Don Mueang airport’s escalator accident not caused by poor maintenance

[norbra]

44 minutes ago, superal said:

You echo my previous take on this incident ( not accident because accidents are unavoidable ) and your last paragraph would be the opinion of a judge at a compensation claim hearing . In summary the failed mechanics and lack of maintenance were the route of the tragedy , especially the weak looking yellow combs that are there to prevent any foreign object entering the mechanics . This lady needs to get a top lawyer and sue A.O.T. for maximum compensation .

For your info yellow comb plates have been used worldwide for 40 years.

But good housekeeping replacing damaged plates is a must.

The yellow plates are designed to break to release any large foreign object they may encounter.

The effort required to break the plate is sufficient to operate the safety switches attached to the floor plates,shutting down the machine.

That's what's supposed to happen but TIT.

[Jack james]

Anything can fail! There is nothing on this planet that is perfect.

[Moonlover]

2 hours ago, norbra said:

For your info yellow comb plates have been used worldwide for 40 years.

But good housekeeping replacing damaged plates is a must.

The yellow plates are designed to break to release any large foreign object they may encounter.

The effort required to break the plate is sufficient to operate the safety switches attached to the floor plates,shutting down the machine.

That's what's supposed to happen but TIT.

Thanks for your engineering input. This is very informative. As both a former engineer and a curious 'people watcher, I think I can narrow down what really happened to cause this accident.

 

In my 'people watching' mode, I've noted that passengers, when moving around the concourse with 4 wheeled carry on bags, almost invariably have the bag alongside themselves, much in the manner of 'walking the dog'. That is, IMO an important clue.

 

I would posit when this unfortunate lady reached the end of the travelator, her and her bag arrived at the off ramp simultaneously. The front 2 wheels of the bag caught in the comb plates and forced the plate that both the bag and lady where standing on down. Her foot then slipped through the gap that had opened up and we all know the result.

 

As so often , it's a culmination of little incidents that result in these tragic accidents.

 

And as a footnote, those who claim this wasn't an accident need to go off and look up the meaning of the word.

 

This is my final word on this topic now. IMO it's been done to death.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Moonlover

[Confuscious]

5 hours ago, Mr Dome said:

Your view of people is rather negative, isn't it?

Blaming her for her roll-a-board having a mechanical issue & calling that "negligence", stopping short of blaming her for having had luggage at all (because in the words of another poster, these things aren't designed for it & yet another "it looks rather big". What?! Have you flown much?).

 

Is it too much to expect that even if a small plastic object gets caught by the teeth (already an unlikely outcome as it should just get pushed off and not catch) at the end, that object gets chewed up but the metal parts of a travelator remain sturdy and in place? Apparently not ????????‍♂️

https://www.elevatorimagazine.com/en/escalators-and-movingwalks/

 

ACCIDENTS

According to ELA – European Lift Association report, presented by Ebru Gemici-Loukas (“Industrial statistics of lifts & escalators”, Asansör Istanbul Conference” March 2015), in 2013 lift accidents were 835 (data referred to 18 out of 29 countries represented by ELA). 17 fatal accidents (no fatal accidents in Italy), 144 serious accidents (11 in Italy) and 674 minor accidents (85 in Italy).According to ELA – European Lift Association report, presented by Ebru Gemici-Loukas (“Industrial statistics of lifts & escalators”, Asansör Istanbul Conference” March 2015), in 2013 lift accidents were 835 (data referred to 18 out of 29 countries represented by ELA). 17 fatal accidents (no fatal accidents in Italy), 144 serious accidents (11 in Italy) and 674 minor accidents (85 in Italy).For escalators (data from 17 out of 29 countries), in the same year, accidents were 375: 3 fatal accidents, 24 serious accidents and 330 minor accidents (the report does not list accidents by countries). The majority of accidents (70%) is relevant to risks described by the EN115-2 (Safety of escalators and moving walks – Part 2: Rules for the improvement of safety of existing escalators and moving walks) standard, also known as SNEE (Safety Norm for Existing Escalators):

• slipping on steps/pallets/belt and on landings 28% – (1 fatal)
• falling from a landing 19% – (1 fatal)
• entrapment between skirting and steps  10%
• entrapment between combs steps/ballets/belt 5%
• entrapment at handrail entry points 5%
• improper use of an escalator to move a shopping cart 5%
• entrapment between steps or pallets 2%
• climbing the balustrade 1% – (1 fatal)
• crushing fingers between handrail and balustrade 1%
• falling due to stopping distance being too short 2%
• others 12%.

In 2013, accidents relevant to escalators (data from 16 out of 29 countries – no data for each country) involving operators were 65: 2 fatal accidents, 10 serious accidents and 53 minor accidents. In this case, 36% is included in the cases covered by SNEE:

• insufficient space in working area 24%  – (1 fatal)
• missing steps or pallets 5%
• no emergency stop switch in working area 2% – (1 fatal)
• electric shock due to contact with live parts 5%
• unsafe access to machine room 3%
• manual handling 17%
• unsafe working method 3%
• unsafe use of tools 2%
• others 32%.

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Confuscious
wrong insert

[Confuscious]

On 7/1/2023 at 9:40 AM, Dr B said:

I must first say that I feel very sorry for this lady, who has suffered a horrendous accident.

Having said that, I would like to point out something that none of the KWs seem to have noticed, and to which even the media have paid little attention. Please look at the two photographs from The Mail article. The first shows one side of her "suitcase" with the wheels damaged, and the second allows a check of the scale against the very unfortunate woman's leg. That is a suitcase, so why is she in possession of it at that location in the airport. Not just Don Muang, but airports all over the world, are not designed for passengers to take suitcases onto aircraft. The concept is that passengers arrive at Departure Level, go to check in, and deposit their luggage. Thereafter (1) the luggage is transported by a baggage handling system, in which at the end of a conveyor, the luggage tumbles onto the next conveyor. This is happening all the time in airports around the world, works well, and is fine for bags, but not for people. As a result (2) the people only have "hand carry" luggage, which the airlines prescribe to generally be less than 7 kg, and within a set of dimensions so that it can fit within the overhead lockers. This also means that, when using escalators or travelators, you can step off at the end, carrying your hand baggage. This is what they are designed for, and the "scrapers" at the ends which seem to be a yellow plastic in this case, are there to prevent small items of rubbish from getting taken round into the mechanism and jamming it. They are not designed to scrape luggage or passengers off the travelator or escalator.

It is easy to note that in both airports and supermarkets, where trolleys are used to carry loads on travelators, the trolleys always have quite large wheels, at least 75 mm in diameter, so that they can easily negotiate the ends of travelators. But also note that, in Airports, the luggage trolleys do not get past check-in, and the smaller hand carry luggage trolleys are normally banned from travelators.

What has happened is that there is a growing number of passengers who do not want to check-in luggage, probably considering that it "wastes their time". We have all seen them struggling down the aisles of aircraft with too many and too large bags, and so heavy that they cannot even lift them into a locker without help. Airports are not designed for this. Obviously one cannot tell the weight of a suitcase from a photograph, but I would venture to suggest that the one in this case weighed well over 7 kg. Luggage manufacturers encourage this behaviour, fitting their suitcases with wheels, but generally very small ones. So I suspect from all the information available that the passenger was travelling on the travelator standing just behind her suitcase. At the end the small wheels, under heavy load, got jammed at the "scraper" for reasons which I do not know without mechanical examination, where the travelator starts to drop down. This would stop the progress of the suitcase, so the travelator would push the passenger into the suitcase causing her to fall over. The travelators are not designed for passengers lying on the floor, and it is likely that there was already some opening up of the scrapers caused by the wheels. That would allow the end of her jeans to get trapped into the same area, which would quickly pull the leg and foot in with it.

There may be a need for changes in the future, but they will not come quickly. For now, to stay safe, simply follow the rules. Check in your suitcases, have only regulation hand carry on bags in terms of weight and size, and step off travelators and escalators carrying your bags as you do so. I did note that there was some reposting of information about a similar incident a few years ago involving a white Croc sandal. The wearer advised that he had managed to get his foot out of the sandal and was very lucky to avoid injury. However he also mentioned that he was "stepping off the travelator" at the time, and I have to doubt this. I do not believe it could have happened if he had stepped off. It is more likely that, perhaps because he was on his phone or otherwise distracted, he did not step off and was relying on the scarpers to transfer his body weight from the travelator to solid ground, for which they were not designed.

Your explanation of what might have happened seems plausible, but there are some other things that might change the cause of the incident.

1. The case size, compared to the size of the tiles is over the normal size of a carry-on luggage and should not be on a travelator.
2. The handbag shows a cable used to charge cell-phones hanging out like it was recently used, which might point out the likelyhood that the lady was using her cell phone at the moment of the incident instead to look at the big sign warning her to watch her steps.
3. The case wheels are damaged at the small size, which proves that the case was going length wise on the travelator (by her side like a dog) rather than side ways (dragged before or after her).

The OP says that the CCTV cameras showed the lady being hit by a large object, which caused her to fall on her bump.
In this position it would be easy for the jeans or another clothe to get into the travelator and pull her leg into the mechanism.
 

[Mr Dome]

1 hour ago, Confuscious said:

https://www.elevatorimagazine.com/en/escalators-and-movingwalks/

 

ACCIDENTS

According to ELA – European Lift Association report, presented by Ebru Gemici-Loukas (“Industrial statistics of lifts & escalators”, Asansör Istanbul Conference” March 2015), in 2013 lift accidents were 835 (data referred to 18 out of 29 countries represented by ELA). 17 fatal accidents (no fatal accidents in Italy), 144 serious accidents (11 in Italy) and 674 minor accidents (85 in Italy).According to ELA – European Lift Association report, presented by Ebru Gemici-Loukas (“Industrial statistics of lifts & escalators”, Asansör Istanbul Conference” March 2015), in 2013 lift accidents were 835 (data referred to 18 out of 29 countries represented by ELA). 17 fatal accidents (no fatal accidents in Italy), 144 serious accidents (11 in Italy) and 674 minor accidents (85 in Italy).For escalators (data from 17 out of 29 countries), in the same year, accidents were 375: 3 fatal accidents, 24 serious accidents and 330 minor accidents (the report does not list accidents by countries). The majority of accidents (70%) is relevant to risks described by the EN115-2 (Safety of escalators and moving walks – Part 2: Rules for the improvement of safety of existing escalators and moving walks) standard, also known as SNEE (Safety Norm for Existing Escalators):

• slipping on steps/pallets/belt and on landings 28% – (1 fatal)
• falling from a landing 19% – (1 fatal)
• entrapment between skirting and steps  10%
• entrapment between combs steps/ballets/belt 5%
• entrapment at handrail entry points 5%
• improper use of an escalator to move a shopping cart 5%
• entrapment between steps or pallets 2%
• climbing the balustrade 1% – (1 fatal)
• crushing fingers between handrail and balustrade 1%
• falling due to stopping distance being too short 2%
• others 12%.

In 2013, accidents relevant to escalators (data from 16 out of 29 countries – no data for each country) involving operators were 65: 2 fatal accidents, 10 serious accidents and 53 minor accidents. In this case, 36% is included in the cases covered by SNEE:

• insufficient space in working area 24%  – (1 fatal)
• missing steps or pallets 5%
• no emergency stop switch in working area 2% – (1 fatal)
• electric shock due to contact with live parts 5%
• unsafe access to machine room 3%
• manual handling 17%
• unsafe working method 3%
• unsafe use of tools 2%
• others 32%.

 

This is just a bunch of collected info in escalator incidents that really doesn't contribute anything to what we're discussing, specifically your claim that she had caused the accidence through "negligence" ????????‍♂️ 

[Mr Dome]

1 hour ago, Confuscious said:

Your explanation of what might have happened seems plausible, but there are some other things that might change the cause of the incident.

1. The case size, compared to the size of the tiles is over the normal size of a carry-on luggage and should not be on a travelator.
2. The handbag shows a cable used to charge cell-phones hanging out like it was recently used, which might point out the likelyhood that the lady was using her cell phone at the moment of the incident instead to look at the big sign warning her to watch her steps.
3. The case wheels are damaged at the small size, which proves that the case was going length wise on the travelator (by her side like a dog) rather than side ways (dragged before or after her).

The OP says that the CCTV cameras showed the lady being hit by a large object, which caused her to fall on her bump.
In this position it would be easy for the jeans or another clothe to get into the travelator and pull her leg into the mechanism.
 

You're still rocking the victim blaming hard 

 

# 1. The pink roll-a-board looks perfectly fine to fit into an overhead bin of a modern aircraft. When you take a flight these days, you see even bigger ones. Why exactly shouldn't it be on the travelator? That's just a bizarre claim clutching at straws to blame her for this.

- There's simply no rule like that. People use them with all their carry on luggage everyday, including premium class passengers with significantly higher allowances for carry on (which some of them exceed even because most carry on items are never checked for weight) plus those heavy bottles from duty free that airlines never have an issue with in any booked class because $$$$.

- Heavy obese people use them daily, so maybe they shouldn't be on it either - if it's about weight and size. I don't think you've thought this through all the way.

 

#2. Maybe she was using her phone but you're making assumptions and that's a no no. It's also a false one as charging it would support that she wasn't on it.

 

#3. I thought the explanation was that an opening was created when a case wheel came off and her leg went down inside. Now, you claim her clothing might have dragged her down (and the travelator remained undamaged - or are you claiming both?). You really have to pick one theory and what we heard so far rules out your "jeans theory".

 

Why don't you wait for more facts to be revealed before speculating?

Edited July 2, 2023 by Mr Dome
fixing phone typos

[Moonlover]

On 7/1/2023 at 11:03 AM, norbra said:

Travelators and escalators cannot be stopped.too quickly for fear of casualties to those riding being flung to the floor of the travelators or to the bottom of escalators.

I once hit the emergency stop button on a vey crowded down elevator in London after a lady had fallen at the bottom in an incident very similar to the one that happened here.

 

The elevator stopped instantly and as best I recall no one fell over. But a more serious incident was almost certainly prevented.

[norbra]

52 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

I once hit the emergency stop button on a vey crowded down elevator in London after a lady had fallen at the bottom in an incident very similar to the one that happened here.

 

The elevator stopped instantly and as best I recall no one fell over. But a more serious incident was almost certainly prevented.

Say 30 exposed crowded,2 persons per step equals around 4200 kgs, I don't think the stop would be instantaneous.

As for walkways,from memory, max weight per floor plate is 300kgs

Many years ago I was involved in a full load emergency stop test on an escalator,(a simulated broken drive chain where the normal power off apply brake was overidden ) the escalator slid 1.5 steps before stopping.

Edited July 2, 2023 by norbra

[Alex2554]

As an engineer in this field with 40 years experience I must admit that escalators and moving walks are absolutely safe if they have proper maintenance. The combplate is a moveable part designed for immediate shutdown when the obstacle force is more than 15 kg in horisontal and/or 6 kg in vertical. Obviously 15 kg is not enough to break a comb. No matter what was jammed motor stops immediately. In addition some other safety devices  must be activated in the case that the combplate safety switch didn't trigger shutdown. None of them  work properly here.

Maintenance means checking out all safety devices for all possible malfunction, so blaming a passenger is stupid

Edited July 2, 2023 by Alex2554
Typo

[Moonlover]

1 hour ago, norbra said:

Say 30 exposed crowded,2 persons per step equals around 4200 kgs, I don't think the stop would be instantaneous.

As for walkways,from memory, max weight per floor plate is 300kgs

Many years ago I was involved in a full load emergency stop test on an escalator,(a simulated broken drive chain where the normal power off apply brake was overidden ) the escalator slid 1.5 steps before stopping.

I wasn't using a stopwatch at the time, (for obvious reasons) but quite obviously you cannot bring such a weighty mass to a halt instantly. But the power was definitely switched off instantly.

 

Can I get back to my Sudoku now please?

Edited July 2, 2023 by Moonlover

[norbra]

11 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

I wasn't using a stopwatch at the time, (for obvious reasons) but quite obviously you cannot bring such a weighty mass to a halt instantly. But the power was definitely switched off instantly.

 

Can I get back to my Sudoku now please?

Go for it enjoy

[Pink Mist]

A reported Off-topic post discussing masks and sanitization has been removed.

[sandyf]

On 7/1/2023 at 9:34 AM, nchuckle said:

It is perfectly legal to drive (mechanical assistance) which on hands free and there are a host of more challenging activities then stepping off a walkway where using a phone is not considered perilous. 

In any case the worst that should happen if not paying attention is falling over after being ejected from the walkway. There is no scenario, given the design that in normal circumstances and correct functioning that you get ingested into the mechanism. The man is deflecting.

Going about oblivious to what is happening around you makes you a danger to yourself and others.

However it is not surprising the default assumption on this forum is that it is all down to how the Thais do things, no investigation required.

[Chongalulu]

46 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Going about oblivious to what is happening around you makes you a danger to yourself and others.

However it is not surprising the default assumption on this forum is that it is all down to how the Thais do things, no investigation required.

Being on the phone doesn't makes you " oblivious" to what's around you. Can you not walk around without bumping into things while talking?

[Moonlover]

29 minutes ago, nchuckle said:

Being on the phone doesn't makes you " oblivious" to what's around you. Can you not walk around without bumping into things while talking?

Plenty of drivers manage to go bumping into things whilst on the phone.!

Edited July 2, 2023 by Moonlover

[Lucky Bones]

I haven't read the prior posts.

First thing I thought of was brake failure.

[Moonlover]

17 minutes ago, Lucky Bones said:

I haven't read the prior posts.

First thing I thought of was brake failure.

Join the herd of many. ????

[Dr B]

On 7/1/2023 at 4:35 PM, Bangkok Barry said:

It is common to see suitcases like that carried onto planes, despite the rules. And, as far as weight restrictions are concerned, in Thailand it might depend on your nationality. A Thai friend of mine was returning to Germany and was allowed her 65 kilos of luggage through to her THAI flight with no surcharge made. I cannot imagine I being allowed the same. In fact, I was once charged for 3 kilos overweight by United to Tokyo.

Sorry Barry but the references to people being allowed to check in more than the standard baggage allowance are irrelevant.

I agree that "it is common to see suitcases like that carried onto planes, despite the rules", but that doesn't make it OK. My point is that airports, and the equipment in them such as travelators and escalators, are designed and manufactured for a set of rules, as has to be the case. If people flout the rules, there will be consequences. I believe that most of us think that the rules that tell you to remove your shirt before ironing are ridiculous, but if you think that designers and manufacturers have to allow for people breaking the rules that is what you get.

[Bangkok Barry]

5 minutes ago, Dr B said:

Sorry Barry but the references to people being allowed to check in more than the standard baggage allowance are irrelevant.

 

5 minutes ago, Dr B said:

If people flout the rules, there will be consequences.

These two statements are incompatible. If people are allowed to check in more than the rules dictate then that is far from irrelevant. If the check-in staff had followed their own rules then she would not have had the suitcase to trip over. So yes, there are consequences in flouting the rules, and being allowed to do so.

 

But we all know that Thais are, let's say, flexible with the rules, many believing those rules don't apply to them if they are inconvenient.

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

On 7/1/2023 at 4:08 PM, Confuscious said:

I think that you are forgetting how most big companies work.
AOT pays HITACHI for the installation AND the maintenance of the travelators.
So, IF anybody should be sued, it would be HITACHI and not AOT.

The Thai Civil and Commercial Code makes property owners strictly liable for property damage and bodily injury that is caused by their property. AOT, under the CCC, is liable if they own the moving walk.

 

To sue only Hitachi would bypass this and potentially open an avenue for Hitachi to say they aren't liable since the property owner is. Need to sue both and any other party that may have been involved.

 

AOT's contracts with Hitachi will likely pass liability for Hitachi's negligence and for defects on to Hitachi, but it is yet to be determined whether Hitachi is liable. It is possible that there are factors beyond Hitachi's control that are in play.

[Confuscious]

30 minutes ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

is liable if they own the moving walk

That is exactly the point.
AOT doesn't own the travelator.
AOT LEASES the travelator with a maintenance contract.
Similar to the lifts in every building you can see and where a clear sign is attached that Hitachi or whatever company does the inspection and the maintenance.

Hitachi Thailand Inc. has their own company with no commercial binding with Hitachi Japan and as thus is a fully independant company, run by Thai people.

I remember that a law was passed in Germany (somewhere about 2000) that made the company where the machine is placed FULLY LIABLE for all accidents or mismanagements.
This means that if the incident with the travelator had happened at (example) BMW Germany, BMW Germany would FULLY RESPONSIBLE for the incident.
Don't know if Thailand adapted a similar law in the mean time.

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

33 minutes ago, Confuscious said:

That is exactly the point.
AOT doesn't own the travelator.
AOT LEASES the travelator with a maintenance contract.
Similar to the lifts in every building you can see and where a clear sign is attached that Hitachi or whatever company does the inspection and the maintenance.

Hitachi Thailand Inc. has their own company with no commercial binding with Hitachi Japan and as thus is a fully independant company, run by Thai people.

I remember that a law was passed in Germany (somewhere about 2000) that made the company where the machine is placed FULLY LIABLE for all accidents or mismanagements.
This means that if the incident with the travelator had happened at (example) BMW Germany, BMW Germany would FULLY RESPONSIBLE for the incident.
Don't know if Thailand adapted a similar law in the mean time.

I admit that I don't have any specific knowledge of the contract between Hitachi and AOT and whether ownership of the moving walk resides with Hitachi or AOT. The article mentions that Hitachi supplied the walk and had a contract to provide maintenance, but does not address ownership.

 

In at least some instances, ownership of items affixed permanently to a structure become the property of the structure's owner. AOT owns the premises, so I'm not sure that AOT would be able to sidestep liability under the Thai CCC. This seems similar to the German law that you cite.

 

AOT may be able to recover from Hitachi under the supply and maintenance contract for damages awarded if Hitachi is negligent,  but likely won't be able to avoid being involved in any suits and claims. If I were the plaintiff, I would not omit AOT from my suit for damages.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Etaoin Shrdlu

[JoseThailand]

On 7/1/2023 at 7:17 AM, Isaan sailor said:

“The end of the walk is ahead.”  Now, where have I heard that?

At Swampy there is a voice alarm "End of the walkway". Can't remember anything like that at Don Mueang.

Edited July 2, 2023 by JoseThailand

[Confuscious]

1 minute ago, JoseThailand said:

At Swampy there is a voiced alarm "End of the walkway". Can't remember anything like that at Don Mueang.

The recording will be changed shortly and put on every travelator.
The new recording with say: 
"The end of the walkaway is near, so lift your feet up, take care of your bags and drop your damned phones for a few minutes."

[superal]

13 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

The Thai Civil and Commercial Code makes property owners strictly liable for property damage and bodily injury that is caused by their property. AOT, under the CCC, is liable if they own the moving walk.

 

To sue only Hitachi would bypass this and potentially open an avenue for Hitachi to say they aren't liable since the property owner is. Need to sue both and any other party that may have been involved.

 

AOT's contracts with Hitachi will likely pass liability for Hitachi's negligence and for defects on to Hitachi, but it is yet to be determined whether Hitachi is liable. It is possible that there are factors beyond Hitachi's control that are in play.

 

12 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

I admit that I don't have any specific knowledge of the contract between Hitachi and AOT and whether ownership of the moving walk resides with Hitachi or AOT. The article mentions that Hitachi supplied the walk and had a contract to provide maintenance, but does not address ownership.

 

In at least some instances, ownership of items affixed permanently to a structure become the property of the structure's owner. AOT owns the premises, so I'm not sure that AOT would be able to sidestep liability under the Thai CCC. This seems similar to the German law that you cite.

 

AOT may be able to recover from Hitachi under the supply and maintenance contract for damages awarded if Hitachi is negligent,  but likely won't be able to avoid being involved in any suits and claims. If I were the plaintiff, I would not omit AOT from my suit for damages.

Could it be that the Hitachi maintenance applies to only periodic scheduled services ? 

Daily safety checks made by the airports maintenance crew , who would have been taught by Hitachi , in the visual inspection .     I cannot believe that Hitachi personnel would attend every day . 

[superal]

19 hours ago, Alex2554 said:

As an engineer in this field with 40 years experience I must admit that escalators and moving walks are absolutely safe if they have proper maintenance. The combplate is a moveable part designed for immediate shutdown when the obstacle force is more than 15 kg in horisontal and/or 6 kg in vertical. Obviously 15 kg is not enough to break a comb. No matter what was jammed motor stops immediately. In addition some other safety devices  must be activated in the case that the combplate safety switch didn't trigger shutdown. None of them  work properly here.

Maintenance means checking out all safety devices for all possible malfunction, so blaming a passenger is stupid

Thanks for an informed opinion which implies that the lady was not negligent and no blame attached to her . As a layman I cannot understand how any sizeable object , such as a suitcase wheel , could bypass the correctly fitted comb plates  and then for a leg to enter into the driving mechanism and thus through a large gap , there must have been a failure/breakdown  in the main below platform structure along with poorly fitted comb plates which had no overload safety sensors fitted .

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

22 minutes ago, superal said:

 

Could it be that the Hitachi maintenance applies to only periodic scheduled services ? 

Daily safety checks made by the airports maintenance crew , who would have been taught by Hitachi , in the visual inspection .     I cannot believe that Hitachi personnel would attend every day . 

That's certainly possible.

[Pink Mist]

A reported Troll post and video have been removed.

[tgw]

On 7/1/2023 at 6:15 AM, ezzra said:

And what do you call the above, floor's panel falling and bolts failing a well maintained escalator system?

it's possible that maintenance is not to blame.

the investigation will clear it up.

 

no machinery on earth is 100% safe.

sometimes small details just align perfectly to create the perfect storm.

what would you think is safe ? 1 / 1.000.000 ?  1 / 100.000.000  ?

in 30 years, how many people did that escalator already transport without causing injuries ?

 

it's likely newer escalators have better safety mechanisms, like those saws that will stop when the blade encounters a sausage (or a finger) instead of wood. there are videos where people demonstrate it. would I risk it ? no.

 

the results of the investigation pending, it's quite possible that nobody is directly at fault for what happened.