AHM 913
Not the most technical improvement
but this extrusion is effective
In conclusion, it would seem then that the AHM 913
provisions are having a positive impact on the industry
voice and when possible, align with other
standards organisations, such as SAE, ISO,
CE and CAAC.
Endorsing AHM 913
For Justin Akinleye at Wollard, AHM 913 is
seen as fully engaged and being endorsed
outside the US - whereas things are
different domestically. That said, he notes
that the writing is on the wall.
“Many seasoned GSE managers think
that this standard is going to be strongly
enforced shortly in the US,” he states.
“Fuselages like that of the B787 are
composed of carbon fibre, not aluminium.
Carbon fibre exhibits external structural
resilience on impact but can sustain
internal degradation from that impact.
Simply put, if you hit carbon fibre with
a set of stairs or a beltloader, the skin
can bounce back in appearance but have
internal damage that will reduce its
structural integrity.”
Stinar’s VP Sales and Marketing, Robert
Gregor, has not studied the IATA rubric
but says that insofar as safety devices are
concerned, he currently offers distance
sensors and cameras as options on the
company’s commercial stairways. The
company also includes speed control
devices as standard on its US Air Force
contract stairways, so clearly it is aware of
the need for safety on the ramp.
Studies underway
At Phoenix Metal Products, the ball is also
rolling.
“We are doing preliminary studies and
research on systems that would possibly
a lot in the way of safety add-ons. People
are beginning to pay more attention now.”
The impact on manufacturers - and
the end users
Kevin Cecil is Engineering Manager –
Loaders, at JBT AeroTech, and he is well
versed in the recent IATA announcements.
“The July 2018 implementation of the
Aircraft Damage Prevention Requirements
via IATA’s AHM has had an impact on
both manufacturers and end users,”
he observes. “The standards that were
impacted were the IATA AHM 910 (Basic
Requirements for Aircraft Ground
Support Equipment), 913 (Basic Safety
Requirements for Aircraft Ground Support
Equipment) and the equipment specific
standards such as AHM 931 (Functional
Specification for Lower Deck Container/
Pallet Loader), for example.
“As IATA is a standard that is enforced
by customer contracts rather than law,
such as CE or CAAC, we are seeing a
mixed reaction to this. Some customers
have gone full out and have ordered
everything to be in compliance with
the new standards; while others may be
choosing a subset of the options. JBT
offers fully compliant equipment when
requested by customers to meet these
standards. These changes have been
in the works from the IATA Technical
Committees for some time and allowed us
to integrate them with our machinery.”
He adds that JBT participates in the
committee meetings that are held twice
a year to make any needed changes in
the standards, which allows it to have a
meet the IATA safety recommendations
for mobile equipment and the approach to
aircraft. The technology to accomplish the
recommendations is available; however,
it is not available at this time to integrate
cost effectively with our products,”
declares Brooks Price.
“Currently, we have not had any major
US airlines require these systems on our
products. In fact, most of our enquiries
come from Latin and South American
customers.
“Moreover, we do not know if any US
manufacturers are currently using or
planning on implementing these systems.”
Although a UK company, Mallaghan
also builds GSE in the US. A spokesman
for the manufacturer says that the safety
accessories, those in line with IATA’s
recommendations, are at present not a
standard offering but rather are down to
customer choice: a comprehensive range
can be supplied, however.
“There is definitely an interest,
especially where composite aircraft
Various solutions aimed at assisting
the GSE operator are available
www.rampequipmentnews.com 25
/www.rampequipmentnews.com