Remoak
Clearly you are one of the disbelievers. Let me set you straight.
.
First, the evidence for 30% of individuals is not at all based on one opinion. In fact, a survey was done of all known current and past 146 pilots and it was found that about 1/3 of these had symptoms consistent with exposure to contaminated air. Think about this - this is utterly outrageous that so many people have apparantly been poisoned (let's call a spade a spade) with a potent neurotoxin.
.
Secondly, one of the problems with contaminated air is that it cannot always be detected by crew noses. And remember, there is no requirement for a sense of small for a medical. The problem in a nutshell is that the cabin air supply system is fundamentally flawed on health grounds (see my earlier post). At the least the problem should be minimised NOW with the fitment of filters. Except that would be tantamount to the industry admitting a problem exists, wouldn't it?
.
It's easy for AOPIS to urge us to enter "contamination" (which is defined as...? anybody...?) in the tech log, but then it isn't their careers or livelihoods that are on the line.
.
Correct, its not their career on the line. Its yours. And without your health, you have no career in aviation or anywhere else. Put bluntly, you seem to imlply that by raising the point, you might get sacked. OK, suppose that did happen. So what? Would you want to work for an airline that treated its staff in this way?
.
Also, one of our responsibilities as pilots is to put safety first. If an aircraft is unairworthy, we are the ones that have to stick our necks out and say so. Thats what pax expect, and what I would hope you would have the courage to expect of yourself.
.
Thirdly, I personally feel its a bit mean to say AOPIS suffer from a lack of focus. No-one's perfect but why not give credit where its due for the massive contribution these individuals have made to try and protect those within the industry - thats you, me and all our pax.
.
If you are going to fight the good fight, do it properly.
.
So, it appears you don't agree with what being done at present. I agree that its not yet got the results we need, so any suggestions you can offer would I am sure be carefully studied by the movers and shakers. What do you suggest would be more effective?
.
JW411.
No, no and no again. Sorry to be so blunt but this is important. It is NOT up to individuals to see how they react to toxic exposure that would be totally avoidable if only the industry did what was required. It is up to the industry to provide clean air - I think there would be very little benefit in determining why only some people find contaminated air so hugely toxic. Are you saying pax should also get tested to see if they are suitable to be passengers? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.
.
PP