Looking back at the Airside Event

On the first evening, those coming to this year’s conference and exhibition were wined and dined in a reception that allowed all involved to relax and engage in some very useful networking – as well as to enjoy the convivial atmosphere and meet some old friends.

​Next morning, Parveen Raja, publisher of Airside International, formally opened the Airside Event conference at the Brussels Sheraton Hotel, welcoming all the delegates. She spoke for the whole industry when she told of her shock at the attack on Istanbul’s Ataturk International Airport, an atrocity that had taken place only two days previously and in fact had prevented some of the delegates from Turkey who had expected to attend the conference from leaving the country.

​The Ataturk attack came only a couple of months after the Islamic State (IS) attack on Brussels Airport, a similarly shocking event that had – amongst other, much more devastating impacts – led to the postponement of the Airside Event in the Belgian capital to late June. The danger to global aviation hubs is clear, and the threat to our industry is very real.

Continuity amidst complexity

Hervé Gueusquin, one of the three conference chairmen on hand to guide everyone through the event, took to the stage. Geuesquin, a former Air France senior executive and now managing director of Air Business Consultants (ABC) – which is currently engaged in forming two new carriers in Africa – offered some thoughts on the complexities of the airside and wider aviation industry today, as well as the need for gatherings such as the Airside Event to bring people together to address key issues.

​A feature of his career has been an involvement in training on safety issues, and Gueusquin advised delegates that safety should always be at the forefront of any thinking on change, or indeed on ongoing operational procedures.

​Gueusquin then took a seat on a panel of airside community luminaries to consider just what the apron of the future might look like. Chairing the panel and the discussion was Lode Ketele, head of airside services at Brussels Airport, and he was accompanied by Mervyn Walker, chairman of Dungannon, Northern Ireland-headquartered supplier Mallaghan GSE, Paul Drever, manager technical standards & compliance at handler Menzies Aviation, and Thomas Torsten-Meyer, safety provider at Munich Airport.

​One topic of discussion was electric GSE and, noted Walker, Mallaghan’s customers are certainly making enquiries of his company for electric GSE. Drever pointed out that such environmentally friendly equipment on the ramp is all well and good, as long as airport authorities provide the necessary charging points on the apron to supply the GSE with the necessary ‘juice’.

Gueusquin highlighted the potential problem of operating such quiet vehicles on the ramp, in what is – after all – an incredibly noisy environment. As a consequence, we perhaps need to be considering other ways to make approaching electrically powered GSE obvious to all nearby.

​The panel also pointed to some of the confusions that can occur on aprons on which both electric and more traditionally powered GSE operate. For example, at some airports diesel GSE is still being parked in spaces with charging points, thus occupying spots needed by electric units.

​There was some disagreement on if, or when, we might see all-electric airside environments. Drever thought that we might be in a position in which maybe 90% of GSE is electric within 20 years or so, if airport authorities can provide the necessary supporting infrastructure. There is, of course, a lot of work to be done before then, he observed.

​Walker thought a near-all-electric ramp in terms of its GSE might be closer than that, perhaps in seven or eight years, but only at those airports that can provide the necessary operating environment.

​Torsten-Meyer was of the opinion that such a move to electric GSE will also support the wider move to generally quieter airports of the future, as well as complement the progress being made by the big engine manufacturers to help in the development of much quieter aircraft.

​Ketele remarked that all parties – airlines, handlers, suppliers and airport authorities – are going to have to work closely together if such a day is to come at all. He also pointed out that the transition would come at a financial cost; the change will have to be paid for by a combination of airport authorities, airlines and passengers.

​Observations from the audience added to the debate. Gerd van Damme, group asset director at Brussels-headquartered TCR, observed that electric GSE is actually only green if the electricity that it draws from the airport’s charging points is itself generated in an environmentally friendly way.

​Peter Speck, for many years a senior executive at Swissport but now with Slovenia-headquartered bus manufacturer TAM-DuraBus, highlighted – like Ketele – the financial implications of the shift to a green ramp environment. The whole process of converting to environmentally friendly GSE will only stack up if we can get the financial models right, he commented.

Pooling expertise on the panel

The next topic of discussion for the panel was GSE pooling. Mallaghan’s Walker described the concept as “fantastically interesting” and is convinced that it can be made to work – but only in certain circumstances. There are huge complexities involved, he said, not least because it entails otherwise competing ground service providers working together to share equipment.

​Moreover, Walker continued, airport operators have a big role to play in promoting GSE pooling, but they have to be very careful about the pricing model they adopt in regard to the equipment they procure and how the GSE is supplied to the pooling ground service providers.

​Torsten-Meyer believes that there are certainly many major airports that can handle, and can benefit from, pooling. And the audience again had much to say on this issue. Steve Szalay, vice-president ground services at the UK’s London Heathrow and Gatwick airports for aviation services provider dnata, agreed with the panel that GSE pooling can certainly work well in many cases, but not all.

​The recent trials of pooling stairs at Heathrow’ Terminal 4 showed that the concept can be made to work at the busiest of gateways, offering the benefits of lower costs and less congestion on the apron, amongst others, Szalay observed. However, there are negatives, and getting to the right place is a long and complex process. He also accentuated the need for handlers to retain some sort of “sovereignty” over their footprint, in order to differentiate themselves from other, competing ground service providers.

​There’s also the question of who should run the pooling operation, he noted. At Heathrow, Szalay and dnata would like the airport authority to do it, but Heathrow Airport Limited wants to see a separate company do it, one that can build bilateral relations with each of the handlers involved (for more on this, see the article on GSE pooling in this issue of Airside).

​Drever is of the opinion that pooling non-motorised equipment that can be based on-stand is the easiest and most likely place to start for any airport authority considering pooling: sharing towable stairs, dollies and the like. This evades the problem otherwise faced by handlers looking to use one or more pieces of motorised GSE that might be in use at that time with another ground service provider (not at all unlikely if aircraft are running late and operating schedules are disrupted).

Preventing ramp rash

Following some time set aside for the one-to-one meetings that had been pre-arranged by a number of attendees, delegates once again took their seats for the Preventing Aircraft Damage element of the conference.

​Gueusquin introduced the session by offering the audience his own experience of the unwanted effects of those ignorant of apron safety procedures. Currently working in Africa, a slide showed how a supermarket trolley is amongst the pieces of GSE used at one Gabon airport!

​He also demonstrated how the airside industry has changed over the years, with a look at just some of the GSE used today compared to decades ago. In fact, the role of the aviation industry – to move passengers and cargo from one place to another – hasn’t really changed, and the nature of the ground equipment involved hasn’t really changed much either; it has, however, become more complex and more sophisticated. Today, it is also designed with safety very much in mind.

​That led nicely onto a panel discussion, relating to ‘Safety from the Ground Up’, chaired by safety management consultant Mario Pierobon and featuring Gueusquin, Jet2 ground safety manager Gordon Whitelaw and Vueling ground operations & OCC director Miguel Angel Gimeno.

​Pierobon opened the segment by noting that standards such as ISAGO (the International Air Transport Association’s Safety Audit for Ground Operations) and IGOM (the IATA Ground Operations Manual) are all very well, but they involve too much administration and too much auditing for the liking of many busy ground service providers. Moreover, with many other priorities – not least on-time performance (OTP) – foremost in some people’s minds, their requirements and recommendations can all too quickly be forgotten.

​So, he asked, what can we do to move beyond these paper-based standards and into the reality of operating safely on the apron? Whitelaw added a note of caution, observing that a large proportion of accidents on the ramp are not involved in the quick turnarounds we see on so many apron ramps these days and that we might have expected to have dominated the ramp rash data. We need to carefully study the statistics before jumping to conclusions, he said.

​And studying those statistics can bring real rewards. For example, a recent study of ramp rash reports showed that just six types of GSE are involved in more than half of all incidents of aircraft collision. The three biggest culprits are belt loaders, low and high loaders, and – perhaps surprisingly – ambulifts, all of which come into contact with aircraft on stand as a matter of course.

Recalling his days as a handler with Menzies at London Heathrow, Whitelaw remembers numerous different methods used by ground service providers just to chock an aircraft. “We, as an industry, have created these non-standard processes,” he advised.

Gimeno is convinced of the worth of IGOM, and notes Vueling’s belief in the manual. For Gueusquin, though, it can be – for many – “just another book on the shelf”. Not every ground handler, for example, speaks English, while large numbers of English-speakers will not have the will or desire to follow its standards. Given the pay received by ground handlers around the world, and their propensity to move on to other work fairly swiftly (many handlers are seasonal workers, for example), perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised at that, he suggested.

​One thing that can certainly improve safety on the ramp is additional resourcing. In particular, Whitelaw remarked, having someone actually “under the wing” who is responsible for handling an aircraft turnaround and ensuring that all the parties involved (who work in close proximity, yet might be unfamiliar with the job of the others and all of whom are undoubtedly under pressure to complete their task swiftly) are working safely.

​All the various technological aids that have been developed for GSE (automated proximity detection systems, for example) of course have an important role to play. However, they come at a cost and might not be affordable to all those who might benefit from them, Gimeno remarked.

​It is a wonder that so much GSE remains not only heavy, but “square and with sharp edges”, Whitelaw opined, asking whether it might not be time for us to consider new materials and new designs for GSE.

​Of course, Gueusquin added, training on GSE and any safety aids they come provided with is vital. But it was observed how few handlers have ever failed a dispatch or apron driving course, for example. Close to zero, perhaps. Moreover, there is rarely, if ever, any follow-on training or ongoing checking of performance.

​The audience added its thoughts. Colin Temple from handler Bangkok Flight Services (BFS) said that he believes “you get what you inspect, not what you expect”, so regulations and standards will only get you so far. You also need continuous supervision and control, he stated.

​And dnata’s Steve Szalay insisted that there is no ‘silver bullet’ solution to ramp rash but that two measures can certainly make a big difference – using banksmen where appropriate and, echoing Whitelaw’s observation, employing a turnaround supervisor on the ramp.

A new paradigm

Barbara Schaffner, inspector ground facilities at the Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), considered the issues of measuring and recording levels of ramp rash with a view to minimising their frequency and that of unreported cases of accidents on the apron. She said that the challenge must be met at source – fighting the cause of ramp collisions, not the symptoms.

A ‘Just Culture’ – defined in terms of operators not being punished for actions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training – is key in this regard, she said. Schaffner offered the work of academic Sidney Dekker as a way of looking at Just Culture, of how to understand risk and unwanted events. She believes his techniques of root cause analysis in tandem with a Just Culture might be the best way to minimise the frequency of unreported incidents of ramp rash.

​Next up was Michael Niels Thorsen, director of consultancy company Integra, who assessed how significant a role training can play in the minimisation of cases of ramp rash. He said that basic skills training, good management and a Just Culture are all important but that very often training is sub-standard, unfocused and theoretical rather than practical.

​He said that there should be more reference to handlers’ work on the ramp in any training given to them, with plenty of examples given and time on simulators provided if and when appropriate. Thorsen also suggested that professional instructors should be used and that there should always be follow-up to any training given.

​Arjen Balk, a safety consultant from the Netherlands Aerospace Centre, spoke of ‘training for the extra mile’. Why? Because it makes any handling company stand out from their competitors, it improves safety and it might encourage workers to stay with the company, he observed.

​Such training should go beyond manuals, Balk continued. Handlers should understand the bigger picture of what occurs on the ramp, what procedures should be followed and the potential implications on safety if the correct procedures are not implemented. They should be trained to think for themselves and to want to know more, while also being taught to understand that they are part of a much bigger team on the apron.

​Management must of course provide the right environment for safety and Balk agreed with those that had gone before him: that a Just Culture is vital if safety standards are to be maintained. Finally, he added, safety ‘mindfulness’ should be part of the handler’s mission statement, its vision and its core values and then practised as part of all behaviour on the apron.

A few words from Canada

Christian Perreault, senior partner of Quebec, Canada-headquartered airport planning and development consultancy Explorer Solutions, was unable to be in Brussels, but a recorded presentation made by himself nevertheless provided the audience with an insight into the nascent I-RAMP project.

​I-RAMP is a collaborative research project looking at the potential for GSE and airfield operations automation with an eye to improving ramp efficiency and safety. The project aims to bring together relevant airside players to test and assess the value of unmanned ground handling systems.

​A test site has been chosen – Chippewa Valley Regional Airport in rural Wisconsin, owned by Eau Claire county and not too far from Minneapolis. A steering committee for the project has already met, including representatives from agencies and companies such as UPS, WestJet, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), IATA, JBT, the University of Minnesota and the Chippewa airport authority.

​The initial priorities for research and testing have been set as unmanned GSE vehicle collision avoidance and advanced baggage ramp automation. A second steering group meeting is planned for October and the expectation is to then have a firmed-up business plan. It is also hoped that by then there will have been a decision on public funding for I-RAMP. Trials might then be able to start either later this year or in 2017.

Airfield operations

The first day of the conference having been followed by a very pleasant dinner in Brussels, the second day of the conference began with an airfield operations stream.

​Chairman Paul Schenk – manager, terminal development and activation at Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) – offered some impressions regarding the interconnectivity of the airport environment. Looking at any air gateway, he said, it’s all about the airside, landside and terminal areas of the operation working closely in harmony if the whole is to be efficient.

​Next up to the podium was Marja Aalto, director, air transportation development at Finland’s Tampere Region Economic Development Agency (TREDEA). She talked about the agency’s attempt to “re-think aviation in a smart way”, as Tampere seeks to be the gateway between Finland and Europe (while the larger Helsinki-Vantaa Airport acts as Finland’s hub between East and West). Forming a key part of this plan is the AIRRport (referring to air, rail, road and port) initiative, described by Aalto as “a priority development project within Finland’s air transport strategy”.

​Tampere’s AIRRport strategy connects air with other communications modes for what is the country’s biggest inland city. It also includes the concept of a remote terminal, with passengers able to check in before they ever get near the gateway. The aims of AIRRport are to attract more passengers to the airport, to facilitate Tampere Airport’s development as an international gateway and to stimulate economic growth in the region.

​Following Aalto was Thomas Torsten-Meyer, who assessed airports’ role generally, and Munich Airport’s role specifically, as a “safety provider”. He noted that the first 30 minutes after the declaration of a large-scale emergency operation are absolutely key and said that the German law that requires a specific individual to be responsible for managing the response helps to determine and define responsibility.

​For aircraft, the approach is the most dangerous time, and airports must be prepared in terms of people and resources for any eventuality, Torsten-Meyer insisted, adding that everyone employed at an airport should be prepared for all possible critical situations at the gateway or surrounding areas.

​He outlined the many emergency resources that the airport he is most familiar with, Munich, has available to deal with any emergency, including, but not limited to: the Airport Fire Service; Airport Medical Service; Guard and Security Service; police forces; Emergency Procedure Information Center (EPIC); and Airport Command Vehicle, and Fire Engine Command and Meeting Center for mobile co-ordination on the scene of any emergency.

The green agenda

And finally in the airside operations segment of the conference, Lode Ketele of Brussels Airport Company presented on the subject of ‘The Green Agenda: How Can Airports Respond?’ The environmental impacts associated with harmful emissions and noise have increased alongside the increasing scale of the global aviation industry, he said, and what is needed from airport operators is “a comprehensive and effective package of measures to meet the challenges”.​

At Brussels, the airport operator has seen reduced noise levels over and around the airport, largely thanks to the quieter engines used by the aircraft now using the gateway. And a whole range of technologies and procedures remain in place to ensure that that trend continues, he remarked.

​It is, for example, experimenting with Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) aircraft approach technology that should allow aircraft to maintain height for longer on approach, thus reducing noise in the area around the gateway.

​Brussels is also participating in Airport Council International’s Airport Accreditation Programme (ACA), an independent, voluntary programme that assesses and recognises participating gateways’ efforts to manage and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Brussels Airport is not carbon neutral – it prefers to invest in emissions-reducing equipment and technologies rather than offset programmes – but it has set tough goals on reducing its carbon footprint. In the latest move in this regard, it has just ordered 30 electric buses and it is to introduce a central bussing system that employs them. It is also replacing 20 diesel vehicles with new vehicles running on CNG, has a small solar farm and is considering further developments in this area; and it is using airport collaborative decision-making (ACDM) techniques to minimise aircraft taxi times and thereby reduce emissions from aircraft with engines running while still on the ground.

Ramp operations

Paul Drever acted as chairman of the GSE Buyers & Ramp Operations conference. In his introduction, he talked of the relative lack of change in GSE function over the years, in contract to the vast amount of technological ‘add-ons’ – such as anti-collision devices – that are now incorporated, as well as the major changes we have seen in the regulatory environment relating to GSE.

He said that those acquiring GSE should look beyond initial investment and towards the much more important total cost of ownership (TCO) – the cost of an item over the course of its lifetime, factoring in repair and maintenance costs. The many different ways available to procure GSE have also changed – now including leasing and renting as well as simply purchase, Drever noted.

​At Menzies, GSE represents the handler’s second-biggest cost (after staff); he speculated that for some other ground service providers, it might be their biggest cost. It’s vital, therefore, to get any acquisition decisions right, Drever said.

​Drever introduced Peter Beliën, general manager of TCR Belgium, to the stage. TCR’s full-service leasing options include GSE maintenance for customers, Beliën noted, pointing out that asset management over the leasing lifetime of GSE might well be at least 10 or 12 years, and could be as long as 25. Consideration of maintenance requirements is critical for any GSE operator, therefore, he declared.

​Enablers of effective maintenance include such factors as the capability of the workshop, the availability of spare parts, the tooling on hand, the competencies and training of those involved, and management’s maintenance planning, Beliën informed.

Whether TCR performs the maintenance or the ground service provider undertakes its own, it’s vital, he added, that decisions are taken in consideration of the whole life of the equipment, and that the right people and the right data are employed.

​Azlan Morad, an airport/aviation consultant with CrissCross International, then offered his thoughts on issues relating to private sector airport development, with a particular emphasis on airside operations and GSE application.

​Airports have scaled up in complexity and specialisation over the years, he argued, and this has driven the need (amongst other drivers) for private sector investment in airports. Fluctuations in traffic volumes, changes to aircraft mixes and technological advances have all impacted airside operations in a fundamental way and airport operators must, he argued, be able to adequately leverage technology, be scaleable and flexible, and adopt full lifecycle planning.

​Exploiting opportunities is also vital for airport developers, Morad said. In this regard, key will be investing in R&D, as well as understanding and planning for future risk.

De-icing

The northern hemisphere winter may yet be some way off, but plans for meeting the harsher weather need to be made in good time. Holger Schwenke, head of capacity management airside/aviation technology at German airport operator Fraport, considered the issue of how airports are having to react to environmental challenges, especially in terms of waste water management and de-icing.

​In particular, he answered the question: Is it getting harder to meet the environmental challenge? The answer, he said, is ‘yes’, although not for the reasons that people might think. It is not so much about the more stringent requirements and standards that might be laid down by regulatory bodies, but what is critical is the changing weather – more rain means more difficulty in dealing with the after-effects of airside de-icing – collecting the de-icing fluids and contaminated water, Schwenke pointed out.

With regard to de-icing, what is at stake is primarily a safety issue, rather than an environmental one, he noted, as important as the latter is. Schwenke went on to deal with all the various technologies and procedures used to meet environmental challenges at Frankfurt, including waste-water management and dealing with polluting de-icing chemicals.

​Also talking about de-icing were two executives from Polish ground service provider LS Airport Services – quality manager Patryk Leski and Krakow branch director Krzysztof Mazur – who explained what their handler can offer in terms of de-icing services – as well as Rasmus Dyre, a key accounts sales manager at Vestergaard. Dyre talked not only about his company’s products in this market, but how the technologies of aircraft de-icing are evolving. For example, in-truck Type 1 de-icing is now a reality (operational testing is at an advanced stage with United in the US, although the procedure is not yet being employed commercially).

​Vestergaard also offers the Precise Positioning System (PPS), featuring proximity sensors at the end of a de-icing telescope, to maintain the optimal distance between spray nozzle and aircraft, he noted.

Other technologies such as infra-red cameras can be used to monitor differences in heat signature on a sprayed area, while new challenges loom – for example, the new composite aircraft airframes require more de-icing fluid because these composite materials have poorer heat transfer qualities than traditional aluminium airframes.

Getting the message across

Last but by no means least was David O’Connell, managing director of wireless communications specialist dBD Communications.

He spoke of the importance of good communications for airside work, including marshalling and de-icing, in an environment that is inherently noisy.

​Untethered – is it worth it? O’Connnell believes so, saying that wireless technology removes potential trip hazards, lowers maintenance costs because of the avoidance of potential damage to trailing wires and of course allows effective communication without physical attachment.

​He discussed the need for either simplex (which allows for talking or listening at any given moment) or duplex (for both) systems on the apron, and considered the advantage of Bluetooth wireless technology.

​Finally, O’Connell assessed some of the other factors that would need to be examined when considering possible purchase of apron communications systems – the range required, battery duration, the amount of users on the network, whether it would be for individual issue or be deployed as a group asset and the level of noise protection that would be needed.

​—

Brussels Airport reacts: quickly and efficiently as one

Lode Ketele, head of airside services for Brussels Airport, gave an informative but also very moving account of how the airport authority and its partner organisations and companies reacted to the dreadful terrorist attack of 22 March.

​A total of 16 people died in the attack, a figure that would have been a lot higher if a third bomb found unexploded and safely dealt with had been detonated during the terrorists’ assault.

​The airport operator, Brussels Airport Company, moved quickly to establish a crisis centre to supplement its standing Airport Operations Centre that initially acted as a point of co-ordination between all those dealing with the aftermath of the attack.

The airport was closed for operations, including incoming flights approaching the gateway, as it was soon realised that its full attention needed to be on an evacuation from the directly affected and potentially endangered areas; moreover, the emergency services at the airport were fully employed in dealing with the impact of the atrocity.

​Because of the nature of the emergency, the evacuation involved people moved onto the apron tarmac and many were asked to congregate in the secure area of Brussels Airlines’ huge Hangar 40. Meanwhile, in the Departures Terminal, Brussels Airport’s fire brigade, medical team and the Belgian Army played an invaluable role in helping emergency medical services and staff to save the lives of critically injured people. The assistance of all companies and agencies at the airport, quickly and unquestioningly, to deal with the crisis was an admirable feature of the attack’s aftermath, Ketele recalled.

​Once individuals could be safely escorted off-site, rescue centres were established for those outgoing passengers who had been unable to fly out of Brussels because of the attack and thus required somewhere to sleep overnight.

​A dedicated call centre was created to help answer the countless enquiries of those seeking news of loved ones, as well as those wanting more basic information on how to retrieve their luggage or car that had been left behind, or when flights might resume at the airport. A special website was also launched to help answer these questions.

​Another challenge to be overcome was the failure of the mobile (cell) phone network in the airport area, which was overwhelmed by the number of calls being asked of it. Brussels Airport Company and others fell back on the well-established trunking communications option or mobile messaging services like Whatsapp.

​Looking back, people who had reacted to help the wounded were in a different way themselves victims of the atrocity, Ketele explained. Some experienced an emotional response, at once or later on. They were of all personality types and employed in all sorts of roles at the airport. It is important to offer as much assistance as possible to everybody involved, in different forms and at different times, Ketele said.

​The airport was closed to passenger services until 3 April, although freighter flights resumed on 23 March. And it was only at the end of June that the airport returned to operating at full capacity.

​New security procedures have been introduced by the Belgian Federal Police, including an initial passenger scan immediately outside the departure terminal and a vehicle checkpoint before entering the airport domain.

​For Ketele, the response to the attack was all about the entire airport community coming together and working towards the single aim of dealing with the crisis in the best possible way. Now, going forward and grasping the unified airport community sentiment, the intention is to operate an even better Brussels Airport.