Click for next page ( 5


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 4
4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES TABLE 1 SURVEY RESPONSES BY INDUSTRY TYPE The objective of this synthesis project is to identify and Airport Airline GSP describe the current state of ground handling practices focus- Reps. Reps.* Reps. Total ing on safety and training measures used at airports. The tar- Sent 33 7 8 48 get audience for this report is airport operators, airlines, and Responses 29 7 4 40 ground service providers (GSPs). The synthesis report pro- % Total 87 100 50 83 vides a compilation of common practices. *Note: Six airlines reported with two respondents from one airline representing different organizational positions. Reps. = representatives. STUDY ELEMENTS The study approach for this project included: and refresher safety training; standardizations in safety train- ing; safety violation practices including fines, safety audits, and Investigating the available literature on ramp safety oper- inspections; and hazard reporting. A total of 48 surveys were ations and training to assess the state of current practices distributed and 40 responses were collected, including 29 air- in the United States. ports, 6 airlines/7 airline representatives, and 4 GSPs. Table 1 Reviewing past ramp safety surveys. presents the total and percent responses by industry. The over- Conducting new surveys and interviews of a range of all survey response rate result was 83%. commercial service and general aviation (GA) airports, airlines, and GSPs to determine current practices and The range of airports responding to the survey included gaps. large (8), medium (7), small (6), non hub (4), and GA (4) as Identifying duties and responsibilities of the various air- shown in Figure 1. Geographically, airports represented diverse ports, airlines, and GSPs. areas across the nation including the states of Arkansas, Providing an overview of the airport, airline, and GSP Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massa- roles in ground handling safety oversight. chusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Presenting a discussion of current baseline and future North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, trends [e.g., technology, safety management systems and Washington State. (SMS), International Air Transport Association (IATA) Safety Audit for Ground Operations (ISAGO), ramp Airline respondents included representatives from large towers, and changing business relationships such as air- commercial and small regional air carriers including: (1) Air ports offering ground services.] Wisconsin, (2) Alaska Airlines, (3) Continental Airlines-- two replies, (4) Delta Airlines, (5) Horizon Air, and (6) United Airlines. Four GSPs completed the survey including repre- LITERATURE AND DATA SEARCH sentatives of Aircraft Service International Group, Delta Global Services, Gate Gourmet, and Menzies Aviation. A considerable amount of literature exists for ground han- dling practices and operations both nationally and interna- Survey respondents included vice presidents; directors; tionally. Most of the literature is directed at airline and GSP managers; risk, safety, and compliance officers; and opera- operations and includes a variety of manuals that provide tions and training staff. The diverse level of technical exper- guidance to and standards for ramp operations, markings, pro- tise and managerial positions from respondents is reflected cedures, accident and incident reporting, and general safety practices. Many aviation organizations such as the Flight Safety Foundation (FSF), Airports Council International 9 (ACI), National Safety Council, ICAO, and IATA produce 8 documents and reports on current ramp operations, practices, 7 trends, and activities. A number of these resources were used 6 as a foundation for this study, are described throughout this Count 5 document, and are presented in the References. 4 3 2 SURVEY 1 0 As part of the Ramp Safety Practices Synthesis study data col- General Large Medium Non Small lection process, three electronic synthesis study surveys were Aviation Hub Hub Hub Hub sent to airports, airlines, and GSPs. The surveys focused on Airport Type existing safety practices including ramp oversight; manage- FIGURE 1 Total respondents by airport type. (Which category ment and individual responsibilities; ramp safety; staff initial of airport do you represent?)