Ground Support Blog

The Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) has issued a request for proposals to “develop a tutorial that describes GSE operations and identifies potential strategies to reduce emissions from powered GSE for use by GSE owners and operators and to conduct a representative inventory of powered GSE at airports to help the industry assess the contribution of GSE to air quality impacts at airports.” The TRB is an agency of Congress mandated to study transportation issues.  [Full disclosure – I have been asked by a potential bidder to participate as a consultant]

Whoever ends up doing the study will be successful only with the full cooperation of GSE operators.  Why do I think GSE operators should cooperate? Emissions are clearly linked to global warming and will continue to be regulated in the interests of reducing greenhouse gases. I believe that voluntary participation in studies such as this will allow GSE operators a greater voice in the future of their airport equipment, including when and whether to switch to electric or alternative fuel equipment.

In addition, to the extent that emissions and fuel consumption are related, identifying emissions and emission patterns can help reduce fuel consumption and lower operating costs.

Are there drawbacks to identifying GSE emissions?  I do not believe that voluntary ignorance benefits anyone or the industry as a whole.  While knowledge of emissions may put pressure on the industry to change, it is better to be viewed as part of the solution than part of the problem.

Maybe all the years of noise and environmental complaints have made airport managers publicity-shy, but unless politicians get the message that airports are huge economic engines for their constituencies, they will not get the stimulus money needed to put people back to work in aviation. I have not heard of too many airport projects that were the beneficiaries of much-needed stimulus funds and I am afraid that if we don’t mount a significant campaign to bring attention to the airport jobs that could be created, we won’t get any second-round stimulus funds either. 

Politicians need to know that many airport projects – such as resurfacing projects – are labor intensive and can put a lot of people back to work quickly in trades that have been hardest hit. And the small glimmers of hope that the Great Recession is receding has been mainly felt by those lucky enough to still have money in the stock market. The unemployment rate is still hovering close to 10 percent and the under-employment rate remains unacceptably high, as well.

And if some question the connection between an airport resurfacing project and aviation activity, they need to be reminded that airports contribute to an entire region’s economy. Data for my hometown airport, Logan, show that the airport contributes $8.7 billion per year in economic impact to the region. In these critical times, we need to make sure that the economic engines that are our airports are running on all cylinders. 

Whether fueled by low wages, cut-backs in overtime or a myriad other possible reasons, driver turnover on the ramp is a reality and can be costly when inexperienced drivers are left to learn on the job. Many airport drivers get little more than a driving test and some OJT before they start driving in a complex ramp environment. But inexperience, and inattention, of course, can be really costly, with slight dents and dings being extremely expensive to repair. The costs of a serious accident with an aircraft can be staggering. Total ground damage costs globally can run in the hundreds of millions annually. 

With new virtual airport driver training software, improved driver safety, can be as close as a computer screen. I recently had the opportunity to participate in a virtual reality driver training session at Logan International Airport. The software program I tried out was an excellent representation of the airport environment, including the runway, taxiway and ramp. There are several commercially available software providers who have made airport driver training the virtual equivalent of pilot simulator training.  

Just like the arcade games of many of our childhoods, a “driver” manipulates an actual steering wheel and steers a virtual vehicle on a screen in front of him.  But there the comparison to yesteryear’s game ends.  Today’s computer simulations are amazing re-creations of the airport environment, with obstacles and driving challenges even seasoned drivers could benefit from.  The beauty of these programs is that they can train drivers on all the hazards that are likely to be encountered on an airport, without the risk of those hazards.

Users of this type of training end up better trained at a fairly nominal cost. 

The Ground Support Leaders of the Year awards is a wonderful way to recognize individuals in the industry. The nominations are voted upon by members of our Editorial Advisory Board. The awards will be presented to recipients at a reception at Aviation Industry Expo in Las Vegas on Wednesday, March 17 from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.

The deadline for nominations is Feb. 1, so get your nominations in today!

Award Descriptions:

Each award is for any and every aspect of the ground support industry, including ground service providers, commercial airline and/or military personnel, associations and individuals at manufacturers, suppliers and distributors.

Team Leader – similar to the original Leader of the Year Award, this title is for an individual who has taken a leadership role with personnel.

Safety Award – for a person or company who has introduced a new method, procedure or product to improve industry safety records.

Kaizen Award – Japanese for continuous and incremental improvement, this award is for a person or company who has implemented a new business philosophy about business work place practices focusing on efficiency and improvement in productivity, performance or processes.

Engineer/Innovator Award – for a company or a person who has introduced a revolutionary product.

Green Award – for a person or a company who has introduced environmentally friendly equipment or processes.

Lifetime Achievement Award – for a person who has demonstrated commitment to the industry through numerous years of dedicated service.

Click here to nominate

A sad reminder last week that the rush of holiday traffic doesn’t condone skimping on safety requirements.  A routine deicing operation turned tragic at Calgary when standard precautions may not have been followed.  A worker was found dead of head injuries outside his deicing truck where he had been working alone – perhaps without a safety harness - to deice a 737.  The bucket was extended about 20 feet according to press reports.

How he came to fall out of the bucket may never be established but it does remind us of the importance of following standard safety protocols: in this case, always wearing a safety harness and always having two-person crews whenever a high-lift device is used, with one person on the ground.  In fact, when I worked at USAir, the requirement was for the person on the ground to have the bucket in sight at all times.  This meant getting out of the truck to make sure the bucket was in sight and clear of any hazards.  Of course, it was a pain to get out of the truck, especially in cold weather, but that was what was required to ensure the safety of the guy in the bucket.

I know how hard it is to rustle up that second person when the airport is busy and the pressure is on to move aircraft. But it just needs to be done to protect workers and avoid tragedies like the one at Calgary.

There’s never been any such thing as a routine accident when a piece of ground equipment hits an aircraft.  If we’re lucky enough that no one is injured, damage to the aircraft alone can quickly mount into the thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands. A belt-loader or a baggage cart hitting an engine nacelle or getting sucked into an engine can cause extensive — and expensive — damage.  Damage to the fuselage or wings can also be costly to repair.

Well, someone has to pay for that damage, the equipment owner, the operator or the maintainer.  It used to be that the owner, operator and maintainer were one and the same, usually the airline.  If an accident happened, the airline was responsible and its insurance coverage would pay. Frequently, that is no longer the case. Ground equipment can be owned by one entity, operated by another and maintained by a third.

The more expensive the damage, the more wrangling with lawyers and insurance companies to see who is at fault and who will pay. I recently spoke with a friend of mine, a supervisor for a ground equipment repair company, who had just spent hours being interviewed by lawyers for the various entities potentially responsible for a ground accident that happened on his watch. 

His version of the story is that a 737 pulled up to the gate and stopped.  The usual ground equipment “attack” began, the catering truck, the lav service equipment, the belt loader and the jetway.  Unfortunately, whether from speed, inattention or bad brakes, the belt loader struck the side of the aircraft, leaving a sizeable crease.

While responsibility has still not been determined, the hours away from his real job are mounting as more interviews are scheduled and more lawyers get involved.  

When I started in the aviation business in the 60s and 70s, aircraft range dictated intermediate stops for refueling on long haul flights. This meant aircraft from Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia, needed to stop in Honolulu; New York to Tel Aviv meant a stop in London or Paris; Chicago to Tokyo required a stop in Seattle or Anchorage, and so on. With all those stops, of course, there were increased revenues at those airports for fueling, ground handling of the airplanes, catering, and in terminal shops and restaurants.

Now with improved technology providing more efficient aircraft with longer fuel ranges, it is fast becoming possible to connect any two points on the globe without the need for an intermediate or refueling stop. For example, the Boeing 777 has a long-range version that is capable of traveling 9000 miles without refueling. This means New York to Tokyo, Chicago to Hong Kong, London to Singapore; all non-stop flights.  Aircraft with this range were unimaginable 40 years ago. While aircraft range has been steadily increasing since the introduction of the 747 in the early 70s, truly long-range models did not come onto the scene until the 1990s. 

This means that airports that previously served as intermediate waypoints are feeling the steady decline of air traffic and revenues. So what’s the future?  Most predictions I’ve seen project a steady decline of the hub and spoke system and more point-to-point service. Something else for ground support equipment providers to be aware of in making their future projections.

While attendance was somewhat down from prior years, the mood at this year’s NBAA Convention in Orlando was decidedly upbeat. Despite the beating corporate aircraft took earlier in the year in the media, and in the mouths of politicians looking to get their faces and names in the media, most people I spoke with were optimistic that the economic tide was turning for business aircraft. A number of companies announced an expansion of their air charter operations, which is, of course, good news for FBOs and ultimately ground equipment suppliers.

I spoke with equipment manufacturers and suppliers exhibiting at the convention who uniformly reported increased interest in their products.  While that interest may not all translate into actual sales, the mood was optimistic. And so much of the economy depends on optimism.

I also spoke with a number of suppliers of alternative-energy products who reported a marked increase in interest in their products.  Not surprisingly, given the upcoming mandatory carbon reduction schemes going into effect abroad, much of the interest in “green” equipment is coming from businesses with operations outside the US. US business interests, however, will be watching closely for word from Copenhagen in December where President Obama is scheduled to announce the US’s actions to reduce carbon emissions.

Overall, people I spoke with in all aspects of corporate and charter operations felt that, though the tough times were not over, the decline was and that a period of stability and growth lay ahead. 

At the NBAA 2009 convention, I attended a session on social media and the potential for companies to utilize online sites as marketing tools.

For those that might be unfamiliar, the term “social media” is meant to refer to such online sites as Facebook and Twitter.

The consensus by the panel and many of the attendees was that they can be effective (and free) tools for companies. With the press of a few buttons, thousands of people can receive useful information in an instant.

However, there are certain important considerations, such as company policy, legal issues and the potential for negative backlash.

I’m wondering if you’ve branched out your marketing efforts to include social media. If so, have you found it to be beneficial?

I have admittedly been slow to jump on the social media bandwagon. I’ve been apprehensive about the concept. The idea that thousands can view information in an instant is exciting, but can also be a bit intimidating; those messages that are put out there for display become part of the public sphere. Or, in other words, you have to watch what you say.

But, it’s becoming clear that these online sites are here to stay, as their popularity continues to grow.

So I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. Are you open to using these online sites as marketing tools? Do you have a company policy when it comes to social media? What do you see as the advantages and potential drawbacks?

It seems obvious that people working with equipment anywhere on or near the ramp should know emergency shut-off procedures for all the equipment on the ramp, including, of course, how to shut off the fuel either from the ground or the truck. My experiences working on the ramp and as an NTSB Member investigating ramp accidents have convinced me that while this may seem obvious, it bears regular repetition and training.

As a Board member, I investigated a fuel truck fire at a major airport where a leak in the fueling nozzle ignited under the fueling platform.  Disaster was narrowly averted only by the quick response of the airport’s crash, fire and rescue crew. The deadman’s switch had been jammed by the fueler to avoid having to depress the fueling switch (a subject for another blog) so the fuel kept spewing out even after the fueler ran for cover. 

Subsequent investigation determined that while there were numerous people in the area of the truck, none of them took the simple precaution of hitting the truck’s emergency shut-off switch in time to prevent destruction of the fuel truck and considerable damage to the 747 aircraft. Of course, it was quite fortunate that no one was injured or killed in the conflagration that ensued.

I’m not suggesting that ramp personnel risk their own lives, but I believe that if people on the ramp at the time of this fuel fire had known where the truck’s emergency shut-off was located — in the back away from the fire — they could easily have shut the vehicle down without undue risk to themselves.