Senator KNOWLES  (Western Australia) (12.45 p.m.) --Over the years there has been much debate about air safety and cabin air quality in the BAe146 aircraft. In fact, the Senate undertook an inquiry into the matter. This has been and continues to be a serious problem for those experiencing adverse reactions to the air contamination said to be emanating from faulty oil seals that allow fumes from aviation oil to enter the cabin. Today I refer specifically to situations that have been brought to my attention by constituents in Western Australia and about their employer, National Jet Systems group. It needs to be noted that National Jet Systems is not some tin-pot airline that just runs a few planes around the bush. It has 23 BAe146 planes, the majority of which are leased by Qantas. It is the second largest airline in Australia and, on a most conservative calculation, one could say that NJS would fly well over two million passengers a year.

It appears, on the evidence that I have before me, that National Jet Systems solve the problem of air contamination by suspending or dismissing staff that complain of adverse events following exposure. It also appears that National Jet Systems place such enormous pressure on their crews to keep their planes in the air at all costs that the crews themselves have been most reluctant to report faults that could ground a plane for any length of time. This has led to a culture of silence among most crews. They are now fearful of anyone going public because they have been threatened that they will all be sued for not reporting problems. Therefore, for someone to speak out they are running great risks. That is why I will not be referring to my constituents by name. The constituents have sought to raise their concerns with the Air Transport Safety Bureau, only to be told that the bureau cannot investigate anything until after there is an accident. CASA have proven to be less than helpful on this occasion as well.

As I said, there have been many reports done on the subject of contaminated air in the BAe146 jets. There is a further report by Professor Chris Winder entitled Possible contaminants in jet oil engine leaks. This paper was delivered at a symposium in Canberra in December 2000. In that paper, Professor Winder talks about the known toxicity of certain types of oils and the fact that:

... potentially toxic products have continued to be available long after their toxicity was recognised.

In this subject we are talking about products that can have extremely serious effects on the wellbeing of crew and passengers. My concern in this instance, and I would suggest the concern of any individual who travels, is that the crew can be affected by such contamination and thereby suffer a range of effects. These can include, but are not exclusively listed: proximal limb paralysis, weakness of neck muscles, inhibition of respiratory muscles, cranial nerve involvement, headaches, mental fatigue, depression, anxiety, irritability, reduced concentration and impaired vigilance, reduced information processing and psychomotor speed, memory deficit and linguistic disturbances. I am sure that honourable senators would agree that these symptoms are hardly the symptoms one would wish for someone in charge of flying an aircraft.

What worries me is that the symptoms described by Professor Winder bear an uncanny resemblance to those reported by the company doctor when assessing one of my constituents. The doctor wrote, under the heading of symptoms, that the crew member reported:

Mucous in the back of the throat, tingling sensation and paraesthesia of the head, pressure headache over the temples and bridge of the nose, nausea and constriction of the throat, feeling of irritability, sensitivity to light and sound, lethargy and fatigue, deterioration in memory.

Professor Winder talked about such contaminants being:

... administered subcutaneously to mice--

and that the researcher--

... found a heightened incidence of lung and kidney cancers.

Furthermore, he states that one of the contaminants:

... is listed as a prohibited substance under the Australian hazardous substances regulation.

Professor Winder says that the product is assumed to comply by default. I could go on for hours quoting this document; however, I simply quote from the conclusions of that report:

The jet oils are commercially useful product. They are known to contain toxic ingredients. Even the apparent toxicity of a jet oil reported from animal experiments in 1998 was not viewed as a significant problem. However, an increasing number of oil leaks in the 1990s around the world, and the increase in the number of flight attendants and flight crew reporting signs of toxicity after such events, suggests the toxicity of jet oils should be reconsidered. Firstly, the exposure scenario at altitude is utterly different from conventional exposures to the oils while using them in maintenance situations. Options for the control of exposure are all but absent. Exposure may not only be to gases and vapours, but also to particulates. The exposure may vary from unchanged oil mists, to combusted or pyrolised contaminants.

In light of this type of assessment done by an independent person, I am left asking why so many personnel have had to endure sickness and then suffer the indignity of dismissal because they were seen to be malingerers, grizzlers or hypochondriacs.

In an effort to dispel individual crew complaints, the company has insisted on sending the crew member to a doctor of company choice. When the report from that doctor has verified the crew complaint, the company, in short, has admitted that there is a problem that cannot or will not be fixed, then offered the crew a lesser position on a smaller aircraft or dismissal. I will quote from the doctor's report, which clearly states the doctor's opinion. The assessment the doctor gave is as follows:

The symptoms [Mr X] reports are consistent with exposure to jet oil fumes and I note his reports consistently correlate with documented technical faults. I find [Mr X] is perfectly fit to work as a pilot and to date has not suffered any significant long-term health effect as a result of exposure to fumes on the BAE146. He has, of course, suffered significant short-term health effects as a result of the fume exposures, and continued exposure would not be advisable. At the present time he seems to have completely recovered from the ill effects of the recorded exposures. He is therefore fit to fly all other aircraft types. In relation to the BAE146, he is also fit to fly the BAE146 jets provided you can give assurances that there will be no further cabin air contamination. If you cannot provide a safe working environment, then you will be placing him at further risk.

That is interesting because that has come from the doctor that the company suggested this constituent attend. The doctor went on to say that other issues need to be considered:

From my experience of seeing many flight crew from both Ansett and NJS it would appear to me that there are certain aircraft that are consistently reported to have problems with cabin air quality. In respect of NJS I recall Zulu Lima and Alpha to be frequently mentioned by flight crew as having oil leaks into the cabin, causing flight crew and passengers to be unwell. It may be then that there are certain BAE 146 aircraft that you can be confident do not have a history of cabin air contamination. These aircraft could possibly be considered safe for [Mr X] to operate.

If you cannot give assurances that there will be no cabin air contamination then it raises serious air safety issues for both your staff and passengers.

Given [Mr X]'s reports correlate with documented technical faults I would consider that it is highly unlikely that he is alone, as a pilot, in his experience of the ill effects of leaked fumes. I hold some concern that there may be under-reporting of such incidents by pilots for a number of reasons. [Mr X] has, in fact, demonstrated integrity and courage in objectively recording incidents and as a result has significantly contributed to air safety.

The doctor finished by saying:

There needs to be some system for reporting incidents independent of the operator that protects both air safety and the employee from fear of lack of job and/or licence.

May I remind the Senate that the letter from which I just quoted is of course from the doctor that the company sent the constituent to. This is the company's choice. The message is loud and clear: fix the problem and stop shooting the messenger.

A letter from National Jet Systems to their employee is an interesting one as well with regard to the question of air cabin safety. It says:

While the quality of cabin air on the BAe 146 aircraft is substantially under control--

I emphasise the word `substantially'--

I cannot be absolutely certain that the cabin air on this aircraft type will never contain low levels of jet oil contamination. Considering your demonstrated sensitivity--

this is in the letter written to the constituent--

to BAe 146 cabin air contamination and the doctor's professional medical opinion, it is not appropriate to allow you to resume working aboard this aircraft type. I am prepared to offer you employment as a Dash 8 first officer.

How remarkable is that? They recognise that they cannot control the air quality and they have read the doctor's report that does not say that this constituent is unable to fly any 146, but they say they will take him off all 146s and put him on a Dash 8. The letter concludes by saying:

Your rejection of this offer of retraining and redeployment together with your unsuitability for flying duties on BAe 146 aircraft will leave me with little alternative but to reassess your continued employment by National Jet Systems.

In other words, he faces the sack. That is just absolutely and utterly disgraceful. It goes against the medical report and it goes against his ability.

Furthermore, in another letter to another staff member who is now, I might add, a former staff member, they state:

While significant advances have been made in controlling the 146 cabin air quality issue, we cannot confidently and absolutely guarantee that no cabin air contamination will occur while you are on board a 146 aircraft. We are not prepared to risk compromising your health. Accordingly, the 146 flying option is no longer available to you. As a result, you are hereby notified that your employment is terminated due to redundancy of your position. As you are not presently performing any duties, the termination will take effect immediately.

Once again, another person has been ignored by the company, and I would have thought that any company that would make those types of admissions about the quality of the air in the aircraft would have a greater responsibility to their staff and passengers than just to sack or demote the staff who complain. Additionally, the company should be taking heed of the advice by their doctor which finished by saying--and I repeat:

There needs to be some system for reporting incidents, independent of the operator, that protects both air safety and the employee from fear of lack of job and/or licence.

The pilot to whom I refer in this contribution has only last week been medically assessed as perfectly fit for duty and yet he is staring down the barrel of dismissal for having the courage to speak out about an issue that is vitally important to air safety in this country and around the world. He has not spoken publicly, and he does not intend to speak publicly, but he has certainly raised it with all the authorities and the company within his means.

I will finish by quoting two more sentences from the doctor to whom my constituent was sent by his employer:

He has reported several incidents to you and I note those you have included in your requesting letter and the corresponding technical reports of oil leaks and maintenance performed. I also note the consistency with which his reports correlate with documented leaks.

This pilot's courage in attempting to fix a wrong should be commended and acted upon instead of him being suspended or ultimately dismissed. I certainly hope that National Jet Systems will act responsibly in this instance with this particular constituent, but I also hope that they will act responsibly and isolate the issues that are affecting certain BAe146 jet aircraft. Clearly, it is not all of the aircraft--and I do not wish to imply that for one moment--but there are aircraft that have been identified as having a problem. They should be singled out, they should be grounded and they should be fixed--no excuses given. It is not good enough for both crews and passengers to suffer this type of illness. When I read some of this material, I suddenly realised why one day I had been very ill after a flight to Kununurra. I had many of the symptoms that have been described by both Professor Winder and the company doctor. I now can fully understand what the crews are going through and what many passengers go through. We cannot afford to ignore this any longer.