60 RAMP SAFETY BRIEFING


such information. This, whilst internally having to convince their own staff that reporting is great, whereas silence is a threat. “Third, the industry must reconfirm to itself and be publicly vocal, saying that reporting is the right approach. Here IATA and ASA, as the industry organisations, play a vital rôle in creating awareness and openness about a difficult subject. Forums like the IGHC and its Task Forces are bringing together airlines and service providers further, and are presenting good opportunities to discuss “how-to” and “dare-to” philosophies. “And what is the alternative? One risk is that, over time, the authorities will learn that for insourced ground activities, airlines can extend the general SMS approach whereas for outsourced services, they cannot. Some will see this failure as one way to get the authorities to recognise and legislate for ground activities like they do for flight operations or maintenance. But yet again, that may not be the logical conclusion for the authorities, since they are likely to keep holding airlines responsible for the integrity of safe operations. No authority would like to have to start an accident investigation by evaluating whether the service provider or the airline has the overall situational responsibility.


“In conclusion, we need a continued vibrant ground services industry offering airlines efficiency and service benefits… but safely so.”


Familiarity breeds a familiar story for a BAe146


And so back to the reality of the ramp. In this instance, a BAe146 taxi-ied on to a stand but without guidance from either a marshaller or the AGNIS. During the manoeuvre the number 2 engine intake cowl came into contact with a set of passenger steps that had been left from the previous departure. After the event the number 2 engine intake cowl was found to be punctured and was subsequently replaced.


What was interesting in this episode was the fact that the flight was a repetitive postal night operation, and that the crew carried out the task frequently. As guidance in some form or another was not always available at the airport in question, the crew had grown complacent and taxi-ied on to stand without any guidance. Further investigation by the operator revealed that the instructions in Operations Manual Part A/B were ambiguous or missing. The aftermath was predictable: the Captain was given refresher training in correct procedures and the A/B section was expanded, and a NOTAC issued.


GROUND HANDLING INTERNATIONAL APRIL 2013


Regulations at the airport now prohibit taxi-ing on to a stand without suitable guidance.


Lord of the rings?


During the flight of a B737, a passenger on board spotted what they believed to be a spanner lying underneath the spoilers of one of the aircraft’s wings. Once landed, the passenger volunteered this information to the captain. Acting on this, both the Captain and First Officer then climbed up the main tyres to try and identify any foreign body but they were unable to discover anything unusual. The Captain then made the decision to fly the aircraft on the return sector. After an uneventful landing, engineers were called out and they carried out a more extensive inspection, the result of which was the discovery of a ring spanner, tucked in one of the flap fairings. Is there a moral here? Clearly, the Captain did right to follow the passenger’s advice and he could not be blamed for not finding the errant tool. Could there have been a safety risk? That’s one for the aeronautical engineers out there.


Air New Zealand modification gains accolade


The Australasian Aviation Ground Safety Council recently announced that Air New Zealand had won the Wellington Ramp entry in its annual awards. By their very operational requirements, airports are located in wide open areas and are therefore exposed to the full range of weather conditions, not the least of which is wind and turbulence. When Air New Zealand introduced the Airbus A320 into its fleet it decided to operate it in a container loading configuration on both domestic and international services. This necessitated the purchase of dedicated loaders and in due course, the Trepel Champ 35 model was chosen. In recognition of the fact that


Wellington is generally known as the Windy City, the Ramp Team discussed the wind situation with the New Zealand Meteorological Office, especially in regard to the loading and unloading of empty AKH containers which are very light, having a tare weight of only 82 kilogrammes. The information they received indicated that, while many New Zealand cities experience 30-35 days per year when winds gust over 60 kilometres an hour, Wellington averages around 173 such days.


During the risk assessment stage it became apparent that there would be a strong possibility of the team members being blown off the deck of the


loader, not only causing damage to the container and the aircraft, but also injury to personnel themselves. To mitigate the risk, the first solution was that of banning the unloading of empty containers during conditions of high wind but this proved too restrictive. It was subsequently decided to position a loading staff member on the deck to hold the container. This was soon discontinued because of the injury risk factor so the Ramp Team began exploring other options and after considerable discussions with all involved, it was decided to fit rails to the Champ 35 deck. The Ramp Team (Bruce Campbell, Ross Haywood, Robbie Tait and John Harnett) then passed details of the modification to their colleagues at all other Air New Zealand A320 stations; Trepel has also been advised. Congratulations are thus due to the


Wellington Ramp team for winning this Award and showing a high degree of initiative. Once again, this kind of simple step goes to show how ramp safety can be enhanced through inexpensive means.


A simple answer to reducing damage on the ramp


The issue of damage to aircraft on the ground is not new, as regular readers know.


Ami Baram, who is DGR Supervisor &


Ground Operations Quality Assurance at CAL Cargo, and who works at Tel Aviv, says that he has been working in the cargo aircraft sector for more than 40 years and knows the problems only too well. Having witnessed past incidents, where GSE has caused damage to aircraft, his operation has created a new post with the express intention of reducing the likelihood of such events. The Ramp Safety Supervisor is, in some respects, a revival of the Redcap of yore and his (or her) sole purpose is that of keeping an eye on the aircraft during a turnaround. The postholder has full authority from the VP Ground Operations and the COO to stop any activity near the aircraft if it is felt that it might damage the aircraft.


Any employee who performs the Ramp Safety Supervisor function has to pass a one day course and undergo recurrent courses every year. After each departure a report is compiled by the official and it must include a note of any incident and full details of any damage that has occurred to the aircraft whilst on the ground.


Ami adds that since CAL has introduced the function, the number of reportable safety incidents on the ground has dropped dramatically.


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