Man hit by fuel truck at Perth Airport
Thread Starter
Man hit by fuel truck at Perth Airport
From a the paper;
A man is in a critical condition after being trapped under a fuel truck at Perth Airport.
The accident happened about 6am on Tuesday when the man in his 40s, believed to be a Skippers Aviation employee, was hit by a BP fuel truck.
He was taken to Perth Royal Hospital with multiple serious injuries, a St John Ambulance spokesman said.
The accident happened about 6am on Tuesday when the man in his 40s, believed to be a Skippers Aviation employee, was hit by a BP fuel truck.
He was taken to Perth Royal Hospital with multiple serious injuries, a St John Ambulance spokesman said.
Hearing Protection
I'd be curious to know if he was wearing hearing protection.
I personally never wear hearing protection during the walk around, specifically so I am not limiting one of senses. Hearing a reversing truck has saved me from being squashed.
I hate fighting with the morons at Sydney security who demand that you have hearing protection before they let you onto airside.
Best wishes for the gentleman concerned to make a speedy and full recovery.
Take care out there peoples.
I personally never wear hearing protection during the walk around, specifically so I am not limiting one of senses. Hearing a reversing truck has saved me from being squashed.
I hate fighting with the morons at Sydney security who demand that you have hearing protection before they let you onto airside.
Best wishes for the gentleman concerned to make a speedy and full recovery.
Take care out there peoples.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be curious to know if he was wearing hearing protection.
I personally never wear hearing protection during the walk around, specifically so I am not limiting one of senses. Hearing a reversing truck has saved me from being squashed.
I hate fighting with the morons at Sydney security who demand that you have hearing protection before they let you onto airside.
Best wishes for the gentleman concerned to make a speedy and full recovery.
Take care out there peoples.
I personally never wear hearing protection during the walk around, specifically so I am not limiting one of senses. Hearing a reversing truck has saved me from being squashed.
I hate fighting with the morons at Sydney security who demand that you have hearing protection before they let you onto airside.
Best wishes for the gentleman concerned to make a speedy and full recovery.
Take care out there peoples.
Best wishes for the victim.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just waiting for the next waste of space, knee jerk reaction from the safety nazis which will, of course, achieve absolutely nothing but keep more of these parasites in a job.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, you will regret not wearing ear protection any time you were exposed to high levels of noise. Just wait till your hearing starts to fail and you start getting tinnitus, that constant ringing in your that never goes away. Bloody annoying. Basically if you allow your hearing to be damaged by industrial noise, you will eventually have some level of tinnitus.
Completely agree regarding hearing protection representing a safety threat.
No-one is saying to expose yourself to loud noise, just be smart.
If there's someone pulling onto the next bay, put your earplugs in and stand in the shade for a minute.
If they shutdown and then the noise is minimal, then remove the protection on your walk around.
I never do walkarounds when there's high noise and movements nearby. Just plan around it.
No-one is saying to expose yourself to loud noise, just be smart.
If there's someone pulling onto the next bay, put your earplugs in and stand in the shade for a minute.
If they shutdown and then the noise is minimal, then remove the protection on your walk around.
I never do walkarounds when there's high noise and movements nearby. Just plan around it.
Mr Woody is correct.
APU, Aircon packs, brake fans etc... all emit harmful noise. You do not necessarily even hear the frequencies that do some of the most insidious damage To your hearing.
The issue that needs to be addressed is the root cause of these incidents. For starters situational awareness is very poorly displayed by many ramp staff. Complacency is often the culprit. Terms like, normalization of deviance or predictable surprise are linked to lack of care, be it from no training or no idea.
Walking the ramp during preflight should not it be riddled with more hazards created by muppets driving like lunatics. It is as though we need eyes in the back of our heads AND super ears that are impervious to the noise pollution....
APU, Aircon packs, brake fans etc... all emit harmful noise. You do not necessarily even hear the frequencies that do some of the most insidious damage To your hearing.
The issue that needs to be addressed is the root cause of these incidents. For starters situational awareness is very poorly displayed by many ramp staff. Complacency is often the culprit. Terms like, normalization of deviance or predictable surprise are linked to lack of care, be it from no training or no idea.
Walking the ramp during preflight should not it be riddled with more hazards created by muppets driving like lunatics. It is as though we need eyes in the back of our heads AND super ears that are impervious to the noise pollution....
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Singapore
Age: 56
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts are with this individuals family. I know from personal experience doing walkarounds on quick transits and looking up at wings/upper fuselage/APU and having to take care of honey carts, baggage trolleys, caterer trucks, cleaners vans, witches hats, air con and power leads, fuelling points (sticking up and a trip hazard) and other miscellaneous hazards, the flightline isn't the safest environment at times.
I agree with t_cas that 'Situation Norm' sometimes comes out and you can get too complacent and managing that appropriately can be difficult for some workforces.
I agree with t_cas that 'Situation Norm' sometimes comes out and you can get too complacent and managing that appropriately can be difficult for some workforces.
Most common thing I trip over on walk arounds - witches hats. While predominantly looking UP at an aircraft during walk around, how is a six inch high small cone going to help me see a six foot high hydrant refuelling truck?
Answer - it won't. It's a safety detriment not improvement.
Custom made earplugs which block high frequency noise like APU but partially allow normal and low frequency noise are worth considering.
Answer - it won't. It's a safety detriment not improvement.
Custom made earplugs which block high frequency noise like APU but partially allow normal and low frequency noise are worth considering.
The point I was making is - under what regulation is the security nazi - responsible for my hearing protection, and under what regulation can he stop a licensed foreign captain from conducting a walk around on his aircraft without the presentation of ear plugs.
Fingers in ears can help if there happens to be a jet near by taxying. The reality is, that APU's and high bypass engines are a hell off a lot quieter normal non airside environments these days. When I am doing my walk around in Sydney, its is often before the curfew period and there are no jets taxying and the APU on the 380 is so high up it is very quiet. Yet baggage trucks, water trucks, etc are whizzing around at a high rate of knots.
Fingers in ears can help if there happens to be a jet near by taxying. The reality is, that APU's and high bypass engines are a hell off a lot quieter normal non airside environments these days. When I am doing my walk around in Sydney, its is often before the curfew period and there are no jets taxying and the APU on the 380 is so high up it is very quiet. Yet baggage trucks, water trucks, etc are whizzing around at a high rate of knots.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two main ways people get run over by trucks - they get reversed over when they have their back to the vehicle - or in the case of articulated trucks, the driver doesn't swing wide enough with the prime mover at the commencement of a turn, and someone standing within the turning arc gets run over by the trailer wheels.
The second accident is most common at intersections or T-junctions when a truck driver turns left (with a RHD truck). Pedestrians standing at the corner are often unaware that the driver hasn't allowed for the trailer wheels "cutting the corner" - and the driver drags the trailer wheels up over the kerb and flattens the unwary pedestrian.
In industrial environments, it is of primary importance that reversing is kept to a minimum, and that a (human) guide or reversing camera is used to ensure that no-one is behind or in line with the vehicle when a reversing manouevre is undertaken.
A person wearing hearing protection and with their back to a reversing vehicle is a prime candidate for getting run over.
It's not likely that anyone would ever "make a full recovery" from being crushed by the wheels of a truck - laden or unladen.
Far better to be very aware of your surroundings, and to make sure that drivers can see you at all times - and that you preferably keep several metres away from any vehicle that is regularly moving.
EDIT: In the Channel 7 news video below, it appears likely the baggage handler was run over by the LH front wheel, when the truck driver drove forward, and turned sharply left.
It's likely the handler was standing in the drivers blind spot, at the far LH corner of the truck cabin, a notorious position for the initiation of truck accidents.
The truck driver is largely at fault here, for not ensuring that there was no-one in this blind-spot area, when he drove forward and turned sharply left.
There's a reason why many Japanese trucks, in particular, have glass extending well forward in the front lower area of the LHS door. It's to try and eliminate as much of that blind-spot as possible.
The handler is responsible to a lesser degree, for not being aware of the possibility of the truck moving off in a LH turn, and by not being aware that he was in the truck drivers blind spot.
Man hit by fuel truck at Perth airport
The second accident is most common at intersections or T-junctions when a truck driver turns left (with a RHD truck). Pedestrians standing at the corner are often unaware that the driver hasn't allowed for the trailer wheels "cutting the corner" - and the driver drags the trailer wheels up over the kerb and flattens the unwary pedestrian.
In industrial environments, it is of primary importance that reversing is kept to a minimum, and that a (human) guide or reversing camera is used to ensure that no-one is behind or in line with the vehicle when a reversing manouevre is undertaken.
A person wearing hearing protection and with their back to a reversing vehicle is a prime candidate for getting run over.
It's not likely that anyone would ever "make a full recovery" from being crushed by the wheels of a truck - laden or unladen.
Far better to be very aware of your surroundings, and to make sure that drivers can see you at all times - and that you preferably keep several metres away from any vehicle that is regularly moving.
EDIT: In the Channel 7 news video below, it appears likely the baggage handler was run over by the LH front wheel, when the truck driver drove forward, and turned sharply left.
It's likely the handler was standing in the drivers blind spot, at the far LH corner of the truck cabin, a notorious position for the initiation of truck accidents.
The truck driver is largely at fault here, for not ensuring that there was no-one in this blind-spot area, when he drove forward and turned sharply left.
There's a reason why many Japanese trucks, in particular, have glass extending well forward in the front lower area of the LHS door. It's to try and eliminate as much of that blind-spot as possible.
The handler is responsible to a lesser degree, for not being aware of the possibility of the truck moving off in a LH turn, and by not being aware that he was in the truck drivers blind spot.
Man hit by fuel truck at Perth airport
Last edited by onetrack; 5th Jan 2017 at 05:36.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no intention of commenting on this case since I wasn't there.
It is a long while since a did a walk around at a busy airport but as a B707/747 LAME and FE I did my share in all conditions throughout the World.
What I noticed is that in my early days all ramp staff worked directly for airlines or fuel companies. There was a culture of awareness of the pilot or FE and that vehicles kept away from us during the walkaround process. By the time I retired most ramp staff were contractors with no airport culture or background and basically were so pushed by short staffing and cost cutting that they rarely even considered the situation.
The other thing that was noticeable was that the number of pilot/vehicle contacts dramatically increased in my company as the FEs disappeared. My suspicion is that the FEs were all ex apprentices. We started at 15 to 17 years old years old and rapidly developed a sixth sense/situational awareness of our work environment which initially did not include walking around a large aeroplane without looking at where we were walking.10 years + later we took that 6th sense to our new flying role. For the most part pilots went into that same dangerous environment in their mid to late 20s without that background.
Wunwing
It is a long while since a did a walk around at a busy airport but as a B707/747 LAME and FE I did my share in all conditions throughout the World.
What I noticed is that in my early days all ramp staff worked directly for airlines or fuel companies. There was a culture of awareness of the pilot or FE and that vehicles kept away from us during the walkaround process. By the time I retired most ramp staff were contractors with no airport culture or background and basically were so pushed by short staffing and cost cutting that they rarely even considered the situation.
The other thing that was noticeable was that the number of pilot/vehicle contacts dramatically increased in my company as the FEs disappeared. My suspicion is that the FEs were all ex apprentices. We started at 15 to 17 years old years old and rapidly developed a sixth sense/situational awareness of our work environment which initially did not include walking around a large aeroplane without looking at where we were walking.10 years + later we took that 6th sense to our new flying role. For the most part pilots went into that same dangerous environment in their mid to late 20s without that background.
Wunwing
Had this idiot passenger the other week in SYD, boarding via the Tarmac rear door decided he would walk up past the tail to get a shot of a departing A380. Another aircraft on taxi had to stop.
Amazed at the lack of pax incidents considering the amount of people who board via the Tarmac.
Amazed at the lack of pax incidents considering the amount of people who board via the Tarmac.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Capt. Rex
The regs that cover the hearing issue are those that come from the Commonwealth WHS Act (2011), or those that fall out of it in the state the business is registered in.
In Aviation, the responsibilities associated with WHS are often seen as an embugerance. I certainly saw it that way during my 40 odd years in aviation, but if your SMS doesn't cover the WHS requirements then your company is in for a whole world of hurt. That's why you saw COMCARE guys crawling all over the fuel truck on Channel 7 and not CASA guys.
As I understand it, the security guys have no specific rights to enforce the WHS regs UNLESS they have been delegated that task by the business. Which business, I hear someone ask? Tarmacs are complex when it comes to who has the 'duty of care' under the Act, given the number of players. If a WHS claim is made, who is accountable? - the airport operator, the airline, the business whose equipment is emitting the noise?
In all cases your employer is accountable for you, so if the security staff have been delegated to ensure your company's staff have, and use, personal protective equipment (PPE) then they have a right, but if not, tell me to f@$k off. My guess is that it is the airport operator that has delegated this to the security guys, and given you are using the airport's facilities under their conditions of use, they are likely well within their rights.
T_cas is on the money here, however, .... treating the root cause. PPE is a low level risk mitigation control. The use of higher level tools, from what is know as the 'hierarchy of controls', is the way to go in high hazard environments. The highest level is to remove the hazard altogether. If that's not possible, one should consider engineering solutions, just as the Japs have done with the use of extra glass in their truck design. Additional 'administrative' controls, such as SOPs that require a 'blind spot walker', would also add depth to the control process.
Sad thing is, many see all this as too costly (in time and money) and simply the creation of 'safety nazis'. Once implemented, humans deviate from the use of the controls because they see them as time wasting (normalisation of deviance).
As a closing thought, ask the family of the poor baggage handler, who is now in hospital, whether additional control measures would be worth it.
The regs that cover the hearing issue are those that come from the Commonwealth WHS Act (2011), or those that fall out of it in the state the business is registered in.
In Aviation, the responsibilities associated with WHS are often seen as an embugerance. I certainly saw it that way during my 40 odd years in aviation, but if your SMS doesn't cover the WHS requirements then your company is in for a whole world of hurt. That's why you saw COMCARE guys crawling all over the fuel truck on Channel 7 and not CASA guys.
As I understand it, the security guys have no specific rights to enforce the WHS regs UNLESS they have been delegated that task by the business. Which business, I hear someone ask? Tarmacs are complex when it comes to who has the 'duty of care' under the Act, given the number of players. If a WHS claim is made, who is accountable? - the airport operator, the airline, the business whose equipment is emitting the noise?
In all cases your employer is accountable for you, so if the security staff have been delegated to ensure your company's staff have, and use, personal protective equipment (PPE) then they have a right, but if not, tell me to f@$k off. My guess is that it is the airport operator that has delegated this to the security guys, and given you are using the airport's facilities under their conditions of use, they are likely well within their rights.
T_cas is on the money here, however, .... treating the root cause. PPE is a low level risk mitigation control. The use of higher level tools, from what is know as the 'hierarchy of controls', is the way to go in high hazard environments. The highest level is to remove the hazard altogether. If that's not possible, one should consider engineering solutions, just as the Japs have done with the use of extra glass in their truck design. Additional 'administrative' controls, such as SOPs that require a 'blind spot walker', would also add depth to the control process.
Sad thing is, many see all this as too costly (in time and money) and simply the creation of 'safety nazis'. Once implemented, humans deviate from the use of the controls because they see them as time wasting (normalisation of deviance).
As a closing thought, ask the family of the poor baggage handler, who is now in hospital, whether additional control measures would be worth it.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haven't heard of how he is recovering,
but he is unlikely walk again.
as someone commented earlier he was run over by the front left wheel,
apparently he moved to stand there after the driver had completed a walk around of the truck, the rampie then was looking to the hangar/ terminal listening to the radio when the driver started moving.
but he is unlikely walk again.
as someone commented earlier he was run over by the front left wheel,
apparently he moved to stand there after the driver had completed a walk around of the truck, the rampie then was looking to the hangar/ terminal listening to the radio when the driver started moving.
Having been a part time refueller I can imagine how the driver is feeling.
Very tragic for ALL concerned. Family, ramp and airline staff, fuel company, airport operator etc etc.
Very tragic for ALL concerned. Family, ramp and airline staff, fuel company, airport operator etc etc.
how is a six inch high small cone going to help me see a six foot high hydrant refuelling truck?