Content uploaded by Susan Michaelis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susan Michaelis on Apr 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
305
J Occup Health Safety
—
Aust NZ 2002, 18(4): 305-312
A survey of
health
symptoms in
BAe 146
aircrew
L COX
S MICHAELIS
Lawrie Cox is Senior Industrial Officer with
the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.
Susan Michaelis is a former BAe 146 First
Officer, now Research Associate with the
School of Safety Science, The University of
New South Wales.
Address for correspondence: Ms S
Michaelis, Research Associate, School of
Safety Science, The University of New South
Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
The concerns that were brought to the
Australian Federation of Air Pilots
regarding air quality problems revealed
a number of operational and OHS
issues. This prompted the design and
conduct of a survey of symptoms in
members who fly BAe 146 aircraft in
Australia. A total of 19 pilots and two
flight attendants responded. Survey
respondents showed high rates of
symptoms which included headaches,
eye, skin and upper airway irritation,
neuropsychological impairment,
respiratory problems, food/alcohol
intolerances, muscle/joint pain,
diarrhoea, and so on. While the results
of this survey cannot be considered
representative, they do provide self-
reported data from a small number of
pilots about health problems on the BAe
146, and suggest that the denials by
the airlines should be re-examined.
• AVIATION INDUSTRY
• OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
• AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS
• BAe 146
• AEROTOXIC SYNDROME
KEYWORDS
Parts of this article were presented at the Aviation Air
Quality Symposium, Australian Defence Force
Academy, The University of New South Wales, held in
Canberra, Australia, 7 December 2000.
Health symptoms in BAe 146 aircrew
306 J Occup Health Safety
—
Aust NZ 2002, 18(4): 305-312
Introduction
The Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) is the
trade union which covers pilots within Australia
(with the exception of the major airlines). During the
early 1990s, the union was aware of concerns that
were being expressed by some members, but the
matter seemed to disappear for a significant period.
This may have been due to the significant disruptions
to the industry which occurred at this time.
The issue regained some momentum in the mid- to
late-1990s, as the number of complaints began to rise
from members who crewed BAe 146 aircraft and who
had experienced smells inside the cabin and cockpit.
In some cases, these experiences led to nausea and
headaches, while in others they led to loss of balance.
Further, the number of cabin crew who were
medically released from duty on the BAe 146 was
increasing, and in 1997 there was a serious incident
on a freighter aircraft.
The major airlines had started an investigation into
the complaints and Ansett Australia had established
an “odour committee” to address the concerns that
were being raised by employees. This committee
included members of the Ansett Pilots’ Association
and Flight Attendants’ Association of Australia, as
well as a number of “experts”. While material was
being gathered and many of the affected crew were
transferred to other models of aircraft, no real
solutions emerged. Because the committee was
developed from within Ansett Australia only and
there were no equivalents at other operators, it took
some time for a wider debate to develop — although
the industry as a whole was aware of the problem.
As a result of the 1997 air freighter incident, the then
Bureau of Air Safety Investigation took a direct interest
in the issue and looked into the causes of fumes,
design of the aircraft, and so on. It was at this time that
AFAP took a more active interest in the issue because
it considered a pilot becoming incapacitated during a
flight to be a serious safety concern.
In responding to this issue, the union did not claim to
be a medical or engineering expert; however, a
significant amount of material related to the problem
was readily acquired from a number of organisations,
individuals, researchers, medical professionals, the
airlines and the Internet.
On the other hand, it seemed from the outset that the
Ansett Australia committee was relying totally on the
accepted wisdom of the medical experts involved,
rather than investigating other possible alternatives.
This point should be emphasised because, during the
later public submissions to the Senate Inquiry,
accusations were still being made by the airlines that
the complaints were simply related to stress,
hyperventilation or hormone imbalance. However,
this apparent process of denial and marginalisation
was clearly questionable, for example, the pilot
involved in the 1997 incident was a 50-year-old male
who believed himself to be a relaxed person.
Again, it needs to be stressed that the AFAP officers
were not medical experts; they were simply looking for
an explanation as to what was affecting crew members.
As a result of some basic research by an AFAP
member, several descriptions of the oil used in the
aircraft were tracked down and subsequently
identified as the source of the fumes (after bearing
seal failure). Also, while seeking out what effect the
burnt oil fume could have, the material safety data
sheet was found. This document stated that the oil
was safe during tests under laboratory conditions but
the inhalation of mist or fume may cause nervous
system disorders through long-term exposure.
Many of the reports received from crew members
were comparable with nervous system disorders, with
symptoms appearing after an exposure of several
years flying on the BAe 146.
When this material came to light, the commercial
pressures began, for example:
— the aircraft manufacturer denied that there was a
problem;
— the airlines believed that modifications had fixed
the problem;
— the regulator did not believe that the matter was
an air safety problem; and
Cox & Michaelis
307
J Occup Health Safety
—
Aust NZ 2002, 18(4): 305-312
— the oil manufacturer said that there was only a
small risk and that it was working on a substitute
oil in any case.
Unfortunately for the vested interests of those
involved and for AFAP members, reports of fume
incidents occurring are still being made today.
However, as a result of consistent lobbying —
particularly from AFAP members — a Senate
Committee for Rural and Regional Affairs and
Transport has added a specific reference to air safety
and cabin air quality in BAe 146 aircraft to an existing
aviation inquiry on airspace.
The material put to the inquiry and the conclusions
of the Committee in the Senate Report are a matter of
public record, so they will not be repeated here.1
However, the Senate Inquiry clearly demonstrated the
narrow definition of air safety which is so cherished
by the regulators and airlines, and quite correctly
identified that their responsibility was to a much
wider concept of health and safety.
BAe 146 flight crew survey
In 1999, a survey of the health symptoms of BAe 146
pilots was conducted. Anonymity was guaranteed so
as to gain a more frank response to the survey
questionnaire by participants.
The response rate was low — only 21 questionnaires
were returned. Subsequently, it was discovered that in
one company the letter and questionnaire had been
removed from individual flight crew mailboxes. The
reason for this was to ensure that fewer
questionnaires would be completed and returned —
and none from that particular company.
While the questionnaire was primarily sent to pilots,
some flight attendants also replied.
Due to the removal of questionnaires from personal
mailboxes by one airline, the responses received
cannot be considered to be representative.
Nevertheless, analysis of the questionnaires that were
received showed a number of interesting trends,
which are explored below.
Respondent demographics
Most pilots in commercial aviation are male. This was
reflected in the results of the survey, in that the
majority of crew who responded were male (Figure
1). Similarly, most respondents were in the 30–50
years age group (Figure 2).
FIGURE 1
Gender
Male Female
Gender
Respondents (%)
80
60
40
20
0
Health symptoms in BAe 146 aircrew
308 J Occup Health Safety
—
Aust NZ 2002, 18(4): 305-312
Flying history
While the survey was targeted at flight crew, 90% of
the respondents were pilots, and 10% were flight
attendants. Of the respondents whose primary role
was flying, the number of years spent flying is shown
in Figure 3. All pilots were currently flying the BAe
146 full time (that is, they did not fly other models).
The respondents had substantial flying experience,
although flying experience on the BAe 146 was less
than the total years flying. Further, all pilots noted
that they flew more than 500 flight hours per year in
their current positions.
Health survey
The questionnaire contained a number of questions
about health problems, including a list of symptoms,
duration of symptoms, and so on.
Respondents were very positive about the quality of
their health before flying (particularly before flying
on the BAe 146 (Table 1)).
Respondents were less positive about whether their
health had suffered while flying on the BAe 146. Most
considered that the number of symptoms had
increased, that they were specific to flying on the BAe
146, and that the symptoms improved away from the
plane (Table 2).
Just under half of the respondents considered that the
symptoms were associated with specific exposure
situations, such as an engine oil leak. However, 37%
did not — suggesting that they considered that
symptoms were part of the normal processes of
working on the plane. This finding is quite revealing
as it indicates a fairly widespread belief in the
industry that, in addition to the BAe 146 being a
plane which is prone to engine oil leaks, there is a
persisting residual problem which is not directly
associated with the leaks but which has the potential
to continue to cause symptoms or affect health.
Data on symptoms were collected by asking the
question: Do you experience any of the following
symptoms during your work pattern? Respondents
were asked to rate such symptoms as “occasional”,
“sometimes”, “often” and “long term”. While the
subjective nature of the ratings is acknowledged, it
does allow the respondent to answer the question
FIGURE 2
Age of respondents
Age group
20–30 30–40 40–50 50–60
Number of respondents (%)
40
30
20
10
0
Cox & Michaelis
309
J Occup Health Safety
—
Aust NZ 2002, 18(4): 305-312
without raising the problems that quantitative
answers may produce. Data on symptom severity are
shown in Table 3.
Of all the data collected in this survey, the symptom
severity data reveal the most about health problems
from flying on the BAe 146, namely:
— a wide range of symptoms was reported, in many
body systems;
— some symptoms were reported at fairly high rates
(for example, headaches, irritation and
respiratory problems);
— some symptoms occurred quite frequently (for
example, skin irritations and disorientation);
— some symptoms, such as coordination or memory
effects, presented significant safety problems; and
— some symptoms only occurred as long-term
effects (for example, immune system disorders).
These data show that the range of symptoms is
extensive, and frequency of symptoms cannot be
dismissed as being part of the normal health
symptom background. Other symptoms, such as
coordination or memory problems, are alarming —
given that the respondent was flying a plane at the
time.
The questionnaire also provided respondents with
extra space to add other comments. These are noted
below. In general, they support the results of the
FIGURE 3
Flying experience of respondents
Years flying
Years flying on the
BAe 146
Years spent flying
1–2 3–5 6–15 16–25 above 25
Respondents (%)
40
30
20
10
0
TABLE 1
Health status
Health status Good Moderate No answer
How was your health prior to your flying career?
How was your health prior to flying the BAe 146?
95%
100%
0%
0%
5%
0%
Health symptoms in BAe 146 aircrew
310 J Occup Health Safety
—
Aust NZ 2002, 18(4): 305-312
TABLE 2
Symptom development
Symptoms Yes No No answer
Have your symptoms increased since flying the BAe 146?
Do symptoms increase by the same amount on other models of planes?
Do symptoms increase more while on duty?
Do symptoms increase more on the BAe 146 than elsewhere?
Do symptoms decrease a few hours after sign off?
Do symptoms improve on holidays or days off?
Did you have symptoms prior to flying the BAe 146?
Do symptoms only occur after exposure incidents?
95%
0%
84%
68%
63%
90%
0%
47%
0%
63%
5%
0%
16%
5%
95%
37%
5%
37%
10%
32%
21%
5%
5%
16%
TABLE 3
Symptom severity
Symptom severity No answer Occasional Sometimes
Headaches, light-headedness,dizziness
Irritation of eyes, nose and throat
Disorientation
Memory impairment (short-term)
Concentration difficulties, confusion
Blurred vision, tunnel vision
Nausea, vomiting, gastrointestinal problems
Fatigue, weakness, decreased performance
Respiratory distress/difficulties
Numbness (head, limbs, lips, fingers)
Balance/coordination difficulties
Joint pain, muscle weakness
Intolerance to chemicals/odours
Intolerance to foods/alcohol
Skin irritations
Immune system disorders
General increase in feeling unwell
Diarrhoea
Cancer
32%
16%
74%
53%
53%
90%
90%
32%
63%
74%
74%
84%
53%
84%
79%
79%
53%
90%
100%
21%
16%
5%
10%
16%
5%
0%
21%
0%
5%
0%
5%
5%
0%
5%
0%
5%
0%
21%
32%
5%
5%
10%
0%
0%
26%
26%
0%
16%
5%
16%
0%
16%
0%
16%
5%
Often
10%
16%
0%
5%
0%
5%
5%
0%
0%
10%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
5%
0%
Long term
16%
21%
16%
26%
21%
0%
5%
21%
10%
10%
10%
5%
26%
10%
0%
21%
21%
5%
Cox & Michaelis
311
J Occup Health Safety
—
Aust NZ 2002, 18(4): 305-312
survey data shown above, and are quite revealing in
terms of the additional problems that they uncover:
— increased colds, running nose, watery eyes;
— increased skin irritation to eyes and neck;
— on flights of four hours plus, extreme headaches
usually occur next day and last for 24 hours;
— eyes become bloodshot and painful;
— skin rash to hands;
— violent protracted headaches;
— initial experience during duty or period
immediately following has now increased to
approach to airport or similar environment;
— fatigue and lack of attention to detail has been
evident for quite some time;
— when PAC filters changed, odour decreases;
— nausea felt whenever odour present; and
— affect on liver, fatigue, chemical sensitivity and
sore eyes.
Conclusion
Overall, the survey provides limited results about the
health issues for pilots flying on the BAe 146. It could
be argued that the results of the survey should be
dismissed as they are not representative, cover only a
small sample size and — because of the action taken
by one company to stop its staff from filling out the
questionnaire — do not even represent one part of the
union’s constituency of interest.
However, the survey does provide self-reported data
from a number of pilots about the health problems as
a result of flying on the BAe 146. Therefore, the
results of this survey are not airline or union rhetoric
about what is or might be the real situation and, as
such, they should be heeded.
Further, the findings of such a small survey are
interesting because they provide data that support
what is already known. The BAe 146 is a plane which
is prone to engine oil leaks, the contaminants in the
oil are known to cause health problems when present
in the plane’s cabin, and the range of health problems
reported in previous studies is entirely consistent
with the findings of this study.
The Australian Federation of Air Pilots considers that
the presence of contaminants in flight decks and
passenger cabins of commercial jet aircraft constitutes
an air safety, occupational health and passenger
health problem and the following observations have
been made:
1. Incidents involving leaks of engine oil and other
aircraft materials into the passenger cabin of aircraft
occur and are recognised through service bulletins,
defect statistics reports and other sources. The rates of
incident occurrence are higher than the aviation
industry admits, and for the BAe 146 are significant.
The Australian Federation of Air Pilots supports full
reporting and follow-up investigations in accordance
with all regulatory requirements, as well as medical
investigations for those exposed.
2. As indicated by manufacturer information and
industry documentation, aviation materials such as
jet oils and hydraulic fluids are hazardous and
contain toxic ingredients. If such fluids leak into the
air supply, cabin and flight deck, toxic exposures are
possible. The Australian Federation of Air Pilots is
concerned about such exposure events, and supports
industry, government and inter-government
initiatives to reduce such incidents.
3. Leaks of oil and other fluids into aircraft may be
considered as a “nuisance” by some, but where such
leaks affect the health and performance of crew, or the
health of passengers, they should be considered as a
flight safety and health issue which breaches
airworthiness standards and other regulations.
4. Attempts by the industry to minimise this issue
(such as acceptance of under-reporting of incidents,
inadequate recognition of the extent of the problems,
inadequate adherence/interpretation of the
regulations, inadequate monitoring, inappropriate
use of exposure standards and care provided to crew
Health symptoms in BAe 146 aircrew
312 J Occup Health Safety
—
Aust NZ 2002, 18(4): 305-312
reporting problems) have made it possible for the
problem to continue.
5. The Australian Federation of Air Pilots is also
concerned that the health implications — both short
and long-term — following exposure to
contaminants reported by crew and passengers must
be properly addressed. A syndrome of symptoms is
emerging, called “aerotoxic syndrome”, suggesting
that these exposures are common and a sufficiently
large group of affected individuals exists.
6. Where contaminants impair the performance or
affect the ability of pilots to fly planes — as has been
stated in a number of reports — this is a major safety
problem. Where contaminants cause undue
discomfort or even transient health effects in staff and
passengers, this is a breach of Federal Aviation
Regulation 25.831 and other regulations.
7. Until recently, the aviation industry’s approach in
dealing with this problem has been to deny that it
exists but some limited attempts have now been made
to address this problem.
The most important message that AFAP would like to
convey to its members is, in the event of a fume
incident:
— no matter where a report of fumes or odours
comes from, take it seriously;
— record all relevant details related to the event,
including aircraft registration, flight crew, flight
details, time, place, who is affected and any
underlying issues;
— get the aircraft to the nearest alternate destination
or return to departure point;
— clear the aircraft;
— have engineering look at the aircraft;
— where possible, affected crew should seek medical
assistance as soon as possible;
— ensure that the company records the event; and
— report the event to the Australian Transport Safety
Board.
All of the above recommendations are critical and,
although they may seem obvious, there are a number
of well-publicised incidents when such information
was not recorded or details reported.
The issue of cabin air quality needs to be treated with
an open mind, that is, we may not be able to rely on
an existing medical solution to fix the problem. The
approach of AFAP has been to take in all possible
solutions and work for the best possible result for
those directly affected. As such, it is critical that the
answers to the following questions are fully
understood:
— What effects do the fumes have on the body?
— What are the long-term health implications for an
individual?
Ultimately, a regulatory authority is needed which
will protect the interests of employees and the
travelling public without being influenced by
commercial interests. From the evidence that was
presented to the Senate Inquiry, it is apparent that
AFAP lacks confidence in the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority (CASA) to perform such a role.
In AFAP’s view, CASA’s role in dealing with the
problem of oil leaks on the BAe 146 has been
inadequate, and in some cases, because of its
reluctance to get involved, has made the problem
worse.
In concluding this article, it should be stated that it
has taken the last five years to get to this point. The
first reports of fume problems began in the late 1980s
and the effects of the fumes are now starting to take
their toll on current employees. There is no doubt
that many more problems will start to appear in the
near future.
Reference
1. Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
References Committee. Air safety and cabin air quality in
the BAe 146 aircraft. Canberra: Parliament of Australia,
October 2000. Website at www.aph.gov.au//senate/
committee/rrat_ctte/bae/bae.pdf
