Jetway safety
Moderator
Two points -
(a) not my area so I shall go quietly
(b) most of the other bits and pieces are small and the drivers can see the area or those in the area can see the driver ... the bridge is all a bit remote ...
(a) not my area so I shall go quietly
(b) most of the other bits and pieces are small and the drivers can see the area or those in the area can see the driver ... the bridge is all a bit remote ...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, BB, I can't remember any incidents such as you describe. My memory isn't what it once was (and I can't remember when it was 
) so I shan't call you a liar! I have to agree with JT - the bridge is a little remote, the visibility ain't that good from the top.
What's more, I can recall hearing about incidents where the bridge was faulty and started moving all on its own and maybe wanted to head off downtown for a nice break... chocks would have prevented that, perhaps?
) so I shan't call you a liar! I have to agree with JT - the bridge is a little remote, the visibility ain't that good from the top.What's more, I can recall hearing about incidents where the bridge was faulty and started moving all on its own and maybe wanted to head off downtown for a nice break... chocks would have prevented that, perhaps?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. & John
Those examples, thankfully, are such: Just pure examples and to the best of my knowledge have never happened, but thanks to the FMC User Guide was always the worst case scenario, and was always something that you thought about.
Bridges should, realistically, never move on there own - As I've said, if they are in auto-level mode, they would only move vertically (computer controlled). Any other time, would be down to operator malpractice (ie not switching off).
Oh, By the way John. Regarding your comment - "not my area so I shall go quietly", Since you are a Moderator, maybe you could introduce yourself to 'Joe Curry', and show him what it means to accept things that one doesn't know.
To The Alamo......
BB
Those examples, thankfully, are such: Just pure examples and to the best of my knowledge have never happened, but thanks to the FMC User Guide was always the worst case scenario, and was always something that you thought about.
Bridges should, realistically, never move on there own - As I've said, if they are in auto-level mode, they would only move vertically (computer controlled). Any other time, would be down to operator malpractice (ie not switching off).
Oh, By the way John. Regarding your comment - "not my area so I shall go quietly", Since you are a Moderator, maybe you could introduce yourself to 'Joe Curry', and show him what it means to accept things that one doesn't know.
To The Alamo......
BB
Moderator
BB,
Not too sure who Joe Curry might be ... but, is it not a fairly standard observation that, for most of us ..
(a) as children .. we are little sponges absorbing all sorts of information ...
(b) as teenagers through some indeterminate adult age ... we are the font of all knowledge ... full of gusto, enthusiasm, wilful overconfidence ... etc., etc., etc. .. and generally a total pain in the butt ...
(c) then, at some stage as older adults, we realise that we know
(i) nothing about most things
(ii) perhaps a useful amount about a small range of things
(iii) perhaps a lot about a handful of things
(d) and, eventually, we get to that position of elderly dotage where none of it matters much anyway and the day's race form or game of chess is far more important .....
... it is much easier to interact with people who are either at stage (a) or (c) ..
.. or am I just a cynical old dinosaur who ought to be put out to pasture ?
On the subject at hand, though, if one looks a little further afield to industrial and machinery safety in general ...
(a) few, if any, machines and safety systems are 100 percent reliable in the real world
(b) interlocks can, and do, fail ...
(c) well-intentioned people can, and do, take shortcuts, ignore SOPs, or figure out homegrown workarounds to make the perceived short-term aspects of the job easier ....
The thread started out as a commentary on real blood and guts physical injury ... and this is the very real penalty we, as a community/family/etc, pay for accepting higher than reasonably achievable levels of risk associated with our various activities.
What might be an acceptable risk in a discretionary activity (eg high risk sports) ought not to be acceptable in the workplace ... the employer, in most jurisdictions, has a moral and mandated responsibility to provide a "safe" workplace ....
As workers in a workplace, we all are prone to carelessness and inattention to a greater or lesser degree. Most of the time we "get away with it" .. either without even realising that we were very nearly injured or killed, or perhaps escaping with a fright and a breathless self-exhortation to be more watchful in the future .... not always, though, is the worker so fortunate.
If the result is a death then, albeit with much distress, angst and heartache, the great majority of us can work through the grief, eventually coming to terms with the loss and get on with our lives.
However, especially with advances in medical and emergency technologies ... often the result is not death but severe physical, mental, or personality disability.
I have, over the years, had some involvement with people with acquired brain injuries from all sorts of causes ... it especially rips your heart out to see someone who was what he/she was ... and is now what he/she is ... and often because of a little personal inattention or carelessness .... or a less than reasonably safe environment ... either work or non-work.
On a strict cost basis, even if we can't readily quantify the costs ... the total "cost" of injury to the community dictates that a healthy attention to reducing injury is a sensible strategy.
Just a personal view ....
Not too sure who Joe Curry might be ... but, is it not a fairly standard observation that, for most of us ..
(a) as children .. we are little sponges absorbing all sorts of information ...
(b) as teenagers through some indeterminate adult age ... we are the font of all knowledge ... full of gusto, enthusiasm, wilful overconfidence ... etc., etc., etc. .. and generally a total pain in the butt ...
(c) then, at some stage as older adults, we realise that we know
(i) nothing about most things
(ii) perhaps a useful amount about a small range of things
(iii) perhaps a lot about a handful of things
(d) and, eventually, we get to that position of elderly dotage where none of it matters much anyway and the day's race form or game of chess is far more important .....
... it is much easier to interact with people who are either at stage (a) or (c) ..
.. or am I just a cynical old dinosaur who ought to be put out to pasture ?
On the subject at hand, though, if one looks a little further afield to industrial and machinery safety in general ...
(a) few, if any, machines and safety systems are 100 percent reliable in the real world
(b) interlocks can, and do, fail ...
(c) well-intentioned people can, and do, take shortcuts, ignore SOPs, or figure out homegrown workarounds to make the perceived short-term aspects of the job easier ....
The thread started out as a commentary on real blood and guts physical injury ... and this is the very real penalty we, as a community/family/etc, pay for accepting higher than reasonably achievable levels of risk associated with our various activities.
What might be an acceptable risk in a discretionary activity (eg high risk sports) ought not to be acceptable in the workplace ... the employer, in most jurisdictions, has a moral and mandated responsibility to provide a "safe" workplace ....
As workers in a workplace, we all are prone to carelessness and inattention to a greater or lesser degree. Most of the time we "get away with it" .. either without even realising that we were very nearly injured or killed, or perhaps escaping with a fright and a breathless self-exhortation to be more watchful in the future .... not always, though, is the worker so fortunate.
If the result is a death then, albeit with much distress, angst and heartache, the great majority of us can work through the grief, eventually coming to terms with the loss and get on with our lives.
However, especially with advances in medical and emergency technologies ... often the result is not death but severe physical, mental, or personality disability.
I have, over the years, had some involvement with people with acquired brain injuries from all sorts of causes ... it especially rips your heart out to see someone who was what he/she was ... and is now what he/she is ... and often because of a little personal inattention or carelessness .... or a less than reasonably safe environment ... either work or non-work.
On a strict cost basis, even if we can't readily quantify the costs ... the total "cost" of injury to the community dictates that a healthy attention to reducing injury is a sensible strategy.
Just a personal view ....
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 14th Jan 2003 at 23:06.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: STN and HPN
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was looking at CAP 642 today and came across a part relating to the operation of jetbridges, which reminded me of this post. The documents states:
You can view the document in pdf format at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP642.pdf - Section 5, part 2.4
I think the key point is that these are all "suggested" but not required.
It is suggested that the following auxiliary equipment is fitted to apron drive airbridges:
(a) Audible and visual alarms that operate automatically when the bridge is in motion.
(b) In order to overcome downward and rearward blindspots for the operator, CCTV or sight mirrors to cover blind areas.
(c) Pressure sensitive safety hoops which, when they touch an object, cut out the motive force thus stopping movement of the bridge.
(a) Audible and visual alarms that operate automatically when the bridge is in motion.
(b) In order to overcome downward and rearward blindspots for the operator, CCTV or sight mirrors to cover blind areas.
(c) Pressure sensitive safety hoops which, when they touch an object, cut out the motive force thus stopping movement of the bridge.
I think the key point is that these are all "suggested" but not required.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetway operational training is indeed very haphazard as can be judged by the length of time it takes some gate agents to get into position after whhels are chocked at the gate. Sometimes, it borders on comedy...
