Overtalk (and others)- still missing the point with the selective quotes from Hansard.
First of all, the identification of what an odour is can be complex- it requires either a chemical analysis of the cabin air at the time, or an analysis of the blood of the people exposed to it. Both these methods were used in the UK investigation of this problem. How did the Aussies do it?
Secondly, this problem is not confined to the 146, it has happened on other types as well, so singling out the 146 is disengenuous to say the least.
Thirdly, the problem is essentially solved by taking simple precautions. For our company, this includes weekly examination of the air conditioning ducts for any sign of oil contamination, and careful monitoring of engine and APU condition. We change either if there is any sign of contamination.
As others have said, it is the way in which manufacturers and regulators work together to solve problems that is important. Virtually every type flown has a worse safety record than the 146- for example just look at Boeings (as there are more of them than anything else). 747's have experienced a range of airframe failures, one of the worst being the United Airlines aircraft that lost one of its pax doors and quite a bit of fuselage over the Pacific (as well as a few pax through the hole). There have been several instances of 747 flaps detaching in flight. The 767 has suffered problems such as thrust reverser deployment in flight (Lauda Air wasn't it?)- all killed. The 737 we have discussed... and on it goes...
The point? All aircraft have design flaws and problems... many share the same problem (as in the case of the 146 and cabin fumes). To claim that the 146- which has never killed a passenger in the twenty-odd years it has been flying- is inherently unsafe is ridiculous. Yes, it has had a problem with cabin fumes- but it isn't the only one, and the problem is essentially fixed. What more is there to say?