Is contaminated bleed air harmful? YES...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing 777
A friend at Air Canada tells me a British Airways Boeing 777 diverted into Montreal in early August with oil fumes and the Canadaian Air Safety people are now investigating.
Does anybody know any details ?
For the A320 the wet dog smell is a familiar smell and is the neurotoxic engine oil being discussed on this thread.
Does anybody know any details ?
For the A320 the wet dog smell is a familiar smell and is the neurotoxic engine oil being discussed on this thread.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a chat with an AME (Aviation Medical Examiner) yesterday about the problem of fumes from the BAe 146; he practices from a major 146 base in the UK. I have been flying them for the last 15 years.
It became apparent that he wasn't aware of the problem at all. At one point he mentioned something about 'germs in the air conditioning' which told me that he had no idea that it was an oil based source.
I was quite shocked that he knew nothing, especially as there was a conference about it this spring etc. He also said that the CAA don't tell AME's what is going on.....
So my questions are - Do you think it strange that this Doctor is still totally unaware of the problem? Is it not part of their job to keep up with events? Shouldn't the CAA have advised them?
I can assure you that if you ask a professional Doctor for his opinion about the issue and he genuinely denies any knowledge that it even exists, should I be surprised or worried?
I would be interested in your thoughts, chaps and chapesses.
It became apparent that he wasn't aware of the problem at all. At one point he mentioned something about 'germs in the air conditioning' which told me that he had no idea that it was an oil based source.
I was quite shocked that he knew nothing, especially as there was a conference about it this spring etc. He also said that the CAA don't tell AME's what is going on.....
So my questions are - Do you think it strange that this Doctor is still totally unaware of the problem? Is it not part of their job to keep up with events? Shouldn't the CAA have advised them?
I can assure you that if you ask a professional Doctor for his opinion about the issue and he genuinely denies any knowledge that it even exists, should I be surprised or worried?
I would be interested in your thoughts, chaps and chapesses.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember the mouldy/wet sock smell from the BAC111 years ago, generaly on the descent through about 12,000' or lower. Any commonality with the 146 pressurisation system ?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa Del Solent
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paterbrat,
It is possible that the contaminated air in this case originated in the APU as the APU is started up during the descent ready to provide the air con and gnd power once the engines are shut down on the ground. Anyone else with greater tech knowledge care to correct me/elaborate?
T
It is possible that the contaminated air in this case originated in the APU as the APU is started up during the descent ready to provide the air con and gnd power once the engines are shut down on the ground. Anyone else with greater tech knowledge care to correct me/elaborate?
T
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Penzance, Penzance.
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flown most of our 146's now and they all stink to High Heaven.
Why is there nothing done about this? Is it lack of interest, Manpower, cost or not really bothered?
Unless there is another Helios.
Why is there nothing done about this? Is it lack of interest, Manpower, cost or not really bothered?
Unless there is another Helios.
www.aopis.org
(Aviation Organophoshate Information Site)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[B]HELIOS BOEING 737 CRASH, CONTAMINATED AIR ? [/B]
1 September 2005
HELIOS BOEING 737 CRASH, CONTAMINATED AIR ?
AOPIS PRESS RELEASE
WORLDWIDE
Whilst investigations continue into the circumstances of tragic accident to the Helios Boeing 737 crash of last month in Greece, it is important that the investigators look into all aspects of the investigation WITHOUT being influenced by interested parties.
The question in everyone's mind is how were the pilots incapacitated.
Some tell us that the aircraft may have been only slightly pressurised as the crew are reported to have taken off in 'Manual' mode instead of 'Automatic' with the controller in the 1/3 open position and hence it is hypoxia that caused the crew to become incapacitated however this story does not appear to be the full truth but may be a convenient way to blame the pilots rather than accept what could be an industry cover up.
All commercial jet aircraft have a cockpit warning system which warns the pilots when the aircraft internal cabin pressure reaches 10000ft. Maximum cabin altitudes on commercial jet aircraft can reach about 8000ft so at 10000ft the flight crew have enough time to cancel the aural / visual warnings and deal with the problem and this is why 10000ft was accepted as a sensible point to warn the crews.
It is reported that on the Helios flight the crew were ALREADY incapacitated by the time the cabin altitude reached 10000ft as the warning was never cancelled by the crew as is standard practice to do so. So how is this possible and what could have done this ?
It is reported by other Helios crew that the crash aircraft had a history of 'Strange Smells' yet those who have publically reported these events have NEVER been contacted by the accident investigators. Strange smells on commercial jet aircraft are usually linked to a CONTAMINATED AIR SUPPLY, so what could have contaminated the air to produce the smells and what effects could it have ?
The air being breathed by the pilots and flight attendants WHICH IS NOT FILTERED FOR TOXIC FUMES could have been contaminated by electrical fumes due to wiring problems or by engine oils and hydraulic fluids. This has been known for over 30 years in the airline industry and yet there are NO contaminated air detection systems fitted on commercial jet aircraft!
We are aware of many previous examples of pilots becoming incapacitated due to exposure to invisible oil and hydraulic fumes, we and the industry are also aware of many serious flight safety errors where crews have made serious flight safety errors due to contaminated air.
Boeing, Airbus, British Aerospace and other manufacturers all know about this problem but like the early days of smoking, many choose to deny the issue or do all they can to cover the issue up. Crews around the world often experience contaminated air and do nothing to protect themselves out of ignorance or fear of being seen as a trouble maker.
In 2000, following a double crew incapacitation, the Australian Senate completed a year long inquiry into these matters and concluded crews WERE getting sick and that flight safety WAS being compromised.
Since then, in 2000 the Canadian Transport Bureau Interim report on Swissair 111 accident, stated:
"…recognition that within the aviation industry there has been belief that odours are often a non event diminishing concern about minor odours."
British Aerospace who have known for over 20 years of contaminated air problems on the BAe 146 stated a few years ago in an engineering Service Bulletin (number SB 21-150):
"In the past oil leaks and cabin/flight deck smells and fumes may have come to be regarded as a nuisance rather than a potential flight safety issue. However whilst investigations are being carried out to determine the nature of any agents that may be released into the cabin environment and to define any necessary corrective actions, oil leaks and cabin flight deck smells must be regarded as a potential threat to flight safety not just a nuisance."
The Australian Safety Board (ATSB), the British Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB), The Swedish Air Accident Investigation Branch etc… all know about these issues and have done so for many years but manufacturers and many airlines fail to take adequate actions to protect passengers and crews.
Below are some examples from the UK alone where crews have been incapacitated due to fumes but the same reports exists in all countries. It may well be that on this sad occasion it has had tragic consequences but we were warned…..
Former Australian BAe 146 pilot Mr Nevan Pavlinovich stated in the AOPIS documentary: 'Contaminated Air: An Ongoing Health and Safety Issue' in 2003 that:
"if there is an accident it won't be an accident, as everyone knows about it!".
The Greek coroner Mr Kotsaftis tells the media that the dead pilots had no carbon monoxide poisoning so there was no contaminated air. The industry knows that you frequently get contaminated air with no carbon monoxide!
The oils crews are breathing contain organophosphates which are neurotoxins which the United States Air Force previously warned were dangerous when inhaled!
The accident investigation should be part of an open public inquiry and not allowed to be another industry cover up where pilots are blamed for errors when they may have become incapacitated due to an industry in denial of what is a serious health and safety issue.
We have numerous examples of crew becoming incapacitated in flight and available on request by email.
For more information visit www.aopis.org or Sally at [email protected]
HELIOS BOEING 737 CRASH, CONTAMINATED AIR ?
AOPIS PRESS RELEASE
WORLDWIDE
Whilst investigations continue into the circumstances of tragic accident to the Helios Boeing 737 crash of last month in Greece, it is important that the investigators look into all aspects of the investigation WITHOUT being influenced by interested parties.
The question in everyone's mind is how were the pilots incapacitated.
Some tell us that the aircraft may have been only slightly pressurised as the crew are reported to have taken off in 'Manual' mode instead of 'Automatic' with the controller in the 1/3 open position and hence it is hypoxia that caused the crew to become incapacitated however this story does not appear to be the full truth but may be a convenient way to blame the pilots rather than accept what could be an industry cover up.
All commercial jet aircraft have a cockpit warning system which warns the pilots when the aircraft internal cabin pressure reaches 10000ft. Maximum cabin altitudes on commercial jet aircraft can reach about 8000ft so at 10000ft the flight crew have enough time to cancel the aural / visual warnings and deal with the problem and this is why 10000ft was accepted as a sensible point to warn the crews.
It is reported that on the Helios flight the crew were ALREADY incapacitated by the time the cabin altitude reached 10000ft as the warning was never cancelled by the crew as is standard practice to do so. So how is this possible and what could have done this ?
It is reported by other Helios crew that the crash aircraft had a history of 'Strange Smells' yet those who have publically reported these events have NEVER been contacted by the accident investigators. Strange smells on commercial jet aircraft are usually linked to a CONTAMINATED AIR SUPPLY, so what could have contaminated the air to produce the smells and what effects could it have ?
The air being breathed by the pilots and flight attendants WHICH IS NOT FILTERED FOR TOXIC FUMES could have been contaminated by electrical fumes due to wiring problems or by engine oils and hydraulic fluids. This has been known for over 30 years in the airline industry and yet there are NO contaminated air detection systems fitted on commercial jet aircraft!
We are aware of many previous examples of pilots becoming incapacitated due to exposure to invisible oil and hydraulic fumes, we and the industry are also aware of many serious flight safety errors where crews have made serious flight safety errors due to contaminated air.
Boeing, Airbus, British Aerospace and other manufacturers all know about this problem but like the early days of smoking, many choose to deny the issue or do all they can to cover the issue up. Crews around the world often experience contaminated air and do nothing to protect themselves out of ignorance or fear of being seen as a trouble maker.
In 2000, following a double crew incapacitation, the Australian Senate completed a year long inquiry into these matters and concluded crews WERE getting sick and that flight safety WAS being compromised.
Since then, in 2000 the Canadian Transport Bureau Interim report on Swissair 111 accident, stated:
"…recognition that within the aviation industry there has been belief that odours are often a non event diminishing concern about minor odours."
British Aerospace who have known for over 20 years of contaminated air problems on the BAe 146 stated a few years ago in an engineering Service Bulletin (number SB 21-150):
"In the past oil leaks and cabin/flight deck smells and fumes may have come to be regarded as a nuisance rather than a potential flight safety issue. However whilst investigations are being carried out to determine the nature of any agents that may be released into the cabin environment and to define any necessary corrective actions, oil leaks and cabin flight deck smells must be regarded as a potential threat to flight safety not just a nuisance."
The Australian Safety Board (ATSB), the British Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB), The Swedish Air Accident Investigation Branch etc… all know about these issues and have done so for many years but manufacturers and many airlines fail to take adequate actions to protect passengers and crews.
Below are some examples from the UK alone where crews have been incapacitated due to fumes but the same reports exists in all countries. It may well be that on this sad occasion it has had tragic consequences but we were warned…..
Former Australian BAe 146 pilot Mr Nevan Pavlinovich stated in the AOPIS documentary: 'Contaminated Air: An Ongoing Health and Safety Issue' in 2003 that:
"if there is an accident it won't be an accident, as everyone knows about it!".
The Greek coroner Mr Kotsaftis tells the media that the dead pilots had no carbon monoxide poisoning so there was no contaminated air. The industry knows that you frequently get contaminated air with no carbon monoxide!
The oils crews are breathing contain organophosphates which are neurotoxins which the United States Air Force previously warned were dangerous when inhaled!
The accident investigation should be part of an open public inquiry and not allowed to be another industry cover up where pilots are blamed for errors when they may have become incapacitated due to an industry in denial of what is a serious health and safety issue.
We have numerous examples of crew becoming incapacitated in flight and available on request by email.
For more information visit www.aopis.org or Sally at [email protected]
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More ignorance! It is Boeing aircraft that lead the way in fumes incidents (particularly the 757/767).
No more dissing the queen of the skies without, you know, actual facts...
No more dissing the queen of the skies without, you know, actual facts...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as fumes go, the BALPA study was actually directed at 757,737 and A320 air quality - see http://www.aopis.org/BALPA757SURVEYp253-262.pdf
The 146 has a longer documented history of fumes, which merely prompted everyone to look at other types. It is interesting that in the Balpa list of the worst offenders, the 146 was second behind the 757. In terms of numbers, the 757 has affected far more people than the 146 has (owing to numbers in service and number of pax carried). The 757 was clearly the focus of concern, no doubt driven by the many BA pilots who have experienced fume problems.
More to the point, the number of fumes incidents on the 146 declined dramatically once the problem was understood, and proper maintenance procedures put in place. Our company was particularly picky about making sure the ducts were clean.
Personally, I think it is outrageous that more has not been done in the way of filters etc, but there you go.
I'd still far rather fly the 146 than the Q400.
The 146 has a longer documented history of fumes, which merely prompted everyone to look at other types. It is interesting that in the Balpa list of the worst offenders, the 146 was second behind the 757. In terms of numbers, the 757 has affected far more people than the 146 has (owing to numbers in service and number of pax carried). The 757 was clearly the focus of concern, no doubt driven by the many BA pilots who have experienced fume problems.
More to the point, the number of fumes incidents on the 146 declined dramatically once the problem was understood, and proper maintenance procedures put in place. Our company was particularly picky about making sure the ducts were clean.
Personally, I think it is outrageous that more has not been done in the way of filters etc, but there you go.
I'd still far rather fly the 146 than the Q400.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR,
Carry on flying it then and stop being a t*t every time a q400 thread is mentioned on this forumn. Personally id rather my 737 than your quardapuff but now im decending to you level (and speed) - if you get my drift.
Carry on flying it then and stop being a t*t every time a q400 thread is mentioned on this forumn. Personally id rather my 737 than your quardapuff but now im decending to you level (and speed) - if you get my drift.
Scaredy-cat
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hochheim, Germany
Age: 51
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear- do I, as pax, have to be ashamed to actually *like* the quadrapuff? Never had any fume problem travelling in one....the only emergency I ever had was aboard a Fokker 100- and it was one hell of a fume problem; vision below 30 cms in the cabin!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a very interesting thread to which I will add my few words based on 40 years flying experience.
When I flew the F4 for the USAF in the 60s we had problems with contaminated air and the oil was MObil Jet OIl II back then if I recall correctly. Many crews made alot of errors which was believed to be due to this but quickly hushed up by those upstairs.
When I flew the 320 for a US carrier we often had the same smells with passengers and the gals down the back with the symptoms reported on this thread and yes the passengers were never told anything.
How can a problem that everyone knows about go on for over four decades ?
If the Helios crash is linked to contaminated fumes then Boeing may well be in serious problems so it does not surprise me (but very worrying for justice) to read that Boeing are part of the Greek Accident Team.
Saw this information link on the net:
http://ashsd.afacwa.org/?zone=/union...fm&HomeID=1396
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good display of selective reading MOR. That particular survey was aimed at boeing aircraft, however the catalyst behind the campaign was Balpa - The aircraft environment
with such gems as
"Most aircraft, such as the Boeing 747 and 767 and the Airbus A340,have virtually no reported flight deck contamination problems. Others, however, and most notably the BAe 146, are well known for the occasional leakage of contaminated air into the bleed air system."
and
"....while the BAe146 is clearly one of the main culprits, other aircraft such as the Boeing 757 also produce significant amounts of pollutant"
with such gems as
"Most aircraft, such as the Boeing 747 and 767 and the Airbus A340,have virtually no reported flight deck contamination problems. Others, however, and most notably the BAe 146, are well known for the occasional leakage of contaminated air into the bleed air system."
and
"....while the BAe146 is clearly one of the main culprits, other aircraft such as the Boeing 757 also produce significant amounts of pollutant"
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Penzance, Penzance.
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR,
The 146 is top of the league table, always has been and always will be untill they address the problem seriously.
Closely followed by the :-
B757
Emb145
MD83
A320
With a New Entry just bubbling under.........at..........
Yes you've guessed it, the very Soon To Be INFAMOUS............
Wait for it.............
The Bombardier Dash8 Q400.
The 146 is top of the league table, always has been and always will be untill they address the problem seriously.
Closely followed by the :-
B757
Emb145
MD83
A320
With a New Entry just bubbling under.........at..........
Yes you've guessed it, the very Soon To Be INFAMOUS............
Wait for it.............
The Bombardier Dash8 Q400.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR, Are you a manager at FlyBe? Your comments on the 146 being low fume are totally unfounded and a lie.
Do a proper search on the Internet if you want to know the truth.
Allso the 757 story is not as straight forward as the 146 story as it has different engine suppliers whereas the 146 always had the junk engines with the seals which still do not work properly!
Torycanon, your comments on the Dash 8 being another flying gas chamber in FlyBe are equally well placed here in the US as Horizon Air have had fume problems as well.
Can anybody tell me why FlyBe in the UK seem to have so many fume events accordinging to an Internet and search of the UK AAIB website ?
At the BALPA conference in London earlier this year, a friend who attended was told that every BAe 146 pilot in the UK was being contacted by BALPA. Has the data been published yet?
Perhaps this should be on the other PPrune thread on contaminated air ?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think people have forgotten how this topic started...Yet again another Q400 has been sent to the hangar and the 146 is left to pick up the bits....fact. It may have the air quality of a local nightclub but seems to peform better when airflow is passing over the wings. and being a right hand seater on a 146 and being called to do dash routes every other day...we see it how it is.
More worrying is the fact that the 146 is 60's technology that is still working well, where as a Q400 is modern technology that..well just isnt...and they are getting 40 more of the things! Great!...for my logbook as a 146er i guess!!
More worrying is the fact that the 146 is 60's technology that is still working well, where as a Q400 is modern technology that..well just isnt...and they are getting 40 more of the things! Great!...for my logbook as a 146er i guess!!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Penzance, Penzance.
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is still massive under reporting on the 146 ref fumes and air quality in general. The big incentive NOT to report it or enter anything into the techlog, is a compulsory visit to the local A & E department, for very painfull Arterial Blood samples to be taken if you do make an entry or file any reports.
I would suggest that this is merely the tip of the iceberg really.
How do you address the under reporting issue?
I would suggest that this is merely the tip of the iceberg really.
How do you address the under reporting issue?