Going by the book
IATA’s much vaunted ISAGO trials were implemented in late 2007. What has been the handler reaction?

Last year saw the Switzerland-based regulatory body carry out a series of audits at chosen airports around the world with a view to benchmarking service offerings. This was, effectively, the vanguard of a much greater strategy that will ultimately see handlers increasingly accountable for their actions.

For IATA, it will mean the advent of a programme that (qv): “aims to improve safety, reduce aircraft damage, cut costs and promote audit efficiency.” Thus declares Mike O’Brien; and he should know, since he is Director Programme Implementation/ Auditing at IATA.

The key element of this initiative is that of reducing ground damage at airports. Ground Handling International, as readers are well aware, trawls the industry on a regular basis to come up with incidents that hopefully act as lessons to others. Education is one part of the equation: the other is that of a global benchmark that clearly sets out responsibilities and duties. Cost, then, is a critical component of the above.

On another level, faced with handler uncertainty over the latter element, IATA has remained somewhat coy about the actual cost that will borne by the handling company when such an audit is carried out. Doubtless, in due course, that will be addressed but at the time of going to press IATA was tight-lipped on whether a flat rate, a scale according to the size of the handler's activity or whether some other means of calculation would be implemented.

Handler reaction
Hactl was a member of the ISAGO project group and in fact leads the ISAGO Cargo Task Force that is responsible for developing the audit standards for cargo operations. While ISAGO standards resemble the IOSA programme for airlines, it is more comprehensive, with emphasis on the safety management culture and system management at the headquarters and stations of the handling companies.

According to the ISAGO auditors, Hactl was seen as (qv) “a professional, well-resourced organisation that sets the benchmark for cargo terminal operations in the region. The organisation structure is designed to establish and promote a safety and security culture.”

This was the conclusion to a trial audit at Hactl's Super Terminal One last November.  The auditors' observations also provided Hactl with a number of helpful pieces of advice that would ensure satisfactory results in a real audit.
“In our opinion,” says Joseph Chan, Manager Service Quality at Hactl, “an essential prerequisite for a successful ISAGO audit is the readiness for inspection with up-to-date documentation and records. Any ground operator should anticipate that ISAGO audits are very thorough and comprehensive. Therefore companies with ISAGO accreditation will benefit from enhanced competitiveness and in most cases, reduced audits by airlines. They will also have a better utilisation of internal audit resources.”

For Servisair Steve Enright, the handler’s Director Health, Safety and Security for Europe, spoke on the audit carried out at Manchester.

“We actually volunteered to assist IATA with the new audit programme and fully support its aim to reduce accidents and incidents on the ground. We found that the IATA representatives were extremely professional and thorough. The standards were equal to, if not higher, than any audit we have previously experienced. It was also a great benefit to have CAA observers in attendance.

“The trial focused on our ground handling operation in Manchester and our central Head Office functions. Whilst the exercise was not an actual audit, it enabled us to gain an insight into the proposed process and to understand how we can best demonstrate our compliance.

“Overall, the IATA strategy is coherent, and in our view should establish one standard that is widely understood and accepted.”

DALGlobal Services’ John Hatten is Director, Safety & Compliance and he was equally happy to comment on the December 2007 audit.

“My general opinion is that the corporate audit had the greatest impact since it reviews the corporate processes used to assure safety and compliance. Our corporate audit was completed in one day, due in part to our having been through an IOSA audit one year earlier. The two audits, namely IOSA/ ISAGO, are based on the same idea, that is, to be able to demonstrate that you have a written process for each element.

“The station audit was done at our Denver operation where we handle ramp operations for Alaska and Delta Air Lines. The audit team used the ISAGO template, which identifies over 450 items for review. The audit team spent two and a half days, including ramp observations, on both contracts.” (It is worth underlining here that the ISAGO template is intended to help the auditor confirm that corporate processes are being delivered at the station operation level).

John continues: “Ground handling companies in the United States operate under the airline carriers’ operational process. Handlers may exceed the carriers’ minimum. For example, a carrier may call for a three person push team on departure. This would involve a tug driver and two wing walkers, with one of the wing walkers coming forward to act as the dispatch agent. A ground handling company, however, may elect to use a four person team, comprising a tug driver, two wing walkers and a dispatch agent but it may not choose to reduce to a team of two.”

On to the Middle East, where Tony Asmar is Head of Security Safety and Administration at Middle East Airlines Ground Handling.

“In our opinion, the ISAGO trial audit was beneficial for both parties, namely IATA and ourselves. Actually, we did not find it more complex than expected because we were well prepared for it, as it was based on the Draft Standards. Additionally, we have already participated in IOSA, being the handling agent for the mother company Middle East Airlines.

“Another positive point in this process was that the documentation issue (job description, processes and so on) did not constitute any difficulty because we have been ISO certified since 2005 and all the relevant material and references are available in our Quality Manual.

“It is worth mentioning that we had pointed out to IATA during the various preparatory meetings and discussions that had taken place over ISAGO project that in view of IATA’s declared policy that the objective of IOSA and ISAGO is to reduce redundant audits, the ground handlers should not be audited twice: in other words, under IOSA and ISAGO. In our opinion, the subjects which are covered by IOSA should not be covered also by ISAGO.

“We are waiting to receive the executive report on ISAGO, which is expected very shortly. Perhaps in the light of this report we will be able to make additional comments.”

Feedback on the audits
IATA’s Mike O’Brien supplied a general viewpoint on the venture.

“These trials were intended as the first “real-world” outing of the ISAGO standards, which have been developed over the last 12 months by a group of dedicated industry professionals. We needed to see how those being audited responded to the ISAGO standards, and how long the audit process took. We had the great advantage of enthusiastic and committed ground handling companies in each of the locations visited, and the support of a small group of airline auditors to conduct the trial audits. Trials were conducted in Cairo, Geneva, Dar-Es-Salaam, Hong Kong, London, Manchester, Atlanta, Denver, Montreal, Vancouver and Beirut. The results are now being used to improve the audit standards, and to structure the audit process.”

All of which is fair comment; after all, anything that can help the handler execute his function more safely and efficiently has to be worth pursuing.