Airbridge safety
Thread Starter
Airbridge safety
Mrs Radeng went to Budapest this morning on BA866. The floor of the airbridge was wet and slippery and she fell over. Fortunately, she only bruised her wrist. This wasn't seen by the CC, and of course, unlike radeng (who admits to being an awkward cuss), she didn't make a fuss.
Now someone older could have really been injured. Whose responsibility is this, and to whom should it be reported? Obviously, it's not BA's fault, but Bloody Awful Airports, but I suspect BA have more pull with them would than a passenger - unless, maybe, the HSE can be involved.
Now someone older could have really been injured. Whose responsibility is this, and to whom should it be reported? Obviously, it's not BA's fault, but Bloody Awful Airports, but I suspect BA have more pull with them would than a passenger - unless, maybe, the HSE can be involved.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The owner of the equipment - BAA
From The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974
From The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974
3 General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their
employees
(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in
such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not
in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks
to their health or safety.
employees
(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in
such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not
in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks
to their health or safety.
Thread Starter
So try using the BAA site for feedback. Go through it all, and you have to enter a flight time. Will it accept 0750? NO! Will it accept 7:50 am NO! Will it accept 750? NO!
Just typical of Bloody Awful Airports and the way they treat PAX with contumely!
Minded to try the HSE website.......
Just typical of Bloody Awful Airports and the way they treat PAX with contumely!
Minded to try the HSE website.......
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just typical of Bloody Awful Airports and the way they treat PAX with contumely!
If it had happened at my place of work then it would have been sorted by now. Can't speak for BAA....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R v Porter; [2008] WLR (D) 167
CA: Moses LJ, Openshaw J and Sir Richard Curtis: 19 May 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no obligation upon an employer in the conduct of his undertaking to guard against those risks which were merely fanciful. The fact that risk was part of everyday life went to the issue whether an injured person had been exposed to real risk by the conduct of the operation in question. There was no objective standard which applied in every case but there would be important factors which would indicate one way or the other whether there was such a risk.
CA: Moses LJ, Openshaw J and Sir Richard Curtis: 19 May 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no obligation upon an employer in the conduct of his undertaking to guard against those risks which were merely fanciful. The fact that risk was part of everyday life went to the issue whether an injured person had been exposed to real risk by the conduct of the operation in question. There was no objective standard which applied in every case but there would be important factors which would indicate one way or the other whether there was such a risk.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original post.
"Whose responsibility is this, and to whom should it be reported? Obviously, it's not BA's fault, but Bloody Awful Airports, but I suspect BA have more pull with them would than a passenger - unless, maybe, the HSE can be involved."
Sorry, but I think all of those placing the blame on the BAA are wrong.
I think you might well find that BA are responsible.
Why?
The bridge may be owned by the BAA but it is likely that it was a BA operative that positioned it onto the aircraft and it is also likely that the terms of operation will state that the user is responsible for ensuring that it safe before allowing passenger disembarkation/embarkation; and if not, to report the failure/hazards and prevent it's use until the engineers can isolate it.
The company responsible for the positioning of the airbridge has a duty to ensure that it is fit for use. If it is not, then they have a responsibility to report it as such and prevent its use. If the owner (BAA) then fail to take action to rectify the problem then any incident thereafter could be laid at their door.
In the way that this has been described I would tackle BA, and not BAA; AND not be out off by BA's first reaction that will be to blame the owner.
The BA operator should have noticed the wet floor and done something about it before allowing passengers to use the bridge - as a minimum - warn that the floor is wet and could be slippery. They failed to do thbis, an accident occurred, the HSE would go for BA (or whoever positioned the bridge).
Just my 10 pennyworth!
GH
"Whose responsibility is this, and to whom should it be reported? Obviously, it's not BA's fault, but Bloody Awful Airports, but I suspect BA have more pull with them would than a passenger - unless, maybe, the HSE can be involved."
Sorry, but I think all of those placing the blame on the BAA are wrong.
I think you might well find that BA are responsible.
Why?
The bridge may be owned by the BAA but it is likely that it was a BA operative that positioned it onto the aircraft and it is also likely that the terms of operation will state that the user is responsible for ensuring that it safe before allowing passenger disembarkation/embarkation; and if not, to report the failure/hazards and prevent it's use until the engineers can isolate it.
The company responsible for the positioning of the airbridge has a duty to ensure that it is fit for use. If it is not, then they have a responsibility to report it as such and prevent its use. If the owner (BAA) then fail to take action to rectify the problem then any incident thereafter could be laid at their door.
In the way that this has been described I would tackle BA, and not BAA; AND not be out off by BA's first reaction that will be to blame the owner.
The BA operator should have noticed the wet floor and done something about it before allowing passengers to use the bridge - as a minimum - warn that the floor is wet and could be slippery. They failed to do thbis, an accident occurred, the HSE would go for BA (or whoever positioned the bridge).
Just my 10 pennyworth!
GH
