An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler
An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler
47The purpose of introducing the pilot study was to determine if the new systemwould help bring down the incidence rate of back injury by decreasing themusculoskeletal load on the handlers. Another purpose was to see if the pilot designsuggested met the ergonomic changes obtained from the feedback of the workers'surveys. To accomplish this, three volunteer baggage handlers participated in acontrolled experiment. The handlers had to lift a 15kg bag; six lifts per minute, fromthree different conveyor belt heights on to a dolly. Two of the three heights consisted ofthe old conveyor belt dimensions, and the third height was developed from the surveyand ergonomic guidelines.During the experiment, the test subjects were instructed to lift for 15-minuteintervals. During the task performance, the baggage handlers were filmed as well asfitted with ECG sensors to monitor and record their heart rates. The handlers wereadministered a pain and discomfort rating scale in which they indicated their discomfortlevels by using a 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS) with verbal descriptions. The pilotstudy showed that all four measured dependent variables, heart rate, perceived exertion,discomfort, and disc compression were significantly lower for the test conveyor with 83cm height. Although the sample size was limited this investigation clearly indicated thatthe ergonomic recommendation for workspace design was superior to the existing design.3.5.3 Limitations of the StudyThis study took a very simple but practical ergonomic approach towards examining thebaggage handling conveyor system and its effects on posture. Unlike the prior study byThomas et al., (1995) on conveyor belts mentioned above in this work, the baggagehandler's survey and ergonomic evaluation and assessment of the baggage conveyor belts
48took place at the beginning of this study, which seemed to be more efficient. Having thesubjects of the experiment complete a survey at the beginning of the experiment allowsthe subjects to base their conclusions on actual perceptions experienced and acquiredthrough their work experiences as oppose to drawing conclusions on what they might feelto be the right answer(s) based on trails of the experiment. Once the experiment is done,input can then be gathered to find out which factors and variable were the most effectivefor the subject(s).A limitation of this study was how it dealt with the physiological part of theexperiment. Only three subjects were tested. Additionally, nothing was stated about theage of the test subjects. The sample size of the survey participants was not clearly statedin the experiment, leaving one to wonder and guess at how big the participation level ofthe baggage handlers were. There was one reference to 67 baggage handlers commentingon the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms. Having a sample size of three subjectsleaves the experiment open to criticisms of population bias. Also the lack of a controlgroup made it impossible to compare the validity of the results purposed by the isolatedsample population.Ignoring these factors the results from this evaluation seem promising, and didgather conclusions that appeared to be noteworthy in reducing musculoskeletal problemsfor baggage handlers associated with their work environment.
- 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 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,
48took place at <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> this study, which seemed to be more efficient. Having <strong>the</strong>subjects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> experiment complete a survey at <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> experiment allows<strong>the</strong> subjects to base <strong>the</strong>ir conclusions on actual perceptions experienced and acquiredthrough <strong>the</strong>ir work experiences as oppose to drawing conclusions on what <strong>the</strong>y might feelto be <strong>the</strong> right answer(s) based on trails <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> experiment. Once <strong>the</strong> experiment is done,input can <strong>the</strong>n be ga<strong>the</strong>red to find out which factors and variable were <strong>the</strong> most effectivefor <strong>the</strong> subject(s).A limitation <strong>of</strong> this study was how it dealt with <strong>the</strong> physiological part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>experiment. Only three subjects were tested. Additionally, nothing was stated about <strong>the</strong>age <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test subjects. The sample size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> survey participants was not clearly statedin <strong>the</strong> experiment, leaving one to wonder and guess at how big <strong>the</strong> participation level <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> <strong>baggage</strong> <strong>handler</strong>s were. There was one reference to 67 <strong>baggage</strong> <strong>handler</strong>s commentingon <strong>the</strong> prevalence <strong>of</strong> musculoskeletal symptoms. Having a sample size <strong>of</strong> three subjectsleaves <strong>the</strong> experiment open to criticisms <strong>of</strong> population bias. Also <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> a controlgroup made it impossible to compare <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> results purposed by <strong>the</strong> isolatedsample population.Ignoring <strong>the</strong>se factors <strong>the</strong> results from this evaluation seem promising, and didga<strong>the</strong>r conclusions that appeared to be noteworthy in reducing musculoskeletal problemsfor <strong>baggage</strong> <strong>handler</strong>s associated with <strong>the</strong>ir work environment.
Change language