Wand-Based Marshalling Ranks Top in Airport Ground Operations Study

A recent study published in the journal Discover Vehicles evaluated five distinct methods for guiding aircraft to their parking positions at airports. The research team applied a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework to determine which ground marshalling alternative offers the most balanced performance across various operational factors. The study specifically focused on congested airport environments where multiple aircraft operations coincide, making precise guidance essential for safety and efficiency. The central finding indicates that wand-based marshalling systems ranked first within the specific decision framework and weighting scheme used by the researchers.

The investigation was conducted by Joshua Nwachukwu Osuji, Moses Mario Idisi, Uche James, and Idama Favour. The team aimed to address the complexities and inherent risks associated with manoeuvring large aircraft on the ground. Airports are often bustling, congested environments with restricted sight, particularly near terminal gates, hangars, and taxiways. In such settings, ground marshalling becomes vital to prevent accidents, delays, and operational inefficiencies. The study sought to provide a structured basis for decision-making in these complex, multi-criteria airport ground operation environments.

The researchers selected five alternatives for evaluation: manual hand signals, wand-based marshalling systems, follow-me vehicles with GPS guidance, infrared camera systems, and automated docking guidance systems (ADGS). These methods represent a spectrum of technological advancement, ranging from low-tech human-based approaches to high-tech automated solutions. Manual hand signals remain the oldest and most popular method, relying on qualified ground marshallers to communicate directly with pilots using ICAO-standardised visual signals. Wand-based systems enhance this approach by using illuminated wands to improve visibility, a technique standardised by ICAO and IATA for global consistency.

Follow-me vehicles with GPS guidance are ground support units employed to direct aircraft while taxiing, particularly in intricate or crowded airports. These systems improve accuracy and safety but come with high implementation costs and a dependence on GPS signal availability. Infrared camera marshalling systems use thermal imaging technologies to identify and monitor aircraft activity, offering a technology-enhanced advancement over conventional visual docking. These systems are particularly useful in low-visibility or nocturnal conditions but require precise alignment and periodic recalibration. Automated docking guidance systems represent the most sophisticated electronic marshalling solutions, steering aircraft from the taxiway to an exact parking position without direct human hand signals.

To evaluate these alternatives, the study employed the CRITIC Weight-VIKOR technique. The CRITIC method is an objective multi-criteria decision-making weighting technique that evaluates the importance of criteria based on data variability and intercriteria correlation. This approach is valuable when subjective expert opinions are unavailable or undesirable, as it uses statistical information from the decision matrix. The VIKOR method, developed by Serafim Opricovic in 1998, is used to rank and select alternatives when there are conflicting criteria. It emphasises a compromise solution that is closest to the ideal, considering both individual regret and group utility.

The evaluation was based on seven specific criteria: Operational Efficiency (OE), Safety Enhancement (SE), Cost of Implementation (C), Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure (CEI), Training and Human Adaptability (THA), Environmental Impact (EI), and Reliability in Adverse Conditions (RAC). Three specialists with equivalent expertise in aircraft ground marshalling facilitated the decision-making process. Their diverse backgrounds complemented one another in the weight estimation process. The average rating provided by these three experts was considered the definitive evaluation for the study. The CRITIC technique was utilised to ascertain the objective weights of these criteria for selecting grand marshalling operations methods.

The calculated weights for the criteria were as follows: Operational Efficiency at 0.1055, Safety Enhancement at 0.1087, Cost of Implementation at 0.1904, Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure at 0.1261, Training and Human Adaptability at 0.1077, Environmental Impact at 0.2025, and Reliability in Adverse Conditions at 0.1590. These weights were used to promote the application of the VIKOR technique in appraising the ranks of the airport ground marshalling operations. The VIKOR method computed the utility measure and regret measure for each alternative, allowing for a comprehensive comparison based on the weighted criteria.

The results of the analysis demonstrated that wand-based marshalling systems achieved the lowest Q value of 0.0082, ranking them first within the specific decision framework. Manual hand signals followed with a Q value of 0.3232, while infrared camera systems recorded a Q value of 0.1411. Follow-me vehicles with GPS guidance had a Q value of 0.4823, and automated docking guidance systems ranked last with a Q value of 0.9411. The acceptance of the rank choice was verified using two conditions. Condition 1 required that the difference between the Q values of the second and first-ranked alternatives be greater than or equal to a specific threshold, which was satisfied. Condition 2 required that the first-ranked alternative also be the best-ranked by the individual regret measure, which was also met.

The study notes that the existing awareness and willingness among aviation professionals to embrace technology provide a strong foundation for future studies in ground marshalling operations. However, the findings do not imply a general dominance of wand-based systems across all airports or operational scenarios. The results reflect a relative ranking under the selected criteria and expert assessments. The researchers propose that future research should test the proposed ranking framework using empirical data from operational airport environments, such as aircraft turnaround time, ground incident reports, and maintenance logs. Longitudinal data collection across multiple airport categories would allow for performance benchmarking and external validation of the model’s predictive and practical reliability.

Furthermore, the authors suggest that a formal sensitivity analysis should be conducted to assess how variations in criterion weights and performance scores influence the final ranking. Techniques such as weight perturbation, Monte Carlo simulation, or scenario-based testing can be employed to identify stability intervals. It is also recommended that CRITIC–VIKOR results be systematically compared with rankings generated using alternative multi-criteria decision-making methods, such as AHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, and ELECTRE. Cross-method consistency testing would help establish whether the identified optimal solution is method-independent or sensitive to the choice of analytical framework.

The study highlights that while technological advancements have revolutionised ground marshalling globally, traditional methods remain crucial. Manual hand signals are still considered dependable and widely accepted, even with the present technological advancement in grand marshalling. Wand-based marshalling systems are described as economical, adaptable, and still extensively utilised globally, notwithstanding the emergence of sophisticated docking technologies. The marshaller’s presence adds an additional degree of safety during inclement weather, such as persistent rain or fog, by ensuring that pilots receive clear, intelligible instructions. Visual signals minimise the possibility of misunderstandings that could result in ground accidents.

In addition, marshalling is necessary in emergency situations, where the marshaller directs emergency personnel to the aircraft or assists in arranging for the crew and passengers’ safe evacuation. Pilots and ground workers alike contribute to aviation safety by comprehending and using marshalling signals efficiently. The study concludes that effective marshalling can reduce aircraft taxi mishaps and improve apron traffic flow in congested airports. The CRITIC–VIKOR approach offers a rigorous and transparent foundation for evaluating airport ground marshalling operation alternatives, providing a structured basis for decision-making in complex environments.

While automated systems offer precision and reduced reliance on human operators, they often come with high installation and maintenance costs and system downtime risks.

It demonstrates the practical value of the hybrid CRITIC–VIKOR framework in systematically evaluating and ranking alternative aircraft marshalling systems. By integrating objective criterion weighting with compromise-based ranking, the approach provides a transparent basis for decision-making. The findings suggest that wand-based marshalling systems offer a balanced trade-off among the evaluated criteria, making them a prominent alternative for guiding aircraft to their parking positions in the current operational context.

Subject of Research: Evaluation of airport ground marshalling alternatives using multi-criteria decision-making methods

Article Title: Investigating grand marshalling operations alternatives for guiding aircraft to their parking positions

Article References: Osuji, J. N., Idisi, M. M., James, U., & Favour, I. (2026). Investigating grand marshalling operations alternatives for guiding aircraft to their parking positions. Discover Vehicles, 2(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44465-026-00013-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44465-026-00013-4

Keywords: aviation safety, ground marshalling, airport operations, multi-criteria decision-making, CRITIC method, VIKOR method, aircraft parking, ground handling, wand-based systems, automated docking, Investigating, grand