12 minute read
Appendix IV: Examples of “affected workers” handling “affected items” from “affected aircraft
1. Summary of new testing groups required to be tested in relation to affected items
A worker will need to answer “YES” to all of the item questions AND all of the interaction questions to fall within the new “affected workers handling affected items” group and be under a requirement to be tested.
Item Question: A: Have you handled an item that meets the following requirements?
the item has been removed from an affected aircraft for the purposes of: ▪ disposal ▪ re-use on an aircraft ▪ cleaning the item is not freight or cargo
NO
No test required YES
Move to question
B
Item Question: B: If you answered yes to question A, have you handled the item which satisfies all elements of question A within 72 hours of the item being removed from the aircraft?
NO
C
No test required YES
Move to question
C
Interaction Questions:
C: In addition to answering “yes” to Question A and B in the item questions:
o Have you spent 15 minutes or more, either in face to face contact (within 2 metres) with, or in a confined space (within 2 metres) with someone who is required to be tested because they are an affected air border worker, e.g. who is: Are you a worker who spends more than 15 minutes in an enclosed space on board an affected aircraft
o Are you a landside worker who interacts with arriving international passengers or aircrew
NO
No test required
C
If yes to A, B &C Then a test is required YES
The life jackets are being removed for the purpose of “re-use”: they have been removed for a safety check to ensure they are still fit for purpose for future safe re-use on board an aircraft in future. The life jackets are affected items.
An airline representative has arranged for the work to be done at an airline equipment supplier and workshop in Auckland. An airside worker collects the lifejackets in a container for transportation and removes them from the aircraft In the course of their routine business on board the aircraft. (1) (2) Is the air border worker within scope of the mandatory requirements of the Required Testing Order?
Yes: The air border worker is a person who routinely works on affected aircraft and is already subject to the Required Testing Order (under item 3.9 of Schedule) Contact with the air border worker by another worker who subsequently handles the life jackets may bring that worker within scope of the new testing requirement.
The air border worker transports the container of life jackets to a safety products servicing workshop in Auckland within 24 hours. He enters the workshop area and delivers the container to a servicing technician. He has a face-toface conversation for over 15 minutes, standing within 2 metres, discussing the details of the safety checking and any repair work needed, dealing with paperwork and arranging to collect the life jackets on completion of the work to return them to the airline for re-use on an aircraft. The servicing technician has handled the life jackets within 24 hours of their removal from the aircraft
The servicing technician spent more than 15 minutes in contact within 2 metres of the air border worker (1) (2)
Is the servicing technician within scope of the mandatory requirements of the Required Testing Order?
Yes. The servicing technician meets the test of being an affected worker who handles an affected item. He has handled affected items within 24 hours of their removal from an affected aircraft, and had face-to-face contact for more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of the air border worker who is a member of a group who is already required to be tested under the Required Testing Order, while both were working. The servicing technician is an affected worker
Another technician in the workshop assists the first technician to check and repair the life jackets. This second technician has handled the life jackets within 24 hours of their removal from an affected aircraft. The second technician has had contact with the first technician. (3) However, the second technician has not had contact with a member of a group who is already required to be tested under the Order (no direct contact with the air border worker who boarded the aircraft to collect the life jackets). (3) Is the second technicians within scope of the mandatory requirements of the Required Testing Order?
No: The second technician does not meet the test of being an affected worker who handles an affected item. They have not had contact with a member of a group who is already required to be tested under the Required Testing Order The second technician is not an affected worker
Example 2: Two workers from a waste disposal company contracted to an airline board an aircraft which has recently arrived from Tokyo. They fill several large plastic bags with food scraps and unused meals and then remove them from the aircraft. They boarded the plane shortly after its arrival once the passengers had all disembarked. While on board the aircraft they are accompanied by an aircrew member, a steward. The plastic bags and their contents are intended for disposal.
The aircraft is an affected aircraft, the steward is an affected border worker. Are the bags affected items and are the waste disposal workers affected workers?
Yes & Yes: An affected item is an item (apart from cargo or freight) removed from the passenger area of an aircraft. The waste disposal workers meet the test of being affected workers who handle affected items. They have also been within an enclosed space within an affected aircraft for more than 15 minutes handled affected items within 24 hours of their removal from an affected aircraft. They also spent more than 15 minutes within an enclosed space on an affected aircraft and worked in close contact with an affected person (the air steward) while all three were working. (4)
Example 3: Three passenger viewing screens / monitors on an aircraft which has recently arrived from London are faulty. An electronics technician boards the aircraft in the company of an aircrew member to inspect and repair them. Two screens have only minor faults which the technician is able to diagnose and repair without removing the screens. However, the third screen has a major fault and needs to be replaced. The technician removes this screen and replaces it with one he has brought on board with him. He then takes the faulty screen away to be disposed with other e-waste. Once back at his work he gives it to a colleague to dispose of. The aircraft is an affected aircraft
The faulty screen will be removed for disposal within 24 hours of its removal from an affected aircraft. repair and servicing and will be returned to the aircraft for “re-use”. The screen is therefore an affected item.
Is the electronics technician within scope of the mandatory requirements of the Required Testing Order?
Yes: The technician spent more than 15 minutes in an enclosed space on board an affected aircraft. Is the technician’s colleague also an affected worker?
No: Contact between the technician and his colleague who subsequently handles the screen will not bring the colleague within scope of the new testing requirement. The colleague has had no contact with any other border worker who is already required to be tested under Schedule 2 of the required testing Order. The service agent is not an affected worker, and is not subject to new testing requirement from 22 April 2021
Diagrammatic examples of “affected workers who handle affected items” in the air border context
Explanatory notes for examples
1. Being “in contact” with another person involves being face-to-face within 2 metres of each other for 15 minutes or more, or being in a confined space within 2 metres of the other person for 15 minutes or more. 2. If the contact between the air border worker and the safety technician had been for less than 15 minutes, or they were standing at a distance of more than 2 metres of each other, then the technician would not come within scope of the new requirements. This could be a feasible scenario if arrangements for the checking and repair work could be made in advance, for example by email. Any contact between the air border worker and technician when the life jackets were delivered would then likely be minimal. 3. The first technician is not a worker who is already subject to testing under the Required Testing Order (i.e. they are not a member of one of the groups of air border workers described in question C in the table on page 26. For this reason, their interacting with the second technician does not being the second technician within scope of the Required Testing order. 4. Both waste disposal workers are affected persons because they handled an affected item and spent more than 15 minutes in an enclosed on an affected aircraft and in the company of an air border worker who is an affected person.
If only one of the waste disposal workers had boarded the plane while the other remained outside the aircraft and handled the plastic bag only as his colleague handed to him through the aircraft door, then the second worker would not be an affected person because, while he had handled an affected item within 24 hours of it coming off an affected aircraft, he would not have entered the aircraft or interacted with an affected border worker (the aircraft steward).
In all of the examples below, it is a given that the items have been handled within 24 hours of their removal from an affected aircraft.
Example 1: Some equipment from the passenger cabin of an affected aircraft need servicing or replacing. Equipment needing to be replaced is removed from the cabin, while equipment needing to be serviced is removed only if the servicing cannot be done on site but needs to take place at a workshop.
Is the equipment an “affected item”?
Is the equipment cargo or freight? No. Has the equipment part been removed from the aircraft for cleaning? No, the equipment has not been removed
from the aircraft for the purpose of being cleaned.
Has some equipment been removed from the aircraft for the purpose of being returned to an aircraft for re-use?
Yes, the equipment which will be serviced will returned to an aircraft - perhaps not the aircraft from which it was removed - for re-use in future. This equipment is therefore an affected item.
Has some equipment been removed from the aircraft disposal? Yes. Equipment which cannot be serviced or
repaired will be disposed off. This equipment is therefore an affected item.
Example 2: An engine on an affected aircraft needs to be serviced. During this work, some engine parts need to be disposed of and replaced while others need to be transported to as workshop to be serviced and then brought back to the aircraft to be reinstalled in the engine..
Are any of these parts an “affected item”?
No. “Affected items” are items that have been removed from the passenger area of an affected aircraft for cleaning, disposal and/or re-use. Items removed from an affected aircraft’s engine cannot be affected items.
Example 3: Expired medical stores or medical waste. These may be put into the aircraft’s garbage for subsequent disposal. Some medical waste items might require special handling and disposal (e.g. bio-hazard material, used sharps, expired prescription medication). In this case they would be removed from the aircraft for disposal (e.g. at a bio-hazards depot, or pharmacy).
Is the expired medical stores or medical waste an “affected item”?
Is the expired medical stores or medical waste cargo or freight? No. Has the expired medical stores or medical waste been removed from the passenger area of an affected aircraft for cleaning? No. The, expired medical stores or medical waste is not an item removed from the aircraft for the
purpose of being cleaned.
Has the expired medical stores or medical waste been removed from the aircraft with the purpose of being returned to an aircraft for re-use? No, the expired medical stores or medical waste has not been removed for the purpose of
being returned to an aircraft for re-use in future.
Has the expired medical stores or medical waste been removed from the aircraft for disposal? Yes. It has been
removed specifically for the purpose of disposal. In these circumstances, the expired medical stores or medical waste is an affected item.
Example 4: Quarantine garbage. This may be handled by airlines using their own staff or contractors or alternately by biosecurity staff such as MPI personnel.
Is quarantine garbage an “affected item”?
Is the quarantine garbage cargo or freight? No. Has the quarantine garbage been removed from the aircraft for cleaning? No. Has the quarantine garbage been removed from the aircraft with the purpose of being returned to an aircraft for rese? No, the quarantine garbage has not been removed for the purpose of being returned to an aircraft for re-use
in future.
Has the quarantine garbage been removed from the aircraft for disposal? Yes. The quarantine garbage is an
“affected items” .
Example 5: Items taken on board an aircraft by a worker carrying out an essential task, and removed on completion of that task. For example, a cleaner boarding an aircraft will take their cleaning tools and equipment on board. All of these tools and equipment will be taken off the aircraft when the cleaner disembarks.
Are these tools and equipment “affected items”?
Are these tools and equipment cargo or freight? No. Have the tools and equipment been removed been removed from the aircraft for cleaning? No. The tools and
equipment may be cleaned before they are taken on board another, but that is not the purpose for which it was removed.
Have the tools and equipment been removed from the aircraft for disposal? Yes, in some cases – e.g. used sponges
and cloths. These items have been removed for disposal.
Have the tools and equipment been removed from the aircraft for the purpose of re-use? Yes, in some cases. Some
