Dear AOPIS,
As far as BALPA were aware, only one person from one operator was involved, at their own initiative and not in a manner with which I would consider the most effective for a number of reasons. If other persons undertook activity for your organisation, then it is for them to decide. Any activity by other trade unions and their members are for them to deal with, not BALPA. Similarly, BALPA is not responsible for actions of AOPIS members, of which there seems to be no information published as to constitution or, membership numbers , election process and officers.
There seems to be clear discrepancy in the AOPIS numbers of confirmed sick pilots due to this cause and the numbers of which BALPA is aware. One would need full medical information to do this. I understand that eminent specialists within the UK are far from agreement over the whole range of issues associated with OP poisoning. Thus to claim the numbers you do that are confirmed sick due to this cause, would seem somewhat less than precise in scientific and medical terms, to say the least. Suspected may be reasonable, but confirmed is rather stronger than the agreed science and medicine would seem to justify!
BALPA has made a statement about the conference and taking part of the statement out of context is pretty poor journalism and in the best traditions of spin, of which many now have experience due to the UK political landscape! The full statement includes a need to work with all of industry to find out what is happening and how to solve it. BALPA is a part of industry and as such works with it to get solutions that fix problems and don't loose people their jobs in doing so. Behaving in a confrontational manner akin the Animal Liberation Front or such , as seems to be the case with the rather personal slurs on me in this thread, is hardly compatible with that approach. It is the only way to get the issues resolved, as it is unlikely that an organisation such as AOPIS will have the resources or, authorisations to gain access to a substantial amount of very personal data on individuals or, the sensitive commercial information on equipment to gain a complete picture of events and solutions that suit each circumstance, whatever that might be. The implication of a legal motive driving the AOPIS stance is hardly likely to help open up the doors for full frank and open discussions with all of the players.
Loosing your job because of an economic hit on your employer as a result of a scare story, can cause death, as I know that as a result of the death of a friend when he lost his job. Hence another reason for a cautious approach.
The short term flight safety issues are well covered by the application of normal smoke fumes procedures that all of us have for our aircraft types. Longer term health problems need to be separated from these issues. Long term means just that and requires long term research to prove it. Immediate and permanent damage may be clearer in some cases, scientist and clinicians who specialise in the field will no doubt provide us with answers.