Musculoskeletal ill-health risks for airport baggage …

1 health and Safety Executive Musculoskeletal ill- health risks for airport baggage handlers Report on a stakeholder project at East Midlands airport Prepared by the health and Safety Laboratory for the health and Safety Executive 2009 RR675 Research Report health and Safety Executive Musculoskeletal ill- health risks for airport baggage handlers Report on a stakeholder project at East Midlands airport Laraine Oxley David Riley Sarah Tapley health and Safety Laboratory Harpur Hill Buxton Derbyshire SK17 9JN In Great Britain the majority of baggage handling is contracted out from the airline to ground handlers and is often viewed as a stand alone part of the aircraft turnround process.

2 Little consideration has been given to the design and working of the interface between the aircraft (airline carrier), airport (operator), handling equipment (supplier/ manufacturer) and those persons undertaking the baggage handling work (ground handlers ). Unless these factors are dealt with at an early stage, there is often little or no opportunity for the ground handler to address and reduce the risks . Fully effective risk reduction during the baggage handling activity will only be achieved if all the parties involved actively work together. This report describes the work undertaken to gather further information on the Musculoskeletal ill- health risks associated with baggage handling operations and to appraise the efficacy of new Extending Belt Loader (EBL) technology.

3 The GB aviation sector health and safety steering group (Revitalising health and Safety in Air Transport -RHSAT), which includes the HSE, identified the requirement for a working partnership. Staff from the HSE, HSL, East Midlands airport (EMA), Menzies Aviation, Servisair, EasyJet, BMI Baby and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) formed a collaborative working group to take this work forward. The evidence presented in this report, and other studies including previous work by the HSE (Tapley & Riley, 2005 and Riley, 2008) provide a strong case for this task to be re-designed or mechanised to reduce the risk of injury.

4 This report and the work it describes were funded by the health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy. HSE Books Crown copyright 2009 First published 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to: Licensing Division, Her Majesty s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ or by e-mail to ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge the assistance of the East Midlands airport (EMA) project team members, and those others who have contributed.

5 Without their valuable input this work would not have been possible. The project team: Craig Charlesworth Menzies Aviation Greg Foster - Servisair, EMA Anne Kilker East Midlands airport Ian Meredith - Servisair health and Safety Manager, EMA Keith Merrie - BMI health and Safety Risk Manager Adey Neal East Midlands airport Laraine Oxley health and Safety Laboratory Simon Prower EasyJet Ground Operations Policy and Standards Manager Terry Ramage Menzies Aviation Tim Rane FMC airport Systems David Riley health and Safety Laboratory Sarah Tapley health and Safety Executive Colin Terry Unite T&G Section Gordon Whitelaw - Menzies Aviation, EMA iii iv CONTENTS 1 1 2 RAMP HANDLING OPERATIONS AT THREE GB AIRPORTS.

6 3 Background: Manual handling the risk factors .. 3 The job of the baggage handler .. 3 Description of baggage handling working methods .. 4 Direct to hold (fully manual) handling .. 5 Mechanically assisted handling .. 6 Summary .. 9 3 RAMP HANDLING OPERATIONS Musculoskeletal risks .. 11 Approach .. 11 15 Summary .. 32 4 TRIAL OF AN EBL AT EAST MIDLANDS airport .. 35 Approach .. 35 35 Hierarchy of risk 42 Qualitative data from questionnaire / interviews .. 45 Summary .. 46 5 Musculoskeletal DISORDER SYMPTOMS .. 49 Approach.

7 49 Results Personal demographics .. 50 Results - Musculoskeletal disorder 52 Summary .. 59 6 61 baggage handling methods risk comparison .. 61 Musculoskeletal symptom reports .. 62 Manual movement of GSE and aircraft steps .. 62 Other observations .. 63 7 65 8 67 9 69 10 GLOSSARY .. 91 v vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Great Britain the majority of baggage handling is contracted out from the airline to ground handlers and is often viewed as a stand alone part of the aircraft turnround process. Little consideration has been given to the design of the interface between the aircraft (airline carrier), airport (operator), handling equipment (supplier/manufacturer) and those persons undertaking the baggage handling work (ground handlers ).

8 Unless these factors are dealt with at an early stage, there is often little or no opportunity for the ground handler to address and reduce the risks . Fully effective risk reduction during the baggage handling activity will only be achieved if all the parties involved actively work together. This report describes the work undertaken to gather further information on the Musculoskeletal ill- health risks associated with baggage handling operations and to appraise the efficacy of new Extending Belt Loader (EBL) technology. The GB aviation sector health and safety steering group (Revitalising health and Safety in Air Transport - RHSAT), which includes the HSE, identified the requirement for a working partnership.

9 Staff from the HSE, HSL, East Midlands airport (EMA), Menzies Aviation, Servisair, EasyJet, BMI Baby and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) formed a collaborative working group to take this work forward. The evidence presented in this report, and other studies including previous work by the HSE (Tapley & Riley, 2005 and Riley, 2008) provide a strong case for this task to be re-designed to reduce the risk of injury. OBJECTIVES 1. Agree a definition for the narrow-bodied aircraft of concern; 2. Collect and record weight/frequency data of the baggage handled; 3.

10 Review current handling methods and assess associated levels of risk of injury; 4. Evaluate new extending belt technologies. MAIN FINDINGS baggage handling methods risk comparison The assessment of the current baggage handling methods identifies a number of manual handling related factors, which expose a significant proportion of the working population to the risk of injury. This includes the vertical height and distance of the lift, the horizontal distance of the hands from the lower back, trunk twisting and sideways bending, postural constraints and the grip on the load (HSE, 2004).