Ground Support Blog

Several weeks ago, in response to my blog regarding overriding safety devices, a commenter posted: “If managers and leads would get out of the offices … to oversee ramp operations there would be a lot less equipment damage.”  I certainly agree with this.

Sure it’s difficult in today’s environment for managers and supervisors to get out on the ramp.  Emails that need to be answered, phone calls, staff meetings, reports for higher ups; all this combined with staffing cuts hinder even the most conscientious from getting out on the ramp and observing operations.  But get out they must if they are to truly supervise their operations.

I recently did an independent audit of a number of stations at the request of an airline that was concerned with the amount of ground damage and other operational problems.  I spent several days with all levels of station management in each location.  One consistent observation was that managers and supervisors had so much office work that they spent very little time on the ramp.  The time they spent on the ramp was usually during slow periods; during busy times they seemed tethered to their phones or computers.

While management was certainly well-intentioned, they appeared to have underestimated the significance of being out on the ramp.  There’s no way to know what the operations’ needs and problems are without actually observing the operations.  Oftentimes reports and data just aren’t enough.  In my opinion, management needs to set aside time every day to observe ramp operations.  They need to schedule time on the ramp just as they schedule a meeting or a telcon.

The Transportation Research Board (TRB) under the Airport Cooperative Research Program has commissioned a research team to conduct a comprehensive GSE survey that is now underway in the United States.
The objectives of this survey are twofold, and split into corresponding phases, as described on TRB’s website:

- develop a tutorial that describes GSE operations and identifies potential strategies to reduce emissions from powered GSE for use by GSE owners and operators
- conduct a representative inventory of powered GSE at airports, helping the industry assess the contribution of GSE to air quality impact at airports

This study has been funded through the TRB under FAA sponsorship and began in June. CDM has been selected as the research agency to conduct the project. A panel of industry representatives has been put in place to oversee the research.
To accomplish this ambitious task, CDM will contact various industry groups, including airports, airlines, GSE manufacturers and FBOs.

When it comes to compiling a national inventory of equipment, John Pehrson, P.E., principal air quality engineer at CDM, explains that it will include direct contact with fleet owners as well as surveys to collect data.

CDM is looking to collect sample data from airports of varying size and climate zones throughout the country. The information collected will be aggregated to create a national picture of GSE numbers and types throughout the country.

“It’s our intent to collect the information, and identify it as being a large-hub airport, or a medium hub, small hub, or a no-hub, and what kind of climate it’s in,” he says. “Hopefully that gives us enough information that we could then come up with a statistical linear regression on converting our sample inventory into a national inventory.”

Participation Needs

“We are doing this in anticipation that the information will be useful to a whole bunch of folks including the owners and operators,” Pehrson says. “We appreciate any information they can give us and any data they want to provide, we definitely look forward to reviewing.”

He adds, “We hope to start talking to the owners and see if there is a way that we can obtain this information and record it in a manner so that they feel comfortable actually providing it to us. There’s some sensitivity as to how much of their personal information gets out into the public, and we are sensitive to that and would like to avoid providing that much detail.”

The project is expected to span 18 months, concluding in December 2011. The more information that can be gathered from the survey, the better resource it could prove to be — and the more benefit it will provide to the industry as a whole. A survey such as this has been a long time coming, and the potential benefits are undeniable.

For more information, contact John Pehrson P.E., principal air quality engineer at CDM, at (949) 752-5452 or PehrsonJR@cdm.com.

ISAGO is an acronym many of you may be familiar with — IATA’s Safety Audit program for Ground Operations. While I think the audit portions offer a lot of promise for standardization — which is a boon to safety, efficiency and cost-savings — I am most excited by the prospect of a standardized Ground Operations Manual (GOM) for use by airlines and ground service providers.

Standardization in the cockpit has proven to result in safer and more efficient operations. There is no question in my mind that safety and efficiency could be improved on the ground by similar standardization of ground handling procedures. Certainly when it comes to a standardized GOM, I am all for it.

I know from my experience running an FBO at Logan International Airport years ago how difficult it was to keep up with all the different airlines’ ground handling procedures. It would have saved me many a headache — not to mention time and money — if we had had one standardized manual. As an accident investigator, I frequently observed problems that occurred because procedures differed not only from airline to airline but frequently from station to station within an airline. 

I have been keenly watching IATA’s work on a standardized manual because I believe that it will have a positive safety impact, as well as offer the potential for increased efficiencies and cost-savings. Given the current economic situation, it sounds like a positive way to go.

As I hop around the country’s airports, it looks to me as though new equipment is finally starting to show up on the ramp.  Just the other day, I was at Charlotte International Airport, returning from the Farnborough Air Show, and noticed new belt loaders and power units at various airlines on the ramp.  Later that week I was at Philly and noticed more new belt loaders.  And just yesterday, flying through Ft. Lauderdale, I saw a new van sitting at the gate.  After years of seeing little new on the tarmac, I couldn’t help but notice these gleaming new additions.

Could this be a harbinger of a turn in the aviation’s fortunes? I sure hope so.  I’m hoping that this signals an uptick in the economy that has finally trickled down to the airlines, and from the airlines down to ground support.  Recent news reports indicate that airlines may have finally turned an economic corner and are starting to report a profit.  From what I saw at Farnborough, aviation is definitely on an upswing.  Crowds were significantly bigger than the last show two years ago, by my estimation, and both Boeing and Airbus announced billions of dollars in sales. 

Record-breaking, triple digit weather in the Northeast reminds me of how brutal these hot days can be on the ramp.  The heat of the day combines with the heat from the equipment — including the aircraft — and with the radiant heat emanating from the tarmac.  Men and machines are sorely tested by this triple whammy.  Add high humidity to the mix, and the situation can rapidly become dangerous.

My concerns are not just with the equipment that needs to function in the high heat, but also with the workers who are out where shade and access to air conditioning are limited. I have seen the effects of high temperatures and high humidity on coworkers and have felt them myself. Under pressure to move aircraft, we often forget how much water we lose when we perspire heavily and how quickly the effects of losing body fluids can manifest themselves. I’ve seen people who became dehydrated suffer dizziness and weakness. I’ve seen them become disoriented and require assistance off the ramp.  

It’s important for all those on the ramp on high heat days to not only drink plenty of fluids themselves and rest at appropriate intervals, but also to remain on the lookout for signs of distress from their coworkers. This is especially important when they are operating equipment around aircraft or performing high-risk functions. It’s especially important for crew chiefs or supervisors to plan ahead for high heat days by having plenty of non-carbonated fluids (soda is not a substitute for water) available for their workers and to stay vigilant to the effects the high temperatures may have on their workers.

Industry associations have voiced serious concerns with the EPA’s effluent limitation guidelines for deicing operations at airports (you can read more about it in the June/July issue). The major concerns include the potential impact on safety and operations, as well as cost.

Another issue with the proposed rulemaking is that there seems to be no clearly defined incentive for the use of more environmentally friendly technology that can reduce the amount of glycol used in operations.

If the airports are investing in technology to collect and treat fluid (at a cost that would likely be passed on to the airlines), where is the incentive to invest in new equipment that promotes more environmentally friendly deicing operations? This could have a negative impact on innovative efforts and the continued production of such technology for the marketplace.

At the very least, the EPA needs to consider how new technology can be accounted for in the rulemaking.

January 2011 is when some newly manufactured diesel-powered equipment will have to meet new, tighter standards for emissions. Diesel emissions are a major contributor to airport pollution.

EPA’s standards are intended to address long-standing scientific concerns that diesel emissions can lead to or exacerbate serious health conditions, such as asthma, allergies, heart and lung diseases.  Diesel exhaust is particularly harmful to the most vulnerable — the young and the elderly.

My concern is that GSE maintainers may need to develop new repair procedures, as well as new methods for rebuilding these engines. This all comes at a time of extremely constrained resources. New equipment requires new inventory for new parts, new training for GSE personnel and potentially new methods of operation. New government rules bring new headaches.

As onerous as compliance can be, ground support workers will be the most direct beneficiaries of cleaner air. They are the ones who work closest to the sources of these emissions and the ones whose health can be most affected.

I was sitting at the terminal at Boston’s Logan Airport the other day, waiting for an afternoon flight.  Like most of us airport types, I while away the time by watching the ground operations going on through the window. I couldn’t help but notice a number of belt loaders and baggage tugs zipping around the perimeter of the apron. They were zipping around at a pace obviously faster than the airport speed limit.  As I was watching this, two more baggage tugs – one towing two carts and one towing three – came tearing out of the bag room; they actually seemed to be racing each other.  It’s a wonder that the baggage didn’t come flying off!

This isn’t the first time, of course, that I’ve seen excessive speeds on the ramp.  But it did get me thinking about how, if the equipment comes from the factory with speed governors on them which are supposed to prevent excessive speeds, do they fail so often? Or do they “fail” because employees find a way to defeat these safety devices? I’m afraid that it may too often be because employees jimmy the equipment either because of the pressure of an unrealistic schedule, or because of their frustration with having a speed limit.

Through the years, I have seen ground damage to aircraft caused by equipment whose safety devices were overridden.  Excessive speed meant the drivers were unable to stop in time to avoid colliding with an aircraft.

How many times have people snickered at those ubiquitous post-9/11 posters in New York City proclaiming, “See Something, Say Something”?  Well, no one’s snickering now.  Two T-shirt vendors in Times Square have proven the importance of those four little words.  Two working people saved the day by noticing something unusual and immediately telling a police officer.

So Homeland Security, TSA and all the security forces at the airports can only do so much. But security at our airports and on our aircraft depends just as much — maybe more — on the everyday workers on the ramp who know if something is just not right. It’s their trained and experienced eyes and ears that are in many ways a first line of defense for airport security.

Which brings me to challenging people on the ramp without IDs showing.  For some reason, many ramp workers are hesitant to question people in secured areas without their badges visible. Sure, often they know the person or they’ve seen them on the ramp and they don’t want to make a fuss or get involved in an altercation. Sometimes it may even be their bosses who are ignoring basic security requirements. But a simple measure to increase security for everyone is to make challenging people without visible ID the norm.

 Yet another airline merger was announced yesterday. That’s not really all that surprising. However, the fact that the merger involves two legacy carriers means the resulting changes to the industry could be that much greater in scale.

United and Continental announced they would merge yesterday. In a reportedly $3-billion deal, the two carriers announced they would merge under the United name and be based in Chicago. As a result of the merger, United will surpass Delta as the largest carrier and fly to 370 destinations in 59 countries, according to the Associated Press.

Though the deal has yet to receive approval by the Justice Department, the chances of it happening are good. The merger of United and Continental would likely mean many changes to ground support operations. As with most mergers, it will likely lead to capacity cuts and employee reductions.

What are your thoughts on the merger? What will it mean for the ground support industry? Do you think there will be more mergers in the future?

Please share your thoughts.