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

The subject of "smells" in the cabin is most frequently the trigger for complaints from the crews and passengers and the source, apparently, of their discomfort. The air quality of so-called "smelly" aircraft has been carefully analysed and the results were found to be no different, chemically, from the other aircraft types being sampled at the time. … The medical teams also noted that the humidity of the cabin air was extremely low (5-10%) and that this would certainly be a cause for human discomfort. Modifications to improve cabin air circulation and eliminate stagnant areas have been introduced by both Australian operators.84
4.80 The claim that TCP has never been found to be present in aircraft cabin air was also made to the Committee by Dr David Lewis and Dr Loblay. It is incorrect, a fact later acknowledged by Dr Lewis when questioned in a Committee hearings.85 The Inquiry Chair referred Dr Lewis to the report done by George Sleigh for Ansett, which did find TCP present in aircraft cabin air in minute quantities. Dr Lewis replied:
That is right. When you took it back, there was an unmeasurable blip where the TCP group occurs. When it was analysed further and further—it would have been meta TCP, which is virtually non-toxic anyway—it was not measurable, it was just a little hiccup on the graph. Professor George Sleigh has written a summary to that effect. We are talking about equipment that can measure molecules, and when they finally enlarged and enlarged the test thing it was meta TCP, not ortho and not the others, and it is supposed to be non-toxic. We have never had a positive TCP ever.86
82  CASA, Evidence, 13 March 2000, p 182 
83  Based on the evidence from Ansett that all Ansett passenger aircraft have been modified so any incidents in the past 6 months have been on modified aircraft see Ansett memo 26 May 2000. The Committee could refer and quote from incident reports submitted to it in June 2000. 
84  Submission 20, CASA, p 4 
85  Ansett Australia, Evidence, 1 May 2000, p 260 

4.81 The Committee notes that this contrasts with claims that no form of TCP had ever been detected in BAe 146 aircraft air, although it occurred in minute quantities.
4.82 In his evidence to the inquiry on 13 March 2000 Mr Toller of CASA stated, in relation to air quality on the BAe 146:
… this is an occupational health and safety issue. We are an aviation safety regulator. That is not meant to show in any way that we are not tracking the situation, aware of the situation, or concerned about the situation. But it is well outside the standard expertise of the aviation regulator who is concerned about what are, effectively, the short-term to medium-term effects on aviation safety.87
4.83 The Committee notes however, the reference to the health of pilots as a safety issue (see CAR 48.0 1.4: and CAR 256: (2) and CAR25.831) on airworthiness and ventilation and heating (see 1.1) which state that air quality and pilot health extend beyond ‘occupational health and safety concerns’ as stated by Mr Toller and into the areas of flight safety and aircraft airworthiness. These references to air quality as safety and airworthiness issue in the Civil Aviation Act were not addressed by CASA’s evidence to the Inquiry.
　
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(69)