曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

2.59 To date Ansett’s advice is that the only workers compensation claims to be settled resulted from acknowledgment of short-term employee illness. The Committee understands this result accords with a consensus statement produced by the panel of medical experts appointed by Ansett to investigate this issue. However this issue needs further examination.
2.60 The Committee notes the action taken by Ansett concerning this issue and notes that such action has ensured that Ansett is clearly accountable for its program. The Committee also notes Ansett’s cooperation with this inquiry on this issue. Other airlines, it should be noted, do have a ‘no blame’ compulsory reporting of fume problems, and similar modification programs, yet have not been subject to the same level of scrutiny.
58 Correspondence from Ansett to the inquiry dated 28 January 2000.
59 Ansett Australia, Evidence, 2 November 1999, p 55
60 Ansett Australia, Evidence, 1 May 2000, p 243, see also Ansett Australia, Evidence, 1 May 2000, p 257.
2.61 The Committee notes Ansett’s claim to be a world leader in rectifying the BAe 146 problem is apparently accurate and that Ansett has been subjected to a high level of scrutiny as a result.
2.62 The Committee also notes recent submissions from Ansett air crew about the unsatisfactory performance of the company and the August 1998 cancellation of the company’s ‘Odour inquiry Committee’, despite the odour issue remaining unresolved.61 The Committee also notes with concern that Ansett has recently withdrawn medical exemptions for crew who do not wish to work on the BAe.
2.63 As noted in Chapter 1, the Committee is aware there are current claims for compensation arising from alleged fume exposure. One such case involves an Ansett air crew member, Judy Cullinane, who alleges her claim for damages for illness which is currently being litigated in Western Australia.
Reluctance to report incidents
2.64 It was submitted during this inquiry that there has been a major level of failure to report incidents involved with fumes on all Australian aircraft, including the BAe
146. The AFAP claimed that air crew:
… are reluctant to identify the extent of odour incidents for a number of reasons, including fear that if identified with this issue it could effect legal operations of the aircraft as well as crew ability to fly according to the Civil Aviation Regulations.
Crews are aware of the ongoing nature of this issue, and know that the technical problems have been unable to be fixed to date, and have obvious concerns for their own career, income etc. 62
2.65 Pilots have in evidence to the Committee63 asserted that there is a problem of ‘under-reporting’ of fume incidents. This is attributed to:
.  
lack of awareness of the source and effect of fumes until recent publicity associated with the Senate Inquiry and overseas developments;

.  
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality in the BAe 146 Aircraft(27)