Aircraft Ramp Damage
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: london
Age: 35
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft Ramp Damage
Hi guys
I need your help.
I am researching Aircraft Ramp Damage for my thesis at Cranfield University and I need all your knowledge and expertise.
I want to find out why aircraft damage on the ramp happens. Of course, some of the reasons why damage happens are well know, but the evidence is not there. I want that evidence and the hidden causes as well.
I used to work on the ramp for a short while and there is surprisingly a small amount of information out there relating to the ramp (that's why I'm doing the research) I’m hoping the data collected and analysed from these interviews can go on to help ground handling companies and the industry to improve methods to help reduce further occurrences.
I'd really appreciate your help, so just drop me a private message.
EDIT: what would you improve/change to prevent aircraft damage?
I need your help.
I am researching Aircraft Ramp Damage for my thesis at Cranfield University and I need all your knowledge and expertise.
I want to find out why aircraft damage on the ramp happens. Of course, some of the reasons why damage happens are well know, but the evidence is not there. I want that evidence and the hidden causes as well.
I used to work on the ramp for a short while and there is surprisingly a small amount of information out there relating to the ramp (that's why I'm doing the research) I’m hoping the data collected and analysed from these interviews can go on to help ground handling companies and the industry to improve methods to help reduce further occurrences.
I'd really appreciate your help, so just drop me a private message.
EDIT: what would you improve/change to prevent aircraft damage?
Last edited by liNeC; 18th Jul 2012 at 20:16.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my observations, I think the biggest single cause is the operator. The human factor is massive and is on many occasions a contributory factor if not the root cause.
I believe that all people want to do a good job and that no one wants to be part of aircraft damage, but failure to follow procedure (approaching aircraft withour performing break test / taking equipment closer to aircraft than policy permits / not using banksman / leaving unattended vehicle running / messing about / etc.), mis-judgement (thinking not as close as they are / failure to judge clearances correctly / complacency), distraction (something else happening on ramp - colleague or passenger / weather / radio or phone / non work related - emotional distraction), rushing (end of shift / tea break / next job / short of staff / poor allocation of work). Most of these happen in most locations on most days. Most of the time the person gets away with it, but occasionally they dont and that becomes expensive.
I guess that the failure to follow procedures is the biggest cause. This in turn can be caused through distraction, rushing, complacency.
Think about when you driving, how many occasions have you had a near miss due to a lapse of concentration or due to someone else's lapse of concentration, but most of the time you get away with it.
As 750 XL says, equipment maintenance is sometimes a factor, but often the first defense when an incident happens is "Its not my fault, the equipment failed!".
Good luck!!
GA
I believe that all people want to do a good job and that no one wants to be part of aircraft damage, but failure to follow procedure (approaching aircraft withour performing break test / taking equipment closer to aircraft than policy permits / not using banksman / leaving unattended vehicle running / messing about / etc.), mis-judgement (thinking not as close as they are / failure to judge clearances correctly / complacency), distraction (something else happening on ramp - colleague or passenger / weather / radio or phone / non work related - emotional distraction), rushing (end of shift / tea break / next job / short of staff / poor allocation of work). Most of these happen in most locations on most days. Most of the time the person gets away with it, but occasionally they dont and that becomes expensive.
I guess that the failure to follow procedures is the biggest cause. This in turn can be caused through distraction, rushing, complacency.
Think about when you driving, how many occasions have you had a near miss due to a lapse of concentration or due to someone else's lapse of concentration, but most of the time you get away with it.
As 750 XL says, equipment maintenance is sometimes a factor, but often the first defense when an incident happens is "Its not my fault, the equipment failed!".
Good luck!!
GA
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the damage was serious I'd expect the operator to file an MOR. You can ask the CAA for what they call a Public Report (I think)
The trick is giving them the right tags to search their huge database.
Good luck with your work at Cranfield - is the beer still cheap?
SGC
The trick is giving them the right tags to search their huge database.
Good luck with your work at Cranfield - is the beer still cheap?
SGC
Poor training of apron handling staff, many handling agencies still do not invest in people. What handling agencies operate with a robust Safety Management System?
Often poor motivation and increasingly poor command of English by staff at UK airports. Look at the pay for apron staff, expected to marshall/ push back, tow multi million dollar aeroplanes for a pittance.
Often poor motivation and increasingly poor command of English by staff at UK airports. Look at the pay for apron staff, expected to marshall/ push back, tow multi million dollar aeroplanes for a pittance.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Treatment of staff is another huge factor.
For the UK at least, the majority of staff working on the ramp (with the exception of those on very old contracts) will be earning what you could earn in your average supermarket, and forced to work highly unsociable hours at the same time in all weather conditions.
Where I work, our minimum rest period between shifts is 8(!) hours. By the time you've left the office and got to the staff car park (15-20 minutes by bus or walking) and driven home, that's about 1 hour, which leaves you with 6 hours at home. Add your dinner and a shower to that and you're looking at 4 hour sleep between 12 hour shifts
Equipment is outdated and poorly maintained, with some stuff being 40+ years old
For the UK at least, the majority of staff working on the ramp (with the exception of those on very old contracts) will be earning what you could earn in your average supermarket, and forced to work highly unsociable hours at the same time in all weather conditions.
Where I work, our minimum rest period between shifts is 8(!) hours. By the time you've left the office and got to the staff car park (15-20 minutes by bus or walking) and driven home, that's about 1 hour, which leaves you with 6 hours at home. Add your dinner and a shower to that and you're looking at 4 hour sleep between 12 hour shifts
Equipment is outdated and poorly maintained, with some stuff being 40+ years old
All the above mentioned plus airlines shortening turn round times to get better utilisation of their expensive aircraft. Many airlines then still require all the services that were there on the original longer turn round times so all the different sections are jostling for position on the aircraft at the same time so that they can make sure that they don't get a delay attributed to them. January sales bargain hunters have nothing on these guys!
On many aircraft types the room between the catering high loader and the Lower Deck Loader when in position on the aircraft is very minimal, so if one is slightly mis positioned it creates a big problem for the other.
Aircraft design is another factor. I am a fan of Airbus but the idiot who thought of making the A319 with a containerised option should be shot! The clearance between a conventional high loader and the No. 2 engine when positioned on the forward hold is the proverbial cigarette paper. This encourages the driver to position at an angle and increases the possibility for damage. The company I work for had to invest in two smaller High Loaders for 2 flights a day because we had 2 incidents of damage in 6 months using the regular high loaders and the only sure way to prevent re-occurrence was to invest in expensive specialist equipment.
Airport design is another factor to be considered. Land is expensive so airports need as many stands in as small a space as possible. There are standards for stand sizes but the minimum sizes allowed are very cramped when all the services are squeezed into a short turn round time.
Hope this helps
On many aircraft types the room between the catering high loader and the Lower Deck Loader when in position on the aircraft is very minimal, so if one is slightly mis positioned it creates a big problem for the other.
Aircraft design is another factor. I am a fan of Airbus but the idiot who thought of making the A319 with a containerised option should be shot! The clearance between a conventional high loader and the No. 2 engine when positioned on the forward hold is the proverbial cigarette paper. This encourages the driver to position at an angle and increases the possibility for damage. The company I work for had to invest in two smaller High Loaders for 2 flights a day because we had 2 incidents of damage in 6 months using the regular high loaders and the only sure way to prevent re-occurrence was to invest in expensive specialist equipment.
Airport design is another factor to be considered. Land is expensive so airports need as many stands in as small a space as possible. There are standards for stand sizes but the minimum sizes allowed are very cramped when all the services are squeezed into a short turn round time.
Hope this helps
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point about aircraft types.
TU-154s we used to get were notorious for height changes during the turnaround, often the team would have to readjust the steps or airbridge a few times due to the huge height differences when fully loaded vs empty.
We have recently had problems with Boeing 737-300's and their pitot heads when using airbridges. Depending on the type of airbridge, you'd only have 1-2 inches of tolerance left or right, if you didn't get it spot on you risked hitting the pitot head, or not being close enough to the pitot head and the door subsequently getting stuck against the airbridge.
TU-154s we used to get were notorious for height changes during the turnaround, often the team would have to readjust the steps or airbridge a few times due to the huge height differences when fully loaded vs empty.
We have recently had problems with Boeing 737-300's and their pitot heads when using airbridges. Depending on the type of airbridge, you'd only have 1-2 inches of tolerance left or right, if you didn't get it spot on you risked hitting the pitot head, or not being close enough to the pitot head and the door subsequently getting stuck against the airbridge.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Age: 39
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of good points on this thread.
Can we blame Ryanair and Easyjet and all the other low cost carriers?
The root of the main issues mentioned on this thread is money, which is driven by the airlines wanting to pay less and less but expect more and more from the ground service providers. Hence the tongue in cheek blaming of the above airlines.
Ground Handling companies dont look after their staff properly. As tounched on by 750XL, many staff work ridiculous shifts to make up their wages.
The ground handling agency dont invest enough in equipment. The stuff my company uses was built by the romans.
Minimum ground times and pressure from airlins to ensure they are met results in corners being cut.
For example a B737 , with an offload of 149 passengers and 130 bags, a crew change, cleaning, catering, toilet/water service and fuelling all required, and then an onload of 149 passengers and say 100 bags. Minimum Ground time of 35 minutes, then MINUS another 3 minutes to makes a stupid pressured target of doors closed time. So 32 minutes to do that job safely. No wonder there is accidents on the ramp.
Can we blame Ryanair and Easyjet and all the other low cost carriers?
The root of the main issues mentioned on this thread is money, which is driven by the airlines wanting to pay less and less but expect more and more from the ground service providers. Hence the tongue in cheek blaming of the above airlines.
Ground Handling companies dont look after their staff properly. As tounched on by 750XL, many staff work ridiculous shifts to make up their wages.
The ground handling agency dont invest enough in equipment. The stuff my company uses was built by the romans.
Minimum ground times and pressure from airlins to ensure they are met results in corners being cut.
For example a B737 , with an offload of 149 passengers and 130 bags, a crew change, cleaning, catering, toilet/water service and fuelling all required, and then an onload of 149 passengers and say 100 bags. Minimum Ground time of 35 minutes, then MINUS another 3 minutes to makes a stupid pressured target of doors closed time. So 32 minutes to do that job safely. No wonder there is accidents on the ramp.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we blame Ryanair and Easyjet and all the other low cost carriers?
The root of the main issues mentioned on this thread is money, which is driven by the airlines wanting to pay less and less but expect more and more from the ground service providers. Hence the tongue in cheek blaming of the above airlines.
The root of the main issues mentioned on this thread is money, which is driven by the airlines wanting to pay less and less but expect more and more from the ground service providers. Hence the tongue in cheek blaming of the above airlines.
Equipment is outdated and poorly maintained, with some stuff being 40+ years old
The ground handling agency dont invest enough in equipment. The stuff my company uses was built by the romans.
Aircraft design is another factor. I am a fan of Airbus but the idiot who thought of making the A319 with a containerised option should be shot! The clearance between a conventional high loader and the No. 2 engine when positioned on the forward hold is the proverbial cigarette paper. This encourages the driver to position at an angle and increases the possibility for damage. The company I work for had to invest in two smaller High Loaders for 2 flights a day because we had 2 incidents of damage in 6 months using the regular high loaders and the only sure way to prevent re-occurrence was to invest in expensive specialist equipment.
GA
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Airport in D'Sun
Age: 50
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As already stated Human Factors are the main root causes of Aircraft Damage.
Fatigue, Lack of Training, Lack of Experience, Strict OTP issues, Catering/Fuelling/Loading all being undertaken on Stbd side of the Aircraft, Environmental Conditions, GSE Serviceability and Maintence procedures being adhered to, the correct GSE being used for the task.
These are all "Hidden" and "Open" reasons for A/C damage.
If you require any further statistical information you can PM me as I am all too familiar with Aircraft damage investigation
Fatigue, Lack of Training, Lack of Experience, Strict OTP issues, Catering/Fuelling/Loading all being undertaken on Stbd side of the Aircraft, Environmental Conditions, GSE Serviceability and Maintence procedures being adhered to, the correct GSE being used for the task.
These are all "Hidden" and "Open" reasons for A/C damage.
If you require any further statistical information you can PM me as I am all too familiar with Aircraft damage investigation
