Artex Safety Seminar ’96

Another example displayed at the conference was the root of the blade from the first stage of a Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine. The blade separated and migrated through the engine core and the resulting cost of repairs was $US1.6 million. The blade separation was caused by Foreign Object Digestion (FOD).

Events occurring from incorrect actions on the ground can have catastrophic consequences in the air. Professor James Reason, Professor of Psychology, University of Manchester, presented a paper entitled Managing the Human Factor in Aviation Ground Safety. In this, he looked at accidents and incidents arising from ground based events. During 1982 to 1991, there were 36 accidents with 2169 fatalities caused by controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). Second to the CFIT events were 47 accidents with 1481 fatalities caused by maintenance and inspection. The most common source of maintenance caused accidents/incidents were omissions. Professor Reason quoted statistics from both Boeing and Pratt & Whitney into investigations into inflight shutdowns which clearly identified omission as the leading cause. This is an area that will be receiving close attention in the future.

Another major initiative emphasised repeatedly at the seminar were strenuous moves to reduce the incidence of death and injury in ground accidents in the airline industry. Some causes of death were ground staff run over by the nosewheel during pushback, falling from servicing equipment and a variety of other tragic mishaps. Some delegates stressed that all too often, enquiries into ground accidents made hasty conclusions blaming personnel, when the underlying cause often resulted from poor equipment design, insufficient instructions or inadequate training. The seriousness of the pushback problem was illustrated by Ulrich (Ollie) Ojczyk, Occupational Risk Manager, Ansett Australia, when he produced data which showed there were 46 pushback accidents in 1994, 34 with widebody aircraft and 12 with narrow bodies.

A very significant problem highlighted at the seminar was the high level of back injuries arising from baggage handling. This is a complex area with many interrelated difficulties. The cost to the airlines is millions of dollars per annum. One estimate was that the average baggage handler has to lift about 20 tonnes a day. The long term effects of this activity performed by some employees is becoming evident. A result of this is that some airlines have up to 20% of baggage handling staff, absent from work at any one time due to back injuries. The increasing weight of suitcases being presented is one area causing concern. Another is the weight of cabin bags being brought on board. One estimate is that some cabin staff lift up to three tonnes into overhead storage lockers at the beginning of each flight.

The subject of the deficiencies of aircraft holds received some caustic comment. Norman Hogwood, Senior Ground Safety Advisor, Air New Zealand, presented a paper entitled Aircraft Holds — Ergonomic Disaster Area. He said, “How often do you hear of people suffering back injuries when loading or unloading DC-3s? Or even F27s come to that?” He extolled the virtues of the DC-3’s conveniently located main hold which could be accessed straight from barrow to aircraft floor (compared with the cramped confines of today’s jet’s belly holds), although he did acknowledge that the loading of the forward DC-3 hold was “a bit tricky”.

Norman Hogwood then said that “the villains of the piece” in this part of the world were the Boeing 737s. He said that each variant of the 737 had been updated over 30 years with vast improvements from the cockpit to the rear of the cabin, to make each version a “spectacularly efficient aircraft”. But that all these improvements relate to changes above the floor. He contended that if you blindfolded a person and took them to rear hold door of a 737, then removed the blindfold and ask them to identify which 737 version they were looking at, they would be unable to do so. This was because nothing had changed in respect to the basic workspace. He added that it was unfair to single out one manufacturer, as the Boeing 737 is the aircraft he is most familiar with, and the comments would apply equally to the narrow body families of others. He said, “I am sure the likes of the MD-80, BAe 146 and the Fokker twinjets create identical problems in the loading and unloading for the very same reason”.

The Boeing viewpoint was given by Douglas Briggs, Group Manager of Safety and Health, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, both when delivering his paper Manual Handling in Ground Operations — Aircraft Manufacturer’s Viewpoint, and in question time, when he said, “We know that there are more 737s flying than any other type and we are proud of that, but we know there is room for improvement”. He mentioned that the Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 will not offer containerisation after the conduct of a customer survey. The question of what should be included as standard equipment, and what was buyer furnished equipment, was explained thus, “Boeing does not want to dictate to customers what should be installed for baggage handling. He also said, “All airlines are having problems with damaged containers and pallets. The 747 system which is over 25 years old is being examined. There is pressure to lighten cargo systems but this may reduce serviceability and reliability”.

These matters are just typical of the issues which are being investigated on an on-going basis by ARTEX. This important organisation will continue to monitor and develop new procedures which will be of benefit both to employees in the airline industry and airline travellers.