Gonna be a bunch of unhappy campers at Perth Airport today...

[ozbeachbabe]

In the West Australian newspaper today they had a story about how much Qantas could have been fined for keeping passengers on planes for more than 3 hours if this had happened in the US because of laws they have brought in there..

The figures quoted in the story seemed a bit rubbery so not talking about the amount of fines as such, but it seems if we had a similar system of fines or compensation due for keeping passengers locked in planes for more than 3 hours QF and the rest would probably be a lot more proactive about finding a solution to get passengers off, or cancelling or redirecting flights earlier to make sure the situation didn't arise...

Not sure if deplaning passengers and leaving luggage on was a viable solution, but with no financial harm to them i guess not too much head scratching needed to be done, if it was going to hit the bottom line maybe a few more solutions/work arounds might have been thought of???

I think the instance in the US was in a a snowstorm however it would be interesting to find out their stance when lightning is present.

 

[D747]

Probably not, maybe I am just be over cautious but where there is lightning around I would err on the side of caution.

As this is a discussion thread, how about some creative thinking? What should QANTAS have done other than left the passengers on the aircraft? I ask again, when in Australian aviation was an airline worker injured by lightning? What is the reason for QANTAS policy? Is it time to review it? Did VA workers feel in danger in PER in the last few days? I am a huge QANTAS fan. I want to see the airline improve, that is why I ask is it time to change this policy. Am I the only person in this forum who can see this wierd discrepancy in airline policy?

 

[casanovawa]

Well there may not have been any ground crew electrocuted yet, but you don't maybe wait for someone to get electrocuted before you stop doing something... Pretty well established on things life golf courses etc that when lightning is around everyone gets off the course because i'm sure several have been fried standing under trees, that are of course the tallest thing in the area... I was wondering if they could have a large lightning rod, maybe around the control tower to act as a conduit for the lightning.. But anyway, standing next to big metal things might not be the best idea when the storm was as bad as it was, but it sure didn't sound like QF groundcrew were very proactive, and weren't even all that reactive...

As to how safe VA is compared to QF and who was right, well without quoting the length of strength thing, it just a matter of different risk tolerances within each policy, neither may be right or wrong but there was probably also no upside to QF sending its people out as compared to quite a downside for the company if one got electrocuted... Risk management is likelihood of something happening by magnitude of problem if something does happen and usually anything involving the death of a worker should rate pretty high, even if it is somewhat unlikely... But you would think if no ground crew have been killed, there must be some metrics from roughly similar industries to guide these risk analyses...

 

[freofan]

Well I'll show my true colours here in the interest of honesty about this situation and admit that I've been doing some casual work on 'the ramp' at a company that shall remain unnamed.

There were multiple periods where there was NO lightning visible from the airport, nevermind within 5kms of it, where the QF rampies were not operating. Indeed many of them included blue skies and semi sunlight at the airport.

Most worrying to me (as a QF shareholder and traveller [I'd be f..king livid at sitting on an aircraft for 5+ hours]) was that after all other operators at the airport began servicing aircraft again (around 3.30-4pm) QF seemed to remain inoperative for a further few hours.

Futhermore in reply to medheads post (at the bottom of page 4 from memory) there was an empty airbridge available at the QF terminal the whole time - indeed it was the airbridge they used for the 744 later on in the day when it finally made its way to the terminal. So there was opportunity to alleviate the miscomfort for at least one aircraft of travellers!

 

[freofan]

And I should have added those multiple periods were longer than 30minutes in length

 

[Reggie]

I know that a bloke was killed by lightening at a minesite in WA in about 2001

I knew the poor guy. He was the underground mine manager, and it occured on the 14th of January 2001. He was standing in open ground, near a turkey nest dam / tailings dam.

 

[casanovawa]

Its one thing to all be in the same boat, but if i was looking out the window at other companies doing something and QF were doing nothing...

Well yes, would be highly unimpressed and QF would be hearing about it!

 

[freofan]

Its one thing to all be in the same boat, but if i was looking out the window at other companies doing something and QF were doing nothing...

Well yes, would be highly unimpressed and QF would be hearing about it!

Well they can hardly afford to bring this issue to the table with their ground staff/unions after the last few months can they? QF would be the big bad wolf on the front page.... again....

 

[mannej]

When was the last injury from lightning for passengers or staff please?

I am sure Worksafe sees that as a valid excuse should something happen.

 

[medhead]

How is it possible that some airlines have a policy that they believe is safe and can continue to operate in Perth's recent conditions while another airline believes it is unsafe?

Simply because each company is required to individually assess and respond to risks in the workplace. Different risk assessment and controls will result depending on a number of factors including worker input and corporate culture.

.
Furthermore in reply to medheads post (at the bottom of page 4 from memory) there was an empty airbridge available at the QF terminal the whole time - indeed it was the airbridge they used for the 744 later on in the day when it finally made its way to the terminal. So there was opportunity to alleviate the miscomfort for at least one aircraft of travellers!

Pretty sure I was just repeating what I'd seen reported in the media. Perhaps this gets into the issue of availability of ground staff to guide in the aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[D747]

Simply because each company is required to individually assess and respond to risks in the workplace. Different risk assessment and controls will result depending on a number of factors including worker input and corporate culture.


Sorry, but IMHO, there is no way I could sit around knowing there were people trapped on aircraft for many hours on end if I were QF ground crew. "Risks in the workplace" must be assesed on a case by case basis. There has to be a point where management say "lets all get out there and start getting these poor customers off-loaded, look they are doing it at DJ and Tiger and the International terminal etc." I mean really, it's just common sense. Lets say there is worker input and a shift in corporate culture.
If there was no other ground staff out there, because it was actually dangerous, then of course stay inside.
If QF is really in trouble then I would imagine that ground staff and management working side by side on the ground to clear a backlog of this nature would win the hearts back of travellers.

I know there have been accidents involving ground vehicles, does that mean that QF don't use them anymore? It sounds rediculous doesn't it? So, finally, to some numbers. An airport ground crew worker is 14.6 times more likely to be seriously injured driving to or from the airport than while doing their job. For being struck by lightening there are no known stats, that's how rare it is.

 

[simongr]

When was the last injury from lightning for passengers or staff please?

How is it possible that some airlines have a policy that they believe is safe and can continue to operate in Perth's recent conditions while another airline believes it is unsafe? It is either safe or not. Was anyone from DJ/VA struck by lightning in the last two days at PER?

Well obviously no-one is going to be struck by lightning if the largest carrier has a policy/agreement that prevents ANYONE from being outside during a lightning storm... It is a bit saying "Has anyone been killed from eating coughnic in the QP? - No because they don't serve coughnic in the QP"

Sorry, but IMHO, there is no way I could sit around knowing there were people trapped on aircraft for many hours on end if I were QF ground crew. "Risks in the workplace" must be assesed on a case by case basis. There has to be a point where management say "lets all get out there and start getting these poor customers off-loaded, look they are doing it at DJ and Tiger and the International terminal etc." I mean really, it's just common sense. Lets say there is worker input and a shift in corporate culture.
If there was no other ground staff out there, because it was actually dangerous, then of course stay inside.
If QF is really in trouble then I would imagine that ground staff and management working side by side on the ground to clear a backlog of this nature would win the hearts back of travellers.

I know there have been accidents involving ground vehicles, does that mean that QF don't use them anymore? It sounds rediculous doesn't it? So, finally, to some numbers. An airport ground crew worker is 14.6 times more likely to be seriously injured driving to or from the airport than while doing their job. For being struck by lightening there are no known stats, that's how rare it is.

The worst thing for the directors' liability would be to have a policy and then decide to ignore it and have something happen.... Again it is pretty rare for it to happen but it does:

Nine airport employees (5 PAL, 4 aircraft cleaners) declared out of danger by Makati Medical Center and San Juan de Dios Hospital after sustaining minor injuries from the effects of lightning that struck a PAL airplane early tonight. The workers were taking shelter under the airplane from a sudden heavy downpour when the lightning struck

 

[medhead]

one request: could you use the reply with quote button please.

Sorry, but IMHO, there is no way I could sit around knowing there were people trapped on aircraft for many hours on end if I were QF ground crew. "Risks in the workplace" must be assesed on a case by case basis. There has to be a point where management say "lets all get out there and start getting these poor customers off-loaded, look they are doing it at DJ and Tiger and the International terminal etc." I mean really, it's just common sense. Lets say there is worker input and a shift in corporate culture.
If there was no other ground staff out there, because it was actually dangerous, then of course stay inside.

And if you get killed getting out there getting all those poor customers off loaded, the CEO faces a significant fine and gaol time for not keeping you safe at work. Frankly, you are missing the reality involved. All people have a right to come home from work alive and uninjured. Management is responsible to make that happen.

I know there have been accidents involving ground vehicles, does that mean that QF don't use them anymore? It sounds rediculous doesn't it? So, finally, to some numbers. An airport ground crew worker is 14.6 times more likely to be seriously injured driving to or from the airport than while doing their job. For being struck by lightening there are no known stats, that's how rare it is.

They control the risks of vehicles by have things like speed limits, traffic signs, marked vehicle lanes and etc.

Don't get me started about the risks of driving. I deal with people who demand I prevent a 1 in 20000 risk per year but then think nothing of jumping in a car.

I'm pretty sure there are known stats for lightening strikes. I'm certainly aware of one workplace incident in the last 10 years and I vaguely recall another.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[nlagalle]

Sorry, but IMHO, there is no way I could sit around knowing there were people trapped on aircraft for many hours on end if I were QF ground crew. "Risks in the workplace" must be assesed on a case by case basis. There has to be a point where management say "lets all get out there and start getting these poor customers off-loaded, look they are doing it at DJ and Tiger and the International terminal etc." I mean really, it's just common sense. Lets say there is worker input and a shift in corporate culture.
If there was no other ground staff out there, because it was actually dangerous, then of course stay inside.
If QF is really in trouble then I would imagine that ground staff and management working side by side on the ground to clear a backlog of this nature would win the hearts back of travellers.

I know there have been accidents involving ground vehicles, does that mean that QF don't use them anymore? It sounds rediculous doesn't it? So, finally, to some numbers. An airport ground crew worker is 14.6 times more likely to be seriously injured driving to or from the airport than while doing their job. For being struck by lightening there are no known stats, that's how rare it is.

You may not want to sit around, but if there are specific bans in place then you don't go out. It has also been mentioned (whether it is true or not I don't know) that the regulations are part of the award agreememnt, and if so there is no way the workers are going to go back out.

I was caught in MEL last week on board (for only an hour) due to the tarmac being shut down 3 times due to lightning. Everyone was stopped (inc Yiger Virgin etc) in that case.

 

[D747]

You may not want to sit around, but if there are specific bans in place then you don't go out. It has also been mentioned (whether it is true or not I don't know) that the regulations are part of the award agreememnt, and if so there is no way the workers are going to go back out.

I was caught in MEL last week on board (for only an hour) due to the tarmac being shut down 3 times due to lightning. Everyone was stopped (inc Yiger Virgin etc) in that case.

I can understand, and have sat through, many a tarmac shutdown. What I can't understand is some experts believing it is safe while other experts believe it is not. I do not believe that it was unsafe, continuously, for 9 hours. Common sense people!

OH&S, now there is an interesting subject.

Now if only I could work out how to do this quote function.

 

[simongr]

Now if only I could work out how to do this quote function.

Press the reply with quote button...

In terms of OHS risk factors - different experts might come up with different solutions. People will also have different risk tolerances.

 

[JohnPhelan]

What I can't understand is some experts believing it is safe while other experts believe it is not. I do not believe that it was unsafe, continuously, for 9 hours. Common sense people!

There are two issues here which are related, but not the same thing:
1. when it's safe to be on the ramp - safety issue
2. what the union has negotiated as part of the QF industrial agreement for ramp staff - industrial issue

What the "experts" say is one thing; what the industrial agreement says is another. In this instance, because of the QF industrial agreement (negotiated between the union and QF), no ramp staff are to be outside when there is lightning (or perhaps even the possibility of lightning) during storms within a 5km/nm radius.

If a QF manager looked at all those pax sitting on aircraft in Perth and told the ramp staff to get out there to get them in (in direct contravention of the industrial agreement), the union would raise merry hell (and, indeed, I doubt that any of the staff would follow what would actually be an unlawful direction).

The way to fix this? In the new industrial agreement, they would have to change the provisions relating to ramp staff and thunderstorms. What the change would be, I have no idea. Make it storms within a range of 2km/nm? (But given how quickly storms can move, that's probably not enough).

And as an aside, even if you were able to bring the pax into the terminal, you can imagine the ranting that would be directed at the staff if the pax were told the luggage mightn't be unloaded for several hours! :shock: :evil: Either everything (pax and luggage) comes off, or everything stays on.

 

[D747]

Press the reply with quote button...

In terms of OHS risk factors - different experts might come up with different solutions. People will also have different risk tolerances.

Okay, seem to have that quote function sorted, thanks for your help medhead and simongr.

It still beggars belief that multiple companies working along side each other can have seperate views on safety. OH&S has different laws for the exact same circumstances in seperate states. It is not possible. It defies logic. It is part of the problem that employers in this country face.
I am glad that if you no longer feel safe you do not have to do a task. I am glad that all work place accidents have to be reported. I am glad that if I see an unsafe situation that there are measures in place that I take the necessary action to remedy the problem. For these same reasons, if I saw fellow workers out on the tarmac between warnings, I would feel compelled to join them. Change the bans. Review the situation. Use your brain, for crying out loud.

For the record, I was nowhere near PER the other day.

 

[medhead]

Okay, seem to have that quote function sorted, thanks for your help medhead and simongr.

Not sure I helped much, Sorry if I sounded terse. Just that it confuses me no end, to read something and think that it sounds familiar.

It still beggars belief that multiple companies working along side each other can have seperate views on safety. OH&S has different laws for the exact same circumstances in seperate states. It is not possible. It defies logic. It is part of the problem that employers in this country face.

Basically in comes down to individual companies have to do their own risk assessment and implement controls. That is why you get different results. OHS laws are not that different, they basically say the employer has to take all reasonable steps to prevent someone from dying (to paraphase). How that is achieved, after considering the likelihood and consequence of a risk, is up to the company. This is supposed to be in consultation with the workforce. Obviously, Qantas has opted for a wide prohibition, and let that get in to the workplace agreement. (stupidly?) Virgin have a lesser prohibition. That doesn't make one safe and the other unsafe, it is more a reflection of how they manage risks.

 

[casanovawa]

Yes it is allowable for different companies to have different risk policies... And it is just like one bank may want to lend to riskier projects while others don't, or cash convertors might want to give same day/high interst loans while NAB doesn't, so be it, they choose the risk profile they are corporately comfortable with... If NAB don't want to give you the loan, walk down the road to Cash Convertors...

Its a slightly different matter when you either choose to follow and OTT OHS policy for what i admit is an extremely rare event (can't remember to many other hold ups like that in Perth) or even worse, your unions have negotiated a slack award or EBA which allows workers to sit around while passengers/customers suffer distress for several hours and have no options of 'shopping around'... Yeah it is allowable but don't expect your customers to have much respect for you...

As for what can be done in the new industrial agreement to fix it, maybe get a copy of Virgin's or Tiger's and cut and paste out the relevant para's...

And yes, i imagine if you got the people inside the airport without their bags, there would have been a bit of hell to pay, maybe keeping them shut up in the planes saved the airport staff from an earful and just let the FA's take the brunt of it if there was much complaining??? The thing to do would have been to explain to the people on the plane before taking them off, here is the situation your not getting your bags, suck it up and deal with it or we can all stay on here... And that is in corporate speak, not literal, just so i don't get accused of using terms like 'Haul @ss'... Informed people usually react a lot better than uninformed, confused and exasperated people...

It wouldn't have been so bad if Qantas could have offered to get people off planes and get them on their way and will send the bags to the hotels/houses later, but unfortunately the hotel situation in Perth suxs at the moment so that would have been a big task first finding them accommodation and then probably shipping bags out later all over the place... But a high percentage of the passengers would have been Perth residents who could either come pick up their bags later or Qantas could have couriered them to their homes at some point...