This year’s GSE & Ramp-Ops Event was held in Croatia, at the Dubrovnik Sheraton Riviera Hotel. The first thing visitors would have noticed as they flew into the small but very efficient airport in Dubrovnik was the fantastic scenery of the area – the crystal clear blue waters of the Mediterranean on one side as the aircraft makes its approach, a range of lightly wooded, steep hills on the other.
The short drive from the airport to the hotel offered further breathtaking views of what this beautiful stretch of coast has to offer.
The GSE & Ramp-Ops Event began with a series of ‘Meet the Buyer’ type round table discussions hosted by a number of key GSE operators and their partners, including Dubai-headquartered ground services provider (GSP) dnata, globally active handler Menzies, Estonia’s Tallinn Airport GH (a subsidiary of Tallinn Airport Ltd), Aviapartner, Latvia’s Riga Airport, Goldair Handling of Greece and MZLZ (the operator of Croatia’s Zagreb International Airport).
These discussions offered much in terms of sharing experience and knowledge, as well as helping GSE operators and the manufacturers of their equipment to develop new and stronger contacts.
The evening’s Welcome Reception followed these discussions, providing another opportunity for professional networking – as well as some tasty morsels and some very welcome liquid refreshment on what had been a warm day on the Adriatic.
Wednesday opened with a chairman’s welcome from Peter Martin, vice president technical services at dnata, as well as his look forward to what the following two days would bring. He observed that, in many ways, “GSE is still very agricultural. It needs to change.
“Technology is moving forward,” he considered, “but not quickly enough.” And pointing to the value of a conference like the GSE & Ramp-Ops Event, he said: “We need to drive change in the industry. This is a good opportunity for us all to work together on this.”
The first of the conference’s main panel discussions concerned the topic ‘non-negotiable safety systems’. On this initial panel were Hannu Hakkarainen, head of airside, ground operations at Finland’s flag-carrier Finnair; Patryk Leski, quality and safety manager for Poland-headquartered handler LS Airport Services; and Anders Larsen, chief sales officer for Danish GSE manufacturer Vestergaard.
Larsen began by highlighting the fact that international safety requirements and norms are changing all the time – they represent not a static but a dynamic milieu in which GSPs must operate (and to which GSE manufacturers such as Vestergaard must pay due attention).
Plus, Larsen noted the importance not only for manufacturers to design and build GSE that meets these changing safety standards, but also for operators to be trained in those statutory requirements and how to use GSE accordingly. This was a theme to which the panel continuously returned – safety is as much, if not far more, about the operator than the GSE and any of its systems.
Vestergaard knows the importance of this, and offers training courses for operators of its equipment; a big part of that training is getting operators to realise that even the best of GSE safety equipment can fail on occasion, and the user of the equipment must always be aware of potential dangers and not rely on the equipment to cope with them by means of any automated response (such as an APD, or Automated Proximity Detector).
Hakkarainen then spoke of the general agreement amongst all ramp operators of the need for high safety standards of GSE, perhaps even more important than ever when operating in the challenging meteorological climate facing an airport like Helsinki. He too said there remains plenty of room for improvement in terms of the training and qualification of GSE operators. That much is obvious from the accidents on the apron that he is made aware of in the course of his work.
Leski added that critical to the issue of safety are three factors: close co-operation between those active on airport aprons – airlines and handlers – and the manufacturers that provide their GSE; GSPs having the resources to invest in safety, including high standards of GSE; and the industry thinking not only about the safety standards of today, but of the future – perhaps five or so years ahead.
Larsen picked up on that point, noting that even the short-term future is likely to see dramatic changes in GSE in terms of automation, and this will frame the safety standards of ramp equipment use in the years to come.
Martin added that, as a representative of a big handler, he (and the company for which he works) “doesn’t put a price on safety”. There is too much cost, in human terms but also in financial terms, associated with any failure in adherence to safe procedures on the ramp.
He suggested that a forum for recording and discussing accidents on the ramp would help immeasurably in efforts to prevent accidents on the apron.
Speaking from the floor, Paul Drever, general manager, GSE engineering and standards at Menzies, added that his handling company also places safety at the top of its list of concerns. Furthermore, he pointed out that differences in standards across nations and regions are an issue here, with those applying under CAE differing widely from those applicable in Europe, for example.
Martin concluded the discussion by observing, “This is a topic that will grow. Both airlines and GSPs need to address this issue of non-negotiable safety systems.”
An alternative to the tow tug?
Jan Vana is CEO of WheelTug, which has developed an innovative way for aircraft to taxi on or off stand without the need for a tow tractor. The WheelTug system features small electric motors placed in the nosewheel of an aircraft that enables the aeroplane to taxi forward and backward without using its main engines or external tugs. The motors are powered by the aircraft’s auxiliary power unit (APU).
WheelTug offers potential benefits to both airlines and airports, Vana noted, not least in terms of reduced costs, time savings, environmental benefits and lower congestion around busy stand areas. It also gives control over taxiing to pilots, something – he said – feedback has suggested would greatly please them.
Vana issued a warning before he got under way. “The aviation industry doesn’t like disruption,” he said. “It is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. But WheelTug brings disruption, because we believe it is the way forward.”
The technology is not yet ready for use on the world’s airports, though. WheelTug is currently going through the lengthy certification progress required by such bodies as the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). In fact, it has been doing so for many years now – because of the safety implications, it is no quick process to gain a new supplemental type certificate (STC) with an agency such as the FAA, Vana declared.
But the FAA is getting close to giving the green light, he informed, in what he believes will be a significant step towards a more automated, less congested ramp of the future. Of course, Vana readily confessed, the technology will not be suitable for all airlines and all airports (or, at least, not for all gates at any given gateway). In fact, he wants to work with potential partners to establish exactly where WheelTug might be of most benefit, where it can offer the biggest financial and time savings. To that end, the company is currently working with, or has worked with, airports including New York Newark, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and Prague, he confirmed.
Pre-contract agreements on delivering the technology have also been reached with a number of carriers – a figure of 25 was mentioned – representing fleets totalling more than a thousand aircraft. Vana doesn’t in any way promise that WheelTug will be rolled out on all those aircraft any time soon, but there is certainly significant interest in the system, he said.
The questions from the floor at the end of his presentation were representative of the interest in the technology. Mie Rajcic, head of airside compliance and safety at Denmark’s Copenhagen Airport, for example, congratulated Vana on the innovative nature of the system, saying that such thinking is vital given the congested nature of so many airport aprons today.
But others were more cautious. Handlers, not surprisingly, wanted to know if the technology could threaten the long-term future of the airport tug; while there is no suggestion that WheelTug is going to change the face of airport aprons any time in the immediate future, it certainly could have implications for ramp operators of all kinds.
OTP: getting the most from GSE
Jeno Kovacs, vice president operations at Doha-based Qatar Aviation Services (QAS), was next up on the stage to talk about how a handler such as QAS optimises its ramp equipment and its procedures to ensure as close to perfect on-time performance (OTP) for its client carriers as it is possible to achieve.
QAS is the sole ground handler at Hamad International Airport, the huge and (comparatively) new gateway in Doha. It handles about 222,000 aircraft movements a year (as well as more than 620,000 bus trips) – and to do that it makes use of no less than 1,800 pieces of motorised GSE and 3,500 pieces of non-motorised GSE.
Kovacs explained that QAS follows five key strategies in its quest to optimise OTP performance:
• Acquiring the GSE that is best fit for purpose
• Following a rigid maintenance regime
• Making firm equipment replacement and refurbishment plans
• Employing high-level IT systems to ensure high levels of efficiency
• Making use of the best safety features on its GSE and maintaining a strong safety reporting culture
He noted that the harsh climatic conditions of Doha present extra challenges to those found in more temperate climes – speed of execution of all things on the ramp is even more important than elsewhere, Kovacs observed.
QAS employs the most modern of GSE types, Kovacs continued, including green electric equipment. But, he added, it’s as much about employing the right procedures as the right equipment if OTP performance is to be optimised.
And, Kovacs concluded, while performance is vital, safety is even more critical. Yet, although OTP can be easily measured, adherence to safe procedures is less easy – hence the importance of a well-ingrained safety culture.
Effective communications
Next up, David O’Connell, managing director of UK-based communications systems provider dBD Communications offered his thoughts on the value of wireless technology to ground handlers.
He began by saying that dBD is still something of the new kid on the block when it comes to the airside business. It has long been active in other sectors, notably the railway industry, but the challenges of the aviation business are somewhat different. dBD’s learning curve has thus been a steep one over the last few years, but the industry has been welcoming, especially at the GSE & Ramp-Ops Events that O’Connell has attended.
When he first looked at communications on the apron, O’Connell said that he found handlers using hand signals, or perhaps whistles when a sense of urgency is required. To him, he said, the need for more modern communications seemed vital – and still does.
However, he noted, the industry does not today seem fully ready for wireless communications on the ramp. Cable-free radio communications between handlers or between an aircraft and its handlers mean there is no danger of the wire/cable of more traditional communications methods being fouled, plus it also gives ground handlers greater freedom of movement. Yet, many ground handling companies remain reluctant to invest in wireless communications.
Despite this, many have been keen to offer their advice to dBD and O’Connell, and some have helped with live trials and testing – very helpful, given that there is not the room at dBD’s engineering facility to accept an airliner!
Certain specific challenges exist in relation to developing wireless communications technology for the airside environment, O’Connell continued. These include the need to learn more about such issues as the impedances experienced on aircraft intercom systems; what communication paths are needed for airside operations; and what external noise factors are experienced on the ramp.
But dBD is certainly making progress in penetrating the airside market, not only in traditional ground handling operations but also in de-icing, O’Connell confirmed. He continues to believe that wireless communications could – and perhaps should – become a part of standard ground handling operational procedures, thereby improving efficiency while simultaneously making the ramp a safer environment in which to work.
The importance of training
Nick Welch, technical director at UK-based training and compliance specialist RTITB, then spoke about a subject that came up many times over the course of the conference – the importance of good training of airside operators.
In this business, “People are our key resource,” he suggested. “Our common denominator. And thus effective training is essential.” But, while humans are the industry’s biggest asset, they are also unpredictable, and can be a potential weak link in the chain – another reason to invest in effective training of ramp operators.
Increasing levels of automation of ramp GSE might mean that training changes, but it won’t take away the need for it altogether, Welch insisted.
Training takes time, and it takes money, he continued, and thus is not always top of an operator’s priority list. But not only can it be a regulatory requirement, effective training of employees will also bring efficiency of operation and greater pride for an operator in his or her work.
“There is ‘no one size fits all’ training for ramp operators,” he declared. It depends on what is wanted from the training, and the environment in which the ramp operator is working. Any training must be specifically tailored to both of those factors; moreover, there must be follow-up to ensure that it results in improved behaviours and continued high performance.
Quality, safety and compliance
Quality, safety and compliance were the focus of the next presentation, given by Hervé Gueusquin, who has his own consultancy, Air Business Consultants (ABC). ABC helps its clients, such as airlines and ground handlers, to achieve regulatory compliance while maximising quality of delivery and ensuring safety in their operations.
Gueusquin looked briefly back at the development of ramp operations over the decades and highlighted the fact that – while the size and complexity of the tasks involved in ground handling has certainly increased dramatically – the nature of the task really hasn’t: it still involves getting passengers (and cargo) safely on and off aircraft and ensuring those aircraft safely negotiate the hazards of the apron.
However, that increase in complexity – seen in terms of both operations and today’s safety requirements, as well as the much more sophisticated technologies that support contemporary ramp operations – certainly make achieving regulatory compliance a tougher task than in years gone by.
Indeed, Safety Management Systems (SMS) have become essential for those operating on the ramp, Gueusquin declared. They have been developed, at least in part, to ensure users adhere to the complexity of today’s regulatory requirements in regards to aircraft turnarounds and all aspects of ramp operations.
SMS are very much about a prevailing culture within an organisation, as well as procedures and corporate structure, Gueusquin noted, and have become a ‘must-have’ for any responsible ramp operator.
Gueusquin’s presentation was followed by a related one given by Jo Massé, attaché Belgian Civil Aviation Authority (BCAA). Massé talked about risk management, another important aspect of safety on the ramp. In particular, he pointed to the new BCAA requirements regarding risk management as they pertain to ground handling, and suggested a lot of very valuable tips on how operators can undertake risk assessments and manage any identifiable risks.
A new day
In the evening, speakers, exhibitors and delegates enjoyed a networking dinner at the Coral Beach Club on the waters just along the coast from Dubrovnik, enjoying the lovely scenery with a fine buffet dinner and a glass or two of wine.
But there was much more to come the next day, when the conference began with a panel discussing the need for infrastructural support for growing electric GSE fleets. Representing the airport side of the equation, Copenhagen’s Rajcic observed that, from their point of view, “It’s not going to happen overnight.”
Copenhagen Airport itself is proceeding down the road of providing the necessary charging infrastructure, she confirmed, but the gateway’s handlers have each moved at varying rates towards electrifying their fleets. Moreover, “We don’t have the power charging availability at the moment for all GSE to be ‘green’,” Rajcic informed, “This will take time.”
And achieving fully electric GSE fleets is going to take a lot of co-operation with and drive from airports’ ground handling providers, she added.
Helmuth von Grolman, CEO of Colibri Energy, a Germany-based specialist in lithium polymer battery systems, said that a recent study had shown that up to 30% of GSE has now gone electric, but the battery technology on which these units are dependent varies – it may be lead acid, lithium, etc.
He agreed with Rajcic that the move towards greener GSE will take time; but it is happening, particularly at airport mega hubs and especially now in the Middle East and Asia.
Billou Kler, senior manager business development & international sales at German electric tug manufacturer Mototok, suggested that British Airways’ decision to go with electric tugs at London Heathrow’s Terminal 5 represents a good case study in how greener GSE can be introduced in a quick and effective way. He said that Heathrow was a good example of an airport providing the appropriate infrastructure for such a change and highlighted how important it is for electric GSE charging requirements to be standardised, if an airport is to meet those needs.
David Uclés, GSE manager at Iberia Airport Services, added his thoughts that some airports are much more supportive of electric GSE than others. Iberia Airport Services is active across more than 20 airports and has operated green GSE since the 1990s, he observed, and the availability of the required charging infrastructure differs widely across those gateways.
Going electric requires a lot of investment on the part of a handler, he pointed out, so they need help from airport operators. But, Uclés opined, soon enough all operators will be forced to go green – whether fully electric or hybrid.
Kler considered that the best approach vis-à-vis electric GSE definitely involves a high degree of collaboration between handlers and airport authorities. Neither party can do it on their own. And Rajcic concurred, declaring it vital that all the parties involved understand each other’s business. Furthermore, given the investments required to go green, both airports and handlers have to be realistic about funding and timelines.
Preventing aircraft damage
A second panel then examined the important issue of preventing aircraft damage (PAD) on the ramp. Menzies’ Drever began by highlighting the value of AHM 913 of IATA’s Airport Handling Manual, but said that there were some points of contention within the standard that are worth thinking about. Menzies certainly adheres to the standard, he said, and it is well worth others doing so too.
Owen McKenna, sales director at Northern Ireland-based GSE manufacturer Mallaghan, noted that his company is producing AHM 913 standard GSE and, what’s more, a lot of its customers ask what Mallaghan considers should be the template for GSE add-ons in order to ensure the highest possible safety standards on the ramp.
Of course, GSE manufacturers operate in a free market environment and their prices have to be competitive, so not all possible systems can be incorporated on every item of GSE. There is a wide spectrum of requirements from different clients, McKenna pointed out, but certainly Mallaghan offers the very best of what is available.
For Slaven Zabo, manager ground operations at Croatia Airlines, greater standardisation of GSE safety systems is important if the frequency of unwanted incidents and accidents on the ramp is to be minimised.
It’s also critical to ensure that all cases of aircraft damage (or, indeed, GSE and ramp infrastructure damage) are reported. Many cases are not, he suggests.
Frank Schreiber, senior application manager for mobile camera systems at Germany’s IFM, said that it was crucial for customers to tell a sensor manufacturer such as IFM what their requirements are for the technology, but RTITB’s Welch added that – when all is said and done – PAD comes down to human factors. Humans operate GSE, whatever the sophistication of the equipment’s safety-related systems, and it is they who must have the requisite training and mindset if aircraft damage is to be minimised.
Such training might be costly (as are GSE safety systems), but – as McKenna pointed out – “Safety is expensive, but wait till you have an accident”, and see how much that costs.
Successful GSE pooling
The final presentations of this year’s GSE & Ramp-Ops Event related to a fascinating example of successful GSE pooling given by the head of airside at London Luton Airport, Liam Bolger, and Kristof Phillips, general manager UK at TCR, the Belgium-headquartered GSE service provider.
Bolger explained that, for Luton, pooling wasn’t really an option – it was a requirement, an “absolute priority” given the situation on the ramp at the gateway. A UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) audit undertaken in 2013 clearly illustrated the changes that needed to be made, he recalled. In particular, the airport’s ramp just looked poor, chaotic and congested. And the ground handling agents (GHAs) were “tripping over themselves” on the apron.
There were too many GSE assets on the ramp, and the equipment was sustaining too much damage as a result of accidents because of the congestion. “So,” Bolger said, “We got the GHAs together and told them they were going to have to pool GSE.” Following a successful trial period, pooling began on a number of stands and “We saw the difference that pooling can make,” he remarked.
Luton’s GHAs and TCR worked together on the structure and organisation of the pooling at Luton, Bolger said, the latter having had previous experience of pooling and having been a longstanding partner of the airport.
Having now had close to two years of pooling on a number of stands at the airport, Luton is now extending the project to 43 stands and incorporating other types of GSE – baggage carts and electric baggage tractors (EBTs) – into the equipment pool.
And, while there has been an increase in GSE across the ramp as a whole, the efficiency improvements have been extensive, marked by reduced turnarounds, lower costs and even less damage sustained to GSE. There is a greater standardisation of equipment, and much closer collaboration amongst the GHAs. Moreover, the aesthetics of the whole apron area have also been much improved, Bolger insisted, while the ground handlers themselves are now much happier.
Phillips added that TCR had facilitated the whole pooling process, but what had really made it work was that all the stakeholders concerned – handlers, the airport and TCR – had collaborated effectively.
“Pooling might not work everywhere, but it certainly can and does work,” he said, noting that Luton Airport is an illustration of a big success in this regard. “Pooling has to make sense for all the stakeholders,” he concluded.
