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

4.101 Mr Lawrie Cox, Senior Industrial Officer with the AFAP, told the inquiry in evidence at a public hearing:
The role of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority throughout this process is, to say the least, appalling. …
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has simply taken the advice of a commercial operator that is obviously protecting its basic interests as the regulatory authority, as being the basis of their position that there are no safety concerns in the operation of this aircraft and there are no health effects and no changes or effects on pilots’ licensing. It is an unacceptable position from our point of view that the authority can take that stance, particularly with the amount of material that has been given.103
4.102 Mr Cox went on to state:
CASA should not be operating in such a way that they simply take a commercial entity’s report - and I am not casting aspersions on Ansett here, but they may have compiled that report for their own purposes. That is being accepted by the regulatory authority as the be-all and end-all. That is totally unacceptable in our view.104
4.103 The Federation submitted that the limitations placed upon air crew in identifying the past and present state of the contamination issue, allows the airlines to strongly influence CASA and the Commonwealth Government, “…indicating that the issue is no longer of concern, while failing to indicate the full extent of the effects on crew health and safety.”105
102 Mr Richard Best, Evidence, 17 August 2000, p 285 103 AFAP, Evidence, 1 February 2000, p 114 104 AFAP, Evidence, 1 February 2000, p 117 105 Submission 14A, AFAP, p 7
4.104 The AFAP went on in its submission to allege that:
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been aware of the air quality issue in detail for some time as (sic) has been thoroughly briefed by Ansett, yet has done little if anything in the way of objectively reviewing the issue from all perspectives, with the prime requirement being to ensure that all regulations are met, in order to maintain air safety.
Crew that have tried to ensure that CASA is aware of the full extent of the problem have been told that there is no evidence of the air quality being unsafe, yet is aware of cabin air circulation problems on the 146, but overall there is no evidence on safety grounds that warrants any form of action, and that the problem is being adequately dealt with by Ansett.
… To date, CASA has been unwilling to recognise the implications of the in-flight safety issues connected to contaminated air and has therefore allowed the issue to remain unresolved and ongoing. Operating crews are reluctant to come forward until health effects are critical as the Aviation authority has not been willing to objectively assess the situation and ensure that the Civil Aviation rules and regulations are being met.
Although CASA medical department is aware of the issue of fumes on the 146, and even had a representative attend the 1998 Aerospace Medical Assoc. General meeting, at which in-cabin contamination was a major topic, no support has been given to pilots raising the associated health issues with the medical Department. 106
　
中國航空網(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(74)