An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler

More documents

Recommendations

Info

39combinations were calculated. Each of the three conveyor belt velocities were combinedand calculated with the six height angles producing 18 testing conditions, which in-turnwas tested on six subjects. One condition was completed by only five subjects.The dependent variables as defined by this trail were the postures of the subjects,the way the handler experienced the baggage handling task, and the quality of baggagehandling. A computer program, task recording and analysis on computer (TRAC), wasused to record the multi moment observation of the arm angles and the trunk.Observations of the posture of the subject performing the task of baggage handling on themock-up conveyor were recorded at 10-second intervals. The portable computer (PsionOrganizer XP) was used to record the angles of the arms and trunk.To address the problem "what is the right amount of space under the conveyorbelt", light sensors were fitted underneath the mock-up conveyor to register any
40interruptions (broken light path) caused by the leg or foot that crossed too far under theplane of the conveyor causing a collision. The area that the light beam covered was 20cm deep and 50 cm high.After the trails, the baggage handlers were asked to fill out a questionnaireevaluating what combinations of variables they found most suitable, and what ergonomicaspects they found to be most unfavorable/favorable. The baggage handlers wereinstructed to rank the variables from a scale of 1 to 10, one being poor, and 10 being mostoptimal or excellent.From a quality of work standpoint, observations were made to check if thechanges in height, speed, and angle of the mock conveyor affected the rate of baggagesorting errors, and the number of bags falling off the conveyor belt.All of the baggage handlers that participated in this experiment were givenstandard instruction about the purpose of the study. To negate the learning effects eachbaggage handler was allowed to go through the experiment only once under conditionsthat resembled that of a peak load situation which occurs several times during a normalwork day. The mock conveyor was set up with 63 bags that consisted of five differentdestination labels which were presented at a fixed pace and order. While sorting the bagsfor this trail the baggage handlers were not given any restrictions on the loading andsorting techniques to be used for the observations.An analysis of variance (ANOVA) table was created for the dependent variablesto evaluate the influence of the velocity, height, and angle, along with a Ryan EinotGabriel Welch multiple range test to determine the direction of influence. A Student t-test was also performed to determine if there was a significant difference between the
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 50 and 51: 37question about loading the wide b
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?