曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

I particularly take issue with your statement that we have “... apparently not been able to have a high priority assigned to this, situation". The BAe 146 cabin air quality issue has absorbed a good deal of AWE effort in the last six months.100
4.97 The Committee notes that CASA did respond to Mr Best’s Risk Observation Report, but views with concern the response of Mr Villiers of CASA. Such a response would, undoubtedly discourage staff such as Mr Best from making further RoR’s and this would be highly undesirable.
4.98 In his e-mail to Mr Best, Mr Villiers attached a brief prepared for the CASA Board Safety Committee dealing with the BAe 146 which Mr Villiers had approved on 13 October 1998, coincidentally on the same day as his response to Mr Best. This brief read in part:
CASA review of. the extensive testing performed by the airlines showed that the cabin air of the 146 posed no hazard to passenger or crew health. However, there was a perception of poor air quality in the 146 aircraft in general amongst passengers and crew. The aircraft was found to be compliant with the certification baseline, but the airflow and distribution of the air was not conducive to a comfortable environment. In particular, the practice by the airlines of operating the cabin ECS in 'full fresh" at all times meant that the humidity levels in the cabin were extremely low (<5%) and this was probably the cause of the eye and throat irritations being experienced.
Smells in the cabin were found to be mainly due to ingestion of hydrocarbon by-products from the engine exhaust of the aircraft itself and also from other aircraft on the apron. Improved maintenance practices an the engines have reduced the transfer of “oil” smells to the cabin, although at no time. did chemical analysis show that any toxic by-products from the engine oil were present in the cabin.
Extensive chemical analysis of fumes from cabin air samples proved conclusively that there was nothing harmful in the cabin environment however, cabin flow tests showed there to be areas of stagnant air in the cabin which could lead to discomfort for the crew over a long working day.101
4.99 At one point during his evidence to the inquiry on 17 August 2000, Mr Best commented as follows on the standard of communications within CASA:
100 E-mail dated 14 October 1998 from Mr David Villiers of CASA to Mr Richard Best.
101 Brief prepared for CASA Board Safety Committee, October 1998.
There are a great number of issues that arise every day in CASA, and CASA have a limited work force. It is up to someone down there to set the priorities. These questions get answered in time, but you cannot expect them to drop everything and come back to do whatever is necessary just because Dick Best put an ROR in. They have to work out their priorities, because they are the people who are charged with setting the agenda and ensuring that aviation is safe.102
4.100 The Committee notes the brief prepared for the CASA Board Safety Committee confirms two assertions made in evidence. Firstly, that CASA relied on testing done by the airlines and secondly that air in BAe 146 aircraft was a problem.
　
中國航空網 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(73)