RIBTOOLCRIBTOOLCRIB TOOLCRIBTOOLC
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS FACILITATE UPPER-LEVEL COMPONENTMAINTENANCE
BY KATIE SPIKA
Powerplants, hydraulic systems, rotors, flaps and countless other components on fixed and rotor wing aircraft require extensive inspection and maintenance, but are out of reach from ground level. While aircraft designers often incorporate small steps into the body of the aircraft itself for ascending to upper areas, these are far from ideal when it comes to safely and efficiently servicing the aircraft. If the maintainer is required to carry parts or tooling to these areas, toeholds are of little use. The likelihood of dropping or damaging a part or tool during ascension, knocking them off when balancing on top of the aircraft, or worse yet, falling from these upper levels, is great. Any of these possibilities equate to lost time, additional expense and personal injury. OSHA, a division of the U. S. Department of Labor, is
responsible for defining minimum requirements that must be met in industry to reduce or prevent injuries on the job. “Occupational fatalities caused by falls remain a serious public health problem. The U. S. Department of Labor (DOL) lists falls as one of the leading causes of traumatic occupational death, accounting for eight percent of all occupational fatalities from trauma,” says the OSHA website. While facility managers’ first concern is for the safety
of their workers, there can also be significant financial costs associated with fines levied by safety regulators when operations fail to provide safe and adequate work zones. In March of this year, OSHA released a list of the “most punished offences.” Not surprisingly, fall protection dominated the top five:
1. Faulty scaffolding 2. Inadequate fall protection 3. Failure to communicate hazards 4.Misuse of or faulty ladders 5. Inadequate respiratory protection
Additionally, the report goes on to list “inadequate fall
protection” as the offense resulting in the heaviest fines. Penalties exceeding $100,000 are not uncommon.
Aviation maintenance When working on aircraft, maintainers typically use one of three systems to minimize risks of falling. The first is the use of personal fall arrest systems. These systems typically consist of a full-body harness, an anchor system, and a connecting lanyard and safely stop a person who is falling. They require custom fitted equipment, training and frequent maintenance, but they allow for a degree of flexibility, require no floor space and usually have lower initial costs. A second option, fall restraint systems, offers increased
safety over fall arrest systems by preventing people from ever reaching a fall hazard. These systems utilize a harness and a lanyard tied off at a set length from an anchor. Fall restraint systems allow less flexibility and still require
56 Aviation Maintenance |
avmain-mag.com | October / November 2011
extensive training, customization and maintenance. Both of these tether-type systems require anchor points, either on the aircraft itself or on overhead structures, and considerably limit the mobility of the worker. Overhead obstacles, such as rotor blades, reduce the practicality of these systems, as workers are not allowed to disconnect the tether from their harness to pass under the obstacles. A third option is the use of mobile work platforms, which
utilize guardrail systems to prevent a person from reaching a fall hazard. These work stands and decks are considered the safest option for upper-level access and they require little-to-no training and less frequent maintenance. Storage of the work stands can be a drawback. However, advantages include the ability to carry parts, tools and manuals to the upper regions, as most systems employ stairs to ascend the platform. This also allows workers to move efficiently to and from the work zone without having to disconnect from a safety device. Additionally, work decks provide unrestricted areas to move about and provide protection against falling to the ground when walking on the aircraft itself, creating a perimeter “safe zone.”
Evolution brings improvements When specialized aviation maintenance stands were first introduced many left a lot to be desired. They had limited flexibility and adjustability; some were manufactured from heavy steel that rusted, while the lighter aluminum versions were under-engineered to provide the strength and durability to traverse hangar door tracks or rough surfaces without breaking. Many failed to meet the minimum
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63