Aircraft firm fined for breaches of safety law after death

An aircraft maintenance firm yesterday pleaded guilty to five breaches of health and safety legislation after the Health and …

An aircraft maintenance firm yesterday pleaded guilty to five breaches of health and safety legislation after the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) inspected its premises in the wake of the death of one of the company's employees at Dublin airport last year.

However, three other offences against SR Technics were struck out at yesterday's hearing before the Dublin District Court at Dolphin House.

The company was ordered by Judge Dympna Cusack to pay a total of €4,000 in fines as well as €2,000 in costs. All of the breaches related to various sections of the Health and Safety at Work Act (2005). The authority had conducted several inspections of the company's premises at Dublin airport in the days following the death of Patrick Harris (25) from Portmarnock.

Mr Harris, who died at Beaumont hospital on February 22nd, 2006, after he became trapped in a hangar at the airport, had worked as a maintenance assistant with SR Technics.

READ MORE

An inquest into the cause of his death was adjourned in October pending the outcome of yesterday's case, which referred only to the inspections carried out by the authority following his death.

In his evidence yesterday, HSA inspector Martin Convey outlined how he visited the premises on a number of occasions last year. He also presented some photos of the scene to the court.

The "extremely large" hangar was where aircraft were brought from the airport apron to be cleaned internally and externally by maintenance crew, with each door running on a track between the hangar walls, he said.

Among the issues he had identified were the lack of a cover on the chains and sprockets on the hangar doors, posing the risk of entanglement, and the "highly dangerous" habit, whereby staff chose to "ride" on the hangar doors as a shortcut rather than to walk alongside them as they opened. He had observed someone doing this during a visit to the premises, he said.

He also had been informed that staff had received no training specific to opening and closing the hangar doors and he was also concerned that a locking system to stop the hangar doors opening when smaller "personnel doors" were utilised, was not working.

However, Mr Convey acknowledged that these issues had since been addressed by the company. The court also heard that the company has since spent some €160,000 on improvements.

Counsel for SR Technics Tom Mallon noted the speed of the hangar doors was roughly half that of the pedestrian travelators in airports. While the company failed to meet its own high standards in relation to operating the doors, these standards exceeded the existing European standards in this regard, he added.

The judge fined the company €800 in respect of each of the five offences to which it had pleaded guilty, and awarded costs of €2,000. She also suggested signs that have since been placed on the hangar doors, to the effect that they can only be operated by a trained individual, be reproduced in several languages.