Training theFront Line
Signature invests in training, with a heavy helping of line services
By John F. Infanger, Editorial Director
March 2001
ORLANDO — During its almost decade in existence, the Signature Flight Support chain of FBOs has consistently invested in upgrading its management/employee training programs. Recently, Kim Noyes and Brian Poloniecki discussed the company’s latest effort: safety, focusing on line service activities.
Signature’s
initiatives have included a management training program in association
with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, and a comprehensive environmental/hazardous
waste management curriculum.
Following is an edited transcript of the
interview with Noyes, Signa-ture’s director of training and development,
and Poloniecki, director of health, safety, and environment, conducted
by AIRPORT BUSINESS at Signature’s corporate headquarters.
AIRPORT BUSINESS: Brian, having worked with
ground safety in the Air Force, do you find significant differences between
how the government and the private sector approach safety and line services?
Brian: One of the things that I found different
between the private sector and government was, in goverment a lot of resources
are put toward safety, not just on aircraft while they’re flying
but while they’re on the ground. And when I came over to the private
sector with the airlines and the ground handling companies, I didn’t
find as much emphasis on ground safety in aviation. Everything dealt with
the airplanes in the air, not focusing on the losses and the damages and
the injuries that occur when an aircraft is on the ground.
Well, most of our dealings with aircraft
are on the ground. So our opportunities are there. We wanted a program
that was going to protect our people and our customers, focusing on the
ground safety issues.
We went back and (reviewed) our health,
safety, and environmental programs, which work hand in hand with the professional
service training (program). They reference each other back and forth.
We were trying to create (an attitude) that safety is not something separate
from what you’re doing — it is what you’re doing.
With safety you’ll get the service;
with safety you’ll get the quality; with safety you’ll get the
on-time performances.
AB: What are some of the other components
of the program related to safety?
Brian: We also have behavorial-based safety,
behavorial risk improvement — through positive reinforcement and
coaching skills, getting employees to do the right thing as opposed to
reprimanding them.
AB: The rapid growth of business aviation
has really brought home the cost of hangar rash. Some corporate pilots
are saying they’d rather pay a ramp fee than have an FBO handle their
aircraft. Thoughts?
Brian: It’s a message the insurance
companies have been trying to get out: Somebody else might be paying for
it, but everybody’s going to lose. Number one (to pilots), that is
your aircraft — make sure it is being treated the way you want it
to be treated. Don’t just park it and assume that everybody’s
going to do the right thing. Our people do not mind at all if somebody
says, ’This is exactly what I want you to do with my airplane. This
is what I don’t want done.’
Kim: I know in Nashville now they won’t
tow without pilot assistance. And when they come in they’re saying,
it’s not that we don’t want to service you but we want to service
you better. There’s a slope on our ramp and a reason why we do it.
Brian: There are hazards associated with
the environment in which we work — it could be the terrain; it could
be the size of the facility. It’s much easier if the owners of the
property are involved.
The pilots are receptive. In Nashville,
at first we thought there would be a lot of negative repercussions by
asking the pilots to participate because it was one of the first places
that we did it. The response has been positive; they don’t have a
problem. The towing of an aircraft is one of the highest opportunities
for something to occur. When you have a $50 million piece of equipment
that has to be moved around, everything has to work right.
Kim: Brian holds weekly conference calls
where they’re all on the call. Last year, Brian (developed) an intranet
web page for our safety people to go on and share information, use chat
rooms, collect information.
I think we’re reaching a point that
our culture feels empowered to start taking initiatives to make it safer,
to make it a higher quality product and service.
Brian: When somebody puts in a policy of
safety first — well, I don’t know what that means. Is that safety
before you provide service to the customers? Safety before you make an
operating profit? What business are you in? Safety should not be something
separate — it needs to be part of what you’re doing. It’s
included with the equipment that we purchase; it’s included in the
procedures that we develop; it’s included in the development of our
facilities.
What is safety? It’s not just the occupational
safety of our employees. It’s the safety of our customers, and our
visitors, and their property.
When you leave a $50 million piece of property
at a facility, you should know what’s going to happen to it while
you’re staying overnight at a hotel. Just because the door is locked
doesn’t mean that piece of property is safe.
It’s very important that the FBO, wherever
it is, has the capability to contact the crew 24 hours a day. If for some
reason an aircraft has to be moved and there’s an issue with the
movement of that aircraft, they need to get ahold of that crew to do it.
For example, a direct order was given that this is a no-tow aircraft,
but you have a customer that wasn’t supposed to go anywhere, all
of a sudden needs to go, and they’re behind that aircraft. They need
to get in touch with that crew.
Everybody has a responsibility.
We worked with NATA to develop their Safety
First program.
We benchmarked the military is what we did.
We’ve got computer-based training to help get our people on the ramp
up as quickly as possible.
AB: A common lament one hears among managers
today is that the incoming generation doesn’t have the same priorities
on the job. Do you find any disparities?
Brian: As you look throughout all of our
training manuals the one thing they all start out with is, What’s
in it for me? What does this job mean to me? I think you quickly learn/identify
those employees who don’t really care about what they’re doing.
The other side is, especially within the FBO industry, the people out
there on the line have a love for aviation.
Kim: You’re talking about generation
X and generation Y, and their culture and their loyalty is different.
We’re trying to educate our trainers on what motivates them, because
what motivated you or me doesn’t motivate them. It doesn’t mean
that they’re not good employees, there are just different motivational
methods.
It’s interesting; our trainers run
the gamut from some very seasoned to some very young trainers.
Brian: We require the use of action plans,
especially within safety. The action plans are created at the bases ...
by the safety folks, by the management team, by the employees.
Things in an action plan, for example, might
be creating a tow policy. Location-specific, taking into account the equipment;
taking into account the environment.
