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. 

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. 

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.

When I was growing up in Boston, there were a number of small racetracks where every weekend there would be demolition derbies. Owners would take their clunkers for one last fling before the junk heap. There they would race around the track trying to hit as many cars as possible to immobilize them. Big crowds would gather and cheer each crash; the harder the bang, the louder the applause. The last car running was the winner. It was great sport.

Sometimes looking at equipment around the ramp, I’m reminded of those demolition derbies. Some of the baggage and service carts seem to have engaged in a pretty brutal game with those armor-plated tugs. Curbstones and even buildings are scarred and marred from violent encounters with those tugs. These bangs and crashes are often treated by the workers on the ramp as a big joke. But it’s not a joke on the airport.

All this mayhem costs money and risks injuries and greater damage. From all my years on the ramp, I rarely saw anyone ever held accountable.  It’s as though those tugs were commanded by phantom drivers. The failure to hold people accountable breeds contempt for the ground equipment and fosters a disregard for safety.

What really gets me is that these drivers often save their reckless behavior for the airport ramp. I’ve seen these same drivers get off work and into their own pristine automobiles and drive as safely as you would expect them to drive on the ramp. So what gives? What makes them take out so much anger and aggression when they get to the airport? And why doesn’t management make more of an effort to ferret out those responsible?

Environmental regulations are coming, sooner probably than later. This Administration is committed to it, and ground support equipment providers need to stay on top of what’s proposed and who gets the credit for what. If the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme goes into effect, as scheduled, in 2012, the U.S. aviation sector will be the first U.S. sector to feel the effects of emissions regulations. As it now stands, the EU is not going to give U.S. airlines any exemption to its regulations which would apply to flights in and out of its 27 member countries. This means that U.S. airlines will have to reduce carbon emissions by 3 percent in 2012 and 5 percent a year thereafter.

With pressure on the airlines to reduce carbon emissions, airlines are going to be scrutinizing where those savings can come from. Chances are they will be looking very, very closely at ground operations — in part, because it’s then someone else’s problem, but also because the airlines’ ability to reduce aircraft fuel consumption is limited. And it is, of course, aircraft fuel consumption that drives the carbon emissions the most in an airline. New fuel efficient engines may just be coming online in 2012 but are unlikely to be widely in use. New biofuels are being tested as I write. Some that are deemed experimental now may be available for use in 2012. But that’s still an unknown.

So ground operations are going to be a sure target for pressure from the airlines. GSE providers need to make sure that they scrutinize contract provisions related to emissions cutbacks to make sure that they know what is expected of them. Also they need to make sure they don’t unwittingly forfeit credits they may eventually need themselves.