曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專(zhuān)營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

4.27 On 10 April 2000 Mr Nottage, Executive Director with NJS, informed the inquiry:
Having looked at that weight of evidence from all of those reports and then considering the way the Southern test was done, being in what we class a worst case situation that could never eventuate mid-flight, where you are doing a pack burn mid-flight, you had levels that, if memory serves me correctly, were less than one-tenth of the current allowable occupational health and safety limits for those chemicals. We believe there is no feasible way you could get levels in excess of the allowable limits in our cabins.25
4.28 Mr Nottage went on to claim; “We believe that the work we have done puts our fleet basically as a world leader in this issue.”26
4.29 However, The Committee notes a memo to Southern Airlines prepared by National Jet Systems, a QANTAS contractor, in which manager Barry Lodge warns staff that:
22  Submission 21, Qantas, pp 9-10 
23  Qantas, Evidence, 1 February 2000, p 125 
24  Submission 23, NJS, p 1; see also NJS, Evidence, 10 April 2000, p 207 
25  NJS, Evidence, 10 April 2000, p 217 
26  NJS, Evidence, 10 April 2000, p 218 

Oil fumes … while medically not harmful can cause irritation of the nose, throat, eyes and can cause headaches. These effects can be very distracting and in some circumstances cause a flight safety hazard.27
4.30 The Committee sought a clarification of this issue and received a reply from Mr Paul Lidbury, General Manager E & M and Business Planning, QANTAS, which said, in part:
The complex nature of commercial aircraft operations means that many flight safety hazards exist, they may be technical, environmental or as a result of human factors. An airline has a duty of care to constantly investigate and address all hazards that it is aware of.28
Criticisms of tests and studies carried out on the BAe 146 in Australia
4.31 The Australian Federation of Air Pilots was critical of the methods used by some researchers in examining fumes on board the BAe 146. The AFAP submission stated:
While Ansett and its expert panel claimed to have reviewed all available medical and scientific data relating to cabin air contamination, this is clearly not the case.
There are numerous international studies that demonstrate the effects of contaminated aircraft air on crew and passenger health and safety. Once again, the symptoms and exposure environments and background history is about identical as those being experienced by crew operating the BAe 146.
The effects of chronic exposure to chemicals and particularly cholinesterase inhibiting organophosphates are identified and fall into the same pattern of symptoms that are being seen in Australia. The symptoms are generally not connected to workplace over exposure, and appropriate testing is therefore not being conducted in the required time frame and format.
Other newer areas of science and medicine, both within Australia and overseas, including that of low dose long term/ chronic exposure to chemicals and the common symptom of acquired chemical sensitivity are clearly available, yet are being ignored by the airline industry, even though the strong pattern of symptoms occurring both in Australia and overseas supports this.
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality in the BAe 146 Aircraft(56)