Ground Support Blog

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.

How many times does it happen that someone tags equipment out-of-service and before it’s repaired, it’s back on the job? Sometimes with unpleasant consequences. Just recently I overheard a heated exchange between an airline supervisor responsible for aircraft loading and a ground equipment maintenance supervisor under contract to repair the airline’s equipment. It seems that a belt loader had been tagged with bad brakes but the airline, being short on equipment, pressed it back into service. While maneuvering the belt loader into position, the bad brakes did what bad brakes sometimes do — i.e. failed — and the loader hit a baggage cart, damaging it. Fortunately, no one was injured. But now the two supervisors were arguing over who was responsible for the damage. The airline supervisor was pointing the finger at the contract repair company, claiming that more timely maintenance would have prevented the accident. The maintenance supervisor was arguing that the airline was responsible for taking equipment tagged with bad brakes and ignoring the tag.

This incident highlights the importance of equipment tagged out-of-service  staying out-of service. Aviation employees live in a getting-the-job-done culture, even when it’s not the safest thing to do. Clearly a baggage cart is not the most expensive equipment on an airport but the belt loader could just as easily have hit and injured someone or slid into an aircraft and done significantly more expensive damage.

So — while the pressure of on-time performance is constant, in the long run, it saves more time and money to keep tagged equipment out-of-service until maintenance has checked it out and taken appropriate corrective action. Of course, it helps when contract maintenance is reliable and shows up as required.

Mix low visibility, light rain and the dark of an early November morning with an aircraft coming from an unexpected direction and a tug driver rushing to get some late bags to Delta, and what do you get?  The perfect combination for the accident that in fact happened to a Pinnacle Aircraft and a Delta tug driver at Detroit Metro Wayne Airport this past November. Fortunately, there were no serious injuries, although the aircraft sustained substantial damage. While the tug driver was thrown from the aircraft, he was very lucky to suffer only minor issues.

The NTSB recently released its Preliminary Report which contains a synopsis of factual information regarding the flight.  Interestingly, while the pilot reported his taxi lights on, the tug operator did not see them. Whether the taxi lights were on or not, all the lights should have been on under these conditions. The aircraft should have been lit up like a Christmas tree.

In addition, knowing the poor visibility that night, the tug operator should have been extra vigilant to the sounds of aircraft. While he reports hearing the aircraft’s engine, he apparently did not stop until it was too late.

No probable cause findings are contained in the report, but there are a number of red flags that might have prevented this accident and that we can all learn from.

It’s not important for our purposes to know who was at fault here. The lesson is that airports are dangerous places and require constant vigilance to stay safe. Poor visibility and rushing are recipes for disaster.

Looking for a comprehensive directory of products and services by a diverse list of manufacturers and providers in the ground support industry? We’ve developed a one-stop-shop for all types of GSE and services — the online “Buyer’s Guide.” It is a complete resource that we have worked at developing and improving over the years.

Recently, we launched a redesigned Buyer’s Guide on our Web site. We have taken our comprehensive directory and packaged it to better present the ground support products and services, while offering more user-friendly features.

At http://directory.groundsupportworldwide.com/home, you will find featured products and companies, as well as an expansive set of product categories to serve all of your needs. The new version of the Buyer’s Guide also allows users to submit inquiries regarding the products/services of specific manufacturers/providers.

The online resource was developed solely with the needs of the ground support industry in mind. That has helped position the Buyer’s Guide as the industry go-to guide. From deicing to fuel equipment to safety equipment — we’ve got you covered.

We are also continuously adding new companies and products, so be sure to check back regularly.

Flying out of Boston Logan this morning, I saw a line up of about 20 deicing trucks. It was obvious the equipment hadn’t been moved for quite some time — under-inflated tires, windows caked with soot, the usual signs that equipment left outdoors has not been used. It got me thinking of the days when I was running my FBO and had to worry about things like deicing trucks and deicing fluid. When everyone else was talking about summer vacation plans, I was busy making plans for winter. And winter in Boston can be brutal.

Even though the equipment had sat unused for months, we all know that lack of use can sometimes be harder on equipment than daily use.  Hard as it was to work on winter issues in the middle of the summer rush (and we used to have a summer rush in those days!), I knew that I needed enough lead time to order any worn parts. Winter can come as early as October up here and it’s much easier to replace belts and hoses in the warmth of summer than the middle of the first unexpected snow storm.

My August plan was PM checks on all the deicing equipment and checks on all the pumps and hoses for the storage tanks. Sounds easy but we know how hard it is to focus on preventive maintenance when we have the crisis du jour to worry about. But I learned the hard way — parts of me are still smarting from the memory of unhappy customers lined up waiting to deice because of broken equipment. 

So — for those who don’t have summer all year round — my advice is plan early and stay focused on getting everything in shape to avoid the grief of the first icy day.

I can’t seem to talk to anyone in aviation these days — on the ramp or in the air — without health care coming up. It’s killing small businesses, big businesses and everyone in between. And the stress on individuals is palpable. It’s telling that most people I speak to are more worried about losing their health insurance than their jobs. (I guess jobs in aviation have always been a little shaky.)

The health care legislation on the horizon is part of the reason for the anxiety. Change is always hard to accept. But can we afford not to change? I don’t know much about the pros and cons of the much-debated government option. I do know that what we have doesn’t work and has made health care unaffordable to too many of us and extremely expensive to the rest of us. So what do we do?

The competing ads on TV are no help. We know Big Medicine is behind the scare ads against the legislation; and we know assorted interests are in favor. I’ve been trying to focus on what economists I respect are saying. For me, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman makes the best arguments in favor of the legislation: It’s not perfect but it’s a start. And we have to start somewhere to rein in health care costs.

He — and other economists — argue that the economy will not turn around unless we contain health care costs. So I’m game for taking a chance, but I’m still on the fence on whether we should or shouldn’t support the legislation. So what do you all think? Is this an issue for all of you. And those of you outside the states, what’s your opinion?

It’s too critical to do whatever it takes to get the economy turned around — especially for aviation. Safety hinges on a stable economic climate. 

It amazes me as I travel the country and the world to see how many ramp workers ignore basic safety protections. Take ear protection as an example. I don’t know any airport workers over 50 who don’t have some hearing loss. Many have significant hearing loss in one or both ears — me included. All those years of engines and APUs running within feet of your head take a toll on your hearing if you don’t wear ear protection religiously.

And I didn’t get religion until the damage was already done. Then I started carrying the ear protectors with me everywhere I went when I was on the job. Because I found that if I didn’t have them on me, the ramp could go from quiet to noisy all of a sudden and I was left with unprotected ears. In that short amount of time, over days, weeks, months and years, the damage gets done. And it’s not reversible.

So now it really pains me to see so many of our young workers without ear protection on the ramp. Many of them, probably like me, either forgot to bring their ear protection with them or think the exposure is only momentary; there’s no sudden pain or blood spouting to warn of injury. By the time you realize that you have hearing loss, it’s usually too late. Damage does occur from incremental exposure.

So we need to be role models for young workers by wearing ear protection ourselves, always. And we also need to remind them when they’re on the ramp without it. As their supervisors we need to make compliance with safety procedures mandatory. Aside from the health of our workforce, these safety measures reduce workers’ comp claims and improve our bottom lines. Not a bad combination.

The jury’s no longer out on whether GSE needs to go electric.  Studies done by a wide-range of groups — from the Department of Energy to private companies — all show that electric is cheaper in the long-run, especially when the cost of fuel goes up, and electric vehicles are cheaper to maintain.  (And for cold weather operations, electric has a clear advantage.)  The environmental benefits are also beyond dispute at this point — the carbon footprint of electric GSE is significantly smaller than for gas- or diesel-powered vehicles. The big issues are infrastructure and paying for new equipment or converting old equipment.

So two things need to happen — the airports need to update their infrastructure to support electric GSE and GSE operators need to find the money to invest in new equipment or conversion of old equipment. GSE operators are not alone in wanting to go electric on the ramp. Airlines and airport operators will be under increasing pressure to reduce their carbon footprints.  One way to do that will be to reduce their emissions on the ground. So they are going to be pushing ground handlers to convert their vehicles so that they can get the credit for the resulting reduction in emissions.

Ground handling companies may end up getting squeezed to make investments in new or converted vehicles, even when it is not economically an opportune time. But before that happens, companies need to look into what opportunities there are for government grants. And while I haven’t seen any public utilities giving grants for GSE, that doesn’t mean that they can’t be pursuaded to do so. For example, the recently passed stimulus bill has $6.9 billion for state block grants for energy efficiency improvements and reduction of carbon emissions. Each state can spend this money broadly on projects covered by the legislation. GSE operators need to meet with their airport operators to see whether some of that money could be used for infrastructure improvements at their airports and purchases of electric GSE or GSE conversions. The Department of Energy and EPA have or have had grants for energy efficiency improvements which should be explored. The FAA’s  Airport Improvement Program grants may now or in the future be available for carbon reduction projects. While the focus may have been on delivery fleets and shuttle buses in the past, this doesn’t mean that airport operators can’t make the case for electric GSE at their airports.

I know that a number of airports hire dedicated personnel to pursue grant opportunities. GSE  operators need to make sure that their needs are covered in the pursuit of such grants.

Preventive maintenance is never easy to budget for — in time or money. We’re always too busy fixing broken equipment that we never get around to doing the preventive maintenance which, of course, eventually results in even more broken equipment. Stopping this cycle is difficult in the best of times but clearly a much greater challenge today. These may not be the worst of times, but I can’t think of any worse times for aviation in my lifetime.

But we need to break this cycle, if for no other reason than it really costs more in the end.  Tightening the fan belt today could keep it from breaking and having to be replaced tomorrow. We all know this but that doesn’t make it any easier when we’re just trying to make it from day-to-day. I know, you’re thinking who’s going to tell the ramp sup his critical piece of equipment isn’t available because of some PM check? But you miss this PM check and then you miss the next one and pretty soon, you have a broken piece of equipment to contend with. Not a good scenario.

Back when I was responsible for ground equipment, I got caught in that same cycle of putting off preventive maintenance for one reason or another and then ending up with broken and unusable equipment. We finally decided that we had to bite the bullet and stop this cycle, because it was costing us more time and money in the end.

So we decided that we would give the ramp sup a schedule of PM items and tell him he needed to do what it took to temporarily replace that equipment — rent, borrow or steal (OK, not steal) — because the checks needed to get done. And we were going to stick to our plan no matter what. It wasn’t easy, but after a few months we noticed a difference in the number of breakdowns.

We all know this but we’re pushed by the constant pressure to keep things moving. I know it’s tough to “just say no,” as a former first lady used to say, but sometimes we really do just have to pause and do the right thing for the long term.