Europe is taking the lead to regulate airport ground handling from the safety point of view. This will be something different compared to any traditional safety rule-making effort, which is normally a translation of standards and recommended practices of the International Civil Aviation Organization into national or, in the case of Europe, community regulation.
There are currently no ICAO requirements for ground handling, although an ICAO working group (the aerodrome panel) in April 2014 agreed to establish a task force to determine what ICAO provisions are needed to complement and complete the existing international package of provisions and best practices, stated the UK Civil Aviation Authority in response to questions raised by the European Aviation Safety Agency in the first document EASA released in 2014 to communicate to the stakeholders of the European aviation system that it was considering to include ground handling within the rule-making scope of EASA.
MISSING PART
In 2014 EASA published an advanced notice of proposed amendment (A-NPA 2014/12) where it communicated that the European commission and EASA had been invited repeatedly by European member states and stakeholders to initiate the possibility to directly address safety requirements for ground handling service providers.
The status quo is that the basic regulation on aviation safety – the rule mandating a common aviation safety regulatory framework in Europe – currently addresses safety provisions with regard to ground handling services only indirectly, as both air and aerodrome operators are expected to ensure the safety of ground handling service providers within the scope of their own respective responsibilities, reported EASA in the advanced notice of proposed amendment.
“This indirect solution is seen as incomplete as it seems to shift legal and liability issues to the operators’ part, while the absence of safety requirements addressed to the GHSPs directly is found to be a gap and a weak link in the chain of safety regulation in Europe. GHSP actions come with immediate safety implications, and practice seems to suggest room for improvement in this area,” reported EASA in the advanced notice of proposed amendment.
In A-NPA 2014/12 EASA asked inputs from the stakeholders of the aviation system regarding whether they confirmed the emergence of safety issues from ground handling service provider activities not addressed adequately in the current scope of European safety rules. Suggestions as to possible policy options to address safety rules and details as to possible benefits from including ground handling service providers’ activities in the scope of the basic regulations were also requested by EASA from the industry.
EXISTING EFFORTS
At the beginning of 2015 EASA published an opinion document (Opinion 01/2015) where the inputs to the above mentioned advanced notice of proposed amendment are reflected.
The feedback to EASA seemed to confirm that the safety of aircraft ground handling is indeed recognized as an eminent issue in European aviation system.
In the opinion document, EASA reports that answers to the question of inclusion of ground service providers in the scope of the European basic regulation on aviation safety “have been numerous and nearly consensual, as the vast majority of the affected stakeholders responded positively to the idea. They agreed to see unaddressed safety issues in the area of ground handling and stated they wish to see benefits in addressing GHSP safety obligations by including this subject in the scope of the Basic Regulation, hereby filling in a significant gap as there are currently no safety rules at European level to cater for these providers.”
In its comments to the questions raised by EASA, the UK CAA stated that ground handling has been identified as a key safety issue for the UK and that safety concerns have been determined within ground handling activities as arising from a lack of a mature safety and just culture for reporting within ground handling communities and from a lack of standardization with different operators requiring the same ground handling activities to be undertaken in different ways.
“From a human factors perspective, this makes a time critical task more difficult and prone to error. These risks often manifest themselves in loading errors or unreported damage by ground vehicles to aircraft. Ground handlers are not currently within the EASA remit and yet they are an important part of the aviation safety chain,” reported the UK CAA.
In relation to policy options to address ground safety, the UK CAA is not convinced that “further prescriptive rulemaking is required to address this safety issue. Recent national safety initiatives have achieved real safety improvements without prescriptive regulation. Instead, training and cultural development have proven effective at improving safety in this area.”
The UK CAA, in its comments to EASA’s advanced notice of proposed amendment, also noted that policy options include continuing with existing regulation, potentially supported by a “just culture” campaign and initiatives to standardize processes or through direct ground handling regulation.
“However, before considering rule-making, it is logical to first assess whether the desired outcomes could be achieved by other means as mentioned above. More safety benefit may accrue from non-legislative action such as a just culture campaign, or by strengthened implementation of existing rules governing operators. In the event that new rules are to be proposed, they should be subject to a robust cost benefit analysis,” commented the UK CAA.
In the opinion document, EASA recognized that future regulations addressing ground handling safety will probably not primarily be by means of strict technical standards.
EASA stated that “a certain degree of hesitation and opposition has been voiced by predominantly air operators which point to the natural interest of the involved parties to act safely, hence stating that regulation beyond the existing national rules would not be required. Elements of indicated opposition are widely based on feared future, overly detailed technical rules, and possible stringent future certification requirements.”
In their comments to EASA, the European stakeholders pointed to existing efficient industry standards, such as the International Air Transport Association framework with the IATA Ground Operations Manual and the IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations, with the latter mentioned by the UK CAA as an example of existing measures to achieve standardization of common ground handling processes that would be helpful to ground handling operations.
In response to industry concerns in the opinion document, EASA notes that by addressing the requirements on ground service providers via the European basic regulation on aviation safety, a certification requirement does not necessarily need to be introduced since a set of alternative technical mechanisms would be at hand at implementing level.
“In addition, it appears promising indeed to consider industry practices and standards when performing such future work. The focus of this work would be to create a well-measured legal and enforceable obligation rather than to introduce technically new requirements,” reported EASA.
The UK CAA with regard to policy options recommended that any economic and safety driven legislation initiatives relating to ground handling activities originating from different areas within the European Union be fully coordinated. The UK CAA also suggested considering a coordinated and sustained European "just culture" campaign for ground handling, similar to the European Action Plans for the Prevention of Runway Incursions and Excursions.
Of course, EASA is still far from having at hand any draft of the proposed regulation, since it is only at the beginning of the rule-making process. Its proposed way forward regarding the inclusion of ground service providers within the scope of the European basic regulation on aviation safety is, however, to create a vehicle to directly address the safety obligations of these providers.
“A well-measured approach not leading to a certification requirement, but making full use of existing industry standards will address the remaining concerns,” stated EASA.
RULEMAKING PRINCIPLES
The future rule-making effort of EASA should follow a number of principles in order to be effective and improve the safety performance of aircraft ground handling.
In its comments to the advanced proposed of amendment the UK CAA notes that the link with the aircraft operator is also a key opportunity to safeguard safety.
“It must remain clear that while the rules continue to permit the activity to be outsourced, accountability for it remains with the operator. The operator must then ensure, via its Safety Management System, that any subcontractors have adequate safety processes in place,” commented the UK CAA, which also expressed a wish to see more emphasis on ground handling in SMS guidance.
A good outcome would be an improved safety culture in ground handling and one where the SMSs of ground service providers are effectively integrated with those of airport and aircraft operators, also noted the UK CAA.
Another recommendation by the UK CAA is that new proposed rules should be subject to a robust cost benefit analysis.
“This should include the cost of compliance for the ground handlers and the airlines, as well as the costs to the National Aviation Authorities, balanced against the safety impact that is expected to be achieved. Although the potential safety impact of undetected ground damage could be substantial and the cost of aircraft ground damage can be high, EASA should examine the severity and likelihood of the risk in comparison to other aviation risks,” recommended the UK CAA.
The UK CAA also reiterated that legislation “should take into account the significant work already undertaken in this area, for example, by the IATA Ground Handling Operations Manual and the IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations programs. This work has been undertaken by working groups involving airlines, ground handlers and NAAs.”
While such industry programs need to be recognized, the merit of filling a regulatory gap by means of self-regulation long before regulators started to address the matter and those who are involved in these programs have positive experiences with them, some sort of more “scientific” analysis should perhaps be performed or commissioned by EASA before a full endorsement is made of existing industry standards as means of compliance with future regulations.
The likes of statistical experiments proving a causal relationship between the implementation of an industry standard and an improved safety performance should be used as additional evidence proving the suitability of these standards as means of regulatory compliance on top of the satisfaction of their users.
A last guiding principle should be international coordination in rule-making. The UK CAA remarked the importance of close liaison and coordination of legislation regarding ground service providers’ activities so that there is consistency in approach and achievement of a common desired outcome. In this respect EASA has a positive role to play given its leading role in international aviation affairs as well as its pioneering effort in aiming to regulate aircraft ground handling.
“Considerable international work in developing improved management and oversight of these activities has been undertaken, and is currently underway by ICAO, and this should be taken into account in determining EASA’s future direction. Given that the safety risk to EASA operators includes those arising at airports beyond the EASA countries, such international cooperation is very important,” stated the UK CAA.
Mario Pierobon is a safety management consultant and content producer. He is currently involved in a ground safety research project at Cranfield University in the UK. You may contact Mario at [email protected]
