Ground handling competency assessments: ramp and loading staff

A ground handling competency assessment is a documented decision that a ramp or loading employee can perform a defined task to a defined standard, made from evidence that includes an observed performance and not only a written test. This guide shows how to build one for ramp and loading staff, step by step.

It is written for station training managers, quality managers and chief instructors at ground handling companies, and for training companies that sell ramp courses. You will get a task-by-method matrix, an observed-task checklist with critical-fail rules, and a ladder that turns time away from the job into a reassessment decision.

This is assessment design, not legal or airworthiness advice. Rules differ by country and customer, and the EU rules below do not apply until 2028, so check your competent authority and airline agreements before you set a standard.

Key takeaways

• A written test shows what a ramp agent knows; only an observed task, scored against pre-agreed critical-fail rules, shows what the agent does.
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/20 applies from 27 March 2028 and requires ground handling organizations to run a training and assessment programme with recurrent training no later than every 36 months, so EU stations can design to it now.
• IATA’s IGOM and ISAGO are an industry manual and an audit program, not regulations, and ISAGO audits organizations, not individuals.
• Reassess on events (new equipment, an occurrence, time away from the role) as well as on a calendar, and keep records that let an auditor reproduce each decision.

What is a ground handling competency assessment, and what does it have to prove?

A ground handling competency assessment proves three separate things: the employee knows the procedure, can perform it safely under real conditions, and is still current. Each needs different evidence, so a single end-of-course quiz cannot carry all three.

SKYbrary describes ground handling as “the wide range of services provided to facilitate an aircraft flight or aircraft ground repositioning” (quoted) and notes that airline employees or third party contractors may provide it (SKYbrary, accessed October 2026). That mix of employers is one reason competence evidence must be portable and easy to audit.

Think of them as layers. Knows is tested with items, including scenario items. Does is observed by a qualified assessor on the apron or in a simulated setup. Is current is a record of the last assessment and the next trigger.

What do EU rules, IATA standards and US hazmat rules require for ramp and loading staff?

Only part of what ground handlers work to is law. The table shows what each source says as of October 2026 and who decides whether it binds you.

The sources behind the table are Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/20 on EUR-Lex, IATA’s ISAGO program page, IATA’s IGOM page (accessed October 2026) and the eCFR text of 49 CFR 172.704. Other countries’ rules are not covered. Read the full texts before copying any criterion into your forms.

ORGH.TRG.100 asks for assessed competence, not only delivered training: the programme must cover “knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (quoted fragment) and include a process to assess achieved competence at the end of training. It names no assessment method, so write your rationale for each method into your ground handling manual.

What does an ISAGO audit look at in training, and why does it matter for assessment design?

The ISAGO Audit Handbook samples your training system, not each employee: training governance, trainer qualification, and initial and continuous qualification. Designing assessments to produce that evidence makes an audit easier, whether or not you hold ISAGO status.

Read more: De-icing competency check

The ISAGO Audit Handbook, Edition 1 (March 2025), lists “Training governance (plan, material and records)” and “Qualification criteria (Trainer/Instructor, OJT trainer etc.)” among its AHM 1110 sampling priorities (quoted). To close a documentation finding, one acceptable form of evidence is “copies of training materials and evidence that all applicable personnel have completed the training” (quoted; read the handbook for context).

The lesson: the people who assess your ramp staff are part of what gets sampled, and completion evidence is easier to produce when every result sits against a named person, a standard version and a date.

Pro tip: Qualify the Assessor First. Before you assess any ramp agent, write down who may sign off each task and how they earned that right, then record it. A sign-off from someone with no recorded qualification is hard to defend, and you will find that out at audit, not before.

Which ramp and loading tasks should your competency assessment cover, and with which method?

Assess each task cluster with the cheapest method that gives honest evidence: items for recall and judgment, observation for anything physical or safety-critical. The matrix below is an original planning aid, not an IATA document: the clusters loosely follow IGOM’s chapter themes and the criteria are illustrative.

Fill the “example critical fail” column from your own manual and customer standards. Article 2 of the EU regulation sets which activities fall inside it, so confirm that with your competent authority. For dangerous goods, where competency-based assessment has its own structure, see the dangerous goods CBTA assessment plan rather than treating it as one row here.

How do you write ground handling assessment items that test judgment, not recall?

Write scenario items around decisions a ramp agent faces, with answer options that reflect real mistakes. A recall item asks for a definition; a scenario item asks what to do next. The general method is in the guide to scenario-based multiple-choice questions.

Here is an original, illustrative item. It is not drawn from any official exam or manual, and is not representative of one.

Item 1 (judgment)
You feel a light bump as the belt loader reaches the cargo door. You see no mark
and nobody else noticed. What do you do first?
A. Continue loading and mention it at shift end
B. Stop, make the equipment safe and report it immediately
C. Check the area yourself and report only if you find damage
D. Ask a colleague whether they noticed anything
Key: B. Distractors reflect common reasons staff stay silent.

This item works because the wrong answers are the ones tired people give. SKYbrary notes that “Damage is frequently caused by ground support equipment striking the aircraft” (quoted), so reporting behavior is worth testing directly. Keep the stem short, the key unambiguous, and have a senior ramp supervisor review each item.

Pro tip: Mine Your Own Occurrences. Turn de-identified occurrence and near-miss reports from your station into scenario items. The distractors then come from what your own staff nearly did, which beats any generic item bank, and staff recognize the situations.

How do you run the observed ground handling competency assessment and decide who is competent?

Run the observed assessment as a pass-or-not-yet decision on a pre-written checklist, with critical items that fail the whole task. Set the rule before the first observation. A percentage score does not suit a task where one skipped step can damage an aircraft.

Conditions on the ramp change with weather, flight and crew, so record the conditions each observation counts under. The full method for criteria wording, assessor calibration and agreement statistics is in the guide to observation checklists for practical training; here is a ground handling example you can adapt.

The rule: any critical miss means “not yet competent”, all required items must be met, and supporting items drive feedback. The assessor signs with name, date, conditions and standard version. Map each illustrative row to your own procedure and the IGOM or customer requirement your station follows.

When must ground handling staff be reassessed, and what happens after time away?

Reassess on the interval your authority, customers and procedures require, and on defined events. Under ORGH.TRG.100(e), “Recurrent training shall be performed no later than every 36 months” (quoted, applies from 27 March 2028). US hazmat training has the same three-year ceiling under 49 CFR 172.704. Anything shorter is your decision.

The EU regulation also ties action to time away from the role. The ladder below paraphrases ORGH.TRG.100(f) to (h) as of October 2026; read the paragraphs for the exact wording before you write them into your manual. The worked examples are mine.

The regulation sets the training, not the evidence that closes each step. End every step with an assessment, which fits the requirement to assess achieved competence at the end of training.

Calendar rules miss risk that arrives between dates. Add event triggers of your own, such as new equipment, a revised procedure or an occurrence involving the employee, each with a smaller scope: items on what changed, plus an observed task if physical steps changed. Expiry dates, grace periods and lapse rules are covered in the recertification and recurrent testing guide, so apply them here.

What records should each ground handling competency assessment leave behind?

Each assessment should leave a record that lets an auditor reproduce the decision: who was assessed, which task, which standard version, what evidence, who assessed, when and the outcome. Item results and observed checklists should sit against the same person record, so the layers read together.

Two regulations give a starting list. ORGH.TRG.105(c) requires records of training and assessments, a copy for the individual on request, and fields that include the employing or training organization, the training name, targeted competencies, a summary of topics, achieved competencies or grades, and the completion date (paraphrased). 49 CFR 172.704(d) requires the employee’s name, most recent training completion date, the training materials or their location, the name and address of the trainer, and the certification of training and testing (paraphrased).

Where does assessment software fit in a ground handling competency assessment?

Software suits the knowledge and record layers: it holds items, delivers tests and stores results. It cannot watch a belt loader approach an aircraft: that observation needs a qualified human assessor and a form, whichever tool stores the result.

SimpliAssess’s features page lists item banking, test management, examinee management, schedule management, and analytics and reporting, and describes white-label and API-first delivery. The page does not mention observation checklists, offline delivery or aviation, so confirm those directly before planning around them. Whichever tool you choose, test that results tie to a named person, a standard version and a date.

What should you do next?

Pick the highest-risk task from the matrix and build the three layers for it: five or six items, one observed checklist with critical fails, and a record template. Pilot it with two qualified assessors and three employees before extending it.

After the pilot, compare the assessors’ decisions and fix any criterion they read differently. Then repeat for the next task cluster.

If you also manage training records and renewals, SimpliTrain, a separate training platform from the same company, publishes an aviation industry page that describes a training tracker and certification monitor with alerts before safety certifications expire. The page does not describe ground handling or ramp assessments, so ask about those in a demo before you rely on it.

Frequently asked questions

What is a competency assessment in ground handling?

It is a documented judgment that an employee can perform a defined ramp or loading task to a set standard. It rests on evidence: items for knowledge, an observed task for performance, and a record of when the employee was last assessed.

Is a written test enough to assess ramp staff?

No. A written test shows knowledge of procedure, not safe performance with equipment and aircraft. Use items for recall and judgment, then add an observed task scored against critical-fail rules. Where a task is physical or safety-critical, observation is the evidence that carries most weight.

Is IATA’s IGOM mandatory for ground handlers?

IGOM is an industry manual published by IATA, not a regulation. Whether your staff must work to it depends on your competent authority, your customer agreements and any ISAGO registration you hold. Check each of the three before you set your training standard.

Does ISAGO certify individual ramp agents?

No. IATA describes ISAGO as an accreditation program that verifies ground service provider compliance with industry standards, through a headquarters audit and station audits. It examines the organization and its training system. Decisions about individual competence stay with your company and its assessors.

How often should ramp and loading staff be reassessed?

It depends on the rule that applies to you. From 27 March 2028, the EU regulation requires recurrent training no later than every 36 months, and US hazmat training must recur at least every three years. For other tasks, follow your authority, customer and company rules, and add early reassessment after new equipment, occurrences or long absences.

Who should assess ramp and loading staff?

Someone with recorded qualification for the task, who is independent enough to fail a colleague. The EU regulation says people conducting assessments must be competent in the subject, and ISAGO’s handbook samples trainer qualification. Record how each assessor earned sign-off rights.