This year’s get-together featured no less than five separate but co-located conferences: GSE Buyers & Ramp-Ops; Airfield Operations; Preventing Aircraft Damage (PAD); Airport Winter Operations; and Aircraft De-icing.
There was also space for a number of exhibitors to display their latest offerings to the airside market.
There were plenty of opportunities to chat with friends and colleagues away from the presentations offered by a wealth of industry experts. On Monday night, exhibitors and delegates were welcomed to the event at a champagne reception, while Tuesday night saw everyone leave behind the hotel’s conference facilities to enjoy a very pleasant cruise along the River Danube, complete with lovely dinner and the best possible views of the city. That evening, Nigel Westlake, long-time Clariant servant, received from this magazine’s publisher a richly deserved lifetime achievement award for services within the aircraft de-icing sector.
GSE BUYERS
The Airside Event proper got under way on Tuesday morning with three of the five conferences that took place over the following two days. The GSE Buyers & Ramp-Ops Conference was held alongside the Winter Operations and Preventing Aircraft Damage streams on that first full day. In the GSE Buyers & Ramp-Ops room, Peter Speck acted as chairman to ensure everything went smoothly, and that not all the speakers overran!
First up was a panel of GSE buyers – namely, handlers – as well as TCR, the France-headquartered specialist in GSE leasing. The handlers, Paul Drever from Menzies and Alessandro Pastorelli from Aviapartner, discussed the various issues they consider when procuring GSE, noting such challenges as changing emissions regulations around the world, the importance of individual stations’ specific operating parameters and geographical requirements, the need for after-sales maintenance and support as part of the initial procurement package and the fact that many manufacturers’ delivery lead times now seem to be getting significantly longer.
The importance of getting the original specification absolutely precise was pointed out, plus the priority given to many handlers to standardise their ramp equipment was highlighted. The need for commissioning support and technical training was also noted as an essential part of any acquisition package, while one particular method of procurement – leasing – was a focus of TCR’s Gerd van Damme, not unnaturally given his company’s specialisation in this area.
OUTSOURCING
Outsourcing turned out to be an unofficial theme of the first morning in the GSE Buyers & Ramp-Ops Conference. Davit Mamulaishvili of Wizz Air, the Budapest-based low-cost carrier (LCC), spoke on the subject of ‘Safety Assurance in Outsourced Operations’, explaining how his airline – which outsources all its various ground and passenger handling operations – goes about assuring safety and quality across its network. With aircraft turnarounds of 30 minutes or less, there is very little scope for error on any aspect of handling for this LCC, and Wizz prides itself on being “lean and mean”, he says. However, the airline is growing quickly, so it is clearly a model that works well for it.
Financing GSE through leasing was the topic addressed by the next two presentations, one by Graeme Laing of CSA Financial, and one a joint effort by Neil Bennett and Roy Royer of Somerset Equipment Finance. Between them, they highlighted the benefits of handlers acquiring their GSE by means of funded leasing – not least in terms of the reduction in up-front costs; the benefit of spreading the cost over a planned period; and the passing of much of the investment risk to the financier. Leasing offers the handler flexibility and security, and, asks Royer: “Do handlers really want to own GSE, or do they just want the capability that GSE offers?” If the latter, why use limited cash reserves to buy equipment?
Erich Battagin of Avio Global Services outlined his feelings on the feasibility and benefits of handlers outsourcing their GSE fleet maintenance. He noted, like some of the previous speakers, that outsourcing such a task allows the handler to concentrate on its core task and what it is best at – namely, handling. Maintenance can be devolved to a specialist in that field and, as long as the right supplier is chosen, a successful collaboration will bring ready benefits, most notably more flexibility and cost reductions, he considers.
THE AVIAPARTNER EXPERIENCE
After lunch, the GSE Buyers & Ramp-Ops Conference saw Alessandro Pastorelli return to the podium to offer a case study on how his company has gone through some fairly revolutionary changes over the past few years. Major improvements have been made in terms of fleet improvement and internal processes, he advises. In regard to the latter, one change has seen the creation of the Fleet Cell, Aviapartner’s GSE management tool. It has improved communication between various parts of the business, led to improvements in co-operation between Aviapartner stations and their airline customers and helped co-ordinate important upgrades to safety standards. The Fleet Cell has also played a major role in the handler’s ‘Go Green’ programme.
Finally for the first day, this conference stream turned to the concept of GSE pooling, on which TCR’s Gerd van Damme offered his ideas. He noted the various benefits of on-airport equipment pooling, particularly in regards to reducing the inefficiencies of redundant GSE from various handlers all sitting idle on the ramp, the lack of equipment standardisation at most airports and the time taken by individual handlers to move GSE around on the apron between gates.
However, he also pointed out some of the associated challenges, which include requiring a neutral party to undertake fleet management/allocation (and, even then, there will still be criticisms of allocation from individual handlers when they lose out to other service providers for equipment on those occasions that they both have need of it); the difficulty of identifying liability when things go wrong; problems associated with fairly allocating initial GSE acquisition and subsequent running costs; that handlers will lose their branding on pooled GSE units; that different handlers may wish to see slightly different features on different GSE types; and that, by pooling, the barriers to entry for new handlers will be lowered, thus possibly threatening existing handlers’ market share. Trials and operational pooling at locations such as London Heathrow, Oslo and Düsseldorf have shown that the principle can work, but it is not everybody’s cup of tea.
PREVENTING AIRCRAFT DAMAGE
The second annual Preventing Aircraft Damage Conference saw chairman Hervé Gueusquin of Air France open proceedings with a hard-hitting video as to how negligence on the ramp can be fatal. He made the clear point that standards are a big part of the industry improving upon its record and his training programme goes a long way to showing this to the participants.
The conference’s first speaker was Bertrand Comet-Barthe of the French Civil Aviation University (ENAC). He discussed how Europe’s largest aviation university can help to keep standards high within the industry, offering as it does a wide variety of different programmes and degrees. Presenting up to 25 courses, the University also serves as an International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) training centre.
Next, the conference heard from a researcher on air safety at Cranfield University, Mario Pierobon. He noted how the industry can benefit from taking a more scientific approach to PAD. He considered various possible methodologies and the general consensus was that the industry must be objective in identifying the root causes of ground damage.
Representatives of carriers also gave some credible and pragmatic approaches to controlling ramp rash. Andy Stuart of Jet2.com and Murat Demirbilek of Pegasus Airlines both gave practical options such as RFID proximity cones.
dnata Heathrow’s Steve Szalay gripped his audience with tales from a stirring military background and offered thoughts on how military experience can be applied in the less threatened but nevertheless hazardous surroundings of a civilian airport ramp. Szalay talked of his leadership and the “moral, physical and conceptual” ideology that served him well in the army and how this creates togetherness and a culture that encourages change and improvement. He also spoke of the importance of banksmen and how using behavioural science can be key to the consideration of personal injury issues.
Larry Terrazas of I.D. Systems then took the floor. He showed how technology can be helpful in many ways to prevent damage to aircraft on the ramp, although he noted that it can entail significant investment. But Terrazas also pointed out the costs of aircraft damage beyond a purely fiscal impact, highlighting how any loss in credibility and customer trust can accumulate very quickly.
Aerotech Consulting’s Dieter Herman informed the conference that, in his view, airlines need to move their thinking away from company procedures towards industry standards. According to Herman, the first steps are set with ISAGO, IGOM and other programmes, but many airlines are reluctant to move away from their old habits.
Finally, proceedings in the PAD stream were wrapped up by Dimitrios Sanos, of IATA and Andreas Brynecki of Fraport, who considered the importance of industry training and how – by following the “train, discuss and follow up” theory – we can hope to instil a culture of excellence among all industry stakeholders.
WINTER OPS
Chaired by Paul Schenk of Greater Toronto Airport Authority, the Airport Winter Operations stream of this year’s Airside Event opened with a presentation by Leonard Taylor of Tradewind Scientific that looked at runway friction testing, which he said should be seen as a way to improve safety and help prevent accidents rather than simply understand retrospectively why they happen. Harmonised standards and a scientific, objective approach emerged as key areas of concern.
Paul Cudmore of Team Eagle then went on to say that a web-based matrix could be beneficial in improving safety, by gathering a range of relevant data from different sources. These might include pilot reports, ground observations and ground measurements. All should be validated, good quality data that is as up-to-date as possible, because conditions can change rapidly. There is a lot of work to be done at regulatory level, and getting all stakeholders together is also difficult, he insisted.
There followed two presentations from very different airports: Sylvain Marchand of Montréal-Trudeau, an airport that regularly deals with around 60 snow events a year, and London Heathrow’s Richard Oakes, whose gateway rarely needs to cope with such severe events, so that it lacks experience in this area. Every airport is intricately different, and there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ model – but that is not to say airports cannot learn from each other, and indeed from other sectors.
The presentations made it clear that there must be mutual trust and co-operation between crews, management and the tower, particularly when it comes to dealing with highly dangerous events like freezing rain, where efficient action as close to the event as possible is essential to ensure safe and uninterrupted operations – and particularly when weather reports are unreliable or subject to change.
Discussions continued through the breaks and well into lunch – and there were animated conversations at the end of the day, too, after viewing an example of a snow event at Toronto Pearson International Airport as presented by André Nadeau, where changing weather forecasts had made it difficult to organise a response. This highlighted the need for good communication between all stakeholders, the importance of keeping staff motivated and the pressure to operate that affects airlines and airports alike.
KEEPING THE ICE OFF
The following day’s Aircraft De-icing stream included a presentation from AeroTech Consulting’s Dieter Herman about IATA’s DAQCP (De-icing and Anti-icing Quality Control Pool) auditing processes – described as “an example of how this industry can work together and co-operate when there is a wish and a need to do so”.
Attendees also heard the latest product and service updates from Malév Ground Handling and Vestergaard. Among the innovations presented was the possibility of blending de-icing or anti-icing fluid at the truck rather than at a storage facility; this is undergoing trials with Vestergaard – but there are liability issues to consider. Another new development is the FINN project, a de-icing apparatus combining gantry structures with new technologies, as explained by Aircraft De-icing Engineering’s Thomas Bergström.
Other subjects covered included the place of forced air technology alongside ADF, as laid out by Global Ground Support’s Jeff Walsh, while Clariant’s Stephanie Hochreuther looked at best practices in the handling and storage of fluids and current topics being examined by SAE International – which led to conversations about the difficulties posed by varying standards and guidelines around the world.
Closing the session, conference chairman Slavko Ljoljic of Austrian Airlines offered an overview of some of the relevant training programme guidelines produced by associations and authorities around the world, all of which aim to improve safety in aviation.
AIRFIELD OPERATIONS
The Airfield Operations Conference, a natural extension of the GSE Buyers & Ramp-Ops Conference, was held on the morning of the Wednesday. Chaired by Florian Funke, head of the Fire Department & Fire Training Academy at Germany’s Leipzig-Halle International Airport, the opening speaker was Martin Lenke of Lenke AeroConsult. He talked about what airports have to do to meet the ever more restrictive capacity constraints that so many of them face and – in particular – he asked if gateways really need to invest in new infrastructure or whether they can improve their capacity simply by being more efficient.
If CAPEX has to be invested in order to expand an airport’s infrastructure, the airport operator should certainly build flexibility into any new facilities. It’s vital to be able to react to volatile, unpredictable demand for airport capacity, he warned, whether in terms of landside terminals or airside facilities.
But he estimated that most airports may have as much as 30% potential capacity expansion that can be accessed simply by being more efficient, and at the heart of that is the need to improve communication amongst all the stakeholders in the airport community. Airport collaborative decision making (A-CDM) is vital, Lenke suggested, but it relies on genuine understanding of operational challenges and involves sharing of experience and issues across all the airport’s partners.
He was followed by Martin Hofmann of Stuttgart Airport, who discussed the ways that the German gateway has gone about improving its environmental credentials. It has introduced greener energy sources (such as hydropower from as far afield as Finland) and worked hard on initiatives aimed at reducing the gateway’s carbon dioxide emissions.
A particular priority has been to move toward electric-drive GSE and a test programme has been implemented involving the deployment of fully electric GSE (including Cobus e3000 buses, belt loaders and baggage trucks); as previously described in a previous issue of this magazine, the trials have yielded positive results. The results up to now of the efleet tests show that energy savings of between 40% and 80% can be made, alongside lower maintenance costs. Handlers also like the electric GSE, which is less noisy and produces no harmful emissions. Six electric Cobus e3000s have already been ordered and Stuttgart is preparing to introduce six new quick chargers at the airport, alongside a new power station facility and an associated IT infrastructure to support the green GSE transition. Plus, new electric baggage trucks have been ordered and, Hofmann concluded: “The goal of becoming carbon neutral is a challenge, but achievable.”
Funke left the ‘chair’ to present to the Airfield Operations Conference his thoughts on the need for fire safety to be a priority for all airport staff, not just a gateway’s fire department. Training of some sort in this area is vital for every employee, he insisted, adding that fire prevention is much more desirable than fire fighting. In any case, basic training should include instruction on the use of fire extinguishers, first aid and evacuations, he said.
Any fire can be dangerous and costly, of course, but Funke pointed out that should an airport terminal go up in flames – as has been the case several times fairly recently – the whole airport can come to a stop. Lives may be lost, and the impact on airport operations will certainly be immense.
Fire can also be a terrible hazard to aircraft. Airport fire-fighters are trained to tackle such conflagrations, but aircraft can run into other problems on an airport. For example, they can be damaged on landing, or can exit runways other than by the recommended routes (unwanted departures known as runway excursions) – all of which can lead to aircraft becoming stuck in long grass, mired in mud and generally in need of recovery.
Dennis Beck of RESQTEC spoke about the comparative frequency with which aircraft recoveries need to be undertaken. And- they need to be undertaken quickly: an aircraft stationary and blocking a runway or taxiway is not only out of commission itself but may also be having a major impact on other airfield operations (it might even mean all airport services are suspended, in worst-case scenarios). As such, he recommended that the necessary rescue equipment is always held in stock at an airport, ready for rapid deployment in the event of an aircraft recovery being required.
From recovery to bird strikes: a joint presentation from Wizz Air’s Antal Pekk and Birdstrike Management’s Phil Mountain looked at how the two companies have worked together to reduce the number of damaging bird strikes that had begun to affect Hungarian carrier’s aircraft in recent years.
Wizz had quickly realised the scale of the problem and, coming up with a proactive risk mitigation plan, it engaged Birdstrike Management to help it deal with the issue. Static measures such as loudspeakers and gas cannons are not always enough, according to Mountain, and together a programme of new bird hazard management measures have been introduced at a large number of the stations on the Wizz network. Many of the actions taken have been comparatively small but they are very cost-effective and the effect on the LCC’s bird strike statistics has been marked – they are down by approximately 50%.
The final presentation in the Airfield Operations stream saw David Peshkin of Applied Pavement Technology consider the reasons why airport pavement needs to be continuously maintained in a high quality condition and the strategies that can and/or should be adopted by airport authorities to maintain their pavement.
It should be structurally sound (able to bear the required load) and functionally adequate (safe, smooth and free of FOD), he advised. The aim is that the condition of the pavement should never have an adverse impact on airfield operations and, to achieve this, gateway authorities should ensure the proper design and construction of pavement in the first place; monitor its condition on an ongoing basis; undertake routine, reactive and proactive maintenance and rehabilitation as required; and be ready to turn to more “expedient actions” in the case of sudden and threatening degradation. Airport authorities should, in a word, know their pavement and know their options when it comes to maintaining it, Peshkin insisted.
TRAINING
The Wednesday morning also saw Air France’s Hervé Gueusquin offer a seminar on the sort of training that the French flag-carrier offers its airside managers when it comes to the critical subjects of standards and safety. Critically, the Air France training course aims to give a thorough introduction to key links in the carrier’s management structure – its station duty managers and the like – in regard to issues such as their responsibilities for safety within the airline; how their responsibilities fit into the operation as a whole; the organisational structure and relations between the different airport service providers; and how they may ensure continuity of operations while meeting regulatory and Air France standards and ensuring full customer satisfaction.
Of particular sigfnicance in the Air France course are the relatively new Annex 19 to the Safety Management System (SMS) and Implementing Rules (IR), both produced by ICAO, but the training course as a whole is all about ensuring Air France’s middle managers understand their role, their responsibilities and how they fit into the airline’s operations and those of its airport community partners. Gueusquin’s brief browse through his carrier’s training programme no doubt provided a useful backgrounder for those who attended his session at the conference in Budapest.
