An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler

More documents

Recommendations

Info

615.2 The Future of Baggage HandlingAssessing the ergonomic afflictions of baggage handlers is not an easy task. Unlike othermaterial handlers, the baggage handler's job is extremely dynamic. Other materialhandlers that work in factories, production and assembly lines, do not deal with the sameissues that baggage handler do. Baggage handlers have to work both inside and outsideduring all types of weather, work in confided spaces, have to deal with very littleuniformity when it comes to package weight, size and dimensions, and commonly haveto push, pull, grab, and reach for materials that are being handled. Considering this, it isclear that these nuances make the baggage handler's job different from that of a typicalmaterial handler's and thus should be researched differently.Most literature focusing on the ergonomic issues of the baggage handler focus onback pain and injury. Like most material handling jobs that involve repetitive heavylifting the back tends to cause the most frequent problem, with the baggage handler beingno exception to this phenomenon. Many reviews for material handling feel that the backbelt is the answer for this.However, for the baggage handler recent scientific literature states that the backbelt is not ideal for baggage handlers due to the dynamic nature of their work. Baggagehandlers need to have a full range of motion while working, as they reach, pull, push, lift,twist, bend and carry their materials in various awkward positions. The back belt restrictscertain ranges of motion, by design, to prevent awkward lifting, which some baggagehandling entails. From the feedback gathered by the surveys for baggage handlers it wasstated that some handlers felt that the belt rode up and down there torsos pinching and
62irritating their skin causing the baggage handler to discard the belt after a few uses(Reddell et al, 1992).The back belt keeps the abdominal walls (muscles) warm which can lead tosweating around the belt area especially when working in hot weather (Reddell et al.,1992). In cold and freezing weather the sweat produced by the abdominal wall and thebelt can lead to the moisture icing up on the belt and leading to more discomfort (Reddellet al., 1992).Another observation about the belt is how it affects the intra abdominal pressure(lAP) of the wearer. Although early reports in the latter 80's and early 90's, by McCoy(1986), Lander, et al., (1990), and Kumar et al., (1986), claimed that increased TAPreduces the compressive forces about the lumbar spine as well as decrease muscleactivity and exertion in the abdominal wall during lifting, there were adverse effects toTAP (Reddell et al, 92). Increased TAP was shown in one study to also increase systolicblood pressure, associated with blood flowing to the heart, there by possibly overloadingthe heart which may lead to heart failure. Given such serious observation more researchis needed before conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of the back belt todecrease the rate of lumbar injury.The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and theOccupational Safety and Health Organization (OSHA) do not endorse or support the useof the back belt as means to protect against lumbar injury. The back belt is notrecognized as personal protective equipment (PPE) by OSHA (national safety council95).
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 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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?