Busy aprons and jam-packed hangars offer a seemingly infinite number of ways to damage an aircraft. Michael Moore, a former fixed base operator (FBO) supervisor, says that this observation led him to found Redfab, a Toronto, Canada-based company dedicated to preventing apron and stand accidents, dubbed ‘ramp rash’..
A case in point occurred when a reversing Virgin Australia B737 hit a running auxiliary power unit (APU) during pushback at the rear of a Jetstar A320 on the apron of Melbourne International airport in August this year. The resulting damage to the two aircraft came in at AUS$3 million (US$2.9 million). The Virgin flight to Maroochydore was reversing out of its bay when the collision happened. The A320 was stationary and had its cautionary lights flashing while awaiting placement of an airbridge and approval to move into another bay. The airline told the local media the Jetstar aircraft, which lost its tail cone, was likely to be grounded for several days while the B737 suffered only superficial wing damage.
The incident involving these two aircraft represents just one recent example of the 5% of aircraft that suffer damage each year around the world. Another 2013 accident saw two Southwest Airlines aircraft damaged earlier in the year at Detroit Metro Airport. The two aircraft were each pushing back from the gate when they clipped each other’s wings. Both planes were taken out of service.
Once the immediate concern for human and aircraft safety is resolved, managers turn their consideration to the damage such incidents can cause. Direct costs involve repairs to the stricken aircraft while indirect costs, such as lost passenger fares and freight-related income, the potential need for replacement aircraft or overnight passenger accommodation, plus the consequential network disruption, can quickly exceed the direct costs. These tangible costs can also be overtaken by the intangible costs such as damage to reputation that may arise.
Thankfully, in both the above cases, no-one was killed or injured. However, early in 2012 a Southwest Airlines employee died after being involved in a collision between a baggage cart and a mobile lounge at Washington Dulles Airport, dying the following day from his injuries.
Counting the cost
Given the mix of aircraft, vehicles, fuelling equipment, tugs and carts as well as numerous other types of ground support equipment (GSE) operating in a busy environment, to say nothing of ground personnel, the opportunity for accidents and damage to aircraft on the ramp is great.
Industry observers point to the most common incidents of aircraft damage being aircraft-on-ground equipment collisions, followed by much less common aircraft-on-aircraft or aircraft-on-airport building or infrastructure events. Ramp damage is thought to occur once in every 1,000 departures, a tenth of a percent of movements.
While operating staff may rue any aircraft damage for keeping these valuable revenue-earners out of service for any amount of time, airline accountants will lose sleep over the price tag such incidents present. Figures produced by Virgin Atlantic show that accidents come at a significant price. Damage on a B747 can quickly mount: winglets can cost up to $250,000 to repair; an engine cowl almost $300,000; a bulk hold door $72,000; or a nose wheel is comparatively cheap to repair at just $20,000. Even the smaller size of a B737 does not materially lower the cost from aircraft damage: one of its outboard flaps might cost $255,000 to repair, for example.
The most common parts of an aircraft to suffer damage are the aft cargo door, engines, wings, forward or rear fuselage and forward cargo door. The ramp activities identified as being responsible for the most frequent incidents of damage are baggage loading, catering and waste clearing operations.
None of this is news to Jack Kreckie, chief of operations of ARFF Professional Services, which has offices in Milford, Massachusetts and Naples, Florida. The co-founder of the Logan Airport Safety Alliance has a strong position on the theme of ramp safety as a means of preventing aircraft damage; Kreckie says bluntly: “Can it ever be risk free? No. Can it be relatively risk free? Yes, but it is unlikely at this point.”
Industry observers point to two pressures that are working to make the apron and gate area more dangerous. Deregulation of third-party handling operations and the shifting business models of the airline industry, especially the emergence of low-cost carriers in North America, Europe and Asia, are seen as creating pressures that lead to a much more dangerous workplace.
Ironically, as dwell times for passengers in many airports are drawn out for security reasons, passport control and landside and airside retail opportunities, the apron is generally seeing pressure on carriers for increasingly faster turnarounds of aircraft at the gate. Much of the modern aviation industry’s business model is designed to achieve high aircraft utilisation. Key to this is minimising the turnaround time, measured as the time between the aircraft arriving at the gate and pushing back for departure. A low-cost airline such as Ryanair looks for an average scheduled turnaround time of approximately 25 minutes.
Kreckie explains: “Deregulation is where it began. Prior to deregulation, airline employees were career aviation employees. It was a good career and well paid. The competition caused by deregulation drove the price of tickets down, even with legacy carriers. The A-grade employees were a thing of the past. Part timers and contracted services were less expensive options. The overall quality of services dropped along with the cost. This is not just due to fast turnarounds, but also due to reduced staffing, reduced supervision and so on.”
He agrees that ground equipment damaging aircraft is more common than aircraft damaging aircraft and suggests that a third pressure is the increasing size of modern passenger aircraft, including giants such as the A380, which may now be having an impact on ramp safety.
Kreckie considers that the effect of the arrival of very large aircraft will “vary by carrier and station of course, but the size of the ramp operation increases incrementally. Most of the left side of the aircraft is very congested due to [the presence of] two jet bridges. Servicing of galleys at multiple points will be increased by the full upper deck. Each service provided creates competition for a single piece of ramp. If a lav(atory) truck pulls up to service and is outside ‘their box’, it can prevent the fueller from being in the right spot.
“Next comes the belt loader. He can’t get squared up against the aircraft, leaving a gap between the belt and the door. It simply provides more opportunities for conflict. All of these service providers used to work for the airline. Now they all work for different companies. The entire operation should be ‘choreographed’ like a performance, but it has become a free for all. Bigger planes means a bigger free for all.”
After the Melbourne incident, accusations were made in the local media that the cause was the ‘casualisation’ of apron personnel which led to a lowering of safety standards. Kreckie considers there is such a development that is putting aircraft and human safety at a growing risk.
He highlights: “Ramp workers are all transient. Most do not make a career working for an FBO, fueller, caterer and so on. There are some career jobs in each of those areas but the majority are not. When an employee can make more money pouring coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts than fuelling a jet, how seriously do you think they take their jobs?
“Many are working two full-time jobs at minimum wage to make a living and support their families. To be frank, many of these people drive around on the ramp like zombies. They each live within their own little compartment. They get tunnel vision: ‘Gotta load this plane at International, then tow the freight from the North cargo to South cargo, then …’ The operation adjacent to them is of no concern. All of these operations need to be harmonised.”
Safety first
A drive to increase the safety standards of airport ground handling operations that could lead to a reduction of aircraft damage on the apron has been launched by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The campaign will specifically target a general culture of low reporting of safety-related incidents amongst airside workers. The CAA is therefore promoting a ‘just culture’ that is both fair and encourages staff to openly report incidents.
The CAA states: “Everyone is supported in the reporting of incidents; however, deliberate harm and wilful damaging behaviour is not tolerated. It is vital that ground handling crew, engineers, baggage handlers, dispatchers and drivers understand that the objective of the reporting of safety events is to prevent further accidents and incidents through the improved collection and sharing of safety information, and not to attribute blame or liability.”
The CAA will be launching the initiative at the dedicated safety ‘open days’ for airside staff hosted by most of the UK’s main airports, airlines and ground service providers. The campaign was initially launched at London City Airport in the summer, with follow-up events at London Heathrow, Glasgow and Edinburgh in September. Further open days are planned at other large airports, starting with Manchester in November.
New technology
The B787 ‘Dreamliner’ was trumpeted for its carbon-fibre composite construction. Its modern structure, designed to lower fuel consumption and provide for greener aviation, will not shield it from ramp or gate collisions with ground equipment or other, more traditionally constructed aircraft.
Operators of the B787, and future aircraft developed from the same technology, are actually more vulnerable in one way than traditionally constructed all-metal aircraft: carbon-fibre, unlike metal, does not visibly show cracks. When the material is struck, damage can be caused which is not visible to the eye. In such incidents, the damage is known as ‘sub-surface delamination’. US manufacturer GE launched its Bondtracer to allow ramp personnel and crews to evaluate the severity of impact damage while at the gate.
Under a licence from the Boeing Management Company, GE Sensing & Inspection Technologies developed the Bondtracer in 2009 to determine and evaluate possible damage to composite structures caused by accidental collisions with baggage loaders and other vehicles.
Thierry Laffont, aerospace segment leader at GE Sensing & Inspection Technologies, says: “Carbon-fibre composites require different processes for evaluating impact and performing non-destructive inspection. Our goal with Bondtracer is to provide ramp crews with a simple device to quickly determine when more extensive inspection is required. The solution allows airlines to ensure safety, while increasing efficiency and productivity.”
In 2004, Michael Moore was working at an FBO where ‘hangar rash’ was far too frequent. At the time, he thought aircraft owners, FBOs and possibly aviation insurance companies would pay for a product that mitigates the risk of costly damage. He developed Plane Sight, a company that manufactures aircraft markers that help prevent aircraft hangar damage. The company has more than 500 dealer locations across the globe.
He recalls: “I was mostly wrong. Our initial Aircraft Wing Tip Markers and Prop Markers have been a commercial failure. They were perhaps designed to too high a standard. In hindsight they should have been designed to retail for under $50 using less costly materials.
“Once we pioneered the use of UV (ultra-violet) stable and reflective materials we started thinking about how pitot tube covers and static wick covers could be improved. Today, most of our revenue comes from our reflective pitot tube covers and static wick covers.”
Moore continues: “Wing tips and static wicks can be difficult to see. Aircraft wing tips, elevator tips, rudder tips, propellers and nose cones are simply the bumpers of the airplane. The static wick covers make them more visible, thereby reducing the chance of an impact. Busy aprons and jam packed hangars offer a seemingly infinite number of ways to damage an aircraft.”
On the record: IATA addresses the aircraft damage issue
Aircraft ground damage results in significant unplanned costs to the industry and a reduction in ground damage is a desirable outcome, says Nancy Rocbrune, assistant director, GADM-SMS (Global Aviation Data Management – safety management systems), who is in charge of the International Air Transport Association’s Ground Damage Database.
She says: “IATA has addressed this important issue by creating the Ground Damage Database (GDDB) as a new database in the Global Aviation Data Management (GADM) master warehouse. The GDDB, in its current form, was launched in the first quarter of 2012 in co-operation with the IATA Airside Safety Group (ASG) and the IATA GDDB Task Force (TF). Through the compilation of participants’ data and using statistical analysis, trends and contributing factors are identified, allowing for the development and assessment of effective mitigation actions.
“In addition, a baseline for global ground damage performance is established, upon which comparisons can be made on a global, regional and/or individual basis. This information is shared with the applicable IATA working groups, with the mandate to identify and implement changes to measurably improve industry ground damage performance,” she adds.
The IATA GDDB scope is limited to damage to aircraft while at the gate, being towed, in the hangar, or any other area where it may be serviced. It currently does not include damage while the aircraft is under its own power.
