Cockpit Flash articles
Looking for calm air…
There is no denying that 2018 was a fuming year for some Belgian airlines. After the Dutch TV documentaries “Poison in the Cockpit” in November 2017, the media hype was partially silenced by Minister De Block (public health) who announced an academic study by the Fedris commission for professional diseases, but the ghost was out of the bottle. Safety departments scrambled to inform people about Cabin Air Quality (CAQ) terminology and enhance their reporting & troubleshooting procedures because the increased awareness caused a massive increase in reported fume events. In turn, this caused increased media attention and plenty of emotional reactions. It is high time to bring reason and calmness back into the discussion.
A standardised medical protocol
Let’s start with the facts. The Fedris report concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a causal relationship between exposure to cabin air and the neurotoxic symptoms related to aerotoxic syndrome – a contested term which currently remains unaccepted by medical authorities. However, the report does acknowledge the presence of the symptoms and refers to ‘sick building syndrome’ where people become sick in certain buildings but where it is impossible to determine the cause of their illness. Furthermore, Fedris recommends exploring this topic in-depth.
As we already mentioned in the previous edition of our Cockpit Flash, BeCA fully supports this scientific approach, but is convinced that to conduct future studies there is a need to generate a set of standardised data. A broadly accepted ‘body of evidence’ that can be analysed and peer-reviewed in future research.
Go beyond
We are happy to report that some AMEs and company doctors already use some kind of standardised protocol. Unfortunately, the tests used are in our opinion too limited. Since we are on unknown territory, more specific tests (often unknown to non-specialised medical personnel) are necessary. IATA guidance alone is insufficient. BeCA is cooperating closely with its fellow ECA member associations to set up a standardised medical protocol, to determine what tests are needed and where they can be carried out. In this process, we also take into account costs and practicability.
Caught in the middle
For the moment we see little enthusiasm from the airline’s side to support our efforts, although we have invited them to tackle the problem together. This is partially understandable, they are caught between two fires. On the one hand, they have a duty of care towards their employees, on the other hand, they receive little support from their manufacturers due to the high stakes. Imagine the legal consequences of an industry admitting having exposed millions of crews and passengers to contaminated air for decades? We do understand the sensitivities. We are not looking for sensation. We are not looking for a culpable. What we want is independent and objective research on a possible health issue.
Alternatives
30 years ago, somebody said: “I think we should prohibit the use of asbestos because it might be carcinogenic.” Imagine the first response from the industry. Today, there is no discussion. We use alternatives wherever we can because asbestos use is now strictly regulated.
Similarly, there are alternatives in aviation to solve the issue of contaminated air. And we are not only talking about bleed free systems as on the B787. As we speak, new types of engine oil are being developed containing less toxic compounds. New filters too; true filters not those that only remove odours. There is research on detection, maybe new bearing types… In short, there are alternatives. But first, we need to know what is causing the neurological symptoms. Therefore we need objectivity, calmness and a standardised medical protocol which goes beyond today’s inadequate standards.
By Rudy Pont, Air Safety Committee Coordinator