Click for next page ( 15


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 14
14 TABLE 11 ACI CATEGORIES OF INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENTS CATEGORIES OF INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENTS (2007) Causes of Apron Incidents and Accidents No. % Total A. Damage to Stationary Aircraft by Apron Equipment Passenger handling equipment 188 Aircraft loading equipment 294 Aircraft servicing equipment 136 Others 107 Total A 725 23.96% B. Damage to Moving Aircraft Another aircraft (taxiing) 6 Jet blast 7 Aircraft marshaller/follow me/Visual Docking Guidance System 2 Aircraft maneuvering (towing/push back) 46 Fixed objects 10 Parked apron equipment 21 Foreign object damage (FOD) 77 Other 72 Total B 241 7.96% C. Property or Equipment Damage from Jet Blast Total C 27 0.89% D. Equipment to Equipment Damage Total D 1,393 46.03% E. Equipment to Property Damage Total E 640 21.15% G. Injuries to Personnel or Passengers Injuries to personnel 251 (1 fatal; 35 severe; 215 minor) Injuries to passengers 222 (0 fatal; 25 severe; 197 minor) Total G 473 Source: ACI Survey on Apron Incidents/Accidents (2009). The majority of injuries (251) were to personnel (53%), but 2. Ineffective communication (tug/truck/beltloader driver 222 (47%) were to passengers. pilotswingwalkers), 3. Lack of supervision/quality assurance, Grabowski et al. (2005) examined NTSB data on airport 4. Ramp agents' ignorance of safety criteria, ground crew injuries and fatalities involving aircraft of com- 5. Physical fatigue, and muter air carriers and major airlines for the period 19832004. 6. Personal health and medication (Lu et al. 2005). During the 22-year study period, the NTSB recorded 80 ground crew accidents involving landing, taxiing, or standing com- Wenner and Drury (2000) conducted an analysis of 130 mercial airline aircraft. Vehicular collisions with an aircraft ground damage incident reports from major air carriers cover- made up 43% of the accidents, 34% were caused by moving ing the period from January 1992 through April 1995. The aircraft equipment such as propellers or nose gear, and 11% analysis of ground damage incidents in their study showed that resulted from jet blasts or fires. Grabowski concluded that there are relatively few factors that contribute to most ground intervention programs for airport ground personnel should damage incidents. They suggest that by introducing a small emphasize the safe operation of the aircraft equipment and number of interventions a large number of ground damage inci- ground vehicles and that some of the injuries to ground dents can be prevented. Results of the analyses also indicated crew members might be avoided through improved design of that simply using the "blame-and-train" approach to preventing commonly used equipment (Grabowski et al. 2005). ground damage is ineffective, because ground damage inci- dents are often caused, at least in part, by latent failures in the system. These latent failures cannot be eliminated without mak- ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT FACTORS ing changes in the system further upstream than the mechanics or even the first line supervisors. Changes must be initiated by Lu et al. (2005) analyzed 189 accident and incident reports upper levels of management and must become integrated into from 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled operations for the period the existing maintenance system (Wenner and Drury 2000). between January 1999 and May 2004, and identified ground crew operations as the second leading factor of accidents. The type of incidents and accidents in the Wenner and The factors leading to ground crew error were identified as: Drury analysis fell into the following categories: 1. Poor situational awareness (clearance, airstair/jet bridge/ Tools or materials contact aircraft, vehicle operations), Work stand contacts aircraft,