曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

While the airlines have a clear duty of care to the operating crew in the workplace, as well as passengers, the commercial and operational considerations necessary to keep the aircraft flying, have in all cases limited the airline view of the extent of the problem and taken priority over the clear safety issues and subsequent short, medium and longer term health effects experienced by the crew. The issue has only been further investigated because the crews effected have suffered such extreme hardship as well as in flight safety hazards, that they have sought further recognition. 67
63  Submission 14A, AFAP, p 2 
64  Submission 14A, AFAP, p 5 
65  Submission 14A, AFAP, p 8 
66  Submission 14A, AFAP, p 10 
67  Submission 14A, AFAP, p 11 

4.64 The AFAP was highly critical of the performance of Ansett’s “expert committee” claiming that:
… material being collected has delivered a result that was wanted. It was not considering alternative arguments that were being put to get a proper balanced result.68
4.65 In his evidence to the inquiry on 1 May 2000 Captain Jensen of Ansett commented on the AFAP’s views:
… the AFAP does not represent any air crew -pilots or flight attendants -employed by Ansett Holdings. Indeed, the AFAP has not participated in any research or evaluation conducted by Ansett and has never been provided with official documentation by authorised officers of the company. Any comments provided by the AFAP relating to Ansett or its employees can, at best, be viewed as hearsay or supposition.69
4.66 The Committee understands that the AFAP represented Ansett pilots prior to the 1989 pilots dispute whereupon it ceased to represent pilots employed by the two major airlines. The AFAP has members flying with regional airlines including Southern and National Jet Systems.70 In relation to Captain Jensen’s assertion that the AFAP has not been given official Ansett documentation relating to the BAe issue, this is at odds with the appendixed information attached to the AFAP submissions 14A and 14B, which refer to internal and external Ansett documentation, as well as academic, industry and staff literature produced on the BAe 146 issue in Australia and overseas.71 Therefore the Committee does not accept Captain Jensen’s assertion that the AFAP’s evidence is ‘based on hearsay’.
4.67 It is the view of Dr Winder that although airlines in Australia knew about the problems of fumes on the BAe 146 since at least 1992:
… attempts to deal with the situation, such as establishing an odour committee or "panel of experts" seem to be more about addressing industrial relations issues, rather than establishing genuine efforts to rectify the problem through design or engineering solutions.72
4.68 Dr Winder argued that attempts by Ansett to deal with the problem of fumes were and are ,“reactive and piecemeal” due to:
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) 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(66)