We have been given confidential documents regarding Contaminated Air In Aircraft and we feel it’s important that the travelling public, flight and cabin crew are made aware of what happened in Australia between Ansett & Eastwest Airlines and BAe - manufacturer of the BAe146 aircraft.
Ansett & Eastwest Airlines continued operating BAe 146 aircraft knowing there was a problem with contaminated air onboard - after reaching a secret ‘agreement and financial settlement’ with the manufacturer in 1993.
History of the BAe-146:
http://www.airvectors.net/avbae146.html
Eastwest Airlines and Ansett (who later bought Eastwest) operated the BAe146 aircraft between 1989 - 2006.
This ‘dirty deal’ was made in 1993. The Australian Senate learned of it in 2007.
BAe Systems paid Ansett/Eastwest Airlines Australia off in September 1993 freeing BAe from any further dispute or court action regarding the contaminated air onboard the BAE-146 aircraft. The aircraft kept flying and more people became injured but it had all been previously hushed-up through this agreement between BAe and Eastwest Airlines & Ansett.
The complete ‘Agreement’:
https://www.aerotoxicteam.com/uploads/6/0/3/8/6038702/settlement-agreement-ansett-1993.pdf
And another ‘Agreement’ from the engine manufacturer also in 1993:
https://www.aerotoxicteam.com/uploads/6/0/3/8/6038702/settlement-agreement-ansett-2-1993-13.pdf
October 2000 - A Report is published on the Inquiry into the BAe146 in Australia:
Quote:
‘2.40 In evidence to the inquiry Dr Balouet said:
If you have at Ansett and NJS one leak in every 160 aircraft flights, that is probably one of the poorest statistics around the world. In 1992 the statistics for Ansett was one flight with an odour every 66 flights, and one flight leaking for every 160 flights. ... Eight hundred reports in eight years time is basically 100 reports per year. Alaskan Airlines, which is another company with a high number of very significant problems has a fleet which is about three times the size of Ansett plus NJS and they only have 100 reports per year.
... statistically it certainly is Ansett that ranks first.’
Quote:
‘2.41 The ATSB responded to the claims made by Dr Balouet by noting :
If, as Dr Balouet asserts, Ansett and National Jet Systems are the
statistically highest ranking for cabin air problems, that evidence has not
been provided to the ATSB. Airlines have every right to conduct their own
reporting and investigation program and under this program Dr Balouet’s
statement may be correct. However the ATSB is only concerned with
immediate safety of flight issues. Longer term exposure is an OH&S issue ...
2.42 Mr Mick Toller, the Director of CASA, informed the Committee that from
late 1997 to the first half of 1998, the Authority closely monitored reports of fumes on the BAe 146. CASA liaised with the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) concerning this issue. The UK CAA carries responsibility for certification of the BAe 146, as it is a British built aircraft. Mr Toller told the Committee that; “While anecdotal reports have been passed on to me, I have not received any specific or substantiated reports of crew member sickness from any other airworthiness authorities.”
2.43 The Committee notes from media reports reported fume contamination on aircraft in the United Kingdom and a serious fume contamination incident on a BAe 146 in Sweden on 12 November 1999, which occurred during a flight between Bromma and Sturup. The Committee also notes reports of fume contamination incidents in Canada and the United States.
2.44 Mr Toller also advised the Committee that as of 1 November 1999, although approximately 15 per cent of the world’s fleet of BAe 146s operated in Australia, it appeared this was the only country where there had been a report of a pilot being incapacitated due to fumes while flying the aircraft.
2.45 CASA also stated that the “... aircraft has a reputation for poor air quality and smells within the passenger cabin.” In evidence to the inquiry (13 March 2000) Mr Toller advised:
“There is no doubt that all aircraft from time to time suffer fumes within the aircraft. I think we have accurately reflected that that is a feature of the basic design of airconditioning systems in aircraft, being bleed air from engines, and that on occasions engines leak.“ ‘
‘1.8 While the total number of reported incidents varies, a summary of fume reports provided by Ansett Australia and the Flight Attendants Association of Australia shows the figure of 700 incidents to be a conservative estimate of fume occurrences since the BAe began operating in Australia.’
The full details:
https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999-02/bae/report/report.pdf

Australian Senate - Senator O’Brien -August 2007:
https://www.aerotoxicteam.com/uploads/6/0/3/8/6038702/obrien-speech-australia-13-aug2007_copy_agreements_senate-extract.pdf
An update in September 2007 from the Australian Senate (read the highlighted areas in particular)
Quote:
‘Like other agreements to which I have referred, this Agreement contains a confidentiality clause keeping its existence secret from parties including aircraft crew, passengers and the media’.
Quote:
‘That's why I am disappointed the government has been silent about corporate deals on cabin air quality — deals that, in my view, should never have been made.
It's time CASA and the government stopped pointing to overseas studies on cabin air quality and accounted for their own knowledge and conduct over the past decade and more.’
⁃ CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Australian National Authority For The REGULATION of Civil Aviation).
The September update:
Many flight crew, cabin crew and passengers were harmed by contaminated air on the BAe 146 aircraft and not only in Australia. Despite enquiries, questions being asked and statements made regarding the danger to health - nothing was done and Ansett continued flying the aircraft until 2006.
The ATSB - Australia Transport Safety Bureau said at the time:
“However the ATSB is only concerned with
immediate safety of flight issues.”
Which meant they were not concerned with contaminated air in aircraft because that is not considered a ‘safety issue’ within the ATSB. This is very similar to the response from the AAIB in the UK regarding 3 fume events in one day onboard an Airbus A320 aircraft operated by a British carrier which occurred on 13/4/19:
‘We have made enquiries with the operator and are satisfied that these events are minor and therefore do not require follow-up from the AAIB.’
As long as air safety bureau’s have this attitude whereby contaminated air in aircraft is not a ‘flight issue’, is considered as ‘minor’ and regulators and governments still claim and insist contaminated air does not affect anyone’s health or their ability to fly an aircraft or to evacuate an aircraft in an emergency - this problem will just continue as it has for decades.
From the 2000 enquiry in Australia:
The Flight Attendants Association of Australia (FAAA) told the inquiry in evidence that:
‘There has been a significant exercise in semantic tap-dancing by the regulatory authority, CASA, over whether this is a health issue or a safety issue as though there is some need for distinction between the two. The flight attendants on board the aircraft are on board for this reason: there is a regulatory requirement that, to ensure the evacuation of all passengers in under 90 seconds through half the available exits, cabin crew are required to be there. Flight attendants are there for safety. If flight attendants are having to be carted off aircraft in wheelchairs and placed onto oxygen during descent, the health of these flight attendants has been affected to the extent where the safety of the flight and of those passengers has been compromised. Consequently, the issues of health and safety are not separate, but are inextricably intertwined.’
Another comment from the 2000 enquiry in Australia:
“That evidence has not been provided to the ATSB. Airlines have every right to conduct their own
reporting and investigation program and under this program Dr Balouet’s
statement may be correct. However the ATSB is only concerned with
immediate safety of flight issues.”
“Airlines have every right to conduct their own reporting and investigation programme”!!!
Really?
So the most reasonable explanation could be that Ansett Airlines were not reporting all fume events to CASA?, otherwise CASA would have been aware of the real number of fume events occurring.
No one knew at that time what was going on - because fume events were most likely not being recorded or reported.
And that is why we still have a problem with contaminated air in aircraft because - ‘airlines have every right to conduct their own reporting and investigation programme’.
In other words they were and still are self-regulating.
Australia (Expert Panel On Aircraft Air Quality) 2010 Report:
https://www.aerotoxicteam.com/uploads/6/0/3/8/6038702/review-of-the-evidence-entire-report.pdf_copy-of-australia-2009-.pdf
‘Recognising the potential for contamination of cabin air from bleed air and determining the frequency of cabin air contamination events is important. The Panel considered that, even if such events were rare, this could still represent potentially significant occupational health and safety concerns. As such, while the question of the chemicals involved in a contamination event remains unresolved at present, regulators and airline operators have an obligation to ensure that aircrew and passengers are able to have protection if a contamination event occurs, that aircrew and airline operators recognise their obligation to report such events and operators recognise the need to investigate and file reports on the finding including action subsequently taken. As this issue has international significance, the Panel considered that actions and studies undertaken in Australia as the result of this Report should be co-ordinated with those taking place in other countries.
Adelaide
4 October 2010’
Also in 2010 - Flight Attendant in Australia wins her case in court against Eastwest Airlines:
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/court-of-appeal-upholds-negligence-decision-in-favour-of-flight-attendant-joanne-turner-against-airline/story-e6frezhr-1225850091010?sv=7e918c9264f5daa1afc28216becbbc9a
What has happened since the 2010 report from Australia and the PROOF of causation of long-term health effects from Contaminated Air In Aircraft - as shown in the case of the Australian Flight Attendant also in 2010?
No action, no studies and no co-ordination = It continues.
Chronology of Contaminated Air In Aircraft 1944-2017:
https://www.anstageslicht.de/themen/english/aerotoxic/contaminated-cabin-air-a-health-problem-becomes-certainty-the-chronology-of-the-socalled-aerotoxic-syndrome/