GSE Tracking at Airports: The Gap Between Tarmac and Terminal

Airports can track a 747 to within three meters of its parking position. They know the precise moment wheels touch down and the exact gate assignment before the aircraft even enters their airspace. Yet ask a ramp supervisor where the belt loaders are right now, the ones needed for the flight arriving in eight minutes, and you’ll often get a shrug and a radio call that goes unanswered.

This paradox sits at the heart of ground support equipment tracking: billions invested in aircraft positioning while the equipment that actually turns those aircraft remains functionally invisible. The problem isn’t that airports don’t care about GSE location. It’s that airside operations and landside systems were never designed to talk to each other, creating a visibility gap that costs money, complicates compliance, and turns every tight turnaround into a scramble.

Understanding why current approaches fail is the first step toward fixing them.

The Operational Divide: Why Airside and Landside Don’t Talk

The disconnect starts with history. Airside systems (ramp management software, turnaround coordination tools, aircraft movement tracking) evolved to serve operations teams focused on on-time departures. Landside systems (fleet management platforms, maintenance scheduling software, procurement databases) evolved separately to serve equipment managers focused on asset lifecycle and availability.

Different stakeholders built these systems. Different vendors maintain them. They use different data formats, different update frequencies, and different definitions of what “location” even means. Airside might track equipment by zone assignment. Landside might track it by last-known depot. Neither knows what the other knows.

The result: GSE exists in a visibility no man’s land. A tug might appear “available” in the fleet management system because it’s not scheduled for maintenance, while simultaneously being impossible to locate on the ramp because airside systems don’t track individual units in real time.

GPS seems like the obvious fix, and for landside operations (moving equipment between facilities, tracking service vehicles on airport roads) it works reasonably well. But GPS struggles precisely where visibility matters most: in hangars, under aircraft wings, between closely parked equipment, and across the handoff zones where airside meets landside. Signal reflection, obstruction, and insufficient precision for dense ramp environments turn GPS from a tracking solution into an expensive approximation.

This architectural divide doesn’t create one problem. It creates three interconnected gaps that compound each other.

The Technology Gap: When Tracking Tools Fall Short

When GPS can’t deliver, airports improvise. Drivers log equipment locations at shift end. Supervisors do visual sweeps before peak periods. Dispatch relies on radio calls and institutional memory: “Check behind Concourse C; someone usually leaves the air start units there.”

These workarounds function, barely, until they don’t. A delayed inbound flight compresses the turnaround window. A maintenance vehicle breaks down, shifting equipment around the ramp. A new hire doesn’t know the unofficial parking spots. Suddenly, the fifteen minutes budgeted to locate and stage equipment becomes thirty, and the delay cascades downstream.

The deeper issue isn’t just that tracking tools fail in the moment. It’s that the data generated, when any exists, can’t flow where it’s needed. A ramp management system might capture that a belt loader was used at Gate 23 at 14:32. But that information doesn’t automatically update the maintenance system tracking usage hours or the fleet management platform monitoring utilization rates. The data exists in fragments, in different systems, often in formats that require manual re-entry to become useful.

By the time location information reaches fleet managers, it’s already historical. Decisions about equipment allocation, maintenance timing, and procurement needs get made on data that’s hours or days old. In an environment where aircraft positions change every forty-five minutes, yesterday’s equipment location data is functionally useless for today’s operational decisions.

The technology gap isn’t about having too little data. It’s about having fragmented data that arrives too late to matter.

The Compliance Gap: Audit Anxiety and Safety Blind Spots

Regulatory pressure on ground handling operations has steadily increased. FAA, EASA, and IATA ground handling standards now demand documentation that would have seemed excessive a decade ago. Where was this equipment? When was it inspected? Who operated it? Can you prove it wasn’t in an active movement area during that incident?

Disconnected systems make these questions harder to answer than they should be.

Manual logs, the backbone of most GSE compliance documentation, create audit vulnerability by design. Handwritten entries get missed during busy periods. Timestamps get estimated rather than recorded. Logs disappear, get coffee-stained, or contain entries that don’t quite match other records. Auditors don’t assume malice, but they do notice patterns. Inconsistent documentation triggers deeper scrutiny, which consumes staff time and raises uncomfortable questions about operational control.

The safety dimension cuts deeper than audit paperwork. Disconnected tracking creates blind spots where equipment moves without oversight. A baggage tractor that should be in maintenance enters an active zone because no system flagged its status. An uninspected GPU gets pressed into service because the equipment that should be used can’t be located. Foreign object debris risks increase when equipment movements aren’t tracked well enough to identify where something might have been dropped.

Compliance teams spend hours reconstructing equipment movements from fragmented records, time that could go toward actual safety improvements. The hidden cost isn’t the audit itself. It’s the ongoing burden of documentation workarounds that compensate for systems that don’t talk to each other.

These compliance gaps feed directly into financial consequences that fleet managers feel at budget time.

The Financial Gap: Utilization Rates and Budget Blind Spots

Fleet managers face a fundamental problem: they don’t actually know how much their equipment gets used.

Calendar-based estimates exist. Shift supervisors have general impressions. But accurate utilization data, the kind that would reveal which belt loaders sit idle 80% of the time while others run constantly, requires tracking that most airport asset management systems can’t deliver.

The consequences compound in both directions.

Without utilization data, fleet managers over-purchase. Equipment gets requisitioned not because analysis shows it’s needed, but because operations can’t locate what they already have. The procurement request isn’t for new capacity; it’s for redundancy against a visibility problem. Industry estimates suggest GSE utilization rates often fall as low as 40%, meaning airports may own more than twice the equipment they’d need if they could actually find and allocate it effectively.

Simultaneously, poor tracking leads to under-maintenance. Without accurate usage data, maintenance schedules default to calendar intervals: change the oil every 90 days regardless of whether the equipment ran for 200 hours or 20. Calendar-based maintenance either wastes money servicing underused equipment or misses the heavily-used units that actually need attention. Equipment runs to failure because no one knew it was approaching its service threshold.

Budget conversations become exercises in frustration. Fleet managers can’t justify new equipment purchases with utilization data they don’t have. They also can’t prove the current fleet is sufficient. Finance sees capital requests without supporting analysis. Operations sees equipment shortages without understanding why the existing fleet can’t cover demand. Everyone argues from incomplete information.

The allocation problem compounds everything else. Equipment clusters in convenient locations while other areas wait. A pushback tug sits idle at Gate 12 while Gate 47 delays departure waiting for one to arrive. Without real-time visibility, dispatchers can’t redistribute equipment proactively. They can only react once delays have already begun.

The Emerging Solution Category: Real-Time, Zone-Based Location Technology

A new category of solutions is addressing these interconnected gaps, not by fixing GPS, but by approaching the problem differently.

Real-time location systems designed for airport environments provide positioning that works where GPS struggles: indoors, in hangars, in the dense equipment clusters that characterize active ramps. More importantly, they deliver zone-based tracking that answers operational questions directly. Not just “where is this equipment?” but “which equipment is currently in the turnaround zone for Gate 23?”

Bluetooth Low Energy has emerged as a leading technology in this space. BLE-based tracking offers indoor and outdoor accuracy at lower infrastructure costs than legacy RTLS approaches, with integration capabilities that can bridge the airside/landside data divide. Tags are small enough for equipment of any size. Infrastructure can be deployed incrementally rather than requiring airport-wide installation before delivering value.

The technology category matters more than any single vendor. Airports evaluating their options should understand that GPS alternatives exist, that they work in the environments where visibility matters most, and that integration with existing systems (fleet management, maintenance scheduling, ramp coordination) is now achievable rather than theoretical.

Closing the Gap

The tarmac-to-terminal visibility gap isn’t inevitable. It’s a legacy architecture problem that technology can solve.

For operations managers, closing this gap means turnarounds that don’t start with a scavenger hunt. Real-time visibility transforms reactive scrambles into proactive staging. The radio calls asking “does anyone know where…?” become unnecessary when the answer is always available.

For fleet managers, accurate utilization data means budget conversations grounded in evidence. Procurement becomes strategic rather than defensive. Maintenance scheduling shifts from calendar-guessing to usage-based precision. The capital inefficiency hiding in plain sight, equipment that exists but can’t be found, becomes recoverable value.

Airports that close this gap will operate leaner, safer, and with the operational control that current regulatory environments increasingly demand. The technology exists. The question is whether the organizational will exists to bridge systems that have operated in isolation for decades.

Understanding your current visibility gaps, where data breaks down, where manual workarounds compensate, where decisions get made on incomplete information, is the necessary first step.

Hubble enables direct-to-satellite connectivity from compact, battery-powered devices—bringing visibility to equipment that moves between coverage zones. See how it works →