Story ID: 
Bizjet Ground-handling Mishaps Overshadow Accidents
By: Curt Epstein
Caption: A recent industry survey shows the most dangerous part of an aircraft's day comes after it lands.
Word Count: 553
For aircraft insurers, ground events account for the largest single source of customer claims payments, according to a recent study from industry consultancy VanAllen Group. Based on historical industry data, Peter Agur, the study’s author and company chairman, determined that business aircraft operators are 800 times more likely to incur damage to their aircraft during ground handling than in an accident.

Since neither the FAA nor the NTSB tracks damage caused by ground incidents, the overall incident rates are hard to calculate. But a confidential, two-year survey of flight departments conducted by the Georgia-based company, found respondents suffered on average, one ground event per 4,000 flight hours. Of those incidents, half were cases of “hangar rash,” while a third of the damage was attributed to towing accidents. The remainder consisted of ground vehicle collisions and taxiing incidents.

Agur did note the rate of such incidents seems to be declining, perhaps a result of recent increased industry awareness and training programs from organizations such as the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC), NBAA, the Flight Safety Foundation and major FBO chains. But he added they remain a concern due to a variety of potential factors. They include: financial pressure to pack aircraft into hangars; FBO staff turnover; lack of management supervision; improper towing equipment due to lack of capital resources; poor facility lighting; a lackadaisical attitude regarding insurance coverage; and the fact that towing multimillion-dollar aircraft is generally not a high-paying job.  

Agur told AIN that he believes smart, largely autonomous, robotic tow tugs will be the eventual answer to the problem. Envisioned models would have a variety of sensors and the ability to recognize the specifications of whatever aircraft they are towing. But as he pointed out, no such product currently exists on the market.

In the meantime, he recommends that flight crewmembers take personal responsibility for the aircraft under their care, as if they owned it. He believes it is imperative that the crew observe line service operations, rather than simply park the aircraft and walk away. And if they see issues that raise concerns, they should speak directly to a supervisor. If they cannot witness such activity in person due to duty rest requirements, Agur advises crewmembers to introduce themselves to a location’s line service manager and consider tipping them for extra care of the aircraft. Flight departments should also make sure the FBOs they frequent carry appropriate insurance coverage.

To combat hangar rash, Agur suggests service locations use a minimum of three wing walkers equipped with whistles or horns for all hangar movements, brightly colored cones at all four corners of the aircraft while in the hangar and a policy of having no part of the aircraft within five feet of any other aircraft or obstruction, effectively eliminating wing overlap. Crews should make sure all towing is performed with a certified tug and tow bar, and monitored by at least two wing walkers. The tow bar should be removed promptly to avoid possible damage to the nose gear.

Other recommended safety practices include maintaining a 25-foot taxi buffer for the aircraft, and not permitting any ground service vehicles to come within 15 feet of any part of it, even in the hangar.