Sofema Aviation Services (SAS) Considers Key Features of the forthcoming ground handling regulatory changes
Introduction
Ground Operations and Ground Handling are increasingly recognized by EASA as critical components in maintaining aviation safety and operational integrity.
Following the publication of EASA Opinion No. 01/2024, and the expected transition to a Declaration-Based Regulatory Regime, the requirement for a structured and proactive Compliance Monitoring System (CMS) becomes a fundamental obligation for all Ground Handling Service Providers (GHSPs) operating within the EU regulatory system.
Time for Transition
As the industry transitions to a Declaration Regime, with national authorities adopting performance oversight, Ground Handling Providers must embrace the spirit of continuous improvement. A proactive Compliance Monitoring System is the foundation — not just to meet EASA’s requirements, but to:
- Improve service delivery
- Reduce operational delays
- Minimize safety incidents
- Ensure alignment with aerodrome and airline stakeholder expectations
Ensure Key Enablers Moving Forward:
- Competence training for Compliance and Safety staff
- Integrated digital CMS platforms with tracking dashboards
- Risk-based auditing tied to real-time performance data
- Clear escalation and corrective action processes
Why Compliance Monitoring Matters
- Ground operations, encompassing activities like aircraft loading, passenger handling, de-icing, and turnaround coordination, are among the most risk-sensitive and error-prone areas of airline and airport activity.
- Errors in this domain can have immediate consequences for aircraft safety and turnaround performance.
- EASA is moving away from reactive oversight and towards risk- and performance-based oversight (RBO/PBO), placing the burden of compliance squarely on the organisation through systematic self-monitoring, internal audits, and continuous improvement processes.
Examples of Operational Risks That Should Be Monitored
The CMS must be tailored to the specific challenges of ground handling, with monitoring processes designed to anticipate and mitigate:
- Turnaround Errors: Miscommunication between dispatch, ramp, and cabin crew can lead to misloads, incorrect fuel or cargo balancing, or missed security checks.
- Third-Party Risk: Contracted handlers may deviate from SOPs due to misalignment with the operator’s compliance expectations, especially where there is no effective audit oversight.
- Cross-Departmental Coordination Failures: Lack of procedural clarity or role confusion between ramp, load control, and passenger services leads to delays, safety compromises, and erosion of customer satisfaction.
Common Non-Conformities and Audit Findings
The following list concerns the most common categories of non-compliance and systemic deficiencies likely to be identified in the Ground Operations domain:
Inadequate Competence Management – Lack of up-to-date competence records or insufficient evidence of training and recurrent proficiency checks.
Non-Standardized Procedures Across Locations or Contractors – Procedures not harmonized between main operators and third-party Ground Handling Service Providers (GHSPs).
Missing or Incomplete Risk Assessments – Lack of formal, documented risk assessments for high-exposure activities such as de-icing, pushback, aircraft towing, or turnarounds.
Failure to Document or Address Safety Reports and Audit Findings – Safety reports or audit findings are not formally closed, lack root cause analysis, or are left without corrective/preventive action follow-up.
Inadequate Oversight of Subcontractors and External Providers – Insufficient audit coverage, lack of follow-up audits, or no contractual performance criteria for subcontractors.
Poor Equipment Maintenance and Calibration Records – Inadequate documentation of ground support equipment (GSE) maintenance, safety inspections, or calibration records (e.g. for tugs, de-icing units, loaders).
Gaps in Communication and Coordination Procedures – Ineffective communication between key functions such as Load Control, Passenger Services, Ramp Operations, and Dispatch.
Lack of Emergency Preparedness and Contingency Planning – Emergency plans are generic, outdated, or untested. Staff may be unaware of emergency procedures related to aircraft incidents or airport disruptions.
Non-Conformance with IGOM Standards – Deviations from IATA IGOM (IATA Ground Operations Manual) procedures without effective local adaptations or documented justifications.
CMS (Compliance Monitoring System) Fragmentation – CMS not fully integrated across all departments or lacking a clear link with SMS.
Next Steps
Sofema Aviation Services and Sofema Online provide Classroom, Webinar & Online Training EASA Compliant Regulatory & Vocational Training – Please see the websites or email [email protected].
Tags:
Compliance, EASA, Ground Handling, Ground Operations, Audit, SAS blogs, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Operational Risks, Declaration Regime, Compliance Monitoring System, Safety staff, Miscommunication
