JW411
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Allow me to answer some of your points:
Do you ever read what I actually say? On every post that I have made on this subject I have said that it would be very interesting to investigate why it is that some few 146 pilots suffer while the rest of us have no problems. Why do you have difficulty with this?
Yes I agree with you that it would be 'interesting'. Perhaps I should have said that last time. My difficulty with this approach is because knowing the reason, if it could be found will still not stop people getting poisoned. The urgent thing is to stop crews and passengers from being poisoned. The
cause of the problem needs fixing. Surely you agree with that?
I personally know of two or three pilots in 20 years of operating the 146 who have had a problem. One of them had to move to another aircraft (A300) and he has been fine ever since.
So you have only heard of 2-3 others suffering from the problem in 20 years. So what? I had not heard of any others at all until after my health was wrecked while on the 146. Since then I have come to know of well over a dozen 146 pilots who have been similarly afflicted. Plus plenty of others on Boeing and other fleets. Our ignorance as to the extent of the problem does not make one bit of difference to the numbers affected by it.
I am simply trying to get the problem into perspective whilst you, and some of your mates, are trotting out completely spurious figures (which are rather dubious) to "support" your argument that one third of us is suffering from this problem.
A phrase such as ‘I am simply trying to get the problem into perspective’ is fairly non-specific. If you want to talk numbers, Dr Sarah Mackenzie Ross of UCL estimated almost 200,000 passengers in one single year were subjected to contaminated air containing potent neurotoxins. Supposing only a tiny proportion such as 1% of this number was injured. That’s almost 2,000 individuals PER YEAR. And the real figure may be far, far higher.
.
My figures are not ‘spurious’.
.
For your information, I have discovered the survey I mentioned is detailed in the Contaminated Air Reference Manual, chapter 6, page 139:
.
Extract from Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual – page 139
“Initial analysis of the survey data shows that of 359 past and present UK based known BAe 146 qualified pilots, 242 were contacted and responded to the survey request in the form of telephone or written responses to a 2 year survey looking at exposure history to contaminated air and any effects experienced.
.
138 (57%) pilots of the 242 respondents reported adverse effects ranging from short through to long term effects (1 deceased). Of these 82 (34%) reported short term adverse effects only, while 61 (25%) advised medium to long term symptoms, most likely in addition to short term symptoms. 207 (86%) pilots advised that they had been exposed to contaminated air on the BAe 146 with only 8% advising they had not been to such air. 18 pilots (7.4%) advised that they had had their medical certificates withdrawn by the CAA or had taken early retirement with a range of health effects and exposure background. Several other pilots reported having to take between several months to a year off work to recover from adverse effects.
The data presented clearly identifies serious trends that support previous studies and shows a full scale epidemiological survey is urgently required of all crews who flew the BAe 146 as pilots or cabin crew.”
.
By Captain Susan Michaelis. Editor.
Now available from:
http://www.susanmichaelis.com/
.
This was an informal survey with absolutely no help from the CAA. So it’s not surprising that some, perhaps many, were left out. I would be very surprised if anyone was left out deliberately. The point is that the sample may be small but the ratios it reveals should be broadly accurate.
.
Let us just look at some of your statistics:
"A survey of all known current and past 146 pilots"
When I query this statement and point out that my company have flown 19 146s for 20 years and that none of us were ever asked, you respond with:
"From memory about 300 pilots were contacted. That's a fair sample. I cannot comment on why you or your colleagues were left out".
So, suddenly "every known 146 pilot" becomes invalid.
‘All known’ means exactly that. I never claimed it was ‘all 146 pilots’ So there is nothing invalid about what I wrote.
Perhaps you could tell us all exactly which companies were quizzed and which companies responded?
You’ve made another incorrect assumption there. Individuals were contacted, not companies. I did not personally do the survey so I cannot comment on which individuals were contacted or why.
.
How can you be so sure in assuming that none of your colleagues whom you know was ever asked? People who were asked are hardly likely to tell you about it if their own health was suffering. Those who are suffering but still at work tend to keep very quiet about it as they fear for their position, until things become so bad they have to stop. Those who suffer to the extent that they cannot fly any longer find that their names typically drop off company rosters and are usually forgotten. Companies are hardly likely to shout about the numbers of long-term sick crews as my guess is that they have a pretty shrewd idea whats going on and why. So altogether, crews remain largely ignorant of the problem.
I have great sympathy with those who really do have a problem but their cause is not being helped by people such as you who pluck so-called statistics out of the atmosphere which simply do not stand up to inspection.
At no stage have I ‘plucked statistics out of the atmosphere’ as my response demonstrates. And your ‘inspection’ seems to me to be little more than a rant punctuated by flawed assumptions. Surely if something is unclear, you would seek to clarify first, rather than assuming that your interpretation is faultless? Is this how you would work a problem in flight?
You have even suggested that I am suffering from 146 fumes simply because I referred to some of your logic as "b*llocks".
Actually, as I made clear, it was your tone that lead me to this suggestion, which is redolent of irritation and anger. Your reply seemed to be more of a reaction than a measured, considered response. The tone of your most recent reply merely adds to my suspicion that you are one poisoned pilot. I repeat, with almost 20 years on type it is almost certain that you have had a fair dose of contaminated air toxins.