Injuries associated with continuous miners,

shuttle cars, load–haul–dump and personnel

transport in New South Wales underground

coal mines

R. Burgess-Limerick*1 and L. Steiner2

In the three years to June 2005, 959 injuries associated with continuous miners (CMs), shuttle cars

(SCs), load–haul–dump and personnel transport (PT) were reported by NSW underground coal

mines, comprising 23% of all injuries reported. The present paper reports an analysis of the

narrative field accompanying these reports to determine opportunities for controlling injury risks.

The most common combinations of activity and mechanism were: strain while handling CM cable

(96 injuries); caught between or struck by moving parts while bolting on a CM (86 injuries); strains

while bolting on CM (54 injuries); and slipping off a CM during access, egress or other activity (60

injuries). For the other equipment considered, the common injury mechanism was the vehicle

running over a pothole or other roadway abnormality causing the driver or passengers to be

injured (169 injuries). Potential control measures include: monorails for CM services; hydraulic

cable reelers; handrails on CM platforms; redesign of CM platforms and bolting rigs to reduce

reach distances during drilling and bolting; improvements to guarding of bolting controls;

standardisation and shape coding of bolting controls; two handed fast feed; improvements in

underground roadway maintenance, vehicle suspension, visibility and seating; and pedestrian

proximity warning devices.

Keywords: Underground coal, Injury, Ergonomics, Development equipment

Introduction

Working with or near underground coal mining equipment is inherently hazardous owing to the multiple

sources of injurious energies and adverse environmental

conditions. Australian compensation statistics suggest

that 22% of all lost time claims in the mining industry

are associated with mobile plant and transport.1 A

previous analysis of injury data obtained over 10 years

from six mines suggested that the equipment most

commonly involved in these injuries were continuous

miners (CMs), shuttle cars (SCs), load–haul–dump

(LHD) vehicles and personnel transport (PT).2 The

present paper reports an analysis of the narrative text

fields accompanying all reports of injuries associated

with these equipment types in New South Wales (NSW)

underground coal mines in the three years to June 2005.

Conventional analyses of injury statistics typically

provide tables detailing the breakdown of injuries by

body part, nature of injury, mechanism of injury or

agency of injury. Such analyses are appropriate and may

especially be helpful in tracking broad trends over time,

however further information is available in the narrative

text field completed for each injury reported to the

workers’ compensation insurer for coal mines in NSW

(Coal Services Pty Limited).

The detail contained in these narratives varies,

however they generally provide additional insight into

the causes of the injury, such as the activity being

performed at the time of the injury. Analysis of injury

narratives has previously been undertaken in mining3,4

and construction.5 Helander and Krohn3 conducted an

analysis of injury narratives for most hazardous underground machinery in hard rock mining, coding the

narratives for worker activity, suggested cause of

accident, machine part involved and body part injured.

Similarly, Helander et al.,

4 examined injury narratives

from 600 roof bolter accident reports from mines in the

USA and coded each for cause, machine part and body

part injured, concluding that roof bolting was the most

dangerous job in US underground coal mines and that

rock falls accounted for 25% of roof bolting injuries.

The information available in injury narratives has

potential to aid in prioritising effective control measures.

1

School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland,

Australia

2

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Research

Laboratory, USA

*Corresponding author, email robin@hms.uq.edu.au

160

 2006 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute

Received 7 March 2006; accepted 6 September 2006

DOI 10.1179/174328606X151033 Mining Technology 2006 VOL 115 NO 4
The aim of the present investigation is to utilise injury

narratives to identify opportunities for reducing common injury risks associated with underground coal

mining equipment in NSW.

Method

The narrative text fields for all equipment related

injuries reported by NSW underground coal mines

during the three financial years to June 2005 were

provided by Coal Services Pty Limited. Injuries associated with CM, SC, LHD and PT were identified for

further analysis. Contextual data such as the number of

active underground mines, number of employees and

total injury numbers were also obtained for each year.

Analysis involved reading the full text field for

each injury and coding for the activity being undertaken at the time of the injury and the causal

mechanism (see Table 1 for examples). The coding

categories were not prestructured, but rather evolved

during the data analysis in a method similar to Glaser

and Strauss’ constant comparative coding.6 Frequencies

of the cross-tabulated combinations of codes were

calculated and presented graphically in Figs. 1–4 to aid

interpretation.

Results

Table 2 provides relevant background data. Of the 4169

injuries reported during the three years to June 2005, 447

were associated with CMs, 232 with LHD, 140 with SCs

and 122 with PT; a total of 959, or 23% of all injuries

reported during the period.

Tables 3–6 provide the cross-tabulated frequencies

of codes for injuries associated with each of the four

equipment types under consideration. The same data are

represented in Figs. 1–4 as a means of highlighting the

predominant injury risks.

The data provided in Table 3 and illustrated in Fig. 1

highlight a number of opportunities for controlling injury

risks associated with CMs. Strains while handling was the

most frequent cause of injury associated with CMs. The

majority of these injuries involved handling CM cable.

Strains (typically of the shoulder) while bolting were also

relatively common and are likely a consequence of

handling drill steels and bolts at a distance from the

body. Slipping off the CM platform, whether during

access or egress, or during operation on the platform,

accounted for 60 injuries in the three year period.

Injuries caused by a body part (typically hand or

fingers) being ‘caught between’ during bolting were also a

frequent combination of activity and mechanism. These

injuries are unintended consequences of the operation of

controls. The control operation was sometimes unintentional, typically caused by bumping a control with selfrescuer or battery, or the control was struck by a falling

object. Injuries caused by intentional control operation

may be further divided into cases where:

(i) the wrong control was operated

(ii) the correct control was operated in the wrong

direction

Table 1 Examples of text fields and coding

Example narrative Codes

While assisting with face support when he carried steels

back to cassette on CM ABM right platform, he slipped

falling off the edge of the platform onto coal rubble causing

contusion to left thigh and left arm.

CM

Handling

Slipped

While bolting on the O/D side of CM retrieving the drill

steel when he stepped backwards to replace the drill

steel onto the rack he slipped off the side of the CM straining

his lower back.

CM

Bolting

Slipped

While roof bolting and putting up mesh when his hand resting

on top of steel his hand was caught between bolting rig and drill steel.

CM

Bolting

Caught between

While roof bolting on ABM 20 lhs outer rig overstretching with

chemical in right hand and roof bolt in left hand installing a bolt,

he strained his left shoulder.

CM

Bolting

Strained

While standing on a work platform lifting CM cable to the roof to

be placed on hooks, he strained his right shoulder.

CM

Handling cable

Strained

While returning to EIMCO after having crib he grabbed the greasy

handle that provided to help enter the EIMCO, slipped and fell twisting

his left knee.

LHD

Access

Slipped

While servicing Wagner No. 7 he slipped on machine after checking

water level in the radiator straining his right knee.

LHD

Maintenance

Slipped

While he was crossing the road, he was struck by EIMCO bucket

when deputy reversed the EIMCO ready to turn a corner lacerating his forehead.

LHD

Driving

Ran into

While driving a SC running over a packer the car bounced violently

throwing him out of the car; he managed to stop the machine and when

he got out he felt pain to his left knee.

SC

Driving

Rough road

While driving away from the CM, the SC bumped the rib and came over

the top of the canopy pinning him inside lacerating his face, neck and chest.

SC

Driving

Ran into

While a passenger in PJB when machine hit a mud hole he was thrown

around in passenger compartment striking the roof causing neck and upper back pain.

PT

Travelling

Rough road

Mining Technology 2006 VOL 115 NO 4 161
1 Combinations of activity and injury mechanism codes for injuries reported by NSW coal mines involving CMs for

three years to June 2005

2 Combinations of activity and injury mechanism codes for injuries reported by NSW coal mines involving LHD vehicles for three years to June 2005

Table 2 Number of active underground coal mines in NSW for each of three years to June 2005, number of employees,

total number of injuries reported to Coal Service (MEO and TLC) and injuries coded as involving CMs, LHD,

SCs and PT

Year Mines Employees Injuries CM LHD SC PT

2002–2003 29 5064 1491 114 90 51 40

2003–2004 27 5054 1361 191 73 44 37

2004–2005 28 5620 1317 142 69 45 45

Total 4169 447 (11%) 232 (6%) 140 (3%) 122 (3%)

162 Mining Technology 2006 VOL 115 NO 4
(iii) operating of the intended control in the intended

direction while the injured employee (either the

operator or another person) was in a position of

danger.

Examples of each type of bolting machine control

related injury are provided in Table 7.

The consideration of Figs. 2–4 reveals that the most

common cause of injuries associated with LHD, SC and

3 Combinations of activity and injury mechanism codes for injuries reported by NSW coal mines involving SCs for

three years to June 2005

4 Combinations of activity and injury mechanism codes for injuries reported by NSW coal mines involving PT for three

years to June 2005

Mining Technology 2006 VOL 115 NO 4 163
PT vehicles occurred when the vehicle was driven over a

pot hole or other roadway abnormality. This mechanism

typically causes the driver and/or passengers to strike

their head on an internal structure resulting in neck,

back or shoulder injuries. An injury mechanism of

particular concern because of the potential severity of

consequences is ‘ran into’ while driving (or travelling)

LHD, SC or PT (35 injuries).

Discussion

The use of the frequency of reported injuries for the

prioritisation of risk control strategies has limitations

because of the tendency to underestimate the importance

of relatively uncommon, but potentially high consequence events. Injury reports also underestimate the

contribution of risk factors such as whole body vibration which have a long term cumulative contribution

to an elevated risk of injury. However, taking these

limitations into consideration, the results of the injury

narrative analysis suggests the following hazards as the

highest priority for elimination or control:

(i) handling CM cable

(ii) strain while bolting

(iii) slipping off CM platform

Table 3 Cross-tabulation of activity and mechanism injury codes for all injuries associated with CMs reported during

three years to June 2005 by NSW underground coal mines

Activity

Mechanism

Slipped Strained Caught between Struck by Other Total

Access/egress 14 12 1 0 0 27

Bolting 13 54 52 34 0 153

Handling cable 2 96 1 4 0 103

Handling vent tubes 5 27 4 21 0 57

Handling other 16 9 5 2 0 32

Maintenance 6 17 6 20 2 51

Standing near 3 0 1 6 1 11

Other 1 4 2 6 0 13

Total 60 219 72 93 3 447

Table 4 Cross-tabulation of activity and mechanism injury codes for all injuries associated with LHD vehicles reported

during three years to June 2005 by NSW underground coal mines

Activity

Mechanism

Slipped Strained Rough road Ran into Caught between Struck by Other Total

Access/egress 13 11 0 0 8 7 1 41

Handling 7 21 0 0 12 10 0 58

Driving 0 8 60 19 2 10 1 100

Maintenance 7 7 0 0 5 7 0 26

Other 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 7

Total 27 47 60 21 31 42 232

Table 5 Cross-tabulation of activity and mechanism injury codes for all injuries associated with SCs reported during

three years to June 2005 by NSW underground coal mines

Activity

Mechanism

Slipped Strained Rough road Ran into Caught between Struck by Other Total

Access/egress 4 1 0 0 0 3 1 9

Handling 4 10 0 0 2 4 1 21

Driving 2 8 49 6 1 18 0 84

Maintenance 1 9 0 0 3 6 0 19

Other 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 7

Total 11 28 49 7 6 37 2 140

Table 6 Cross-tabulation of activity and mechanism injury codes for all injuries associated with PT reported during

three years to June 2005 by NSW underground coal mines

Activity

Mechanism

Slipped Strained Rough road Ran into Caught between Struck by Other Total

Access/egress 7 12 0 0 4 4 0 28

Handling 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 8

Driving 0 2 9 4 0 0 0 15

Travelling in 0 1 51 3 1 2 1 59

Maintenance 4 6 0 0 1 2 0 13

Total 12 26 60 7 8 8 1 122

164 Mining Technology 2006 VOL 115 NO 4
(iv) inadvertent or incorrect operation of bolting

controls and operation of controls while a

person is in a position of danger

(v) hitting pot holes or other roadway abnormality

(vi) collisions while driving underground vehicles.

Cable handling

The injury narratives suggest that in the three years to

June 2005, strains occurring while handling CM cable

accounted for 96 injuries in NSW coal mines. The

severity of injuries associated with handling cable varies

from relatively minor shoulder strains to serious back

injuries. While the cumulative nature of most musculoskeletal injuries implies that other manual tasks are

likely to have also contributed to these injuries, there is

no doubt that the handling CM cable represents a high

risk of injury, and this is consistent with biomechanical

analysis of the task.7,8 Engineering controls are required

to eliminate or reduce manual cable handling. The

provision of monorails to carry CM services would

likely reduce injuries caused by manual cable handling,

however a method of installation and retrieval of the

monorail is required which avoids introducing additional musculoskeletal injury risks. The use of LHD

mounted hydraulic cable reelers is also likely to be

beneficial where they can be used. Integration of cable

and other services with continuous haulage has been

suggested in the context of remote control.9

Strain while bolting

Strains (typically of the shoulder) while bolting were

described as the injury mechanism in 54 injuries reports

in NSW in the three years to June 2005. These injuries

are likely a consequence of the requirement for the

shoulder to frequently adopt a posture involving a

combination of flexion and lateral flexion to place drill

steels and bolts in the chuck, with the resulting requirement of relatively high shoulder torque to perform the

task. Alterations to platform and/or bolting rig design to

reduce the reach distance associated with placing drill

steels and bolts are justified to reduce this injury risk.

Slipping off CM platform

Slipping off the CM platform, whether during access or

egress or during operation, was the cause of 60 injuries

in the three year period and these injuries justify attention to improving access systems and giving consideration to installation of handrails. While MDG110 specifies

handrails for platforms higher than 1.2 m, the injury

experience in NSW mines suggests this is insufficiently

protective, and fall protection may be justified for all

CM platforms.

Inadvertent or incorrect operation of bolting

controls and operation of controls while person

in position of danger

‘Caught between’ injuries associated with roof or rib

bolting were reported by NSW mines on 52 occasions in

the three years to June 2005. The resulting injuries

varied in severity, but have the potential to cause

permanent disability and fatalities. The hazards associated with inadvertent operation of controls, operation

of incorrect controls, operating controls in an incorrect

direction, or while a person is located in a pinch point,

have long been recognised. Improvements to guarding to

prevent accidental control operation, standardisation of

mining equipment controls especially drilling and

bolting controls and the use of shape and length

coding have been suggested on numerous occasions

over the past 40 years.11–18

Table 7 Examples of control operation hazards

Unintentional control operation (guarding)

While using CM mounted rib bolter the steel jammed in the hole, he tried to free it with a shifter when lamp lead caught control lever

which operated timber jack causing bruising to left hand and fracture l/5 finger.

While removing 7’ drill steel his battery pouch caught a lever which lowered the timber jack bending the drill steel forcing his right

middle and ring fingers in the mast causing laceration.

Incorrect control (control layout, coding)

While extending CM platform he pulled the diversion lever to push platform out, the rib bolter came down jamming his left foot causing

fracture to l/5 toe.

While operating RB01 installing roof bolts he placed his left hand on the dolly to remove it, he pulled the wrong lever jamming his left

ring finger – crush injury.

While roof bolting putting roof bolt to the roof he pulled the wrong lever which bought the timber jack down trapping his right arm

between timber jack and manifold lacerating right forearm and wrist.

While putting rib support in the drill steel stuck and pulled out of chuck as he reached back to fine tune alignment of drill rod he pulled

the wrong leaver pushing timber jack out crushing left hand against the rib.

While rib bolting fitting the dolly to a bolt he pulled the lever to send the timber jack out but operated the retraction ram valve squashing

his left thumb causing bruise

While operating rib borer guiding 6’ steel into rib hit wrong lever crushing his left hand between timber jack and bolting rig.

Incorrect direction (direction compatibility)

While installing roof bolt steel he went to raise timber jack pulling handle the wrong way pinning his right arm between timber jack and

top of rig grazing his right forearm.

While attempting to spin off rib bolt he inserted dolly into chuck he pushed the handle in the wrong direction the dolly fell out hitting and

bruising his right big toe.

Operation while person in position of danger (guarding, interlock)

While rib meshing using Joy 12cm30 his left lower arm became caught in the rib bolting rig causing fracture.

While operating Joy 12cm30 hydraulic rib bolter holding dolly directing it onto the rib bolt his right wrist was caught between chuck and

head of bolter causing crushing injury.

While operating roof bolter on CM 102 he jammed his right wrist between timber jacks and roof bolter head mast causing lacerations.

While bolting using hydraulic rigs on CM he climbed upon head platform to pull mesh back when a coworker lowered a rig drill pot the

second stage came down to his right foot causing crush injury.

While bolting on CM his arm was resting on platform of drill rig when he attempted to move drill rig down to clear mesh he moved timber

jack down squashing his left forearm causing laceration.

Mining Technology 2006 VOL 115 NO 4 165
In 1972, Hedling and Folley11 noted (in the context of

CM controls) that ‘the widespread use of traditional

round control knobs regardless of function being

controlled is another source of error in operation’ and

proposed that ‘Each control knob is designed to

resemble (at least symbolically) the equipment it

represents’. Similarly, Helander et al.,

13 suggested in

the context of bolting machines that ‘poor human

factors principles in the design and placement of

controls and inappropriately designed workstations

contribute to a large percentage of the reported injuries’

(p. 18). In particular, a lack of standardisation of

controls was noted, with .25 different control sequences

being identified, differences existing even on similar

machines produced by the same manufacturer. Helander

et al. also noted the lack of control coding, violation of

direction stereotypes, a mixture mirror image and left/

right arrangements and the possibility of inadvertent

operation. Klishis et al.,

14 made similar observations

10 years later, noting a lack of standardisation even

among machines from the same manufacturer and

commenting on the potential for operating the wrong

control.

In a six week period in 1994, three operators of roof

bolting machines in the USA were killed. Two were

crushed between drill head and machine frame while rib

bolting, the third crushed between drill head and

canopy. A ‘Coal Mine Safety and Health Roof Bolting

Machine Committee’ was formed by Mine Safety and

Health Administration (MSHA) to investigate, and a

report was released15 (which determined the causes to be

unintentional operation of controls). The solutions

proposed in this report were: two handed fast feed, drill

head raise shutoff, auxiliary controls, guarding, pinch

point identification, self-centring controls, hands-off

drilling, insertion/retrieval devices, standardised control

layouts and preoperational inspection. Other suggestions in this report included: ‘provide industry wide

accepted distinct and consistent knob shapes and

relative handle lengths to identify corresponding control

function’ and ‘standardise machine control lever movement and corresponding machine function movement’.

Mine Safety and Health Administration subsequently

called for industry comment on an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking titled ‘safety standards for the use

of roof bolting machines in underground mines’16

however no related rule or design criteria were subsequently released.

On 10 June 1999, MSHA released a programme

information bulletin17 which reported an investigation

of a fatal accident as having ‘revealed that a potential

hazard exists on roof bolting machines with machine

controls that are not protected against inadvertent

operation’. This bulletin recommended mines: relocate

controls to protected position; guard controls; redesign

controls to prevent operation while operator in pinch

point; ensure proper storage of supplies and materials to

prevent them falling on controls.

It is clear from the injuries reported by NSW mines in

the three years to June 2005 that the design shortcomings previously identified in the context of bolting

machines also remain to some extent in the design of

controls on the integrated miner bolters which are

predominantly employed in Australian mines. Bolting

controls require guarding to prevent inadvertent

operation (while still allowing access for intentional

operation). Bolting machine controls should be standardised across manufacturers to an appropriate layout

(and provide shape and length coding) to reduce the

probability of operation of the wrong control. This

standardisation must carefully consider direction compatibility principles to reduce the probability of operation of controls in the wrong direction. Improvements to

bolting machine design are required to guard pinch

points and provide interlocks (e.g. two handed fast feed)

to reduce the probability and consequences of intentional or unintentional control operation while the

operator or other person is in a hazardous location.

These conclusions are consistent with a recent safety

alert issued by the NSW Department of Primary

Industries19 which noted serious injuries occurring as a

consequence of unintentional and intentional bolting

control activation and recommended that roof and rib

bolting systems should comply ‘as far as practical’ with

AS4024.1 ‘Safeguarding of machinery – general principles’. The safety alert included the following as potential

control measures: two handed control for fast speed

operation; minimisation of pinch points; guarding to

reduce inadvertent operation; shape coding; and standardised control layouts. These measures were also

included in a draft revision of the Department’s

Machine Design Guide 35 ‘Guideline for bolting and

drilling equipment in mines’ released for industry

comment.20 The draft included suggested knob shapes

for the primary bolting controls (rotation, feed and

timber jack).

While standardisation of bolting controls is desirable,

differences between manufacturers in current designs

make this a sensitive issue. There are also at least two

open questions regarding principles for optimal control

layout. One is whether control layouts on different sides

of a machine should be mirrored and the other concerns

the appropriate relationships between control and

response direction.

Hitting pot holes or other roadway abnormality

Drivers and passengers in vehicles in NSW underground

coal mines suffered 169 injuries in the three years to June

2005 as a consequence of the vehicle encountering

potholes or other roadway abnormalities. These

injuries highlight the importance of maintaining roadway standards, because control at this level is most likely

to be effective. Provision of vehicle suspension for SCs

and improved seating in all vehicles20–24 has potential to

reduce the likelihood of these acute injuries. These

improvements will also reduce exposure to whole body

vibration which is strongly associated with the development of back pain.25

Collisions while driving underground vehicles

As noted earlier, the analysis of injury frequency tends

to underemphasise low frequency, high consequence and

events, and has the potential to oversimplify complex

causal factors. For example, one of the narratives describes an incident in which a LHD vehicle overturned,

with the consequence of an amputated arm. This was

coded as LHD – driving – rough road, and disappeared

as just one of 60 other similarly coded incidents.

However this incident had a range of additional causal

factors, and its seriousness has resulted in the company

166 Mining Technology 2006 VOL 115 NO 4
concerned sponsoring a dramatic redesign of the vehicle

cab in conjunction with the manufacturer to ensure that

this risk is controlled in the future.

Similarly, although not a very frequent occurrence,

the 21 injuries which occurred due an LHD collision

raise concerns because of the potential consequences

were a pedestrian to be involved, such as occurred

recently at one NSW mine.26

The probability of such events is to a considerable

extent caused by the restricted visibility inherent in LHD

and SCs. This is not a new observation. Pethick and

Mason27 described the visibility difficulties associated

with the design of free steered vehicles and Simpson

et al.28 suggested that many underground vehicle

collisions are at least in part a consequence of restricted

driver visibility. Visibility restrictions while driving LHD

vehicles is one of the few aspects of mining equipment

design which has been the subject of formal research.

The research has largely been restricted to documenting

the extent of the problem and providing methods for

assessing the lack of visibility associated with current

designs.29,30 Recommendations for LHD redesign arising from the research include raising the sitting position

where possible and redesign of the vehicle to remove

obstructions to visibility. A prototype LHD cab which

provides height adjustability has been constructed in

Australia31 and would be beneficial for mines where

seam height allows this advantage to be utilised.

Physical separation of pedestrians and vehicles as far

as practicable, and vehicle mounted proximity sensors

and cap lamp battery mounted emitters may also be

beneficial in preventing potentially serious injuries.

Examples of proximity detection systems include that

developed by National Institute for Occupational Safety

and Health (NIOSH).32

Extreme visibility issues also exist with SCs. These are

also bidirectional vehicles in that they ‘shuttle’ coal

between the CM and the face and the boot end of the

conveyer belt without turning. An incompatibility

between the steering wheel action and vehicle response

exists in the SCs employed in NSW when driving the SC

towards the face. This is an extreme violation of a

fundamental human factors principle33 which has

potential to contribute to high consequence events,34

especially when combined with restricted visibility. A

different steering system should be explored.

Conclusion

Analysis of injury narratives has suggested six high

priority hazards associated with underground coal

mining equipment. Potential control measures include:

monorails for CM services; hydraulic cable reelers;

handrails on CM platforms; redesign of CM platforms

and bolting rigs to reduce reach distances during drilling

and bolting; improvements to guarding of bolting

controls; standardisation and shape coding of bolting

controls; two handed fast feed; improvements in underground roadway maintenance, vehicle suspension, visibility and seating; and pedestrian proximity warning

devices.

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was funded by the Australian

Coal Association Research Programme (project

C14016). The present paper was written while the first

author was Associate National Academy of Sciences

Senior Research at the NIOSH, Pittsburgh Research

Laboratory (USA).

References

1. NOHSC: ‘National workers compensation statistics database’,

2005, available at: http://nosi2.nohsc.gov.au/.

2. R. Burgess-Limerick: Ergonomics Australia, 2005, 19, (2), 14–20.

3. M. G. Helander and G. S. Krohn: ‘Human factors analysis of

underground metal and nonmetal mines’, USBM report PB84-

158732, US Bureau of Mines, Washington DC, WA, USA, 1983.

4. M. G. Helander, G. S. Krohn and R. Curtin: J. Occupational

Accidents, 1983, 5, 161–175.

5. J. Bondy, H. Lipscomb, K. Guarini and J. E. Glazner: Am. J. Ind.

Med., 2005, 48, 373–380.

6. B. Glaser and A. Strauss: ‘The discovery of grounded theory:

strategies for qualitative research’; 1967, Chicago, IL, Aldine

Publishing Company.

7. S. Gallagher, C. A. Hamrick, K. M. Cornelius and M. S. Redfern:

Occupational Ergonomics, 2001, 2, 201–213.

8. S. Gallagher, W. S. Marras, K. G. Davis and K. Kovacs:

Ergonomics, 2002, 45, 380–398.

9. G. H. Schnakenberg: Min. Eng., 1997, 49, (2), 73–77.

10. NSW Department of Minerals Resources: ‘Guideline for free

steered vehicles’, MDG No. 1, NSW Department of Minerals

Resources, Sydney, Australia, 1995.

11. W. G. Hedling and J. D. Folley, Jr: ‘Standardization of continuous

miner control configurations’, USBM report OFR 25-72, US

Bureau of Mines, Washington DC, WA, USA, 1972.

12. R. L. Grayson, L. A. Layne, R. C. Althouse and M. J. Klishis:

Min. Eng., 1992, 44, (2), 164–166.

13. M. G. Helander, E. J. Conway, W. Elliottand R. Curtin:

‘Standardization of controls for roof bolter machines: human

factors engineering analysis’, USBM report OFR 170-82 PB83-

119149, US Bureau of Mines, Washington DC, WA, USA, 1980.

14. M. J. Klishis, R. C. Althouse, T. J. Stobbe, R. W. Plummer, R. L.

Grayson, L. A. Layne and G. M. Lies: ‘Coal mine injury analysis: a

model for reduction through training – accident risks during the

roof bolting cycle: analysis of problems and potential solutions’,

USBM cooperative agreements C0167023 and C0178052, USBM,

Washington DC, WA, USA, 1993.

15. MSHA Coal Mine Safety and Health Roof-Bolting-Machine

Committee: Report of Findings, Arlington, VA, US Department

of Labor, 1994.

16. MSHA: Federal Register, 1997, 62, (236), 64789–64790, available

at: www.msha.gov/REGS/FEDREG/PROPOSED/1997PROP/97-

32203.HTM (accessed 14 December 2005).

17. MSHA: ‘Potential hazard to roof bolting machine operators due to

inadvertent control actuation’, Programme information bulletin

No. P99-10, MSHA, Arlington, VA, USA, 1999, available at:

www.msha.gov/regs/complian/PIB/1999/PIB99-10.htm (accessed 16

December 2005).

18. T. L. Muldoon, S. Ruggieri, T. Gore and L. B. McDonald: ‘Design

and develop standardized controls in roof bolting machines –

preliminary design’, USBM report OFR 107-80, US Bureau of

Mines, Washington, DC, USA 1980.

19. NSW Department of Primary Industries: ‘Safety alert: drill rigs and

serious injuries’, Mine safety report No. SA05-05, NSW

Department of Primary Industries, Orange, NSW, 2005.

20. NSW Department of Primary Industries: ‘Guideline for bolting

and drilling equipment in mines’, Machine Design Guide No. 35,

Draft distributed for Industry Comment, NSW Department of

Primary Industries, Orange, NSW, 2005.

21. D. Grant, D. Dayawansa and P. Curcio: Proc. Queensland Mining

Industry Health and Safety Conf., August 2005, Townsville,

Australia, Queensland Resources Council, 149–158, available at:

www.qrc.org.au.

22. W. Pendlebury: ‘Shuttle car cab modification’, Queensland Mining

Industry Safety and Health Innovation Awards, Queensland

Resources Council, Brisbane, Australia, 2003.

23. A. G. Mayton, S. Gallagher and R. Merkel: ‘Advances in

occupational ergonomics and safety II’, 177–180; 1997, Burke,

VA, IOS Press.

24. A. G. Mayton, R. Merkel and S. Gallagher: Min. Eng., 1999, 51,

(12), 52–56.

Mining Technology 2006 VOL 115 NO 4 167
25. B. McPhee: ‘Bad vibrations: a handbook on whole body vibration

exposure in mining’; 2001, Sydney, NSW Joint Coal Board Health

and Safety Trust.

26. A. Harvey: ‘Development technician struck by Eimco’, Beltana

Highwall Mining Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia, 2005.

27. A. J. Pethick and S. Mason: ‘Ergonomic principles in the design

of underground free-steered vehicles’, Research report

TM/85/5, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, UK,

1985.

28. G. C. Simpson, A. M. Rushworth, F. H. Von Glehn and R. H.

Lomas: ‘Investigation of the causes of transport and

tramming accidents on mines other than coal, gold and

platinum’, SIMRAC project report: OTH 202, Vol. 1, Safety in

Mines Research Advisory Committee, Johannesburg, South Africa,

1996.

29. T. Eger, A. Salmoni and R. Whissell: Appl. Ergonomics, 2004, 35,

93–103.

30. J. Tyson: ‘To see or not to see ... that is the question! Designing to

maximize operator visibility in LHD equipment’, Ergonomics

Australia On-Line, available at: www.uq.edu.au/eaol/oct97/tyson/

tyson.html.

31. P. Gill: Proc. XCN Health and Safety Forum, Pokolbin, NSW,

November 2005, XCN.

32. W. H. Schiffbauer: Proc. SME Annual Meet., Denver, CO, USA,

February 2001, SME, 1–8.

33. C. J. Worringham and D. B. Beringer: Ergonomics, 1998, 41, 864–

880.

34. C. Zupanc, R. Burgess-Limerick and G. Wallis: Proc. 31st Biennial

Int. Conf. of Safety in Mines Research Institutes, (ed. S. Bell et al.),

129–132; 2005, Brisbane, Australia.

168 Mining Technology 2006 VOL 115 NO 4