Wednesday, 19 May 2010

Ground Damage
Prevention, Key
Element in Your
Business Strategy

Opening of Working Session 3,
Reflections on Track 2
Michael Feldman, Former
Director, Passenger, IATA

IATA Ground Damage Prevention:
Learning from Experience, Forgetting
g
Key Lessons
David Anderson, Head of
Operational Safety, British
Airways
Joseph Suidan, Assistant
Director, ISAGO, IATA

Ground Damage Prevention
Learning from Experience
David Anderson
David Anderson
Head of Operational Safety

Aircraft damage : some facts
• Aircraft damage is a significant cost to airlines.
• The repair costs are only the tip of the iceberg.
• Most minor damage to aircraft is reported as ‘found’
• Damage prevention has to be everyone’s goal.
• Airlines do not seem to be well coordinated on damage prevention
policies.
• Some companies will dismiss employees rather than understand the root
cause of fincidents id – this is a lost learning opportunity.
• There is no consolidated reporting system so we don’t know the true scale
of the challenge.
• Each airline probably damages their aircraft in the same way at least once
before learning lessons.
6

How bad can it really be
£225,000
28 days
£134, 000
14 days
£200,000000
15 days
31 days
£230,000
7

IATA Ground Damage Task Force
• Set up in 2009
• Agree that the cost of damage is unacceptable
• Reducing damage needs a collaborative approach
• Solutions need to align with ISAGO/IGOM
• Start by collating data and understanding the problem.
• We need data to identify hot spots
Aircraft types
Airports
Phase of operation
Equipment type
Location of damage to aircraft
8

What will the Task Force look at
• First deliverable is to provide damage data, then:
• Communication plans to share learning
• Agree method for costing damage
• Request a review of the insurance recovery process
• Agree common reporting criteria
• Provide ISAGO group with minimum equipment standards
• Develop procedure to share best practice for equipment mods
• Agree common policy to improve reporting culture.
• Consider how behavioural training can be built into the project.
• Determine minimum standards for ramp layout
• Ensure training standards provide enough focus on aircraft damage
prevention
• Learn lessons ahead of new generation aircraft.
9

Some observations
• Damage data is currently limited to data produced by airlines
individually or within existing groups.
• There is a need for industry data to raise the profile of aircraft
damage and drive accountability and solutions.
• IATA ground damage prevention project is key in developing this.
• Airline data is often very different to GHA or airport data.
10

We need ALL damage to be reported.
• The majority of ‘minor’ damage is found damage
• The vast majority of significant damage is reported when it occurs.
This allows us to better understand why it occurred but these
are often one-off off incidents.
• Some companies will penalise employees who cause damage.
• Airlines report more damage than GHA’s
• As an industry we need to improve reporting.
• The IATA Task Force data will help with this.
11

Global Safety Information Centre - GSIC
Presentation Reporting Layer “Web Portal”
i.e. Dashboard Style
Report
Report Report Report Report
Report
Grou und
Dam mage
ISAG GO
IOS SA
FD DA
STEA ADES
Safe ety
Rep port
Independent Databases
12

Aircraft Ground Damage
Query per Contributing Factors
Dummy data for example
only
Aircraft Ground Damage and
vehicles/equipment
Accident Rates per Region
(per 10,000 aircraft movements)
Top Contributing Factors
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
World Africa China / North Asia Russia & CIS ASPAC Europe North America
13

What does the BA data tell us
Number of incidents (per A/C type) per 1,000 flights
747’s mainly hold damage
777
0
14

What can we do with the data
• Gain buy in from airline, GHA’s s, airport authorities etc
• Use the data to focus on ‘high risk’ or ‘high value’ events.
• Identify airfields where damage occurs most frequently.
• Ensure a robust reporting culture.
• Understand why the damage is occurring.
• Determine how to engage with staff and contractors.
• Determine how damage costs can be captured and recoveries made.
• Provide learning for the industry.
• Involve manufacturers in the fix.
15

What happens to someone who
reports damage
• Airlines and GHA’s need to be sure they understand the
impact of how they approach aircraft damage.
• We need to improve personal accountability amongst ramp
employees.
• Instant dismissal (unless damage is unreported) does not drive
a responsible safety culture and may well drive reporting
underground.
• Understanding why employees make mistakes is the key to
reducing damage.
• Involve staff in the fixes.
16

What about ISAGO / IGOM
• Should assist through the following:
• Setting a common set of procedures for turning a/c round
safely.
• Standardise training to deliver a higher and more consistent
standard.
• Remove differences between airlines when carrying out the
same routine ramp tasks.
• Enable standards to be set that will deliver a reduction in a/c
damage. Eg common standards for chocking, coning,
equipment parking, equipment positioning etc.
• Monitor those standards to ensure they are maintained.
• Identify airfields and GHA’s who cannot meet the standards
and either provide support – or avoid!
17

Before blaming your people consider,
• Is your ground equipment correctly maintained.
• Most equipment in use is not new and therefore does not have
the latest safety features built in.
• Do you modify it to prevent damage
• Do manufacturers provide enough advice on retrofitting
equipment.
• Many airlines develop enhancements themselves but this is
not fed back to the manufacturers.
18

Learning from events
• We need to share learning following damage events
• There needs to be a just culture in all organisations.
• We need to encourage all employees to report aircraft damage
• We need to work with all interested parties
• Investigate all damage events
• Involve ground handlers in the investigation
• Ensure the airport authorities accept their responsibilities
19

What not to expect or accept!
I was stay left side
I don’t see anything
It is two fer fornte
The
Because I don’t know the
right side. Thank you
20

Is the recovery process suitable
Why should airlines pick up the cost of GHA damage
The current recovery process only ‘scratches the surface.’
• Costs that cannot be recovered include
Cancellation costs
Hotac
Re-booking passengers on other carriers
Loss of goodwill
Ferry flights
Loss of use of the aircraft, etc etc
Is it appropriate that the airlines pick up this risk Would GHA’s be
more careful about aircraft damage if they felt the pain like the
airlines do
21

Can you reduce cost and improve safety
No damage
events
Good reputation
Gain business
Staff retention
Management
Commitment
to Safety
No insurance
claims
Lower business
costs
Ability to invest
in training
Ability to invest
in people
Ability to invest
In equipment
22

BA findings - common damage areas
Hold 5 Damage Rates
• Every 747-400 has damage to
Hold 5
• 60 man hours for small repair
Door 2L/4L
• Airbus & 737 sustained damage
Stringers 19/20 adjacent door 2L
• Repair is minimum 4 days
requires complete removal of rear
galley
23

Damage Example – 747 Hold 5
24

Damage Example – 747 Hold 5
Source of Damage
25

AIRBUS – DOOR 2L
26

AIRBUS – DOOR 2L
27

Some fixes can be simple.
Cheap modifications made to equipment
28

ISAGO Round Table Discussion:
i
Champions And Challenges
John Hatten, Director – Safety
and Compliance, Delta Ground
Services
John Kleberg, Managing
Director Quality Assurance –
Airline Operations, United
Airlines
Joseph Suidan, Assistant
Director, ISAGO, IATA

ISAGO
IATA Safety y Audit for Ground Operationsp
IGHC SAN - May 19, 2010
Discussion Document
This document was used in the discussion of the subject
matter above but does not fully represent the entire discussion
32

Why is United Airlines
supporting ISAGO
33

IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations
What is it to us
• Natural expansion of IOSA
• A standardized and structured audit program of
Ground Service Providers
– Internationally recognized operational standards
– Highly trained and experienced auditors
• A model for operational risk & safety
management
• A system for registration and sharing of audits
34

IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations
Why do we participate
• Part of our Internal Evaluation Program
• GSP’s minimally covered due to scope
– 762 individual functions
– 556 separate entities
– 129 locations
• Aims
– To expand our oversight
– To reduce ground hazards that affect flight safety
– To reduce aircraft ground damage
– To reduce personnel injuries
– To avoid redundant audits
35

ISAGO Standards & Recommended Practices
(GOSARPs)
Utilizes variety of standards
• IATA Airport Handling Manual (AHM)
• Other relevant IATA Manuals:
– Dangerous Goods, Live Animals, Security, Airports
• Relevant Industry Source Documents:
– e.g. ISO 9001/14001, ACI Airside Safety Handbook
• Relevant ICAO Annexes
• Relevant JAA/EASA and/or FAA Regulations
• Industry-proven best practices
36

ISAGO Standards Manual (GOSM)
GOSM 2 nd Edition - May 2010
Covers all areas
Section 1 ORM Organization and Management System
Section 2 LOD Load Control
Section 3 PAX Passenger Handling
Section 4 BAG Baggage Handling
Section 5 HDL Aircraft Handling and Loading
Section 6 AGM Aircraft Ground Movement
Section 7 CGM Cargo and Mail Handling
37

Reduce And Share Audits
Benefit for both us and the GSP
Current situation
Redundant audits
With ISAGO
One Audit per GSP
ISAGO
System
-Multiple Audits per GSP
-Fewer Audits per GSP
-Audit sharing
38

Audits and GSP’s
• Audits planned or conducted by UA (2008-2010) 2010)
– Singapore Airport Terminal Services (SIN)
– Swissport (LAS)
– China Eastern (PVG)
– Menzies (CUN)
– Fraport (FRA)
– Servisair (YUL)
• Example of registered GSP’s with contracted services to UA
– Aviapartner (AMS and FRA)
– Dnata (DXB)
– Singapore Airport Terminal Services (SIN) UA
– Tansonnhat International Airport Ground Handling Services (SGN)
39

Planning on future benefit
• Internal Evaluation Program averages 18
station audits per year
– GSP’s audited during visit
– Touches about 59 Providers or 10% of total
• ISAGO currently has 46 registered GSP’s
– Expanding quickly
– No need for airline to visit registered GSP
• Contractual requirement
40

Challenges
• Airline
• Ground Service Provider
– Stations
– Headquarters
• IATA
41

Questions
42

DGS
2010
Safety, Security & Regulated Compliance

• Summary of DGS performance
– Key statistics
• Employment
• Injuries
– Injury rate
• Flight Frequency
• Aircraft incidents
– Aircraft incident rate

Employment
9000 9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4000 4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
5,873
6,612
7,477
6,300
6,800
7,200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 EST
2010

Injury Rates
Per 100 Full time equivalent
10.0000
8.00
8.76
8.30
7.66 7.22 7.49
7.73
6.00
4.00
200 2.00
0.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 EST
2010
Recordable

Flights Handled
Flights
900,000
715,913 739,732 762,918
705,136 725,000
733,000
600,000
300,000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 EST 2010

Damages
120
100
97
80
71
60
40
55
48
46 46
20
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 EST
2010

Aircraft Damage Rate
Per 10,000 departures
160 1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
020 0.20
0.00
1.34
102 1.02
0.72 0.68
0.63
0.63
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 EST
2010

Safety – Corporate Documentation
Safety Policy, Safety
Process & Corporate
Safety Plan
JSA & WHA
Safety & Compliance
Evaluation

Safety – Station Documentation
Safety Alerts
Safety Checklists
Remote Parking
Remote Parking
Assessment

Safety, Security & Compliance
• Safety Process
– OSHA VPP
– OSHA Corporate VPP
– SMS (safety management system)
• DGS internal SMS program
– One key element is non-punitive incident reporting
• IATA – ISAGO (Audit/certification)

IATA / ISAGO
• DGS started working with the ISAGO team in
early 2007
• DGS corporate was first audited in 2008
– Audit process needed ‘adjustment’
• We continued our involvement and
commitment to the concept as IATA / ISAGO
matured

IATA / ISAGO
• Port of Seattle
– Notified all contract service providers that they
would require / mandate ISAGO certification by
February, 2011
– This ‘timeline’ accelerated our plans
• Airline partners interest t in program
– Several of our business partners demonstrated a
renewed interest

IATA / ISAGO
• From a ground handling point of view, ISAGO:
– Certification demonstrates a level of commitment
and structure
– May open business opportunities
• Air carriers recognize the value of the certification
• Competitive advantage over GSP that do not meet the
ISAGO requirements

Closing
• DGS believes in working for continuous
improvement
– OSHA VPP
– Safety Management System
– IATA / ISAGO
• Making the cost of the program bring benefit to
the operation is the measure of a successful
program

ISAGO
IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations
IATA Ground Handling Council
San Diego, California, USA
19th May 2010

ISAGO Program Status
As of 14th May 2010
• Establishment of the ISAGO Pool
• 40 member airlines
• Conducted 11 free information seminars in all regions of the world
• Over 850 Participants from more than 70 countries
• Trained 271 auditors from 83 different airlines
• 174 auditors from the Pool member airlines
• Performed 174 audits since launch of the program
• Program active in all Regions of the world
• 46% of audits are corporate audits
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

ISAGO Program Status
As of 14th May 2010
• 40 Regulators/Airports formally supporting the program
• Standards d Manual : Second Edition
• Reduce numbers of standards
• Combine OMS and STM sections
• Facilitate corporate audits by Airlines (versus by AOs)
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

ISAGO Audit Pool : 41 member airlines
(As of 14 th May 2010)
North America
-Air Canada
-Air Transat
-Continental
-Delta
-United
Latin America
& The Caribbean
-COPA
-LAN
-Mexicana
-TACA
-Adria -CSA
-Air France -KLM
-Alitalia -LOT
-Austrian
-BA
-BMI
-Brussels
Airlines
Middle East /
North Africa
Africa
-Lufthansa
-Malev
-TAP
-TAROM
-Air Namibia
-Air Zimbabwe
-Comair
-Ethiopian
-Kenya Airways
Europe
Russia / CIS
-Aeroflot
-Egyptair
-Iran Air
-Libyan Airlines
-Royal Air Maroc
-Royal Jordanian
-Saudi Arabian
-Yemenia
China /
North Asia
-Cathay Pacific
-China Eastern
-Air China
-Air India
-Korean Air
Asia Pacific
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

ISAGO Audits Snapshot
North ot America 2 %
Europe 25 %
Russia ussa&CS
CIS
Countries 4 %
Middle East &
NorthAfrica23%
China & North
Asia 7 %
Latin America &
The Caribbean 16 %
Africa 10 %
Asia Pacific 13 %
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

2009 ISAGO Audits
120
100
80
60
40
20
2009 Target
109
80
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
IATA Ground Handling Council
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2010
May 2010

2009 year-end end Results
Month
Total
25
Feb 5
Mar 8
20 Apr 11
Cum.
Jan 4
15
10
5
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Corporate Audits
Station Audits
May 14
Jun 25
Jul 34
Aug 43
Sep 52
Oct 73
Nov 95
Dec 109
2009 109
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

Since 2008, 174 audits have been performed
25 200
21
22
174 180
20 160
140
15
Nbr of Audits / Month
Cumulative Total
14
120
10
10
11 11
9 9 9
10
9
100
80
5
0
6
5
5
4
4
3 3 3
2 2
1
1
0 0 0 0 0
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May
2008 2009 2010
60
40
20
0
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

80 Corporate Audits conducted worldwide
North ot America 2 %
Europe 25 %
Russia ussa&CS
CIS
Countries 4 %
Middle East &
NorthAfrica23%
China & North
Asia 7 %
Latin America &
The Caribbean 16 %
Africa 10 %
Asia Pacific 13 %
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

Audits cover the world’s BIGGEST ground
service providers
• A S E - Group
• Airport Terminal Services
• Aviance
• Aviapartner
• Celebi Ground Handling
• Delta Ground Services
• Dnata
• Fraport
• Groundforce
• Menzies
• Servisair
• Swissport International
• Worldwide Flight Services
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

Testimonial…..
As a quality manager I am proud to say that this project is giving an incredible
boost to our stations, even bigger than we could ever imagine. It fits into our
way of working and has made us look at things very differently.“
Eva Vanallemeersch
Corporate Quality Manager,
Aviapartner
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

Testimonial Cont....
• “ ISAGO is a complete Set-Up for growth and focusing on
custumers satisfaction for their needs towards Safety, HR,
Ground Operations monitering/Quality,
Risk Managment System, Auditing and corrective actions for
continious i results and improvements“
Hatem Ibrahim
V.P Busuniness development
ASE-Group
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

Testimonial i Cont…
"ISAGO is the ideal program to support our goal for worldwide standardization
within the Swissport family.
Complemented with other initiatives like "IGOM", it will be "THE INDUSTRY
STANDARD", jointly developed by all stakeholders
...and we are proud to be part of it!“
Michael Thuersam
Head of Corporate Quality, Health & Safety
Swissport Group Services LLC
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

Testimonial Cont…..
We could not ask for a better standard for the GSPs to
benchmark SAFETY in ground operation, the standard itself
meets the requirements of Airlines and Ground Handlers.
Mazen Qursha
Manager Safety & Compliance
Dnata -Dubai
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

Testimonial Cont…
For NAS the implementation of the ISAGO program has been
positive! Through ISAGO we have improved on existing
processes and procedures which in turn have helped us
achieve a higher level of operational safety and efficiency. We
have seen a mutual benefit both for our organization and our
airline partners.”
Bruce Richterkessing
General Manager &Chief Operating Officer,
NAS-Kuwait
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

National Aviation Authorities
List of supportive NAAs as of 14 th May 2010
Country
1 Austria DGCA
2 Australia CASA
3 Belgium CAA
4 Canada TC
5 China CAAC
6 Chile DGAC
7 Egypt ECA
8 Ethiopia CAA
9 France DGAC
10 Hong Kong CAD
National Aviation
Authority
Country
11 Jordan CARC
12 Lebanon DGCA
13 Macau CAA
14 The Netherlands IVW
15 Nigeria NCAA
16 Russia MAK
17 Switzerland FOCA
18 UK CAA
19 USA FAA
National Aviation
Authority
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

Airport Authorities
List of supportive Airports as of 14 th May 2010
Region Country Airport Authority
North America
Latin America & The Caribbean
USA
Canada
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
El Salvador
Honduras
Jamaica
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
Aéroports de Montréal (ADM)
Calgary Airport Authority
Vancouver Airport Authority
Eldorado International Airport
TAGSA Aeropuerto de Guayaquil
Lima Airport Partners
El Salvador International Airport
Inter Airports Honduras
Montego Bay Airport
Africa South Africa ACSA Airport Company South Africa
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

Airport Authorities
List of supportive Airports as of 14 th May 2010
Region Country Airport Authority
Italy
Venice Marco Polo Airport
Europe The Netherlands Amsterdam Schiphol Airport
Asia Pacific
North Asia
Switzerland
Australia
Rep of Maldives
China
Hong Kong
Unique
Adelaide Airport
Melbourne Airport
Perth Airport
Australian Airport Association
Male International Airport
Chengdu Shuangliu
Capital Airports Holding Company
Hong Kong Airport
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

Supportive Airports Authorities (as of 14 th May 2010)
YVR
SEA
YYC
YUL
AMS
ZRH
VCE
BJS
ESR
MBJ
CTU
HKG
Inter Airports
Honduras
LIM
BOG
GYE
MLE
Airport Company
South Africa (ACSA)
PER
Australian Airport
Association
ADL
MEL
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

ISAGO Registry
Update as of 14 th May 2010
• 38 Providers on the ISAGO Registry, operating at 46 locations:
AGA, AMM, AMS, BEY, BOG, CAI, CMB, CMN, COR, DXB, EBB, FRA, GDN, HAN, HKG, HRE, HRG, ICN, JED, KUN, KWI, LIS, LXR, MBA, MIA,
NBO, OPO, OTP, PRG, RAK, RUH, SGN, SIN, SSH, SVO, VNO
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

ISAGO
IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations
>> www.iata.org/isago
>> isago@iata.orgorg
IATA Ground Handling Council
May 2010

Afternoon Networking Coffee
Break and AppCal Meetings

The True Cost of Carelessness
Carole Gates, Director, Risk
Management & Insurance, IATA

Managing Costs the
Risk Management Way
IGHC May 2010
Carole Gates, JD
Director, IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Montreal, QC gatesc@iata.org
+1 514 245 2066 mobile
+1 514 390 6805 direct
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 2

IATA HAS ONE AIM
To improve the risk profile of the Ground
Service Provider (GSP) industry worldwide
Why It’s the only way to reduce losses.
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 3

IMPROVE THE RISK PROFILE
Who are the beneficiaries
Airlines
GSPs
Insurance companies
Insurance brokers
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 4

OTHER SIGNIFICANT STAKEHOLDERS
Governments
Airports
Regulatory authorities
Aircraft and equipment manufacturers
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 5

IMPROVE THE RISK PROFILE
ISAGO is important first step, but what next
Embed risk management in ground operations
Make sure that risk management is loss driven
Collect meaningful data
Utilize appropriate expertise to evaluate human factors—at a
detailed level
Provide a formula for all interested parties that will help improve
the risk profile of the industry
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 6

IMPROVE THE RISK PROFILE
Next steps*
*ISAGO
Insurance Program
ISAGO
(IATA Safety Audit for
*DATA Collection
Ground Operations)
*Risk Management
*Human Factors
Analysis
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 7

IMPROVE THE RISK PROFILE
IATA-led insurance program
IATA has worked with airline and GSP underwriters in the
international aviation insurance market to put this program
together
To provide incentives / benefits to GSPs who participate
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 8

INSURANCE PROGRAM
Insurers have agreed to
Fully support IATA’s initiative to reduce ground losses worldwide
Actively participate in an IATA-led insurance initiative
Provide GSPs who commit to the ISAGO audit with benefits
specifically designed d for them under the program
Provide data (subject to all necessary permission being obtained)
Create a forum
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 9

INSURANCE PROGRAM
How does a GSP participate
Commit to becoming registered under the ISAGO audit
program
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 10

INSURANCE PROGRAM
Airline responsibilities as an insurance buyer
Support the ISAGO audit as well as the insurance program
Make sure that GSPs have coverage in line with industry
standards
Make sure that GSPs have reasonable limits of liability (most
airlines seek $300m)
Conduct credit checks
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 11

INSURANCE PROGRAM
Insurer responsibilities
To provide an insurance program that offers best terms and
provides benefits to committed GSPs
Activly support a unique partnership among all stakeholders
Actively facilitate a reduction in ground losses
To facilitate a forum of interested parties
Provide key data in order to identify relevant loss control
measures
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 12

INSURANCE PROGRAM
Specifics
Open to GSP’s broker and all Lloyds brokers
Just ask them to inquire about the program on your behalf
Any questions, contact me
IATA Risk Management & Insurance
Page 13

Introducing the New Tool to
Deliver Zero Accidents in Manual
Handling
Dave Snowdon, Managing
Director, Pristine Condition
Ltd.

INTRODUCING
‘THE NEW TOOL’
IN
MANUAL HANDLING
How would zero manual handling accidents improve your business
All Pristine Condition materials (copyright, trademarks and IPR) remain the property of Pristine Condition Ltd.

IATA Ground Operations Manual
(IGOM)
Guy Schroeder, Director
Ground Safety, Continental
Airlines

IGOM
IATA Ground Operations Manual
Presented By: Guy Schroeder – Continental Airlines
San Diego, California, USA
16-19 May 2010
IGHC 17
16-19 May 2010

IATA Ground Operations Manual (IGOM)
Current State t
For now each airline publishes their own Ground
Operations Manual (GOM)
For the same type of aircraft, each individual airline
approach can lead to significant variations in requirements
and standards
Inconsistencies between different airlines requirements can
lead to confusion
increased safety risk
increased risk of aircraft damage
inefficient ground ops
IGHC 18
16-19 May 2010

IATA Ground Operations Manual (IGOM)
Safety
Management
System (SMS)
Evaluate
Plan
Safety
Culture
Implement
AHM
IGOM / TEM
ISAGO / LOSA
Risk Access
Measure
IGHC 19
16-19 May 2010

IATA Ground Operations Manual (IGOM)
For airlines:
For GSP:
For all:
Benefits
Improved compliance from ground agents
Reduced time spent conducting operational audits
Reduced manual production/maintenance costs
Simplified work processes and SOPs
Reduced training costs
Reduced manual production/maintenance costs
Single industry standards
Simplified Service Level Agreements (SGHA) and reduced costs
Enhanced safety
Simplified audits and inspections
IGHC 20
16-19 May 2010

IATA Ground Operations Manual (IGOM)
Benefits
Share the same views towards safety, value
and benefits by managing threats and reducing
risk in ground operations
IGHC 21
16-19 May 2010

IATA Ground Operations Manual (IGOM)
IGOM and ISAGO
HDL 1.3.1 The Provider shall have procedures in accordance with requirements of
customer airlines for the positioning of marker cones around specific parts of an aircraft
for the purpose of preventing damage from the movement of vehicles or GSE. (GM)
Guidance
Properly placed marker cones create a buffer for preventing aircraft ground damage.
Guidance may be found in AHM 630.
HDL 1.3.1 will make direct reference to the corresponding IGOM requirement
Facilitate the audit process
Better understanding of the ISAGO Standards requirements (from both auditee and
auditor)
IGOM will complement ISAGO
Many ISAGO Standards will refer to an IGOM section
IGHC 22
16-19 May 2010

IATA Ground Operations Manual (IGOM)
Development
Development of IGOM will take account of relevant
publications such as IATA AHM, other IATA Publications (e.g.
DGR, LAR, PCR) and company manuals (e.g. Airline
and GSP) and manufacturers manuals.
IGHC 23
16-19 May 2010

IATA Ground Operations Manual (IGOM)
Strategic Value & Simplification
AHM will remain the high level guideline document
IGOM will simplify SOPs & Operational processes
IGOM shall be available to airlines, GSPs and regulators
Simplification saves cost but it is necessary to assess
the total industry benefits of standardisation
IGHC 24
16-19 May 2010

IATA Ground Operations Manual (IGOM)
Provisional Timescale
Form Task Force by end of May 2010
Significant deliverables by end of 2010
Responsibility is within the Task Force
Proposed and coordinated by the Project Leader
Analogous ISAGO GOSM
IGHC 25
16-19 May 2010

Moderator Closing Remarks and
Close of Symposium
Michael Feldman, Former
Director, Passenger, IATA