---

Past Issues

June 2005

---

Response

The article headed 'Ag Shame ACSA' published in our April edition has solicited a number of responses with one person phoning FleetWatch's technical correspondent and author of the article, Dave Scott, to ask if that truck-mounted passenger stairway with the wonky 'landing leg' pictured with the article was the same one that blew over at Cape Town's airport? We're not sure. We didn't even know one had blown over in Cape Town. What we do know is that judging from that skewed support leg which was attached to the frame with an extension (short length of square tube) instead of being firmly attached by means of a flange to make it stable, it could well have been. Be that as it may, FleetWatch received the following response from an "insider" who has hands-on experience of the goings on inside the airport but who, for obvious reasons, wants to remain anonymous. His views endorse the views expressed in the original article. There is a lot to be concerned about. Read on...

I refer to your article headed 'Ag Shame ACSA' in your April edition. The comments regarding the equipment operating at the airport may be correct but the blame does not lie with ACSA. I need to set the record straight.

ACSA owns the property and supplies certain services (for which we all pay and are subject to 12.5% annual increase regardless) but the Ground Service is supplied by various players who are contracted to the many airline carriers making use of the airport - at a cost of course.

There are a number of Ground Service Suppliers operating within the airport and each one who has facilities within the airport ("Airside") leases his property from ACSA and is licensed by them to operate - on condition they comply with various regulations. These operators include Equity, Swissport, AHS, CHS, Air Chefs, Sky Chefs and a host of others.

Each person working Airside has to undergo training and pass a test to obtain a security permit. This is at a cost and authorises the individual to have access to the ramps. The permit is renewable every two years. Temporary permits are taken out daily for "contract hire" staff.

If a person will be driving "Airside" then an AVOP is required. This is an Airside Vehicle Operating Permit, also obtained after writing a test and paying for the issue. This permit allows a person to drive or operate equipment in accordance with the category of drivers licence within the Airside operational area.

Every motor vehicle or GSE (Ground Service Equipment) undergoes an annual inspection by ACSA (on site) to obtain a vehicle or equipment permit, at the cost of R4 200 per year. (Annual Certification). This inspection is basically a type of "roadworthy" in which the equipment's safety items have to be operational, be free of oil leaks and be basically roadworthy.

These Ground Service Operators are responsible for ensuring that their equipment is maintained in a permanent state of roadworthiness and there are rules regarding the daily routine inspections before use. For example, a daily check sheet for all equipment is supposed to be completed after inspection proving the equipment was inspected before use. Only in the case of an accident or incident, will this check sheet be called for by ACSA. There are no spot checks. 

The rule applicable when one approaches an aircraft to service it, is that the equipment is to be brought to a standstill before approaching the working area and the braking tested, then only can it slowly move to the work station. When in operation, however, we find defects resultant from no oil or adjustments that might have been done if the unit had been inspected. Management at all levels are to blame for these oversights and which often result in serious damage to aircraft.

Given the great distances between points at Johannesburg International, combined with poor road conditions, the equipment in use takes a hammering. Regular inspection and testing will highlight defects and hopefully someone makes the effort to rectify them.

ACSA Safety people cruise the ramp at all times and can impose fines for people who flaunt the regulations and in some cases remove operating permits from defective equipment. This results in re-issue of the permit after repair at additional cost.

The roadways within the airport are said to be under the jurisdiction of the Metro Traffic Authorities as the RTA applies, although the Ground Service companies disagree and this debate continues. ACSA Safety are visible and normally try and enforce rules and penalties.

I concur that the state of some equipment is disastrous and when it is used to service multi million rand aircraft in this state, it surely does not inspire confidence. 

Who is to blame?
These service companies use the excuse that the competition is heavy and that their contract prices are fixed over the period in Dollars. Due to the fluctuation of the Rand, their profits are shrinking. The result is poor maintenance, patch repairs and a high degree of downtime that leads to penalties being imposed whenever an aircraft is delayed. Not to mention the risk of accidents.

The real cause lies with untrained operators, incompetent management and total disregard for the condition and appearance of their equipment. When vehicles fail, cheap hired vehicles are temporarily substituted - with no reflector tape, no beacon lamps etc which is contrary to SCAS requirements. You simply use a magnetic beacon lamp to get in the gate and then use it elsewhere.

They also make use of contract labour who are unfamiliar with the operations and cause untold damage to equipment and property. 

I can quote an instance when a cargo Cessna belonging to a prominent freight company had its wing removed by a minibus at 04h00 in the morning. Yes, it was a contract driver and the operator's attitude was simply: "It's not my problem. The supplier of the driver is in for the high jump". But what about his relationship and responsibility to the client? What about the cost of a charter replacement? What about the poor untrained guy driving the minibus? What about the insurance?

The conditions are also harsh with equipment operators being unprotected from the elements. Every unit except for the cars, bakkies and trucks has no driver protection from the elements. There is 30 year old equipment operating at the airport and maintenance staff are not only restricted in expenditure but there are no parts available for these relics (one step beyond steam powered or horse drawn equipment), not to mention the pollution aspects of older generation engines.

The management of these service companies should be looking at their image when servicing aircraft. If the top guys actually went to the ramp and saw their bedraggled, filthy wrecks servicing a beautiful 747, they may think again. But no, that's not for them. Rather, the comfort of the glass towers and accessibility to hot breakfasts at the many restaurants is far more comfortable that experiencing the exposure to the elements on the ramp.

Yes, ACSA is responsible for allowing people to operate vehicles and equipment that don't comply. However, they get the wool pulled over they eyes and maybe the revenue from fines and re-certification of equipment is the better choice of options - just like the Traffic Departments use speed trapping.

Cheap or casual labour
The air industry is expected to be above the industry norms where safety, quality and image are concerned but cheap or casual hired labour is often the choice. No technician, equipment operator or supervisor who has to sit outside a labour bureaux is worth employing because if the person was of reasonably sober habits and competent, he would have permanent employment.

The road transport industry should have learnt by now that there is no such thing as a "casual" driver or mechanic. Casuals are casuals for a reason and they do not have the interests of the company at heart. They are trying to buy the next meal and unfortunately, for whatever reason, they don't meet the standards required.

Too many companies operating at airports are owned offshore. That that is where the profits disappear and operations are run on a shoe string. The costs of insurance, downtime penalties, accident damage, equipment unreliability and damages to equipment and property are surely much higher than competent staff, management and new equipment.

The old saying, I believe that is bandied about by companies to-day is: "Our people are our greatest Asset". Is that so? 

Is that why operators have no cabs and therefore protection from the elements? Is that why companies buy scrap equipment overseas and have multiple makes that all require different operational aspects? Is that why management sleep snugly while operators work unprotected in the rain? Is that why technical staff gives up because they can only 'make' so many plans? 

Editor's Comment: FleetWatch is submitting the original article, along with this article, to the ACSA management for comment.