It doesn’t really matter what I tell you, you’ve decided long ago that everything that Qantas (and AIPA) do is a scam or a c0ck-up and I don’t think you are prepared to accept otherwise. I’ll correct your gross inaccuracies but I’m not going to change your mind.
Gross inaccuracy?
What is disingenuous is whether or not the study AIPA and the company engage in meet acceptable statistical norms.
The established norms to provide a valid statistical comparison, would presumably include long term monitoring and follow up to see whether the impact of the proposed route structure on an individual's health outcome.
It isn't a scam or cock up, it is an incomplete statistical and therefore invalid sample, which without proper design renders zero assistance for the poor souls who will be exposed to these tours of duty.
A robust method and statistically sample size with sufficient time series observations, would go a long way to addressing at present what is unknown.
Does this study meet that threshold?
If what knobbycobby alludes to is correct, there may well be a correlation between the way patterns and flying is conducted and long term health.
It would never be legal by any other global regulator. Talk to the AIPA welfare representatives and see the increase in cancer and long term sickness rates for long haul pilots on the
330/747/380.
Correlation is not causation, but study design problems usually mean that the study findings are biased, hypothesis formulation and answering is voided and any outcome is not statistically relevant.
If your union has access to long term and increasing sickness, then a long term study would be the way, self evidently, to address, and for all pilots infer, that long term long range flying has no long term health impacts.
A study as being discussed here, does not meet the study design requirements to address a research question into long term health outcomes from long haul flying.