Brown Bag Campaign | Petition Against Sick Aircraft or Aerotoxic Syndrome | Political Lobbying
HolidayTravelWatch has noted amongst the submissions to the Committee on Toxicity (COT), that it has been suggested, that symptoms highlighted by crew and passengers, were akin to the condition of ‘hyperventilation’.
HolidayTravelWatch has campaigned for many years on the issue of public safety, and considers that the issue of Aerotoxic Syndrome, is potentially one of the most serious public health safety issues to arise in recent years.
In promoting its campaign, HolidayTravelWatch wishes to make clear that this is not an attack on any industry or government. They must all surely recognise that in the battle between safety and the balance sheet, safety must always prevail. If industries believe that they are correct, then they must produce unequivocal evidence that proves their position. If they are unable to do so, both they and Government must err on the side of caution, and take steps to protect pilots, cabin crew and passengers without delay. After all, they and their families are also consumers in the so-called flight revolution!
View the news story on King5.com or view Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines.
The debate that counters the view of the Aviation Industry, and Government, points to the substantial evidence, showing the decades old history of leaking oils into aircraft air supplies, as is demonstrated in the ‘Aviation Contaminated Air reference Manual’. This manual has also been identified as the leading source of information on this issue, by the Royal Australian Air Force.
Given our long history of campaigning, we have decided to adopt the theme of hyperventilation, as highlighted to COT, and employ the method used to treat such a condition, as our emblem for this campaign. HolidayTravelWatch therefore launches, through this online petition, its ‘Brown Bag Campaign’.
The image of the Brown Bag represents a solution to a health problem, or condition, whilst at the same time, the bio-hazard symbol on our ‘brown bag’ represents the hidden danger to pilots, cabin crew and passengers.
Many pilots, cabin-crew and passengers report smoke or fume events on board aircraft. These ‘fume events’ arise because the air supply used in most aircraft, is based on the ‘bleed air’ supply system. Simply, your air on board comes directly through the aircraft’s engine. Due to design characteristics of the way the bleed air system works, the combusted products from aviation oils, leaking through seals, can provide smells or mist within the flight deck or passenger cabin. Combusted products contain Organophosphates, and in particular Tri-Cresyl Phosphate. The effects on an individuals health can be extremely debilitating, and affect their health either permanently, or for many years.
However, while the debate rages on the effects of Organophosphates, and Inhalation of the mixture of substances in engine oils, is there anything that can be done to reduce the leakage into an aircraft? Yes! If between £15 to £20k was spent on each aircraft flying today, supplying filters to prevent such a leakage as the air comes from the engine, then crew and passenger health would be protected. Airlines will point out that this would cost them many millions of pounds. This is correct, however, how many passengers would object to paying a premium on the price of their air ticket if it meant that they could be confident that they would not be exposed to components of combusted products? The benefit to an airline could be that they could then guarantee a clean air supply to its employees and passengers; this would surely have a benefit on sales?
It is for these reasons that HolidayTravelWatch launches its Global Petition on this issue.
We the undersigned ask you to sign our petition.
Kate Milner,
Harriet Clews,
Margi Levy,
Jean Leppard,
Brian Allder,
T HURT,
Paul McFarlane,
CECILIA HAMMOND,
linda webb,
LESLEY IBRAHIM,
Tags: aerotoxic syndrome, carbon monoxide, Fume Event, holiday claims, holidaytravelwatch campaigns, sick aircraft syndrome, smoke event
HTW has for many years received reports from concerned holiday makers or independent travellers as to the safety of their aircraft, ship or boat, train or road transport.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Thank you for taking action on this. The airlines have been treating passengers and crews badly for far too long. In their arrogance they deny us the right to even know when they have injured us.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:38 am
…just a further point, we use ‘brown bags’ for hyperventilation; what we suffer in aerotoxic syndrome is lung injury; to treat this with a brown bag is not appropriate. X-rays show that my lungs are covered in scarring; I need more oxygen not less.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Point taken crstanding. However, the point of calling this campaign, ‘The Brown Bag Campaign’, is to highlight the hyperventilation theory submitted by a senior scientist to the COT committee (highlighted above). It is wholly ridiculous to suggest that all air passengers, or indeed the bulk of air passengers, are suffering from some minor ailment! It is a mockery of the seriousness of this situation; the ‘Brown Bag Campaign’ is intended as a satirical throwback to those who would seek to reduce your condition to a minor ailment, and to those in government who go along with that opinion. Perhaps our title is too subtle? Frank Brehany – Senior Consumer Advocate – HTW
April 25th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Yes, maybe your title is too subtle, but it does demonstrate to me the dangerous effects of ‘bad science’. The Countess of Mar discredited these so-called scientists of the COT. She said,
“These expert committees are often required to make decisions upon incomplete evidence, so the only verdict they can give is that of “not proven”. This cannot be an impartial response if the resources allocated to field and clinical investigations are inadequate and the evaluators do not qualify their findings accordingly. They rely upon what may be called “constructive ignorance” by being content to rule on the evidence which is before them and avoid a search for information that may lead them to a different decision. That is not being impartial.
Of course, there is also an inherent bias in that human nature decrees that arbiters tend to favour their own judgment and resist the opposite view. The Cairns Committee in its review of the authority which both licensed aircraft as airworthy and was responsible for investigating aircraft accidents coined the phrase “intellectual corruption”—[Official Report, 24/6/97; col. 1558–9.]
The Cairns Committee reported in, I think, 1966. Shopenhauer, the philosopher, is attributed with the belief that most ideas go through three phases: first they are laughed at; secondly they are violently attacked; and thirdly they are accepted as common sense. In view of the defences being put up by the Minister and his advisors, I think we may just about have reached the second stage.
Dr Ruge, a member of the AHWG, in referring to the UK Government and CAA-initiated and sponsored research paper Cabin Air Quality published in 2004, stated:
“The results did not suggest that there is a health risk for passengers, including infants, and crew”.
A look at that paper reveals that:
“The research described in this report addresses the effect of cabin air contamination on the pilot’s ability to safely fly and land an aircraft. The CAA decided to conduct this research following a small number of events where flight crew effectiveness was reduced, possibly due to oil products present in the cabin air. Although some references are made concerning long term health effects, the scope of this research did not attempt to determine the extent of any such risk”.
It makes no reference to passengers or infants. The research paper relies heavily on a BAe “Commercial—in confidence” paper by Marshman and neither paper has been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal, and yet they seem to be accepted as gospel.
How dare these people play fast and loose with our health!