An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler

More documents

Recommendations

Info

37question about loading the wide body aircraft should be reworded or omitted since manyairlines do not presently expect the baggage handler to manual load wide bodies orpush-pull cans into these aircraft.Lastly, there was a strong focus in the survey that questioned whether or not aback belt should be used by the baggage handler, followed by more questions about theperceived notions of benefit from the use of back supports. The scientific and academicsupport for the use of the back belt is inconclusive. In addition to this, the NationalInstitute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) do not support the use of back beltsfor the lack of scientific support that exist. This being the case, it was the opinion of theauthor that this question should not be posed to baggage handlers because it may lead tothe assumptions that the use of the back belt could be a viable option in eliminating orreducing the incidents of back injury.3.4 Review of Study on Conveyor Belt DesignThe use of a conveyor belt is quite routine for baggage handlers at work. The design andlayout of the belt can affect the posture, and work rhythm of baggage handlers. In theliterature review there were two main articles that focused on design of conveyors: (1)Baggage Handling Postures and the Design of Conveyors (Thomas et al., 1995) and, (2)Ergonomic Improvements to a Baggage Conveyor System at a Large Airline Company(Vi et al., 1998). The first article highlights a study that took place at the SchipholAirport in Holland of a baggage conveyor belt system. The conveyor belt was used bybaggage handlers to sort and transfer bags from one point to another. While baggage ison the conveyor, baggage handlers often have to pick bags up and transfer them to mobilebaggage carts. It is during this transfer that baggage handlers are forced to frequently
38twist and flex their torso, and neck due to the layout of the baggage conveyor belt. Therotating and twisting of the lower back in conjunction with lifting put baggage handlers inawkward postures that form serious risk factors for the development of back pain(Keyserling and Armstrong, 1990). It follows that certain property that can be attributedto the baggage conveyor belt system that can have an effect on the development of lowerback pain.Thomas et al., (1995), conducted a survey of the baggage handlers' preferenceson the conveyors used in Schiphol Airport was obtained. Based on the baggage handlers'preferences, the height, angle and velocity of the conveyor were selected, which werethought to have an impact on the handlers' workload. These parameters were changedaccording to baggage handlers' preferences. A mock-up trail was conducted to simulatethe work conditions of the conveyor. Some baggage handlers expressed that they wouldfrequently hurt their knees against the front side of the conveyors prompting the need toinvestigate and possible adjust the height underneath the conveyor in the mock-up trailsas well. The authors only included the ergonomic design changes that would notcompromise the quality of the baggage handling.One hundred and seven baggage handlers and ground crew workers from theRoyal Dutch Airlines (KLM) and Aero Ground services (AG) participated in the mockuptrails. Baggage handlers with a minimum work experience of six month wereincluded as the participants of the study.The standard conveyor speed was 0.48m1s. Two more speeds of 0.35 m-s and 0.6m/s were chosen and sampled for trails. The height-angle combinations for the trail werecalculated with respect to the horizontal plane (see Table 3.11). Six height angle
Page 5: AN ERGONOMIC ASSESSMENTOF THE AIRLI
Page 8 and 9: BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHAuthor: Stephen
Page 10 and 11: ACKNOWLEDGMENTI would like to expre
Page 12 and 13: TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)Chapter
Page 14 and 15: CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1 Baggage Ha
Page 16 and 17: 31.2.2 Author's PreparationMany tim
Page 18 and 19: 5way in and out of the work area. T
Page 20: 71.3.4.4 Evidence of No Effect of W
Page 23 and 24: Figure 2.1 Principle muscle groups
Page 25 and 26: 12vertebrae are aligned, their cent
Page 27 and 28: 14which obesity, poor conditioning,
Page 29 and 30: Figure 2.4 Musculature of the Later
Page 31 and 32: Figure 2.5 Anatomy of the Shoulder
Page 33 and 34: CHAPTER 3LITERATURE REVIEWS3.1 Summ
Page 35 and 36: 22loading and unloading of narrow-b
Page 37 and 38: 24When the safety professionals wer
Page 39 and 40: 26exceeded 70lbs (32kg). However, 1
Page 41: 28slowing changing along the landsc
Page 44 and 45: 31aircraft on the tarmac, the bagga
Page 46 and 47: 33baggage handlers with 111 (71%) p
Page 48 and 49: 35In response to the training quest
Page 52 and 53: 39combinations were calculated. Eac
Page 54 and 55: 41participants from the Royal Dutch
Page 56 and 57: 43The heights, angles, and velociti
Page 58 and 59: 45placed on various joints on the b
Page 60 and 61: 47The purpose of introducing the pi
Page 62 and 63: 493.6 Back Belt LiteratureThe notio
Page 64 and 65: 51It was out of this necessity for
Page 66 and 67: 53The fleet service clerks, or bagg
Page 68 and 69: 55increase in TAP can increase the
Page 70 and 71: 57A concern for this study is the m
Page 72 and 73: 59A body chart diagram to assess wo
Page 74 and 75: 615.2 The Future of Baggage Handlin
Page 76 and 77: 635.2.1 Workstation RedesignThe wor
Page 78 and 79: 65injury because the top and lower
Page 80 and 81: 67baggage handlers as well as aviat
Page 82 and 83: APPENDIXMODEL FOR FUTURE BAGGAGE HA
Page 85 and 86: INSTRUCTION: PLEASE CIRCLE WHICH BO
Page 87 and 88: 74[12] Harman, E A, Rosenstein, RM,

An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?