Accidents of many sorts happen on the apron of busy airports around the world every day, despite all the efforts to avoid them. More can and should be done, Chris Lewis reports
Chris Kaminski, dep uty director, risk manager and expert on workplace safety at Wayne County Airport Authority (WCAA), which manages Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Willow Run Airport, likens the airport ramp to a beehive, with vehicles and people constantly flitting to and fro.
Not only is the ramp a complex area, he says, but it is becoming even more so, given the level of sub-contracting that now goes on in the airline industry. He explains: “You have so many hands in the pot now, it is very complex deciding who is responsible for what.”
Surprisingly, perhaps, there is little uniformity in safety standards within the US, let alone the rest of the world. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does issue advisory circulars but there has been little to specifically impose safety standards in the ramp area. However, Washington is now pondering legislation that would put in place new Safety Management Systems and this has been the spur for an initiative by WCAA to introduce a system to report all airfield incidents through new quarterly executive stakeholder meetings. The object of these, Kaminski explains, is to log every incident, not just those that directly concern the airport authority.
It’s very early days, but “we have seen huge participation”, Kaminski informs. “Before, if incidents took place, we would have no reason to intervene, but now we can order measures like putting chocks or cones in place, if we think there is a problem.”
It might also mean standardising procedures and stipulating the number of personnel needed to perform a specific operation. For example, until now some airlines have required that there be two ‘wing walkers’ to supervise aircraft when they push back; others require only one.
Standardisation can be very important. He notes that there are currently no hard and fast national rules on the number of trailers in a tug-train; this is decided at the airport, and it is always possible that one airport might impose a lower safety standard in order to seek a commercial advantage. In fact, none of the many rules and regulations that govern transport on US public roads apply to vehicle operations on-airport – in theory, you don’t need any sort of driver’s licence and a fuel bowser driver does not have to have any of the hazardous material endorsements that would be routinely required on the roads. Formal working hour rules are almost entirely absent for ramp workers, although airport authorities can stipulate maximum numbers of hours in contracts.
It’s too early in the process at WCAA to say whether the number of unwanted incidents is consistently going up, down or staying the same, but already the process has uncovered problems like fences being damaged by aircraft deploying thrust in locations where they should be using a tug.
Support from the airlines has been surprisingly strong, at least from those people with responsibilities for safety. There is no reason why higher standards of ramp safety should cost carriers any more in the long term. As the old aviation adage has it, ‘If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident’, and Kaminski can cite a fairly recent incident at a US airport where a small hole in an aircraft fuselage caused by poorly used ground handling equipment ended up costing around US$500,000 in repairs – to say nothing of the cost of disruption and loss of customer goodwill.
A big deal
Safety on the ramp is “a very big deal”, agrees Maurizio Anichini, director of safety and quality assurance at Bangkok Flight Services (BFS). “Accidents on the ramp can culminate in human injury or even death, and certainly damage to aircraft – which can later manifest itself as problems in flight, so it is a very important topic, and the industry knows it.”
It’s also one of those areas where the work is never done – there is always room for improvement. Anichini is a strong advocate of training – and indeed before joining BFS he was head of instructor training at the International Air Transport Association (IATA); but it must be the right sort of training, he insists. Too many companies spend a lot of effort in producing safety and training manuals but these often weighty tomes are worthless unless the operatives on the tarmac actually read them and take note of their contents.
What is needed instead is “a heightened level of safety conduct – what we need to do is make it relevant to them”, Anichini says. Very often, word of mouth from peers is the best way to deliver the safety message to BFS’s large number of employees. “What we’ve done is create a safety network of relatively junior people like operatives and their supervisors and we talk to them about working in a safe way. So rather than it being cascaded down from the top, it’s implemented from the ground up.
“We get people to spread the safety message among their peers rather than try and do it through formal meetings – perhaps during a break or while people are actually working.”
Ground handlers can, Anichini believes, usefully follow the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) procedures originally developed for engineers and flight deck crew in which best working practices are discussed in an informal peer-to-peer environment. “We need to get people to want to do things safely, to spread a positive safety message, rather than have people start doing things the right way only when the boss is looking.”
Overwhelming employees with ‘read and sign’ documentation is emphatically not the right approach, Anichini continues. Theoretical safety systems are not enough in themselves – they actually need to be implemented on the ground, to be visible in the operation itself.
Not everyone who works on the ramp is a great reader, so different ways of getting the message across are needed. “I could provide pages and pages of documentation and get them to sign that they’ve read it; or I can ensure that they are genuinely properly briefed. We’ve videotaped our procedures and produced 5-10 minute clips for each one to show people the right way and the wrong way of doing things, with the help of Simon Walker of the Virtual Aviation College, which is a much quicker way of disseminating the information.”
The videos are used to inform new employees before they physically go out on the ramp, which reduces the risk that they will be taught bad habits by existing workers. “What we’ve done is carry out ‘gap analysis’,” Anichini remarks. “We’ve given ourselves 12 months in which to implement a number of action plans in a given timescale – hundreds of items, big and small – by a team of about 50 people. It’s a very practical approach to safety. It’s not just about meeting the requirements of an audit.”
Employees are encouraged to report near-misses, without fear of being blamed. This has, inevitably, led to an apparent upsurge in the number of reportable incidents or faults – damage to aircraft or equipment or incidences of vehicles speeding, bald tyres or lights not working, for instance – but it is an essential tool that management can use to prevent today’s incidents escalating into more serious situations later.
Measuring safety
Safety is a notoriously difficult thing to measure – how can you know that you avoided an accident that never happened? – but Anichini points out that while the number of incident reports has grown, the number of actual accidents certainly has not. “I am optimistic. There has been a major improvement in the past few years and people have become more safety aware.”
He has also reviewed all of BFS’s major procedures and, where necessary, completely rewritten them. This was a matter not just of rethinking individual operations but of considering how all the different ramp activities impact each on other. Staging of operations can be critical, especially in airports where more aircraft have been crammed in than is perhaps ideal from an operational point of view.
Ramp operations are under all sorts of pressures these days, not least from airlines wanting to turn planes around as quickly as possible or because airports want to pack as many stands into a given area as possible. However, it is important not to let this perceived need for speed to translate into unsafe working practices, Anichini stresses. One problem, he adds, is that as airlines increasingly contract out ground operators, their people tend to have less operational awareness.
And, he says, there is no need to rush around like a lunatic just because aircraft are on short turnarounds: 35-40 minutes can be achieved in a measured, controlled manner without compromising safety in any way. Hold-ups inevitably occur on busy airports and if a queue of vehicles builds up, perhaps because of a conflicting aircraft movement, the driver’s natural reaction is to move like a cork out of a bottle when they are free to go. But, as in other walks of life, it can be a case of ‘more haste, less speed’.
Anichini recalls a recent incident in which a carrier wanted to leave considerably ahead of its scheduled time and, in the rush, the plane wasn’t loaded properly – which meant that the operation had to be stopped and the plane reloaded. (The plane still left a few minutes early, as it happens.) “I always tell my guys that it’s no good their going at the speed of light if you end up with a scratch on the aircraft, because then the plane will be going nowhere and you really will lose time.”
People skills are a vital element of safety and Anichini confirms that he will, if need be, confront over-zealous airline station managers if he feels they are pressurising staff to work unsafely. He will also take the matter up at airline headquarters level if need be.
Anichini observes that it is important to be aware of cultural factors in an industry that operates in all parts of the world. In many Asian countries, for example, it is very difficult for a junior member of staff to confront someone who is older or has more authority. “Sometimes that’s where being a foreigner helps – you can be the channel to the station manager if necessary,” he insists.
Local attitudes to safety also vary widely. If five people perched on a motorcycle is the norm on the roads outside the airport and if bus drivers accept a fender-bender as part of a day’s work, it can be hard to persuade apron workers to change such attitudes at the airport security gate. Conversely, airport workers in some countries, like Japan, are renowned for their meticulous attention to detail; vehicle driving, or the placing of cones and equipment, approaches an art form and ramp accidents are extremely rare.
“You can’t necessarily change ‘driving genetics’ but what I like to do is promote the idea of an invisible membrane around the aircraft,” Anichini explains. Certainly vehicles hitting hold doors or aircraft or doors being opened while the loader is being raised still feature frequently in IATA’s worldwide accident statistics. But, in fairness, not all ramp accidents are caused by ground crew’s poor concentration. He recalls cases where accidents have been caused by aircraft moving off or applying thrust prematurely. Airport authorities thus must set a good example – at some places, they are the worst offenders in matters such as vehicle speeding. At one European airport, which shall be nameless, some car drivers were clocked doing over 100mph on the tarmac.
Technology drawbacks
Technology can help, but it will never be the whole answer to what essentially boils down to human frailty. “Yes, we can install devices like sensors or safety rails, but it’s not technology that determines safety – ultimately, you will only be as safe as you’re taught to be,” Anichini points out.
One problem with technology like sensors is that, while they may help on occasion, the same operative that has become used to using the system may also have to drive GSE on occasion that is not fitted with the technology; or the sensors may not work for some reason. Sometimes, technology can actually make people less self-reliant.
However, new safety systems do offer some intriguing possibilities. Video has added a new dimension, for instance, says Danny Peleg, director of transport market development at Genetec. The company has pioneered the use of IP (internet-based) security solutions and today provides IP video surveillance, access control and licence plate recognition solutions through its single platform, Security Center, not only to around 80 airports worldwide but to ports and other transport operators. The open architecture of its software allows data to be imported from other systems, allowing users to select the best available applications, including the latest analytical software.
The benefits of video for ramp safety, as well as security, are obvious, he enthuses: “The user can extend their eyes all over the airport – and it’s also recorded. The impact on airports is enormous.” Video technology can help prevent or at least mitigate the effects of a whole range of incidents, including vehicle collisions, objects left unattended, people straying into areas where they shouldn’t or fuelling spills.
Game changer
If all video technology did was transmit pictures to an operator in a control room, it would be a useful but probably not game-changing safety tool, but it can do much more than that these days, Peleg explains. “For example, when an aircraft is approaching a gate, its straight-line approach needs to be completely clear of any obstacles, especially bearing in mind that one or more of the plane’s engines will still be running, so GSE needs to be kept clear.” What the new technology of video analytics can do is detect whether any objects have indeed strayed into the path of the plane and – if so – the system sends an immediate alarm to an operations centre and an alert to the pilot to stop the aircraft.
Analytics, which started to emerge in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has vastly improved the usefulness of video as a safety tool. No longer is the system dependent on a human operator actually seeing incidents as they take place and then taking action. Modern systems can interpret events and transmit alerts automatically, and it is possible to apply certain ‘rules’ for the system to follow.
Some may baulk at being made completely dependent on computers, but video systems are also no longer totally dependent on airport IT systems being available – these days they can be made to operate independently, Peleg notes. The other useful feature of video is that, when things do go wrong, the incident is recorded. The culprit can be suitably admonished while, more importantly, the footage also represents an invaluable training tool and management can use it to learn from past mistakes and improve future operations.
The other main use for video is, of course, security, and there are areas where the two functions overlap, he points out. One such is the use of number plate recognition technology that can not only identify the vehicles of potential wrongdoers but also positively vet vehicles that are allowed on the ramp.
Plus, the cost of the technology is coming down to the point where every airport, including those in poorer countries, should consider it, Peleg argues. “IP video isn’t that cutting edge these days, and most airport managements are now moving to basic video management.” Moreover, the development of mobile versions that can work on phones or iPads will bring down costs considerably, he believes. “Putting video on an iPhone, for example, really extends your eyes to any corner of the airport.”
Automation
There are also the hidden hazards to ramp workers’ health and technology, or at least automation, has a part to play in reducing them, says American Airlines (AA) managing director of customer services for Europe and Asia, Clive Cook.
Overall, there have been encouraging trends in ramp safety in his region since 2005. But there is always room for improvement. Automated loading devices can cut out many of the hazards involved in loading aircraft bags, for instance. While not a complete solution – they tend to load only about 70-80% of the container – they do have a role in reducing musculoskeletal complaints and are not deployed as extensively as they might be, he believes. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, Cook notes: “Unless the number of airlines using them passes a certain watershed, the equipment will remain expensive.”
Similarly, ‘ramp snake’ or ‘moving carpet’ devices for loading loose baggage and cargo into bellyholds can reduce the need for operatives to crouch on their hands and knees, the cause of many an accident and injury. AA is investing quite heavily in this type of equipment worldwide as a result.
There remains a large amount of noxious emissions pumped out into the air by internal combustion engines and, in some countries – though not usually in the West – these are still used extensively inside closed buildings. Insisting on battery-electric vehicles would, Cook argues, be a simple way of improving employees’ health while at the same time boosting green credentials.
Where internal combustion engines must be used, catalytic converters are available that work at the low engine temperatures at which most GSE equipment typically operate. “Again, this is something that needs to be championed,” he says. It’s an important issue for ramp workers who may be spending long hours just feet away from GSE units chugging away.
Other safety improvements such as anti-collision technology should be used more but tend not to be more prevalent because of the cost involved. GSE equipment does not generally wear out very quickly and can be in use for 15 years or more, which means that many pieces may not have the latest systems and electronics fitted, Cook suggests. “As an airport user, I’m in favour of the airport owner taking a strong line on matters like this – and it would also fit in well with ‘green’ strategies,” he says.
Noise is another big issue and perhaps airports could copy building sites in Korea and elsewhere by having visual displays of current noise levels as measured in decibels. Hearing loss is cumulative and airport workers, perhaps because they have been progressively deafened over the years by the racket from running engines, don’t always have a good sense of how loud things are. While most carry ear defenders, not so many actually wear them.
As already discussed, training is important to maintain airport safety while “complacency, tiredness and rushing” are its enemies. As at BFS in Bangkok, Cook stresses the importance of “talking to people and having 30-second conversations, reminding them about safety all the time. It’s about keeping safety at the top of people’s minds.” This, he believes, is the most effective way of reducing the frequency of accidents. Training needs to be “relatively short and regularly reinforced. There are also some good companies that come and do safety audits of your staff and can produce videos or other material retrospectively. It all helps to reinforce the safety message,” he observes.
Pollution
The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) has been running a campaign to persuade airlines to impose limits on the weight of individual bags and cases, which it says is the prime cause of musculoskeletal problems in ramp workers. But it is also very concerned with particulate pollution, explains ITF civil aviation assistant secretary Kemal Ulker.
“All engines on the ramp, trucks, cars and machinery, produce ultrafine particles,” he notes. Ulker commends Denmark’s aviation industry as an example of best practice which has not only introduced more electric GSE equipment and greener diesels, but is also monitoring and managing ramp air quality through an action plan, backed up by legislation limiting employees’ exposure to pollution. “Unfortunately, though, this just isn’t on the agenda at many airports worldwide,” he points out.
Ulker cites a whole litany of diseases in which airport ramp pollution is the prime suspect and suggests there is empirical evidence that airport workers are more at risk than most, although there has been very little specific research in the area, mainly because of airline industry reluctance in addressing the subject.
“It is something we want investigated urgently, especially as it could also be an issue for passengers, at least in some circumstances,” Ulker argues. He would also like the current International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) statement on environmental protection to be extended to include pollution from ramp diesel engines and to include protection of employee health.
Moreover, the ITF is concerned with working hours – fatigue is a major contribution to ramp accidents, it believes, especially as pressures are mounting in the industry “to do more with less”, Ulker considers.
Several of the recent industrial disputes in the industry have been about changes to working practices and workloads. “There are (internationally agreed) time limits for cockpit crew but ground workers are covered by local labour laws and it’s something which governments often turn a blind eye to. Workers are often forced to exceed legal hours and in my home country, Turkey, they often have to work overtime without extra pay.” More enforcement would certainly help, but globally this is very patchy.
