An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler

More documents

Recommendations

Info

53The fleet service clerks, or baggage handlers, worked in the inside and outsideaircraft, baggage transfer, mail facility, cabin service and the baggage room. Some otherduties of these baggage handlers included but were not limited to manual baggage andmail transfer, from one location to another.The training class consisted of a video, booklet, hands-on training, and a booklet.A video was developed by a medical professional that discussed the anatomy of the backand spine, biomechanics related to lifting, a how-to on warm-up exercises, and home andafter injury care. The video also used real airline employees to keep its degree of realismand relativity.In conjunction with the video, the baggage handlers in this group were required toparticipate in a 30-minute class, where they would perform each lifting exercise andwarm-up technique(s) expressed in the video before an instructor. Lifting props wereprovided. The instructor critiqued the handlers on their abilities to perform eachinstruction. A booklet was used which reiterated of the techniques shown in the videoand was used in class.Data collected and used in the study included a belt questionnaire, lost workdays,restricted workdays, total number of lumbar injuries, number of lost workday case lumbarinjuries, and number of restricted workday case lumbar injuries, total workerscompensation cost, and the number of hours worked.3.6.5 Incident RateOver half of the baggage handlers stopped using the weightlifting back-belt: 158 out of272. Fifty eight percent of them stopped using the back belt before the eight-month studyperiod had ended. Of this fifty eight percent, two new treatment groups were created to
54account for them. These treatment groups now were made up of those who initiallyreceived the belt and training, and the other which initially received a belt only. Thesegroups were called the dropout groups, which were monitored to survey any effects,which may occur after the period of wearing the weightlifting back belt.There were a total of 31 injuries observed during the eight-month study period ofwhich 28 were on-the-job injuries, which were used in the analysis. Three injuries werenon job-related. These three injuries came from a belt group, a training only group, andfrom a control group. It was noted there was no correlation between the incident rate andprevious injury with r=0.0529.Overall, this study indicated that neither the belt nor training group had asignificant effect on decreasing the lumbar injury rate, rendering the question are backbelts helpful in reducing back injury, inconclusive.Statistical analysis of for lost workday case incident rate showed a marginalsignificant difference between the dropout groups, and the training group and the controlgroup. There seemed to be some connection between the increase in the number andseverity of lumbar injuries rates, and those who wore the belt in the beginning, butdecided to stop wearing the belt towards the end of the study. It was concluded that backbelts may increase the risk of injury to the lumbar area on occasion when the user is notwearing the supportive belts. It was noted in their survey that some baggage handlers feltthat they could develop a physical dependency on the belt, thus making lifting withoutthe belt more dangerous. The increase of the intra abdominal pressure (lAP) of thewearer also came with some discomfort according to the baggage handler survey. 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 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 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,
show all

An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?