60 RAMP SAFETY BRIEFING


host of different industry sectors, including that of aviation. In this latter context Plane Handling, Servisair, dnata and Aviance have all availed themselves of the company’s innovative approach to safety. The secret lies in the careful selection of images and words; and the posters are changed on a weekly basis, so that nothing grows stale. Indeed, no image is ever used twice, so what we have here is not exactly labour-intensive but rather concept- intensive. Coming up with new ideas, in a short timeframe, is key to the whole idea. Eric says that his contracts tend to be open-ended, albeit with a 12 month minimum run. Several languages are offered for the displays and the artwork and ideas are as varied as his clientele. What is vital, though, is an understanding of the relevant sector: once that is established, then targeted messages can be broadcast.


GROUND HANDLING INTERNATIONAL FEBRUARY 2013


driver would lower the towbar to the ground. In this case the driver had left it in an upright position, which had resulted in the accident. Another comment attributed the incident to a lack of apron discipline among ground handling agencies and a failure on the part of the AAI to strictly monitor the movement of trolleys and other vehicles within the operational area. The presence of too many ground handling agencies on the ramp was also suggested as a reason for accidents that have in recent times resulted in serious damage to aircraft. This, in fact, represents the fourth incident in three months at the airport in which an aircraft has been seriously damaged.


When trolleys fight back


Here, a Jeddah-bound B747 was grounded at an Indian airport following an incident that saw the towbar of a trolley pierce the outer cowling of the engine while the aircraft was being towed from a remote parking bay. It appears that the aircraft was being towed from a parking bay to the contact bay. Whilst performing the manoeuvre, the tractor driver failed to notice a trolley towbar that was parked at a 90º angle near the neighbouring bay. This hit the outer cowling of the first engine on the left side of the aircraft and duly punctured the skin. In the aftermath of the incident, which saw the flight cancelled, a senior Airports Authority of India official said that the trolleys, which belonged to a private ground handling agency, were not supposed to have been left near the bay in question. Moreover, it was accepted practice at the airport that whenever a trolley was detached from a tractor, the


Whilst it would be inappropriate to become entangled in some of the more overtly political issues being raised here, nonetheless a couple of points ought to be made. First is the fact that there was no wing walker involved in this manoeuvre, or rather, no wing walker was mentioned. In terms of safety, using such an aid is deemed to be the bare minimum in any operation involving manual aircraft movement. Secondly, at first sight, the raised trolley drawbar would indicate that the last user had followed correct parking practice, with the vertical position engaging the brake. However, the situation may not be that simple: some trolleys have brakes which are activated by lowering the drawbar. Were two types of braking design being used at the station? Was the trolley brake engaged or not? And if two types of drawbar locking mechanism were to be found on the ramp, then clearly confusion can be the net result. This leaves aside the possibility of someone tripping and falling over a lowered drawbar, which is another matter entirely. Moreover, these pages have regularly carried stories wherein errant, unbraked GSE have caused damage to other vehicles, aircraft or buildings. In summary, with the absence of


hard material background facts, we can only raise questions over this incident. However, it is obvious that certain measures and SOPs need to be defined.


Vigilance always pays off


In this incident, the aircraft was ready for departure, with the steps removed and the slides armed. All cabin and flight deck checks had been completed and the pilot had made headset contact with the ground crew, who confirmed that all the external checks had been performed and that the aircraft was ready for dispatch. The tower was contacted for pushback and start clearance by the pilot not flying. Clearance was given, subject to the arrival of another aircraft on the adjacent


right-hand stand. This conditional clearance was relayed to the ground crew whilst the pre-start checks were completed and the aircraft’s anti-collision beacons were switched on. The second aircraft arrived on the abutting stand and the ground crew requested brakes release. The pushback then began, but after about 20 metres into the push, with the aircraft still travelling in a straight line, an impact was felt and the tug duly stopped. The commander contacted the ground crew, who said they believed that there had been a problem and the aircraft had struck something. The aircraft was subsequently towed back on to stand. Next, the captain and the cabin crew


ensured that all the normal arrival checks were completed before the passengers were disembarked normally. Local engineering support then advised that the right wing had received significant damage and the aircraft had been rendered unserviceable. What had happened was that the aircraft had struck a set of steps intended to receive the aircraft on the next stand. These were to be positioned at the rear left door of the inbound aircraft but they had been moved backwards so that the left wing would clear them. Unfortunately, this meant that the steps now encroached on the pushback area of the first aircraft, despite the fact that the anti-collision lights were flashing and the external walk round by the ground handling agent had reported that the area was clear. The operator learned from this error (which thankfully was not too severe) and ground staff were reminded of the importance of the walk round procedure. In addition, ground handling provider procedures have been modified to reflect the importance of not parking GSE in areas that are sensitive.


Passing the buck?


Here’s a question for you: when is fatigue the operator’s problem and not that of the management?


A snowplough operator was clearing snow from the ramp at a US airport. He had been on duty for six and a half hours after a six-hour rest break, during which period he attempted to sleep in a vehicle, following a previous shift that had lasted from 17.30 to 02.00 local time. Incident investigators were unable to determine why the individual spent his rest period in the vehicle, rather than in the snow-removal company’s bunkhouse.


“Since the vehicle was being operated, he probably did not get uninterrupted sleep and, most likely, got less than six hours of sleep,” the report


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68