Viewing page 80 of 105

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

to provide first aid, to check on the working environment (toxic substances used around aircraft and in hangars are many), to keep a finger on the pulse of absenteeism and its causes, to keep tabs on mental and physical health of employees, to conduct audiometric examinations of personnel (and to recommend steps to reduce loss of hearing), to require minimum driving training for operators of vehicles on airports, and in general to do the things for all workers that a large, well-run business or airline does for its own people. This improves morale, reduces the accident rate, reduces labor turnover, helps improve labor/management relations, all of which have important though intangible effects on aircraft safety. At one large airport, with more than 5,000 employees, used by 13 airlines and about 30 other business operations, the total number of medical facilities is two. Will private enterprise close this gap? This information has been supplied by Dr. Ross McFarland of the Guggenheim Center for Aviation Health and Safety at the Harvard School of Public Health.

In addition, there are problems of assuring pure food and water for passengers, reducing air pollution, eliminating the possibility of epidemic disease carried on planes by insects, of handling passengers who have become ill in flight, first aid when an aircraft crashes, etc.

Working on an airplane is a relatively hazardous occupation. The New York Workmen's Compensation insurance rate for a line mechanic is $1.80 per $100 of weekly salary in contrast with only 16¢ for a clerical worker. An analysis might be made to determine whether the workmen's risk could be reduced by modification of airport and aircraft design. Perhaps there is a profitable area here for research.

Local health and accident prevention services will become more important at an accelerating rate. These problems should be faced now.

EMERGENCIES

A serious problem in airport safety concerns the lack of crash fire rescue crews and equipment. The National Fire Protection Association has established minimum requirements for various types of airports. These are being reviewed from the standpoint of feasibility. The cost is enormous because of manpower requirements -- five men per shift, three shifts, etc. Less than 10% of the airline airports are adequately equipped or staffed. According to the NFPA very few airports have the same fire fighting equipment. It has been suggested that improvements in the design of aircraft to reduce the fire hazard, such as a crash fire suppression system, would reduce the need for crash rescue crews. This is true but only when all aircraft provide this safety feature. This is many years off. (Nevertheless, the crash fire suppression system should be pursued with vigor.)

The imminence of danger on take-off or landing may not be known to the pilot. A survey made by the CAA several years ago indicated that the pilot was unaware that he was about to have an accident in about 70% of the accidents. Therefore, the crash crews must be constantly alert and ready. Reliance on forewarning is not sound.

Z2465.8