| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
  Toxic planes: CASA questioned May 27, 2007 Reporter : Ross Coulthart Read Ross Coulthart's questions to Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) about the issue of toxic planes, and their response. 1. What is CASA's position on the concerns raised by groups such as AOPIS (www.aopis.org) and the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive and Australian, British and US pilot unions, that passenger and crew safety on a wide range of aircraft is being compromised by contaminated air from faulty bleed air systems? 2. What number of reported fumes incidents have there been on any Australian aircraft since the Senate Inquiry into contaminated air on the BAE146 aircraft reported to parliament in 2000? 3. Does CASA believe that those reported incidents reflect the true level of contaminated air incidents in Australia? 4. Is CASA aware of research suggesting that only four percent of such incidents ever get reported, largely because of flight crew concern that reporting such incidents can jeopardise their careers? 5. Can crews become incapacitated or impaired from exposure to contaminated air? 6. If crews can become incapacitated from exposure to contaminated air then why is it not a safety issue? 7. If, as then CASA CEO Mick Toller told parliament in 1999, "...there is no doubt that all aircraft from time to time suffer fumes within the aircraft", what research can CASA point to which proves that inhaling pyrolised jet engine oils is safe? 8. Apart from the initial accreditation of any aircraft under FAA regulations, what monitoring has CASA, if ever, done on the air in commercial passenger aircraft, how often, and does it include testing for levels of Carbon Monoxide or Tricresyl Phosphate (TCP)? 9. Is there any kind of ongoing monitoring of the air quality in commercial passenger aircraft after they have been initially certified for flight under FAR25.831 Ventilation Regulations? 10. What regulations, if any, are in place to require the deployment of cabin oxygen to passengers, as well as crew, when fumes are detected in cabin air? 11. Does CASA still stand by its 1999 written testimony to the Federal Parliament that at no time has TCP been identified in any sample gathered on an Australian aircraft? 12. Is CASA aware of swab testing samples taken by flight crew on a wide range of Australian and overseas aircraft which were presented by the British Airline Pilot Association to Professor Chris Van Netten of the University of British Columbia, Canada, and shown to contain traces of TCP? 13. In light of this new evidence showing TCP is in fact present on surfaces inside aircraft cabins and cockpits, does CASA see any merit in commissioning independent research to assess the implications of this data? 14. If not, why not? 15. Is CASA aware of recommendations made by the US National Research Council in Washington DC that wipe samples should be taken to see if flight crew and passengers are being exposed to the neurotoxin TCP, which have not been heeded by the aviation industry? 16. Is CASA aware of recommendations made by the US National Research Council that there be ongoing monitoring for carbon monoxide in aircraft air and that that recommendation has also not been heeded by the aviation industry? 17. Does the industry's failure to heed either recommendation pose any safety concerns for CASA? 18. How would a pilot know if carbon monoxide was present in an aircraft in flight? 19. Does CASA believe airlines should be telling passengers when an exposure to fumes or any contaminated air has taken place? 20. When CASA required changes to the BAE146 flight manual to ensure flight crew wear oxygen masks at the first instance of cabin air contamination to minimise the possibility of flight crew incapacitation, was any consideration given to requiring the deployment of oxygen masks to passengers as well? 21. If not, why not? 22. Is CASA aware of recent recommendations made by the UK AAIB following its investigation into a fumes incident on a Bombadier DHC-H-400 — notably that all large aeroplanes should operate a system to enable flight crew to rapidly identify the source of smoke by providing a flight deck warning of smoke or oil mist in the air delivered from each air conditioning unit? 23. Does CASA propose implementing a similar recommendation here in Australia. If not, why not? 24. Is CASA aware of the decision by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission at PN859 where National Jet accepted that, because of the risk of fumes exposure on its aircraft, "the company accepts it would not be able to provide a safe working environment for the applicant," Mr Nevan Pavlinovich? 25. Why is this admission by an airline operator not an explicit acknowledgment that its aircraft is unsafe within the requirements of FAR25.831, and thus directly relevant to CASA's obligations as an air safety regulator? 26. Is it correct that, in the last four years, there have been 90 plus contaminated air events reported on the BAE146 aircraft in Australia? 27. Why is this not a safety issue? 28. What has CASA done in response to the Senate recommendations in 2000 that CASA reassess monitoring and assessment of the air quality, contaminants and engine oil seal condition in jet aircraft, including the BAE146? 29. What has CASA done to implement the Senate recommendation that Australia implement a standardised, compulsory, monitoring program for chemical contaminants during fumes events on aircraft? 30. What has CASA done to implement the Senate recommendation that it assess how quickly high-grade air filters be made mandatory for all commercial aircraft flying into Australia so as to "minimise any deleterious health effects arising from poor aircraft cabin air on crew and passengers"? 31. Does CASA acknowledge any shortcomings in the way in which it has responded to the concerns about contaminated air on aircraft, especially when its lack of action is compared to the response by the RAAF — which is co-funding a blood test for TCP being developed by the University of Washington to pinpoint exposure to TCP, and has also mandated strict reporting of such events and post-exposure health checks on its crew — including acknowledgment of exposure on their service record? 32. If not, why not? 33. Does CASA agree that all previous studies into the risk of engine oil or other chemicals contaminating aircraft air have never involved the testing of air when a plane has actually leaked oil and other chemicals into the cabin? 34. If not, why not? 35. In the absence of any scientific evidence to show that such contamination is not a health problem, why does CASA not believe it is now imperative on the precautionary principle argument for such testing to be done? CASA's response Statement by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority regarding aircraft air quality for SUNDAY program The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is set up under the Civil Aviation Act 1988. Section 3A of the Act states: The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents. This means that CASA's prime focus is on the safety of flight. In other words, on making sure risks to aviation safety are being managed to acceptable standards by the aviation community. The allegations being made about cabin air quality appear to focus on the medium and long term health affects of very frequent air travel. While these are important issues for aircraft crew and people who travel a lot, they are not directly related to safety of flight. CASA's responsibility is to make sure that any risk to the capacity of flight or cabin crew to do their jobs during flight is managed and minimised. Claims of long term health affects from flying do not relate to the immediate safety of flight of an aircraft. Where there has been evidence that cabin air contamination could be a risk to the safety flight through the incapacitation of aircraft crew, action has been taken. CASA introduced a range of requirements to minimise the risk of cabin air contamination in the BAE146 aircraft, as well as responses to contamination events. These were put in place six years ago. Since then contamination reports from the BAE146 have dropped steadily, with only six made last year. There have been no reports of contamination events this year. Reports of cabin air contamination are not common across the Australian aircraft fleet — 138 reports were made over the last seven and a half years. Remember, there are more than 530,000 domestic airline trips in Australia every year. Where contamination occurs these are mostly caused by a mechanical failure of some kind, such as an air-conditioning system malfunction. Aircraft crew have procedures to follow in the event of a contamination event, which includes donning oxygen masks so they can continue to work and maintain the safety of the aircraft. CASA is aware of and monitors the international research underway into cabin air quality on aircraft. There are three comprehensive studies that are ongoing currently. One is in the US run by ASHRAE (American Society for Heating, Refrigeration and Air conditioning Engineers) and this has moved into its second phase which includes extensive in-flight measurements. The other studies are the joint European "CabinAir" study and a third planned in the UK called the ICE (Ideal Cabin Environment) study. All of the objective evidence thus far suggests that there are no significant health threats to air crew (including cabin crew) or passengers from cabin air quality issues in normal operations. There certainly are the normal physiological issues associated with flight (lower O2 tensions, fatigue, low humidity, low level noise and vibration etc) but these have not been shown to have long-term health ramifications for aircrew. Much of the concern about cabin air quality concentrates on contaminants via the engine bleed air and in particular organophosphates such as TCP as well as carbon monoxide and ozone. Again the studies thus far have shown the levels of all of these potential contaminants to be well below all recommended levels when measured in normal operations onboard. Indeed the levels measured thus far are comparable with, and even lower than, measurements in offices and other buildings. None of the studies as yet has captured measurements during a "smoke and fumes" incident. In 2002 the Government set up the Cabin Air Quality Reference Group, which met several times to review all the available standards. The group will be convened again when the ASHRAE study is complete and final proposed standards are released. Implications for Australia will be carefully studied. It should be remembered that standards for new aircraft are set by the certifying authorities for the aircraft — principally the US and European safety regulator. CASA does not set unique certification standards for new aircraft as this would place Australia outside the international aviation community. To summarise: CASA is monitoring international research and when final results are available this will be formally reviewed. What response did SUNDAY seek from the aviation industry? SUNDAY also put similarly detailed questions to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which is the peak airline industry body representing some 250 airlines comprising 94 percent of the world's air traffic. Click here to read the main article. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
