National Academies Press: OpenBook

Ramp Safety Practices (2011)

Chapter: Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety

« Previous: Chapter One - Introduction
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Ramp Safety Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14599.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Ramp Safety Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14599.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Ramp Safety Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14599.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Ramp Safety Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14599.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Ramp Safety Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14599.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Ramp Safety Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14599.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Ramp Safety Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14599.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Ramp Safety Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14599.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Ramp Safety Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14599.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Ramp Safety Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14599.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Ramp Operations and Safety." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Ramp Safety Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14599.
×
Page 16

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6Chapter two presents foundational information collected from literature searches, synthesis study survey results, and inter- views that relate to common practices used to manage ramp operations. Included are data from airports, airlines, and GSPs, and collaborative efforts discovered or documented as part of the study process such as FOD programs, safety meetings, violation and citation programs, and training initiatives. RAMP OPERATIONS Airport ramps are typically small, noisy, and congested areas where departing and arriving aircraft are serviced by ramp workers, including baggage handling, catering, and fueling personnel. Other staff present on ramps includes airport police and fire, emergency response and medic vehicles, FAA offi- cials, airport operators, maintenance engineers, airline crew, and vendor and concessions personnel. The presence of a large number of people utilizing equipment in a relatively small area, often under considerable time pressure, creates an environment in which injuries and fatalities and aircraft and equipment damage can occur (Dillingham 2007). Typical activities involved with the operation and servicing of air- craft on the ramp include cleaning, catering, refueling, bag- gage and cargo handling, toilet and potable water servicing, maintenance, and transport of passengers and crew onto and off the aircraft (Health and Safety Executive 2000). Accord- ing to Airport Operations, ramp service types can be divided into distinct areas as presented in the following list from Air- port Operations (Ashford et al. 1996): • Ramp services • Supervision • Marshaling • Start-up • Moving and towing aircraft • Safety measures • On-ramp aircraft services • Repair of faults, fueling, wheel and tire check • Ground power supply • Deicing, cooling, and heating • Toilet servicing, potable water, de-mineralized water • Routine maintenance • *Passenger loading • Non-routine maintenance • Cleaning of cockpit windows, wings, nacelles, and cabin windows • Onboard servicing • Cleaning • Catering • In-flight entertainment • Minor servicing of cabin fittings • Alteration of seat configuration • External ramp equipment • Passenger steps • Catering loaders • Cargo loaders, mail and equipment loading. A broad array of ground service contractual agreements exists including a large percentage of airlines that provide support to their own and other airlines, GSPs that are out- sourced to multiple airlines and offer comprehensive above and below wing services, specialized services such as fueling and catering, and airports that offer ground support services to their airline customers. This mix of service arrangements can result in multiple providers operating at the same time at an airline arrival or departure gate. OUTSOURCING TREND As mentioned previously, approximately 50% of U.S. airlines continue to perform a portion of their ground handling sup- port services, although it appears the trend of outsourcing is increasing, which suggests that airlines may be reducing costs by contracting out ground handling services. Typically, the cost savings for outsourcing are gained through leveraging staff and equipment across multiple airlines and by reducing labor rates inherent in airline organizations (Grossman 2010). As part of the Ramp Safety Synthesis study, survey ques- tions were submitted to airlines and ground handlers to collect information on ground service offerings. A limited number of responses were provided (four GSPs and six airlines, of which one airline included two respondents); however, as the survey data demonstrate in Table 2, airlines continue to provide in-house services, especially in aircraft, cargo/mail, passenger, and baggage handling; maintenance; and load control. The majority of airlines surveyed indicated that fuel- ing is outsourced more often (7 to 0) than any other service listed in the survey. The two responses of “both” reflect an airline that provides in-house fueling at some locations and CHAPTER TWO RAMP OPERATIONS AND SAFETY (*The referenced list by Ashford et al. did not include passenger load- ing, which was added to provide a more comprehensive list of typical ground services.)

7outsources the operation at other airports. The next highest outsourced service was reported as catering (6 to 1), with one airline providing both in-house and outsourced catering and one airline providing only in-house catering. Generally air- lines surveyed demonstrated that some ground services are retained in-house and others are outsourced; none of the air- lines surveyed retain all ground services in-house nor do they offer all ground services to other airlines. When asked “Does your Airline provide ground support services to other airline customers?” five of the seven airline representatives surveyed indicated “Yes.” The two airlines that responded “No” are regional airlines, which may reflect certain operational limitations, although no additional survey comments were provided to confirm this assumption. Of the four GSPs surveyed, one is a catering service and one a fueling company; the two remaining GSPs are large national and international GSPs offering a variety of ground support services. Despite the small size of the survey group, responses regarding service offerings were compiled and are presented in Table 3. As reflected in the survey responses, the caterer provides only catering services and the fueler pri- marily delivers fueling in addition to other services such as *Respondents Se rv ic es P re se n te d in Su rv ey A irc ra ft G ro u n d M ov em en t A irc ra ft H an dl in g A irc ra ft M ai nt en an ce B ag ga ge H an dl in g Ca rg o a n d M ai l H an dl in g Ca te rin g Fu el in g La v an d W at er Lo ad C on tro l N on e Pa ss en ge r H an dl in g “ O th er ” Pr ov id ed b y R es po n de n ts Sm al l P ac ka ge H an dl in g G SE E qu ip m en t M ai nt en an ce Airline 1 (Regional Airline) O S O S O O O S S S S Airline 2 S S S S S O O O S S Airline 3 (Regional Airline) S S S S S S O S S S O Airline 4 S S S S S O O O S S Airline 5 (same Airline as 7) S S S S S both both S S S Airline 6 O S S O S O O S S S Airline 7 (same Airline as 5) S S S S S both both S S S Total Count In-House (S) 5 7 6 6 6 1 0 5 7 0 7 1 0 Total Count Outsourced (O) 2 0 1 1 1 6 7 2 0 0 0 0 1 ìWhat types of ground support services does your airline provide ? Select all that apply.” “What types of ground support services does your airline outsource (other companies provide services to your airline)? Select all that apply.” S indicates in-house services, and O indicates outsourced services. *Airports that provide ground services were not surveyed for this question. TABLE 2 AIRLINE IN-HOUSE (S) AND OUTSOURCED (O) GROUND HANDLING SERVICES Respondents Se rv ic es P re se n te d in Su rv ey A irc ra ft G ro u n d M ov em en t A irc ra ft H an dl in g A irc ra ft M ai nt en an ce B ag ga ge H an dl in g Ca rg o a n d M ai l H an dl in g Ca te rin g Fu el in g La v an d W at er Lo ad C on tro l N o n e Pa ss en ge r H an dl in g “ O th er ” Pr ov id ed b y R es po n de n ts D ei ci ng /A nt i-i ci ng G A S er vi ce s GSP 1 (Caterer) S GSP 2 (Multiple Services) S S S S S S S S S GSP 3 (Fueler) S S S GSP 4 (Multiple Services) S S S S S S Total Count Services (S) 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 “What types of services does your company (GSP) provide? Select all that apply.” S = Service. TABLE 3 GROUND SERVICE PROVIDER SERVICES

8de-icing and GA support for private and commercial aircraft for a fixed base operator (FBO). The two other GSPs offer similar services such as aircraft ground movement; aircraft, passenger, baggage, cargo, and mail handling; and lav and water. In some cases each GSP also provides load control and maintenance services. All four ground handlers responded to the survey question: “Does your company provide services to more than one airline customer?” with an affirmative answer “Yes—Nationally (at more than one airport) we provide ser- vices for multiple airlines.” RAMP OVERSIGHT According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report regarding Aviation Runway and Ramp Safety, the FAA’s oversight of ramp areas is provided in- directly through its certification of airlines and airports pri- marily through 14 CFR Parts 119, 121, 135, and 139. Safety at airports in the United States is a shared responsibility among the FAA, airlines, and airports. FAA air traffic controllers over- see activity in the movement areas—runways and taxiways— but airlines and airports provide primary safety oversight in the non-movement areas—ramps and gates (Dillingham 2007). From the airports participating in the Ramp Safety Syn- thesis survey, the majority (25 of 29) responded “Yes” to having oversight or responsibility of the ramp area, 2 (1 large hub and 1 GA airport) replied “No,” and 2 replies indicated oversight of only common use, passenger loading bridges, and taxi lanes. Table 4 presents a count by airport type and ramp oversight responsibilities and Table 5 lists comments from survey respondents regarding types of services. For the two airports that responded “No,” no additional comments were provided to clarify the answer. Comments included a variety of ramp oversight configurations such as shared re- sponsibilities with airlines and oversight of GSE (typically pas- senger loading bridges) and gate management. One of the challenges for standardization of the ramp area is the practice of airports leasing gates to airline tenants. Typically, tenants have the authority to manage the gate area in compliance with their company operations including mark- ings, equipment type and use, and marshalling practices. Of the 29 airports replying to the synthesis survey, the largest percentage of gate operations (52%) included both common and exclusive gate use, with 24% indicating all common use, 10% all exclusive use, and 14% responding none or a single gate (all 4 GA airports). Survey comments included clari- fication that at large airports some of the gates are airline controlled and others are common use and managed by the Type Yes No Only Common Use, PAX, or Taxi Lanes General Aviation 3 1 0 Large Hub 7 1 1 Medium Hub 5 0 1 Non Hub 4 0 0 Small Hub 6 0 0 Count 25 2 2 “Does your airport have any oversight or responsibility of the ramp/apron area including exclusive use space, passenger loading bridges, or ramps?” PAX = passenger. TABLE 4 AIRPORT OVERSIGHT OF RAMP AREAS No. Type Response Comment 1 General Aviation Yes The ramp area is owned and operated by the airport. 2 General Aviation Yes We control all ramps/aprons and assign users to specific areas. 3 General Aviation No No comment provided. 4 Large Hub Yes On the common use gates, the airport has contracted out the responsibility of sweeping/maintaining the cleanliness of the ramp from the terminal building to the tug road. In one of our terminals we also have oversight of the apron entering the ramp. 5 Large Hub Yes The airport oversees the ramp area, most jet bridges, FBO, taxi lanes, cargo locations, etc. 6 Large Hub Yes Airport maintains the ramps and provides daily sweeping of the ramps. Airport maintains airport-owned jet bridges. 7 Large Hub No No comment provided. 8 Medium Hub Yes Ramp areas at concourse gate parking are common use; gate leases include hold room and loading bridge use only. 9 Medium Hub Yes The airport is responsible for all jetways and FOD control on the ramp. Each airline is responsible for their respective ramp markings. 10 Medium Hub Yes Jet bridges are owned and maintained by the county airport system, but used by airline personnel for de-boarding and boarding. 11 Non Hub Yes Insomuch as it is our property and not exclusive use space. Air Traffic Control controls taxi and airlines manage the gate areas. We maintain the jet bridges. Comments for: “Does your airport have any oversight or responsibility of the ramp/apron area including exclusive use space, passenger loading bridges, or ramps?” TABLE 5 COMMENTS ON AIRPORT OVERSIGHT OF RAMP AREAS

9airport. Also, with regard to exclusive gate use, airport re- spondents indicated that airlines typically have preferential use but not necessarily exclusive use; exclusive use implies the airline has the sole authority to operate the gate, whereas preferential allows use of the gate by other air carriers if the preferred airline is not using the gate. See Figure 2 for a sum- mary of responses by airport type. With regard to gate and ramp oversight, airports were asked “Does your airport conduct safety inspections on the ramp or in the baggage make-up areas?” The majority (66%) replied “Yes,” 24% answered “No,” and 10% responded “Common use gates and baggage areas only.” Comments from respondents are presented in Table 6. Airports were also surveyed as to whether ramp safety meetings occurred on a regular basis (Does your airport con- duct regular ramp safety meetings with tenants?). Of the 29 airports that responded, 18 (62%) replied “Yes” and 11 (38%) replied “No.” Most of the airports responding “No” that submitted comments stated that the meetings are not reg- ularly scheduled and other means and processes are in place to address ramp safety issues. Figure 3 presents responses by airport type and additional clarification through comments is included in Table 7. Of the 18 airports replying “Yes” to regularly scheduled safety meetings, 13 selected “monthly” (72%), 3 replied “quar- terly” (17%), and 2 responded “other” (11%). See Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 General Aviation Large Hub Medium Hub Non Hub Small Hub Co un t Gate Management by Airport Type Both Types All Exclusive All Common None / One gate FIGURE 2 Airport gate oversight. (Does your airport manage gates through common use or exclusive use agreements?) No. Type Comment 1 Medium Hub We have increased our efforts in this area. 2 Medium Hub Visual inspection of ramp areas. Bag make-up areas are currently transitioning from leased space (no operations inspections) to common use. 3 General Aviation We hope to institute an auditing system for 2011—“Inspect What You Expect.” 4 General Aviation Ramp only as part of our on-going self-inspection program 5 Large Hub Airport operations inspect ramp areas every day, at least 3 times a day. Bag make-up areas are patrolled numerous times a day. Bag make-up areas are inspected at least once a day. 6 Non Hub Our self-inspection program includes operations personnel monitoring the condition of the airfield (including the ramp area) at least once daily. However, no safety-specific checklist exists beyond the self-inspection checklist. 7 Large Hub Constant surveillance by assigned airside staff as part of the Notice of Violation & Citation Program. We don’t do daily or shift documented inspection reports for those areas. 8 Small Hub We inspect daily to ensure Part 139 standards are met. Comments for: “Does your airport conduct safety inspections on the ramp or in the baggage make-up areas?” TABLE 6 COMMENTS ON SAFETY INSPECTIONS RAMP AND BAGGAGE MAKE-UP AREAS

10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 General Aviation Large Hub Medium Hub Non Hub Small Hub Co un t Ramp Safety Meetings by Type Yes No FIGURE 3 Ramp safety meetings. (Does your airport conduct regular ramp/apron safety meetings with tenants?) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 General Aviation Large Hub Medium Hub Non Hub Small Hub Co un t Safety Meeting Frequency Other Quarterly MonthlyNo Response FIGURE 4 Safety meeting frequency. (If yes, how frequently are the ramp/apron safety meetings held?) No. Type Comment 1 General Aviation We do expect to start safety meetings with tenant/vendors starting January 2011. 2 Large Hub Meetings with the group the Aviation Safety Alliance; chaired by the airport operator. 3 Large Hub Airport Action Safety Team meets with all the ramp/apron tenants. 4 Large Hub Regular FOD prevention meetings 5 Large Hub Monthly Airport/Tenant’s Safety Committee meeting is scheduled. 6 Medium Hub Monthly Tenant Safety Advisory Group facilitated by Airport Operations and Corporate Risk Management. 7 Medium Hub Airport has a standing safety committee made up of airline tenants that meet monthly. Ramp/apron meetings are held solely by airlines. 8 Non Hub Tenants are invited to airport safety meetings, as are all ramp departments. 9 Non Hub We have regular contact with local station managers/supervisors. However, we do hold annual winter operation safety meetings with all tenants. 10 Non Hub They are not always regular. 11 Small Hub We have many monthly meetings with tenants, none specifically for ramp/apron safety. However, safety concerns and issues are addressed at each of them, as needed. 12 Small Hub As an issue becomes apparent it is discussed at a monthly station manager meeting. Comments for: “Does your airport conduct regular ramp/apron safety meetings with tenants?” TABLE 7 COMMENTS ON SCHEDULED RAMP SAFETY MEETINGS BY AIRPORT TYPE

11 for responses by airport type. Comments regarding meeting format and frequency indicated that many airports consoli- date safety meetings with other standing meetings such as station manager meetings and anticipate that in some cases meeting frequency will change from monthly to quarterly and that urgent issues will be resolved as needed. Airports were surveyed regarding collaborative FOD pro- grams with tenants to assess whether airlines and airports worked together on ramp safety initiatives. “Does your air- port manage or collaborate with airlines and ground service providers to inspect for FOD on the ramp/apron?” Nearly all respondents (90%) replied “Yes” to the question. The 10% who answered “No” are GA and small hub airports with no commercial services. One of the GA airports commented that as part of the upcoming SMS implementation at his airport, a FOD program will be incorporated. Table 8 lists comments from airports regarding oversight and collaborative efforts of FOD programs. GUIDES AND MANUALS Despite the lack of a national ramp operations standard or regulation, numerous guides, handbooks, and manuals exist that provide assistance with ramp operations especially with regard to safety. A number of national and international orga- nizations provide training in conjunction with ramp and safety documentation. Additionally, many offer magazines, online resources, and blogs that provide up-to-date information and evolving trends and tools. Table 9 provides a list of resources collected as part of this synthesis study; the list is not consid- ered comprehensive and is intended to reflect readily available information regarding ramp operations, safety, and training in industry. DATA SOURCES Research relating to a comprehensive set of ramp safety acci- dent and incident data was difficult to find; indeed, according to a report by the U.S. GAO on aviation runway and ramp safety, efforts to improve airport ramp safety are hindered by a lack of complete accident and incident data. Such data could help the FAA and aviation industry to understand the nature and extent of the problem as a first step to identifying what actions are needed to reduce ramp accidents and inci- dents. The GAO found no comprehensive nonfatal injury data on ramp accidents or incidents. According to the GAO report, the federal government has generally taken an indirect role overseeing ramp safety; airlines and airports typically control the ramp areas using their own policies and proce- dures. Meanwhile, some airlines and airports have initiated their own efforts to address ramp safety and aviation organi- zations have begun collecting ramp accident and incident data (Dillingham 2007). In a 2002 Report to Congress regarding Injuries and Fatal- ities of Workers Struck by Vehicles on Airport Aprons, the FAA noted the difficulty of obtaining nonfatality data. “The lack of comprehensive nonfatal injury data makes it impos- sible to determine accurately the number and severity of non- fatal struck by injuries. The data suggest that airline industry workers actually sustain significantly fewer struck by injuries than workers in most other industries” (FAA 2002). Addi- tionally, the FSF noted the limited amount of data available for its 2004 study of damage and injury on airport ramps (Vandel 2004). According to a Flight International article “Commercial aviation may be justifiably proud of its safety in the air, but its industrial injury record on the ground is one of the worst among all businesses. According to a recent study, the injury rate to employees of scheduled airlines is 3.5 times as bad as it is among miners, and the vast majority No. Type Comment 1 Large Hub Regular FOD events and occasional inspections by Operations 2 Small Hub We bring up this topic often in the monthly airline managers meeting. 3 Large Hub The airport does FOD walks at least twice a year. The tenants also are required to keep their lease space and rented space clear of FOD. Some tenants are doing a weekly FOD walk in their area which helps out greatly. 4 Non Hub Part of our driver/pedestrian training includes identification and disposal of various types of FOD. 5 Large Hub Our major stakeholder airline manages its own FOD program in the terminals they occupy. The airport conducts ramp inspections including FOD pick-up twice a month at the common use gates in Terminal D. The major airline also has a FOD day once a year in which the airport board participates. 6 Large Hub Assigned airside staff submits names of individuals observed conducting FOD inspections. At the monthly Partnership Meeting a drawing from the collected names is held and one individual is selected to receive a reward. Annually, the company that had the most monthly rewards receives a plaque from the airport. 7 Medium Hub We conduct monthly runway FOD walks. 8 Non Hub FOD control is a requirement of lease. Comments for: “Does your airport manage or collaborate with airlines and GSPs to inspect for FOD on the ramp/apron?” TABLE 8 COMMENTS ON FOD COLLABORATION WITH AIRLINES AND GSPS

12 Organization Acronym Handbooks, Guides, Standards Website Brief Description Air Charter Safety Foundation ACSF ACSF Industry Audit Standard Operator Documents http://www.acsf.aero/ Provides safety standards that cover aircraft ground handling and servicing. The intent of this standard is to raise the level of safety during ground operations by reviewing a ground operator’s organization and management, manuals and related documentation, applicable training programs, contract ground handling, auditing, and quality assurance. The standards also focus on specific ground operator’s programs including parking of aircraft, towing and taxiing of aircraft, fueling and servicing, baggage loading, and others. Air Transport Association ATA Recommended Guidelines for Preventing and Investigating Aircraft Ground Damage https://publications.airlines.org/ Multiple documents including those related to safety and ramp operations Airports Council International ACI Airside Safety Handbook and Apron Markings and Signs Handbook http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_ common/display/main/aci_conte nt07_banners.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1- 6-5733_725_2 Provides airside managers with a comprehensive set of guidelines for safety and markings. Australasian Aviation Ground Safety Council AAGSC Ground safety practices and training material http://www.aagsc.org/rips.htm and http://www.aagsc.org/training. htm AAGSC has developed both video and computer-based resources, including standard practices for ramp safety. Boeing Boeing Ramp Error Decision Aid (REDA) Users Guide http://www.atec.or.jp/SMS_WS_ Boeing_REDA%20Users%20 Guide.pdf (one of many sites providing this document) Structured process used to investigate errors made by ramp personnel. Civil Aviation Authority CAA CAP 642 Airside Safety Management http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ Cap642.pdf U.K. ramp safety operations and practices including risk analysis Flight Safety Foundation FSF Ground Accident Prevention (GAP) http://flightsafety.org/archives- and-resources A set of e-tools on ramp operations and safety practices including but not limited to Ramp Operational Safety Procedures. International Air Transport Association IATA IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operators (ISAGO) Airport Handling Manual (AHM) http://www.iata.org/ps/certificati on/isago/Pages/index.aspx http://www.iata.org/ps/publicatio ns/Pages/ahm.aspx Ground Services Audit program documentation including an audit checklist. Field reference publication containing recommended industry standards and procedures on airside safety; load control; baggage, cargo, and mail handling; aircraft movement control; aircraft loading; and departure control systems. International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO Annexes Safety Management Manual (SMM) http://store1.icao.int/mainpage. ch2 (costs vary by document) http://www.icao.int/anb/safetym anagement/DOC_9859_FULL_ EN.pdf (publication is free) A variety of documents including Annex 14 for Aerodrome operations and Annex 13 for accident incident investigation. National Air Transportation Association NATA Safety 1st and Fueling http://www.nata.aero/web/page/ 557/sectionid/557/pagelevel/1/ module/toggle/interior.aspx Program promotes safety for ground operations that provides a number of training programs and best management practices to enhance safety for general aviation service providers. Occupational Safety and Health Administration Voluntary Protection Program OSHA VPP Safety management program http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/vpp/ VPP sets performance-based criteria for a managed safety and health system, invites sites to apply, and then assesses applicants against these criteria. U.S. National Safety Council NSC Aviation Ground Operations Safety Handbook http://shop.nsc.org/Aviation- Ground-Operation-Safety- Handbook-6th-Ed-P1753.aspx The handbook sets forth the guidelines for safely accomplishing most ground operations associated with aircraft and applicable to aviation ground operations. VPP = Voluntary Protection Program. TABLE 9 INDUSTRY RAMP OPERATIONS AND SAFETY RESOURCES

13 of airline workers’ injuries occur on the airside of airports” (Learmount 2005). The U.S. GAO reviewed ramp fatality data from 2001 through 2006 from FAA, OSHA, and the NTSB, and found that these agencies had investigated 29 fatal ramp accidents during that time. The majority of the fatalities in these acci- dents were ground workers (17). The results of the GAO sur- vey indicated that the action FAA, OSHA, airport, or airlines could take with the greatest potential for preventing ramp accidents was promoting a safety culture in the ramp area (Dillingham 2007). Chamberlin et al. (1996) examined 182 ramp operation incident reports from the U.S. Aviation Safety Reporting Sys- tem for the period 1984–1994 and found that incidents on the ramps tend to occur more for arriving flights than for depart- ing flights, more so at the parking area than at the entry/exit points to the ramp, and that there are fewer incidents or acci- dents when more ground crew were present. They went on to suggest a number of actions that could be taken to mitigate accidents, such as providing better training of marshallers and wingwalkers to include scenario-based training, main- taining highly visible pavement markings, and establishing and enforcing vehicle speed limits on the ramp. Additionally, in a recent study, FSF discovered that the largest proportion—43%—of ramp accidents happen in the “gate stop” area. Next is the gate entry and exit area with 39%, and the remaining 18% happen between the gate entry/exit and the runway. There are far more incidents involving damage to stationary aircraft than to moving ones, and even more incidents—in simple numbers rather than value—are “equipment-to-equipment” damage (Learmount 2005). ACI surveys its members on an annual basis to document and produce the ACI Survey on Apron Incidents/Accidents. In the most recent survey, which was conducted in 2007, the total number of respondents reflected 158 airports, representing only a portion of U.S. airport accident and incident statistics. Data from the 2006/2007 report were compiled and published in 2009 and are presented in Tables 10 and 11. In Table 10, the rate is based on accidents and incidents per 1,000 departures. Based on ACI member airports worldwide reporting to ACI in the annual Survey of Apron Incidents and Accidents, the following category percentages (assessed from the total data collected) of damage were determined for the time period 2006–2007: equipment to equipment damage (45.3%); equip- ment to property damage (24.6%); damage to stationary air- craft by apron equipment (22.2%); damage to moving aircraft (6.7%); and property or equipment damage by jet blast (1.2%). Total injuries to personnel on the ramp for the year 2007 was 251 (1 fatal; 35 severe; 215 minor), whereas injuries to pas- sengers totaled 222 (0 fatal; 25 severe; 197 minor). Comparison of 2006 and 2007 ACI Data The total number of incidents and accidents reported in 2007, 3,026, was a 15% increase from the 2,623 recorded in 2006. The number of aircraft movements documented in the ACI survey increased by one million. This resulted in a higher rate of incidents and accidents per 1,000 movements from 0.230 in 2006 to 0.245 in 2007. The rate of incidents and accidents involving aircraft increased from 0.073 in 2006 to 0.078 in 2007; similarly, the rate of incidents and accidents not in- volving aircraft increased from 0.157 to 0.167. The rate of injury to personnel and passengers decreased in 2007 to 0.038, a 13% decrease from 2006 when the rate was 0.043. CAUSES OF INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENTS (I&A) (2007) Number of participating airports: 158 Number of aircraft movements: 12,360,425 Incidents and Accidents Number % Total Rate I&A involving aircraft 966 31.92 0.078 I&A involving equipment and property 2,060 68.08 0.167 Total 3,026 100.0 0.245 Incidents and Accidents Involving Aircraft Damage to stationary aircraft by equipment 725 75.05 0.059 Damage to moving aircraft 241 24.95 0.019 Total 966 100.0 0.078 Incidents and Accidents Involving Equipment and Property Caused by jet blast 27 1.31 0.002 Equipment to equipment damage 1,393 67.62 0.113 Equipment to property damage 640 31.07 0.052 Total 2,060 100.0 0.167 Injuries Fatal 1 0.21 0.000 Severe 60 12.68 0.005 Minor 412 87.10 0.033 Total 473 100.0 0.038 Source: ACI Survey on Apron Incidents/Accidents (2009). TABLE 10 ACI RAMP INCIDENT AND ACCIDENT DATA

14 The majority of injuries (251) were to personnel (53%), but 222 (47%) were to passengers. Grabowski et al. (2005) examined NTSB data on airport ground crew injuries and fatalities involving aircraft of com- muter air carriers and major airlines for the period 1983–2004. During the 22-year study period, the NTSB recorded 80 ground crew accidents involving landing, taxiing, or standing com- mercial airline aircraft. Vehicular collisions with an aircraft made up 43% of the accidents, 34% were caused by moving aircraft equipment such as propellers or nose gear, and 11% resulted from jet blasts or fires. Grabowski concluded that intervention programs for airport ground personnel should emphasize the safe operation of the aircraft equipment and ground vehicles and that some of the injuries to ground crew members might be avoided through improved design of commonly used equipment (Grabowski et al. 2005). ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT FACTORS Lu et al. (2005) analyzed 189 accident and incident reports from 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled operations for the period between January 1999 and May 2004, and identified ground crew operations as the second leading factor of accidents. The factors leading to ground crew error were identified as: 1. Poor situational awareness (clearance, airstair/jet bridge/ vehicle operations), 2. Ineffective communication (tug/truck/beltloader driver– pilots–wingwalkers), 3. Lack of supervision/quality assurance, 4. Ramp agents’ ignorance of safety criteria, 5. Physical fatigue, and 6. Personal health and medication (Lu et al. 2005). Wenner and Drury (2000) conducted an analysis of 130 ground damage incident reports from major air carriers cover- ing the period from January 1992 through April 1995. The analysis of ground damage incidents in their study showed that there are relatively few factors that contribute to most ground damage incidents. They suggest that by introducing a small number of interventions a large number of ground damage inci- dents can be prevented. Results of the analyses also indicated that simply using the “blame-and-train” approach to preventing ground damage is ineffective, because ground damage inci- dents are often caused, at least in part, by latent failures in the system. These latent failures cannot be eliminated without mak- ing changes in the system further upstream than the mechanics or even the first line supervisors. Changes must be initiated by upper levels of management and must become integrated into the existing maintenance system (Wenner and Drury 2000). The type of incidents and accidents in the Wenner and Drury analysis fell into the following categories: • Tools or materials contact aircraft, • Work stand contacts aircraft, CATEGORIES OF INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENTS (2007) Causes of Apron Incidents and Accidents % Total A. Damage to Stationary Aircraft by Apron Equipment Passenger handling equipment Aircraft loading equipment Aircraft servicing equipment Others Total A 23.96% B. Damage to Moving Aircraft Another aircraft (taxiing) Jet blast Aircraft marshaller/follow me/Visual Docking Guidance System Aircraft maneuvering (towing/push back) Fixed objects Parked apron equipment Foreign object dam Other age (FOD) Total B 7.96% C. Property or Equipment Damage from Jet Blast Total C 0.89% D. Equipment to Equipment Damage Total D 46.03% E. Equipment to Property Damage Total E 21.15% G. Injuries to Personnel or Passengers Injuries to personnel (1 fatal; 35 severe; 215 minor) Injuries to passengers (0 fatal; 25 severe; 197 minor) Total G 1 2 1 1 7 2 6 2 2 No. 88 94 36 07 25 6 7 2 46 10 21 77 72 41 27 1,393 40 51 22 473 Source: ACI Survey on Apron Incidents/Accidents (2009). TABLE 11 ACI CATEGORIES OF INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENTS

15 • Ground equipment is driven into aircraft, • Unmanned equipment rolls into aircraft, • Hangar doors closed onto aircraft, • Position of aircraft component changes, • Center of gravity shifts, • Aircraft rolls forward/backward, • Towing vehicle strikes aircraft, • Aircraft is not properly configured for towing, • Aircraft contacts object/equipment, and • Aircraft contacts moveable object/equipment (Wenner and Drury 2000). A source of error that can result in an accident or incident is a failure to properly cooperate and coordinate activities during aircraft operations. The Health and Safety Executive of the United Kingdom points to three key elements that must be accomplished to help reduce the risk of accident, incident, or injury on the ramp: 1. Ensure cooperation and coordination among employees; 2. Proper control of the various operators; and 3. The proper assessment and control of the risks indi- viduals are exposed to. Examples of these three key aspects are: • The establishment of an Airside Safety Committee; • The establishment and enforcement of airport rules and agreements; • The proper design of the ramp layout to accommodate the different types of operation and levels of activity; and • Utilizing various safety recommendations from regula- tors, aircraft manufacturers, and industry trade groups (Health and Safety Executive 2000). SAFETY CULTURE A number of articles point toward the need for a proper safety culture or safety climate to exist within an organization to reduce accidents. Cabrera et al. (1997) suggested that safety climate can be an optimum indicator in evaluating SMSs as well as change-oriented programs. Safety attitude of man- agement, efficient performance feedback, well-designed and developed motivation strategies, the existence of an adequate decision process, company philosophy toward safety as a pri- ority, optimum upward and downward communication, and a good reporting system have been identified since the early 1990s as being components of a safe organization. Company policies toward safety, emphasis on training or general safety strategies, and risk perception are several of the identified dimensions that promote a safe organizational operating en- vironment. Work motivation is one of the more powerful psychosocial processes that can have a positive impact on promoting safe behaviors (Cabrera et al. 1997). Hayward (1997) noted that airline ramp employees at a large airport base may be very different in terms of their sub-cultural atti- tudinal and behavioral norms from those at a regional airport, even though they work in the same industry, for the same car- rier, in the same job category. In an interview with Ground Support Worldwide, Delta’s former Director of Safety and Ground Support, Jim Swartz, identified six drivers of safety on airport aprons that have to be balanced: 1. Financial or business piece, 2. Customer service element, 3. The regulatory driver (EPA, FAA, NTSB, DOT, NFPA, OSHA), 4. The work process, 5. Innovation/technology applied to the business, and 6. Moral leadership (Garetson 2008). Piotrowicz et al. (2002) determined that the most effec- tive approach to ramp human factors skills assessment is behavioral assessment, as compared with cognitive assess- ment. One suggestion made to improve ramp safety is to include lost-time injury rates in a manager’s performance assessment. Although lost-time injuries are not considered an accurate barometer of safety on a ramp, making a ramp manager or supervisor accountable for safety performance better ensures a focus on safe operations, as compared with being evaluated on on-time performance (CASA 2002). Ek and Akelsson (2007) studied the safety culture of a ground handling company at a Swedish airport and came away with these suggestions for improvement: (1) provide anony- mous distribution of anomaly reporting forms, (2) provide education in the area of human error, (3) provide education about the importance of having a safety culture with continu- ous improvement, and (4) perform proactive risk analyses. COSTS OF ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS The FSF has estimated that ground accidents worldwide cost air carriers $10 billion annually. These accidents affect air- port operations and result in personnel injuries and damage to aircraft, facilities, and ground-support equipment. IATA estimated that the annual cost of ground damage accidents in 2008 was $4 billion for the airline industry and $1 billion for corporate aircraft operations; a total of 17% of all accidents in 2008 (Werfelman 2009). A recent U.S. survey showed that the average direct cost of a ramp damage incident for narrow-body aircraft is U.S. $75,000, and that indirect costs can reach $230,000 for a narrow-body and $425,000 for wide-body aircraft (CASA 2002). Activities in the ramp area can also affect the safety of air crew and passengers once they leave the ramp area. Undetected aircraft damage from ramp activities can cause in-flight emergencies; for example, in December 2005 an Alaska Airlines MD-80 that had departed from Seattle en route to Burbank, California, experienced a sudden cabin depres- surization. After the aircraft safely returned to Seattle, it was discovered that a ramp vehicle had punctured the aircraft fuselage, but the incident had not been reported (Sullivan and Allison 2005).

16 In a study conducted by Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group and cited by CASA (2002), for typical targets for “ramp rash” the average direct costs of repair or replacement are presented in Table 12. Ramp accidents are a high-cost item for airlines and air- ports in personnel injuries and death, and in damage to equip- ment. A FSF review of ramp operations suggested a lack of overall consistency in standards, operating practices, and management as early as 1993. The review goes on to recom- mend safety audits and voluntary, confidential, and nonpuni- tive safety reporting systems as being actions to pursue for safe operations (Enders 1993). Repair/Replacement Part Costs Elevator assembly $264,708 Inboard flap assembly $224,872 Leading edge slat assembly $52,863 Wingtip assembly $28,872 Outboard flap assembly $255,845 Inlet cowl $329,203 Main entry door $171,220 Radome $19,712 Cargo door $58,327 Aileron and tab assembly $183,545 Source: Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group, CASA (2002). TABLE 12 TYPICAL “RAMP RASH” COSTS

Next: Chapter Three - Current Practices in Ramp Safety »
Ramp Safety Practices Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 29: Ramp Safety Practices addresses the current state of ground handling practices, focusing on safety measures and training.

Issues addressed in the report include ramp safety operations, staff roles and responsibilities, safety training, audit and inspection programs, safety violation programs, and collaborative safety initiatives, such as foreign object debris programs.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!