, and did just this; and nobody noticed that the resulting action did not correspond to the instruction given. The misunderstood in- struction brought the two aircraft dangerously close to one another. The crew of the Boeing

737, which was to the rear of the other air- craft, saw what was happening and immedi-ately radioed Apron Control, which intervened to halt the other aircraft’s pushback.

The Safety Office addsAlways listen in to the radio readbacks, and if there is any discrepancy, ask for it again. In routine work in particular, be sure that the instruction has been correctly under-stood and is also correctly followed. You can always, always ask!

Tractor and vehicle collideA tractor driver clearing snow from the apron outside the Jet Aviation hangar accidentally reversed into another vehicle passing behind him. The left-hand door and rear wing of the tractor were damaged. Fortunately, both dri- vers escaped injury.

The Safety Office addsCollisions by reversing vehicles are a fre- quent occurrence at Zurich Airport. Please remember that all reversing must be per- formed at walking speed. If your vehicle has a restricted rear view, you must use an as- sistant or a visual aid when reversing (see “Bodenverkehrsordnung” [Ground Traffic Regulations], Article 31).

Accidents and incidents8

Occurrences at Zurich Airport

The ZRH Safety Newsletter is intended to sensitise readers to the potential dangers inherent in all operations at Zurich Airport. To this end, every issue also includes a sec-tion reporting on recent occurrences at Zurich and elsewhere. Not all these occur-rences are necessarily related to the current focus issue, “Airport construction sites and flight operations”.

Photo: Unique

Near-miss during pushbackA baggage cart disrupted a pushback at Stand A03 to such an extent that the pushback trac- tor and its aircraft had to abort the manoeu-vre. Through lack of adequate attention, the baggage cart driver had failed to notice the aircraft in time.

The Safety Office addsAs soon as a pushback tractor has its flash- ing lights on, it may not be passed behind. Please also ensure that you do not become too fixed on one particular aircraft if there is another aircraft in the area taxiing or be- ing pushed back. If you are unsure where an aircraft is taxiing to, stop, wait and see. Please also ensure that you are not distrac- ted by your mobile phone or other possible sources.

Accidents and incidents9

133

10

58

2

This map shows where most of the near-collisions in the

period between 1 January and 31 May 2009 occurred.13 number of near-collisions Source: Unique

As the above statistics from the Unique Safety Office show,

Zurich Airport saw regular cases of near-collisions bet-

ween ground vehicles and both taxiing aircraft and aircraft

pushing back in the first five months of this year.

Source: Unique Safety Office

Jan

Nearmiss on apron Zurich Airport 2009

(a) between vehicles and aircrafts(b) between vehicles and aircrafts during Pushback manoeuvrings

Feb Mar Apr May

Aircraft runs into construction site at Baneasa Airport An aircraft using a shortened landing runway at Baneasa Airport in Bucharest (Romania) collided with a pile of gravel and chippings on 14 June 2004. The collision tore off the air- craft’s main landing gear. The pilot lost control and the aircraft left the runway and crashed into a tree. Nobody was injured, but the air- craft suffered extensive damage.

Aircraft and maintenance vehicle almost collideA Boeing 737 with 190 passengers aboard was waiting to depart from Manchester (UK) for Kos (Greece) on 16 July 2003. Runway 06L was being used, but the cockpit crew were un- aware that only part of it was currently usable: the remainder was closed for a week to re- move rubber deposits. Following a misunder-standing between Ground Control and the crew, the aircraft taxied to Holding Point AG

instead of the expected Holding Point A. The aircraft then commenced its takeoff roll. Only at the crest of the runway did the crew notice that there were maintenance vehicles ahead. They were no longer able to abort takeoff, and cleared the 14-feet-tall vehicles at a height of 56 feet. The aircraft had narrowly avoided a collision.

Source: AAIB UK

The Safety Office addsFull details of any construction work on airport premises must be published in NOTAMs (example left), which provide the clear and immediate information on the condition of the available runways, taxiways and parking positions that is essential to safe flight operations.

Ryanair aircraft lands on taxiwayA Ryanair Boeing 737 from Girona (Spain) landed on the taxiway at Cagliari Airport (Italy) on 12 April 2009. The airport’s regular runway had previously been closed for 15 months for construction work, with the main taxiway used as a temporary runway during this time; but the regular runway had reopened for use on 9 April 2009. The Ryanair flight used the taxiway instead of the runway, however, even though a NOTAM had been issued informing pilots of the reversion to usual practice. The landing was otherwise uneventful.

Occurrences worldwide

10 Accidents and incidents

11 Accidents and incidents

Aircraft lands on closed runway in Lagos A Boeing 747 of Hydro Air Cargo landed on a closed runway at Lagos Airport (Nigeria) on 29 November 2003 when making an intermediate stop on a flight from Brussels to Johannes-burg. While a NOTAM had been issued inform- ing crews that Runway 19R was closed for resurfacing, the flight’s crew were informed by the controller that 19R was available. The con- troller subsequently corrected himself and confirmed that 19R was closed and 19L was open. By this time, however, the aircraft was on final approach to 19R. On landing, the air- craft collided with piles of asphalt, slid to the left of the runway and came to a halt in a drai- nage ditch. There were no injuries, but the air- craft suffered serious damage.

((Page 11))

11 Accidents and incidents

The Safety Office addsIn any case of construction work and with any changes to existing airport infrastruc-ture, all the information on the condition of the usable runways and taxiways must be available to everyone involved. This is pri- marily ensured through NOTAMs.

Aircraft propeller touches ground power unitAfter landing at Phoenix Airport (USA) on 20 April 2009, an aircraft of Mesa Airlines was

guided by a marshaller to Gate B24. As the air-craft approached its final parking position, its right-hand propeller came into contact with a ground power unit (GPU) positioned too close to the stand. The impact pushed the GPU backwards and into the aircraft’s fuselage.

The Safety Office addsTurning propellers and running jet engines are extremely dangerous. Due care and alertness are essential around them at all times.

Ryanair Boeing 737 suffers severe birdstrikeA Boeing 737 of Ryanair with 172 occupants on board encountered a flock of birds when approaching Rome Airport on a flight from Frankfurt on 10 November 2008. The aircraft suffered multiple birdstrikes and ingestions, with resulting engine problems. This is turn resulted in a hard landing in which the left main landing gear collapsed and the aircraft slid off to the edge of the runway. Five persons suffered slight injuries.

The Safety Office addsInformation on concentrations of birds is immensely important to cockpit crews. Airport operators strive to keep flocks of birds away from the airport area, to reduce the threat of a birdstrike for arriving and departing traffic. Information on concentra-tions of birds is also passed on to cockpit crews via the Air Traffic Information Service (ATIS).

Editorial team:Unique (Flughafen Zürich AG)Printed by RTK, Kloten© Unique (Flughafen Zürich AG)P.O. BoxCH-8058 Zurich Airportwww.unique.ch

Contributors to this issue:Unique Safety Office, Kyung-Jin Ha, Manuela Durussel, Martin Eichenberger, André Renaud, Jakob Sieber, Thomas Zimmerli, Walter Mullis, Martin Pfister and Heinz Koch

The ZRH Safety Newsletter provides regular information and updates on safety issues at and around Zurich Airport. If you have any con- tributions or suggestions of your own, the Unique Safety Office will be pleased to hear from you at occurrence@unique.ch

12

Uncertainties and “near-misses” should never be left unaddressed. We encourage everyone at Zurich Airport to communicate any ideas or observations they may have regarding the safety of flight operations to the Unique Safety Office using the form below.

Zurich Airport Occurrence Reporting Form

1. Basic details

Date Time day night dawn dusk Weather clear cloudy overcast rain fog Visibility good moderate poor Surface conditions dry wet snow slush ice

Location

2. Description (what happened?)

3. Causes (why might this have happened?)

4. Proposals (what could be done to prevent this kind of thing happening again?)

5. Personal assessment a. How likely do you think it is that b. How serious do you think such an this might happen again? occurrence and its consequences could be? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5very unlikely very likely harmless disastrous

Any information you give above will be used to help further enhance safety at Zurich Airport. You can decide yourself whether you wish to provide your own personal details. If you do, we will cut off and dispose of this section once we have received your form, but will take the liberty of contacting you if we have any follow-up questions or if anything is unclear. None of the information you provide will be passed on without your express consent. When you have completed the form, please mail it or fax it to:Unique (Flughafen Zürich AG), Safety Office, P.O. Box, CH-8058 Zurich Airport,fax +41 (0)43 816 8363, occurrence@unique.ch

Thank you in advance for playing your own active part in keeping our airport safe.

Last and first name (optional)

Company (optional)

Occurrence Reporting

The Occurrence Reporting Form

!