Pilots protest over 'noxious' air
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the stock answer is that it's everyones responsibility.
Typically whos responsible for enforcement depend which country you work in. I suspect that's part of the problem. Who's juristiction is it?
Typically whos responsible for enforcement depend which country you work in. I suspect that's part of the problem. Who's juristiction is it?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: England
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight International Letters
Some letters in this week's Flight International magazine about the excellent article "Toxic fumes in airliner cabins ignored by authorities". If you haven't already read it, there is a link to it in post #221
Time industry faced up to the facts
Many thanks for your timely and excellent article on contaminated air in airliners (Flight International 6 – 12th May).
What is concerning me more than anything else is the industry’s stance of saying “there is no evidence” when what it really means is that it does not wish to look up to or face up to the evidence.
I have numerous independent testimonies from aircrew and passengers from all over the world, all describing how they were fully healthy before a flight (or several flights in the case of aircrew) and then, after being exposed to a fume event, reported serious “mysterious” long term ill health symptoms.
All were subjected to misdiagnosis and mistreatment from unintentionally ignorant medical staff.
All had sudden awareness of the likely cause of symptoms – ie. Past fume(s) exposure – and all were angry at the inability of the various “authorities” to understand the simple process and putting industry before health.
John Hoyte Chairman Aerotoxic Association, London, UK.
Toxic Cabins – a change for the good
David Learmount is right to highlight “the widespread prevalence of denial” of the evidence that contaminated air can lead to aerotoxic poisoning. (Flight International 6 – 12 May)
However it is encouraging to see that even the most entrenched critics of the theory are now acknowledging it’s validity.
As a medically grounded former BAe 146 pilot who could well have been affected, I well remember raising the problem with an expert aviation journalist at the Farnborough Air show two years ago and being abruptly dismissed as someone who was talking complete nonsense. That journalist was none other than David Learmount – quite a conversion, but one that is most welcome.
Bob Millichap, Pullborough, Sussex, UK
Congratulations
I have just read your article “Toxic Shocker” (Flight International 6 – 12 May). You have done it again. It is simply outstanding. I thought I had followed this issue fairly closely, but it turns out I have done nothing of the sort. This is an eye opener of the first order on par with your Concorde articles.
Erik Reed Mohn, Oslo, Norway
Time industry faced up to the facts
Many thanks for your timely and excellent article on contaminated air in airliners (Flight International 6 – 12th May).
What is concerning me more than anything else is the industry’s stance of saying “there is no evidence” when what it really means is that it does not wish to look up to or face up to the evidence.
I have numerous independent testimonies from aircrew and passengers from all over the world, all describing how they were fully healthy before a flight (or several flights in the case of aircrew) and then, after being exposed to a fume event, reported serious “mysterious” long term ill health symptoms.
All were subjected to misdiagnosis and mistreatment from unintentionally ignorant medical staff.
All had sudden awareness of the likely cause of symptoms – ie. Past fume(s) exposure – and all were angry at the inability of the various “authorities” to understand the simple process and putting industry before health.
John Hoyte Chairman Aerotoxic Association, London, UK.
Toxic Cabins – a change for the good
David Learmount is right to highlight “the widespread prevalence of denial” of the evidence that contaminated air can lead to aerotoxic poisoning. (Flight International 6 – 12 May)
However it is encouraging to see that even the most entrenched critics of the theory are now acknowledging it’s validity.
As a medically grounded former BAe 146 pilot who could well have been affected, I well remember raising the problem with an expert aviation journalist at the Farnborough Air show two years ago and being abruptly dismissed as someone who was talking complete nonsense. That journalist was none other than David Learmount – quite a conversion, but one that is most welcome.
Bob Millichap, Pullborough, Sussex, UK
Congratulations
I have just read your article “Toxic Shocker” (Flight International 6 – 12 May). You have done it again. It is simply outstanding. I thought I had followed this issue fairly closely, but it turns out I have done nothing of the sort. This is an eye opener of the first order on par with your Concorde articles.
Erik Reed Mohn, Oslo, Norway
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The House of Lords view.....
Lord Tyler asked a question in the house on 21st May 2008 about contaminated air - the responses are unbelievable, which planet are they on?
Perhaps they should read (and understand) Flight Internationals views or maybe they are better informed - somehow?
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...A10612#g1461.4
Now, if some Lord could experience a full blown fume event and be seriously sick for over 12 months.......
KBO
DB
Perhaps they should read (and understand) Flight Internationals views or maybe they are better informed - somehow?
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...A10612#g1461.4
Now, if some Lord could experience a full blown fume event and be seriously sick for over 12 months.......
KBO
DB
