Ground Support Blog

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.

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.

Just when the economy started perking up and many of us were feeling a little bit of hope for the future of aviation, the volcano in Iceland (I can’t pronounce it and I sure can’t spell it) spewed ash across the skies of Europe, closing hundreds of airports, with dismaying impact on global aviation.  Thousands of flights were grounded to and from the United States. 

The volcano’s impacts seem like part of a trend that began even before 9/11, but was certainly magnified by that horrendous event.   Aviation seems to be in the crosshairs of some diabolical force.  If something bad happens in the world, it’s just that much worse for aviation.  Skyrocketing fuel costs, for example, hurt a lot of industries, but perhaps none as badly as the aviation industry where fuel costs account for so much of the bottom-line.

I hate to write a doom and gloom blog, but sometimes there’s no rosy spin.  I have read estimates that the aviation industry lost upwards of $100 million a day due to the impacts of the volcanic ash grounding flights around the world.  And no one in aviation is left unscathed by numbers like that.  While the focus tends to be on the major air carriers, the trickle-down effect (or, perhaps, torrent in this case) is felt just as acutely on the ground, by all the companies that support the airlines. 

Yes, the industry will survive this event.  But I sure hope this marks the end of a long and costly trend.

Doesn’t it get you when you come in to work in the morning and the equipment you left pre-positioned around an aircraft has been used? And left in an unacceptable condition — like dirty, greasy and out of place? Or when you leave the equipment fueled for the next day’s operations and, lo and behold, you run out of fuel in the middle of your busiest time because someone used it overnight and conveniently forgot to refuel?

Used to be that mechanics for the airlines had free use of ground equipment because it was the airline’s equipment and the airline’s responsibility to maintain it.  But now, with most ground handling contracted out, it’s the ground handling companies that are responsible for the equipment.  But many airline mechanics, especially on the midnight shift, still feel entitled to use the equipment — especially belt loaders and tractors.  But often not as carefully or considerately as the equipment owners would like. Locking up the equipment is impractical — usually space is at a premium. And making them key-operated doesn’t work too well either; mechanics seem to find ways around that.

Moving the equipment isn’t really the answer since having it pre-positioned helps for the morning push. So what’s it going to take to get mechanics to be more considerate about the use of the equipment? Yelling and screaming has not worked in the situations I’m aware of.  Keeping track of the equipment, and charging for its use, cleaning and fuel has been effective. So my suggestion is, if you’re tired of coming to work mornings and finding your equipment used and abused, start charging whoever performed maintenance on the aircraft.

Back when I was running my own FBO, replacing worn out or obsolete GSE meant comparing new to used or refurbished equipment. Original equipment owners — the airlines in those days — were much more likely to replace or upgrade their equipment once it was depreciated. Good quality, used or refurbished GSE was plentiful, although finding it involved old-fashioned phone and leg work.

In the days before online search engines made shopping for used equipment a fingertip away, finding primo equipment meant calling or visiting your contacts at different airports and airlines, finding out who was getting rid of what and who had a good reputation for well-maintained equipment. A well-placed contact could be an excellent source for good equipment at reasonable prices.

Today, searching the Internet has never been easier. But finding good, used GSE is as time-consuming as ever, maybe more so. Airlines have contracted out much of the ground handling and FBOs and other ground handling companies are much more likely to hang onto their equipment. And of course, as the recession has hit aviation harder than many industries, operators of ground support equipment are keeping their equipment in service longer than ever. As I visit GSE operators around the country, I’m hearing more and more that the bargains of old are harder and harder to come by.

This could be good news for original equipment manufacturers that have experienced substantial drops in sales of new equipment. But it’s not great news for the FBOs and other ground handlers trying to make it through some really tough times.

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.