An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler
An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler
5way in and out of the work area. The baggage handler must handle materials in areas thatstanding may not even be possible. Under conditions such as these, it is very difficult forthese handlers to exercise a full range of motion thereby making it difficult to performlifting tasks with proper postures.Working inside narrow body aircrafts posses a high level of difficulty and risk forbaggage handlers due to its short or cramped cargo area, which baggage handlers, in mostcases where this process is not mechanized, must load manually. Loading and unloadingnarrow body aircraft requires baggage handlers to kneel inside the cargo bin for thepurpose of storing bags along the back end and sides of the cargo bin. Baggage handlersare positioned at the front access point of the bin, and along the backside of it. The restof the handlers are outside the aircraft feeding baggage along the baggage conveyor beltto the handlers inside the aircraft. The baggage sorting area can also be a workplace thatcarries a high risk of injury and confinement of posture due to the layout of the conveyorbelts. If conveyor belts are placed too close or far together, on the horizontal or verticalplanes, this can cause worker to bend over at angles that could pose a danger to thelumbar spine when lifting heavy loads (Thomas et al., 1995).1.3.4 Repeated Reaching/Pulling/Lifting and its EffectsHistorically, baggage handlers would have to move baggage and materials almostexclusively by hand. Hours of manpower would be needed to process the materialhandling for the flights. Workers would be broken up into groups, loading and unloadingthe aircrafts and transferring baggage and materials. During the course of a shift,baggage handlers would, repeatedly lift, push, reach, carry, and move several bags andmaterials during the handling process. Repetitive motion of the body's joints and limbs
6can cause stress and strain on body parts (Table 1.1). With technology some of thisburden has been reduced with automated and semi-automated mechanisms.The symbolism used in the table provided by National Institute of OccupationalSafety and Health (NIOSH) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is explained bythe plus (+), minus (-), and zero (0) nomenclature as explained below (Bernard, et al.1997).1.3.4.1 Strong Evidence of Work-Relatedness (+++). A causal relationship isshown to be very likely between intense or long duration exposure to the specific riskfactor(s) and musculoskeletal disorder (MSD), when the epidemiologic criteria ofcausality are used. A positive relationship has been observed between exposure to thespecific risk factor and MSD in studies in which chance, bias, and confounding factorscould be ruled out with reasonable confidence in at least several studies.1.3.4.2 Evidence of Work-Relatedness (++). Some convincing epidemiologicevidence shows a causal relationship when the epidemiologic criteria of causality forintense or long duration exposure to the specific risk factor(s) and MSD are used. Apositive relationship has been observed between exposure to the specific risk factor andMSD in studies in which chance, bias, and confounding factors are not the likelyexplanation.1.3.4.3 Insufficient Evidence of Work-Relatedness (+/0). The available studiesare of insufficient number, quality, consistency, or statistical power to permit aconclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association. Some studiessuggest a relationship to specific risk factors but chance, bias, or confounding mayexplain the association.
- 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 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
6can cause stress and strain on body parts (Table 1.1). With technology some <strong>of</strong> thisburden has been reduced with automated and semi-automated mechanisms.The symbolism used in <strong>the</strong> table provided by National Institute <strong>of</strong> OccupationalSafety and Health (NIOSH) and <strong>the</strong> Center for Disease Control (CDC) is explained by<strong>the</strong> plus (+), minus (-), and zero (0) nomenclature as explained below (Bernard, et al.1997).1.3.4.1 Strong Evidence <strong>of</strong> Work-Relatedness (+++). A causal relationship isshown to be very likely between intense or long duration exposure to <strong>the</strong> specific riskfactor(s) and musculoskeletal disorder (MSD), when <strong>the</strong> epidemiologic criteria <strong>of</strong>causality are used. A positive relationship has been observed between exposure to <strong>the</strong>specific risk factor and MSD in studies in which chance, bias, and confounding factorscould be ruled out with reasonable confidence in at least several studies.1.3.4.2 Evidence <strong>of</strong> Work-Relatedness (++). Some convincing epidemiologicevidence shows a causal relationship when <strong>the</strong> epidemiologic criteria <strong>of</strong> causality forintense or long duration exposure to <strong>the</strong> specific risk factor(s) and MSD are used. Apositive relationship has been observed between exposure to <strong>the</strong> specific risk factor andMSD in studies in which chance, bias, and confounding factors are not <strong>the</strong> likelyexplanation.1.3.4.3 Insufficient Evidence <strong>of</strong> Work-Relatedness (+/0). The available studiesare <strong>of</strong> insufficient number, quality, consistency, or statistical power to permit aconclusion regarding <strong>the</strong> presence or absence <strong>of</strong> a causal association. Some studiessuggest a relationship to specific risk factors but chance, bias, or confounding mayexplain <strong>the</strong> association.
Change language