This year saw specialists from Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, Africa and the US attend the annual Ground Damage Stakeholders’ Meeting. It was a truly global affair, the packed two days providing those present with plenty of food for thought.
Ground damage, by its very nature, is a vast subject, touching as it does safety, personnel, geography, a country’s culture and a host of other elements besides. Those attending, whilst all experts in their chosen field, have a problem in common, though: that of being able to openly talk about their respective issues with others in the same field. The Ground Handling International two-day event rectified this deficiency.
In his opening comments the chairman, Tim Ornellas of Ground Handling International, dwelled on a continuing anomaly: that is, that ground handling remains an unregulated business within a highly regulated industry. However, there are signs that this state of affairs is going to alter in the near future with the ICAO Annexe 19 revisions and more recently the EU working to establish a standard for ground handling with EASA : handlers are thus warned to watch out for the coming changes.
The two days began with industry veteran Neale Millett’s analysis of risk assessment and risk management. He’s noted huge changes in that past four decades but there remains much confusion that needs clarification. Information sharing has been, and is still, an uphill struggle and Neale touched on the lack of co-operation between bodies faced with the same dilemmas.
Given that the SMS is now a compulsory part of any safety programme, was there, then, a requirement for risk management? The short answer is yes – safety management and quality management are often reactive, rather than proactive, so risk management becomes a priority. Essentially, it can be viewed as a risk assessment and a risk control exercise. Moreover, the differences between risk and safety need to be fully appreciated; progress, he stated, cannot be made without data collecting and sharing; and the destruction of silos, wherein people or information sit in isolation, was high on his agenda. Ultimately, the people, the process equipment and the environment were all relevant elements and he reiterated that if those in the room didn’t manage the risk, then the risk would manage them.
Some of Neale’s observations were echoed in the busy Q&A session, especially that of knowledge sharing and the reactive profile of safety. Just Culture was also brought up and how it interlinked with risk assessment. Differing cultures, though, still posed a problem for the adoption of Just Culture, as one Far Eastern delegate pointed out.
Composite - and rubber
Without doubt, the Airbus 350 is a masterpiece of conventional design and the airframe manufacturer’s Peter Esteie brought those present up to date with the XWB and the fact that to date some orders have been received. Composite construction, though, brings with it a requirement to understand the outcomes of inadvertent damage – and the fact that the outer skin reforms after a blunt impact can mislead those on the ramp. Internal damage is the problem here, which is why Peter talked about normal and abnormal incidents. Where the aircraft is struck whilst on stand, the procedures differ from those of when it is off – if no deformation is observed, then no report is necessary whereas if a deformation is noted, then a report is essential and may well entail an engineer being in attendance.
Of interest to the assembly was the fact that Airbus offers a two-day course geared to understanding the complexities of carbon fibre reinforced plastic which works along the lines of “Train the Trainer”. Peter also underlined the reliance on the handler for reporting any impacts – and argued that standardised GSE would be a huge step forward in working with this particular type of aircraft technology. Audience questions centred on how to detect any damage and the need to keep protective rubber (on GSE bumpers) in a pliable state to avoid unexpected damage.
Bangkok Flight Services’ Maurizio Anichini was one of several speakers to bare their soul over past incidents. Reinforcing the Just Culture ethic, Maurizio readily admitted that when he arrived at BFS he encountered plenty of entrenched ideas and that a reporting culture was, to put it mildly, alien. Blame and punitive actions were the norm and so he set about reversing this mindset.
The death of a sub-contracted female sweeper in 2015 really crystallised the situation and that incident resulted in a Charter of Safety being drawn up to try and ensure that the incident was never repeated. He achieved stakeholder buy-in and within six months 75-80% of the operators at Suvarnabhumi had signed up to the document. A grass roots approach was, he declared, the way to proceed; and collaboration with other airports in Thailand over common problems has now become more frequent.
Predictably, some delegates from Asia were keen to know exactly how open reporting had been implemented: the removal of the supervisors from group meetings so that the remainder were free to talk, was considered a good start in this process.
Brett Dorney of Aretai took an extended slot, in which he passed on to the audience his accumulated wisdom gleaned from 10 years of consulting in the area of ground damage. Whilst admitting that the sector was a dynamic one, he also underlined the fact that attritional losses were still an insurer’s headache; and that a global skills shortage, the frequency of terrorist attacks and ageing populations were just some of the prevalent issues requiring addressing. Continued pressures on OTP and congested airports were likely to feature on most troubleshooting agendas whilst the need for investment in new GSE and the unacceptable bill for ground damage (is it US$10bn? No-one actually knows) were other key considerations.
Brett emphasised that procedures and standards had to come before behaviour change and he underlined previous comments on the data requirement for this sector. Isomorphic learning was also touched on, Brett being convinced that much can be learned from other industry sectors. In extolling the virtues of ISAGO, Brett also deemed it slightly old as an idea; he did, however, see the value in the IGOM initiative. He fielded questions on regulation (it doesn’t answer all the sector’s problems) and standardisation (standardised procedures were to be applauded). Further, the SMS, if working as it should, will flag up issues before they occur. In summary, the way forward was through small bites, not major ones.
Oiling the machinery
The most interactive session was reserved until after lunch. GSE is the lifeblood of any handling operation and representatives of Air Canada, JBT and TLD formed a panel to address audience issues. JBT’s work on safety devices had been prompted after Air France’s ramp fatality in 2006 and Nick Heemskerk outlined the current work on sensors and the APD (aircraft proximity detector) system. Current challenges included GSE-to-GSE communication and the central co-ordination of gate operations. The future, though, may see access controls plus auto docking for steps and loaders.
Bill Bender, who is also the current chairman of the IATA GSEE task force, revealed that Air Canada’s study of damage data had thrown up loaders and stairs as the main culprits in terms of GSE causing damage. Enhancements were duly tested and these were unveiled at the IGHC in 2015. Bill was adamant that not too many automatic controls were required on GSE and that it was vital that the driver retained control.
For TLD’s Valentin Schmitt, a video showing the effects of an impact under the skin of a composite panel was what had driven the manufacturer towards safety options. This video was first show at the GHI annual conference in 2014 and both this and one other can be downloaded from the safety video section of the GHI web site - http://magazine.groundhandling.com/safety/videos/
Radar technology, 3D cameras, speed reduction electronics and a collision recorder are all available. He, too, foresaw automatic docking as a useful advance but not fully automatic – the operator should have the ultimate control.
The ensuing debate revolved around these extras (could they be free? What was the price differential? What about retro-fitting?) as well as the topic of why the manufacturers still fought shy of making, quite simply, safer GSE. The customer was identified as the focal point here: manufacturers have had this technology available for years but demand has to stem from the client. A telling question linked the use of a beltloader to open cargo doors for speed when, in fact, safety protocols dictate a set of steps is the answer: but a set of steps throws the OTP out of kilter…
Day two saw Qatar Aviation Services’ Mark Ainsley-Griffiths talk about life in an environment where temperatures range from 21ºC to 51ºC… and where ten languages other than English are spoken amongst the staff. Special materials for uniforms, along with colour coding, have been introduced at
The IGOM has been touched on already and Max Corsi was on hand to bring an update to those present. Stressing that it was a drop-in rather than a replacement for the existing operations manual, here was a tool to standardise practices. In a nutshell, the AHM was the mangers’ manual and dwelled on polices; the IGOM looked at processes and procedures. The audience smiled at Max’s account of the lengthy dilemma experienced over something as basic as the optimum number of cones and chocks around an aircraft: but it has moved on, and next comes its alignment with ISAGO standards. To come are de-icing, cleaning and catering sections, along with a training manual based on the IGOM. Standardisation could well act as a stepping stone for regulation, a subject mentioned at the start.
Doing it better
Injury-free ground handling: oxymoron or reality? Sebastian Blair, a consultant at Dekra, believes the latter, and a thought-provoking session had the audience fully engaged. Climate and culture both play a part in this and one (regrettable) reality was that people focus more on safety after an accident. He raised several important questions: why do people take shortcuts? Why do accidents happen? And what would you see in a world-class safety culture? Employee engagement was a must in any forward-thinking initiative and he cited an example of an organisation getting things wrong, that of dnata recently experiencing a fatality amongst its workforce. The ensuing level of introspection on the part of the company left no stone unturned but there has been no simple, single solution: it’s an ongoing strategy, one designed to reassure the workforce whilst concurrently reinforcing the company’s whole safety ethic.
EasyJet’s David Cross conveyed a simple message, comprising just one word: partnership. This was the only way to do business, something that many of the carrier’s rivals would, perhaps, do well to absorb. A safe environment, safe equipment and safe methods of work were at the core of the easyJet credo. When damage problems were experienced with Gate Gourmet, the carrier invited the caterer to attend the Ground Ops and Safety Action Group. Deficiencies were highlighted, proposals and resolutions formulated and the result was revised standards across the Gate network. Again, David stressed the need for open reporting and a no blame culture.
The final paper centred on Vestergaard’s sophisticated de-icing technology that permits highly efficient and cost-effective spraying coupled with state-of-the-art safety technology. Sebastian Vestergaard was able to explain to those present the work done that includes even infra-red camera technology to help operators check the extent and comprehensiveness of the de-icing operation.
