RAMP SAFETY BRIEFING
It is all about caring, sharing
and showing sympathy. I
worked on the ramp and have
seen it all and experienced it
all myself, even if sporadically.
I have not seen a culture. I
have not seen loaders being
included in any company
policy consideration.
Let there be one airline that
the loaders prefer and believe
me, even in the most di cult
conditions, loaders will go
the extra mile. And more so,
because nobody else does it.
ey will go for the break a er
this aircra has departed. e
rst to jump on this altruistic
bandwagon is potentially
going to reap huge long term
bene ts with “the other side”
of aviation. It may not be the
posh and stylish side – but it’s
the one which assures safety.
It’s the one which assures the
work gets done. Come snow,
come heat. Why not pay some
attention to that?
is is about long term
company strategy to include
the loader.
is is about motivation and
psychology.
is is about a culture
change. ghi
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED
THE SWISS CHEESE SYNDROME
A company providing a range of airline ground
support services has been fi ned after an employee
fell from a height of more than two metres.
In this incident a ramp worker was injured during
the loading of luggage on to an aircraft during the
turnaround. The agent actually fell through a gap
in the guard rail at the top of a luggage beltloader
whilst kneeling upon it to fasten cargo straps; the
fall was the consequence of the beltloader being
struck by a passing vehicle. A fall of 2.2 metres (7
feet) on to the tarmac below ensued, which resulted
in the agent losing consciousness. The worker
was subsequently diagnosed with a brain injury,
fractures of the skull and cheekbone, together with
permanent hearing loss in the right ear.
A Health and Safety investigation found that
the handling company had foreseen the risk of a
collision between the various vehicles operating
in a congested space around the aircraft during
a turnaround but had failed to implement
measures to guard against the risk of driver error
when manoeuvring vehicles around aircraft. The
investigation also found that the handler was aware
that beltloaders had a gap in the rails between the
aircraft and the barriers but that it failed to put in
place any meaningful measure to control the risk
that someone might fall through the gap.
This sad incident underlines the fact that
beltloaders are not steps or platforms – yet they are
commonly used as such. Gaps between rails and
the fuselage may be inevitable, since beltloaders
vary in design. However, what opened up the holes
in the Swiss cheese here was the impact from a
passing vehicle: had the handler not been exposed
on the beltloader, then the outcome might have
been different.
And if any reader has a suggestion for preventing
a collision between two units of GSE on the ramp,
then please get in touch.
KEEP OFF THE GRASS!
An aircraft carrying 180 passengers recently
collided with a pushback truck and sustained
damage to its engine, fuselage, wing and landing
gear.
While being pushed back from Stand 18 at the
airport, the aircraft was stopped with the pushback
and towbar positioned at a signifi cant angle to the
aircraft’s nose. The towbar disconnected from the
nose landing gear, and the aircraft rolled forward
and struck the tug.
According to the investigation, the pilot became
concerned at the direction of travel of the aircraft
while it was being pushed out for take-off.
Both engines were started during the pushback,
which appeared normal to the fl ight crew until, part
of the way around the 90° turn to face west, the
Captain became aware that the aircraft was close
to the edge of the apron.
He duly questioned the situation with the
member of the ground crew on the headset and
was told that the situation was under control. The
aircraft then stopped at an angle to the taxi-way
centreline, with its nose pointing towards the grass
area beyond the edge of the apron.
However, the aircraft started to roll forward,
which the Captain thought was in order to align
with the taxi-way centreline; he quickly became
concerned about the direction of travel, which was
towards the grass, and called the ground crew
to stop. There was no reply and to compound the
issue, the pilot did not apply his brakes because
he thought that he was still being towed. (Operator
SOPs dictate that braking under a tow is not
advisable since the action can cause damage to
the nose landing gear through the tug pushing or
pulling against the aircraft brakes).
Shortly afterwards the aircraft stopped,
accompanied by an unfamiliar noise which was
the underside of the aircraft contacting the roof of
the tug cab. After the engines were shut down the
airport rescue and fi re fi ghting service inspected
the damage and the fi re crew informed the
pilot that the number two engine was damaged
but there was no fuel leak and no need for an
evacuation.
According to a report from the ground handling
agent, the rainy conditions had played a role in the
incident. The handling company stated that the tug
driver had had diffi culty seeing the taxi line because
of the wet refl ective surface of the apron and the
tug was struggling to move the aircraft because a
high gear had been selected. The turn to L3 was
made late and the aircraft’s position was closer to
the edge of the apron than normal.
Again, a sequence of seemingly unrelated events
contributed to an unhappy outcome, with an aircraft
in this instance put out of service. Fortunately, there
were no injuries occasioned.
TAKING STEPS…
Three passengers were standing on the top of the
rear steps, about to board a B737, when the steps
suddenly moved and dropped down approximately
two feet, as the driver prepared for their removal.
Understandably, the passengers had no idea about
what was happening and so jumped hurriedly on to
the aircraft. One of these was a young boy, whose
parents were obviously in a state of panic over the
movement. The reporter duly advised the handling
agent who in turn spoke to the driver; this latter
www.groundhandling.com 57
/www.groundhandling.com