The reporter has raised the following concerns in relation to the ongoing non-compliance of standard operating procedures (SOPs) at [Location 1] regional airport by ground crew supporting airline operations.
Tarmac operations
The reporter states SOPs are being ignored and ground staff have advised they are not being trained in many critical roles.
- Ground staff routinely do not stop passenger movements across the tarmac when aircraft are operating on the adjacent bay exposing passengers to potential jet blast while on the apron and the aircraft stairs.
- Incorrect stairs are used with unacceptable fall from height protection due to the correct stairs being unserviceable.
- At times the supplied stairs are too low with ramps or steps not supplied unless specifically requested.
- On two occasions within a week, the rear stairs were 'rammed into the aircraft with force to be heard in the galley and the aircraft shook'.
- Auto door sensors are not being placed under the doors when opened. When queried, the ground staff have advised they do not have training in this area.
The reporter further states the use of rear stairs continues at [Location 1] airport when there are no ground staff present at the aircraft wingtip or that person wanders off and passenger movement is monitored from the baggage hall.
Boarding process
The reporter states while boarding using electronic pass readers, ground staff would walk away to make public announcements and let passengers process their own boarding passes. When queried, advice was provided that passengers are monitored from a distance of six feet while they conduct work on the computer screen. The reporter queries:
- Who is checking the passengers bags for dangerous goods?
- Are the passengers fit for travel - intoxicated?
The reporter is also concerned about the potential serious consequence to a child or elderly passenger as the result of exposure to jet blast as well as aircraft damage from ongoing non-compliance with ground handling SOPs and regulations at [Location 1] airport.
[Operator 1] was engaged to independently review the ground handling operations at two [State] regional ports. The activity was specifically requested by the [Position title] of [Operator 2] and involved a full compliance audit of the Ground Service Provider (GSP) in [Location 1], and [Location 2]. This activity was not related to the REPCON received and had been planned prior.
This audit formed part of the [date] [Assurance Program] for [Operator 2]. Whilst the activity was commissioned predominantly by [Operator 2], the report was shared with relevant [Operator 1] AOCs.
The audit report stated that the team in [Location 1] demonstrated a thorough understanding of the traffic management requirements. For example, the requirements relating to passenger marshalling and Circle of Safety were particularly well understood. However the report also raised several findings related to ramp activities, boarding procedures, FOD checks and staff safety on the ramp (such as not wearing the appropriate PPE etc).
For this reason, as part of the broader [Operator 3] airport's assurance activity, the next port health check for [Location 1] has been brought forward to [date]. This will be completed by the [State] team who have a thorough understanding of the [Location 1] airport operations and team, including the receipt and dispatch and marshalling requirements for all aircraft types.
[The ATSB requested an extract of the results (relevant to the REPCON) of the port health check conducted in [date] which have been provided below.]
Please find below an extract of the [Location 1] health check conducted on [date] specifically relating to the reporter's concerns.
The areas of observation were:
- Ramp activities on arrival / during turnaround and departure
- Boarding gate
- Check-in / observing the interaction with the customers
- Observing the pre arrival team briefings
- Baggage make-up area
- Discussion with Operation Managers on port administration
- Interactions with cabin crew and tech crew, including on ground to air radio
Outcome of the observation
Port admin
- Resourcing levels – (sufficiently resourced) currently reduced staff numbers due to the [season], however, has a plan to boost numbers prior to peak season [year], which [Position title] has confirmed that they have been given verbal approval for recruitment.
Ramp activities practical observation
Arrival - ramp activities
- Arrival, cargo, and passenger doors visually checked for damage / GSE
- Observed ramp staff doing the visual checks for both doors.
- All GSE equipment was seen to be positioned with the correct clearance.
- Aircraft doors - were they being operated correctly?
- Non-compliant, the cone process was not followed on three flights that was observed on the first day of the observation, for when the staff went up to open the passenger door. All staff were briefed after the first occurrence with the trainer and the [Position title], who also briefed the wider team. The [Position title] added it to the toolbox and conducted a read and sign – nil findings noted on the subsequent days.
- Fully compliant in the below ramp activities area:
- There was notable care of customers on the ramp, it was visually observed that customers were supervised between the boarding gate and the aircraft.
Departure - ramp activities
- Situational awareness – Yes, the dispatcher displayed situational awareness during the dispatch phase.
Traffic management
- The team complied with traffic management guidelines, vehicle seat belts were consistently done, and tugs were driven at walking speed around the circle of safety. The team maintained situational awareness around the aircraft hazards
Check-in
- Are the dangerous goods questions being asked at check-in - Yes
Departure gate
- Is the gate set up for boarding success – No, observed that each time staff stepped away from the boarding position, they left the lane unattended-which left risk of customers going through that may not have been scanned/boarded. This was addressed and the process put in place was that the Tensa barrier was to be used to close off the lane whilst staff away from the scanner. Staff started using this process immediately, making an immediate positive impact.
- Boarding customer crosscheck – Yes, during boarding pass scanning, cross checking was done by referring to each customer by the name that was on the boarding pass.
Security
- Are computers logged off when unattended - No, office computer was left logged on, whilst office was unattended, where other GSP’s may have been able to access. Coaching conversation was held with team on the importance of all desktops/laptops and devices are either logged off or locked.
Interaction with customers and other stakeholders
- Toolbox meeting held with [Position title] and team, held by the [Location 3] [Operator 3] team focusing on recent increase on incident reports submitted for [Location 1] and the issues raised by crews on the interactions they have experienced with [Location 1] ground staff. This was escalated to [Operator 4] management for them to carry out their internal investigation as required.
We had great traction from this by the [Location 1] team, who were keen to have their port seen in a positive light. Since then, we have seen a drastic reduction in incident reporting for [Location 1].
We conduct weekly meetings with the [Location 1] [Position title] to provide ongoing support and guidance where required.
Overall, the audit found that - The team in [Location 1] demonstrated a thorough understanding of the traffic management requirements. For example, the requirements relating to passenger marshalling and Circle of Safety were particularly well understood. The addition of supervisory oversight and a focus on procedural adherence will further contribute to a safe and compliant operation.'
CASA has reviewed the REPCON including the details regarding the operator’s internal assurance investigation and is satisfied with their actions.
CASA will follow up at the next quarterly safety meeting with the operator for verification of further corrective actions to the identified remedial actions they have provided in their assurance investigation.