Well I'll pass on telling you who I am, however I will tell you that I have read all the confidential memos from BAe, have been to one of the earlier symposiums on the subject, and have been involved at a fairly high level in a few of the investigations. I have also been involved in two fumes incidents myself.
One of the problems with the 146 is that the stats on fumes events on this aircraft paint a far worse picture than actually exists. This is mainly because BAe were keen that every operator record every event, no matter how trivial. In my company, very few of the events recorded were of a serious nature, and I know for sure that several were completely spurious. There was one I was involved in, for example, where the F/O felt ill but nobody else did, and there was no evidence of fumes. Nevertheless we diverted back to our departure aerodrome, and a toxicological examination of the F/O's blood revealed no evidence of fumes or even CO (you have to do the blood test within 30 mins to get a viable sample, which he did). So despite the fact that our man was clearly ill for "other reasons", it went down as a fumes event and there was a major investigation that grounded the aircraft for the whole day whilst all the ducts were removed. No trace of oil was found, and I spent the entire day doing paperwork on it.
Because the culture at the time was to report every little event, the figures on 146 fumes events are in fact artificially high compared to other manufacturers. The diligence shown in reporting has become a rod for BAe's back, who have been very upfront about the whole issue.
It is also worth noting that once proper procedures were put in place to monitor the aircraft and detect any oil contamination, no matter how slight, the (actual) fumes events virtually stopped. Our aircraft underwent thorough examinations weekly for any oil contamination, over and above normal checks during dailies.
There are other anomalies too - for example, the Australian Senate investigation was thoroughly alarmist and wasn't supported by CASA. It was considered by many to be a backside-covering exercise with a view to future claims. CASA did nothing to stop the aircraft operating, and neither has any other authority.
The bottom line is that any aircraft with an air conditioning system fed by bleed air can have a fumes event. The ATP used to regularly fill the cabin with smoke, usually as a result of failure of a labyrinth seal in the intercompressor region (from memory).
The 757 may not have had as many recorded fumes events, but if you look at the actual reports, you will find that only serious events were recorded anyway (unlike the 146). Even if you take the extant reports on the 757 as prima facie, the fact remains that more people have been affected by fumes events in the 757 than have in the 146.
There is a lot of complete crap put about about fumes events... it's a pity I can't just publish the confidential reports, because they would make quite a few posters here look like ill-informed fools.
And anyone who thinks the BALPA studies are either exhaustive or definitive clearly hasn't read them.
And frankly, anybody who forms a conclusion on the fumes problem solely on the basis of what is on the internet is a fool beyond belief. There are more lies about the subject on the net than anywhere else!
I suppose you believe the con-trailers too...
