Aviation Health Working Group minutes: 23 April 2007

Present

 

Chair	Sandra Webber	DfT	SW
	Andrew Ashbourne	DfT	AA
	Dr Ray Johnston	CAA/AHU	RJ
	Helen Bennett	CAA/CPG	HB
	Cliff Barrow	CAA/SRG	CB
	Tim Williams	CAA	TW
	Dr Mark Popplestone	Virgin/BATA	MP
	Dr Tim Bamber	BALPA	TB
	Dr Tony Goodwin	BALPA/AMS	TG
	James Fremantle	AUC	JF
	Mike Carrivick	Bar-UK	MC
	George Blundell-Pound	Thomas Cook	GBS
	Roger Wiltshire	BATA	RW
	Nikki Jones	TGWU	NJ
	Christine Barringer	HSE	CB
Guests	Karen Bull	Pall Industries	KB
Secretariat	Jason Richardson	DfT	JR
Apologies	Nigel Dowdell	BA
	Ursula Wells	DoH

Introductions

SW opened the meeting and introductions were made. SW welcomed Christine Barringer from the Health and Safety Executive who has replaced Andy Freeman.

Item 1: Re-consideration of minutes of meeting held on 4 August 2006 (Item 2.1) on disinsection

1.0 In response to a request from a member of the public it was agreed  that Item 2.1 recorded in the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 August  2006 should be amended and replaced with the following paragraph;

"2.1 Actions listed -

 Item 3.2 - Angela Tanner, of the Crawley Borough Council  Environmental Services, Port Health Division advised there is a group  within WHO dealing with disinsection. There was a general discussion  during which the opinion was expressed that there was  correspondence from WHO regarding the matter and no indication has  been received to date that the materials used are hazardous to human  health."

Item 2: Presentation by Pall Industries, in relation to cabin air filtration

2.0 Karen Bull from Pall Corporation gave a presentation to the group on cabin air filtration systems that could minimise crew and passenger exposure to impurities in cabin air. The presentation covered existing and developing technologies.  A paper covering the main points of the presentation can be found at Annex A.

2.1 In existence was a carbon adsorbent for VOC/odour removal which was combined with a standard HEPA filter. This is an option on the Airbus aircraft - mainly taken up in Asia. Regular replacement is necessary. This filtration has been tested by Airbus and Rolls Royce.  The carbon material is effective at adsorbing organic compounds and has some effectiveness with ozone but carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are not very suitable for this technology.

2.2 There was some discussion about whether odour removal was entirely desirable as odour can be an early warning of a safety situation. Ms Bull said that sensors could be fitted for this purpose.

2.3 A number of new technologies were described e.g. oxidation and catalysts. There were problems to be overcome e.g. an increase in pressure drop in the system, or generation of unwanted oxidation products, or saturation during a fume event. It was important to understand the nature of the contaminant; hence the cabin air sampling project being designed by the Aviation Health Working Group could be beneficial towards designing acceptable outside air treatment.

2.4 The Group expressed warm thanks for the very clear and interesting presentation.

Item 3: Update on Committee on Toxicity and AHWG Research Sub-group, in relation to cabin air

3.0 AA summarised some of the main points from the last two COT  meetings of 5 December 2006 and 20 March 2007 that have taken  place since the last AHWG meeting. The Minutes and papers relating  to these two meetings can be found on the COT website at the  following address;    http://www.food.gov.uk/science/ouradvisors/toxicity/cotmeets/cot2006/

3.1 AA also gave the following update on the AHWG Research Sub-group.

3.2 The principal recent work of the research sub-group (chaired by  Department for Health) has been developing the specification for the  cabin air research study. The plan is to use a variety of devices on a  number of planes over at least 1000 sectors to try to ensure that at  least one fume event is captured. DFT has been working to bring  together participating UK airlines, independent laboratories and an    independent project manager to enable this work to go forward. The  next immediate step is to proceed to a functionality test so that we can  be sure that the various devices  work on an aircraft. Thereafter, and  armed with the results of the functionality test, DFT intends to call  together the participating parties so that practical and logistical issues  can be thoroughly considered before proceeding with the main  study.

3.3 A discussion took place within the group about the proposed research  and SW and AA gave the following further answers to questions raised  during the discussion;

• It was intended that over the course of the research, up to seven different devices would be used to capture any fume event; these included SPMEs, PIDs, the BRE grabsampler, a carbon monoxide detector (unless a PID can detect CO) and potentially devices loaned by the FAA including a particle counter, Omni personal air sampler and the Van Netten device.
• A combination of these devices would be used on each flight, but each flight would have at least six SPME's (Solid Phase Microextraction) in conjunction with a Photo Ionisation Device (PID).
• After each sector flight, the devices would be removed and sent to two separate laboratories to ensure that any contaminants detected could be corroborated. An independent project manager would be appointed to ensure impartiality and logistical integrity.
• It had been decided not to be produce a prescriptive list of compounds for the laboratories to test for but to be completely open to the identification of any compounds found in cabin air.
• As part of the study, pilots and crew would be asked to complete an ASR as part of the research, recording any sensory perception they had of a fume event. However no medical testing of crew in event of a fume event was planned as tests could not be specified until the study had determined what might be in cabin air.

3.4 Several members of the group commented that this was the first time  any project of this kind had been proposed and commended the  cooperation and collaboration between aviation stakeholders to make it  possible.

Item 4: Update on Fume Protocol (led by Dr. Tony Goodwin)

4.0  TG presented a paper to the group on Guidance for Aircrew Exposed  to Fumes in an Aircraft.

4.2 In discussion it was agreed that clarification would be helpful in respect  
4.3 of certain aspects of the draft guidance including;

• That the guidance was for doctors not aircrew
• That reference to a specific blood test was perhaps premature given that research was planned to identify compounds in a “fume event”.
• That the recommendation that crew have a 12 hour rest should be subject to medical judgement.
• That the guidelines did not address for doctors why an aircraft fume event should require more specific guidelines than any other smoke exposure.
• That ownership of any personal data generated through use of the draft protocol needed to be considered.

4.3 It was concluded that a new draft should be prepared and circulated to   AHWG members for their comments. Subject to further discussion the  document might then be put on the BALPA and TGWU website so that  BALPA and TGWU  members could show it to doctors if they wished. It  should make clear that research was continuing into what compounds  might be identified.

Action: TG to re-draft guidance and circulate to members.

Item 5: Provision of toilets in aircraft (led by Dr Raymond Johnston)

5.0 RJ gave a presentation about the provision of toilets on aircraft.  Currently there were no regulations to require a toilet on an aircraft and  RJ wanted the group’s thoughts on whether this was acceptable in  today’s world and if there should be regulations or guidelines for  airlines to follow. Perhaps along the lines of for a flight of “x” length  there should be “y” toilets per “z” passengers. 

5.1  A brief discussion took place and the following points were raised;

• In respect of  Health and Safety at Work requirements only employees needed to be provided with toilet facilities, but there might be other public health or planning requirements e.g. for pubs, cinemas and shopping centres.
• Was there reference to toilets in the pilots Minimum Equipment List (MEL)?
• Often on flights (especially long haul) toilets became blocked and had to be taken out of service.

5.2 It was agreed that members of the Group would investigate further  sources of information (e.g. the rail and restaurant industries) and  airline practice and report back to RJ or to the AHWG Secretariat for  further discussions.

Item 6: Review of AHWG working methods and website entries

6.0 Introducing the paper, SW explained that it was a good time to look  afresh at the remit and working methods of the AHWG (since its  inception in 2001), and to consider how the Group should be described  on the Department's website. The website description was out of date  e.g. it did not mention the Research Sub-Group; and there has been  requests from two organisations to attend the working group; one as a  member, one as an observer,

6.1 In discussion it was agreed that the Group's remit as set out in the  2001 Mission Statement still remains valid, with the pre-amble, and is  as follows:

 "The Aviation Health Working Group will meet on a regular basis and  will work in partnership with other interested parties to give effect to the  Government response to the House of Lords Inquiry into Air Travel and  Health. Particular responsibilities identified in the response are to:

• Provide a forum for interested Government departments and agencies to consider issues relevant to aviation health;
• Provide an interface with the air transport industry, health experts and other interested parties on aviation health issues of mutual interest;
• Evaluate the need for research into issues related to air travel and health, and consider the role of Government in supporting such research;
• Ensure Ministers are kept informed and receive comprehensive advice on aviation health matters;
• Monitor developments that impinge on the health of those travelling by air."

6.2 On the issue of the frequency of the meetings, it was agreed meetings  should be held three times a year. The Research Sub-Group should  meet when needed.

6.3 In respect of the Group’s membership and whether the right  organisations were represented, it was suggested that airline  manufacturing be represented through the Society of British Aerospace  Companies. The Secretariat will make contact with the SBAC  accordingly.

6.4   SW informed the Group she had received separate requests from the  Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE) to join the AHWG and  from the Independent Pilots Association first to join and then to become  observers. NJ supported both but the requests did not meet with wider  support. 

6.5 Several comments were made in discussion. On membership, it was  generally considered not desirable to add 'single issue' organisations to  the Group. The Group had in the past, and could continue in the future,  to invite presentations from parties as necessary to obtain particular  information or points of view. It was noted that IPA had presented itself  as a ‘single issue’ organisation. 

6.6 In response to allowing observers at AHWG meetings, it was noted that  the AHWG was a civil service led 'working group' with the remit to  advise Ministers, which did not have the high status of a formal forum  or committee which members of the public might attend. It was also  noted that the minutes of meetings were already published on the  Department's website so anyone who wanted to could view them on- line. It was not considered that the spirit of cooperation and trust  needed to move matters on would be enhanced by such observation.  Finally, it was noted that allowing observers could dramatically increase  the number of people attending meetings, and would require  establishment of codes of conduct, etc. For these reasons it was  decided not to allow observers to attend.

6.7 In respect of how the AHWG should be presented on the Department's  website, it was agreed that moving towards a FAQ format would be  helpful. SW said that draft FAQ's about the work of the AHWG would  be prepared by DfT and circulated to members for approval before  being published on the Department's website. It was important for  consistency that the same material also appeared on the DH, HSE, and  CAA websites.

Action: DfT to draft FAQ's for the Department's website.  

Item 7: AOB (including Gender Directive)

7.0 AA explained that consultation by the Department of Communities  and Local government (DCLG) on new sex discrimination legislation  would take place in May. DCLG have been given contact details for  the CAA, BATA, BA and BALPA. So either directly, or certainly through  DfT, they should all receive the consultation package. When received,  guidance from the Royal College of Obstetrics on the carriage of  pregnant women would be circulated so as to enable airlines to  provide a consistent response to the consultation.

7.1 TB raised the issue of potentially inexperienced First Officers after a  pilot died during a flight simulation test. In discussion it was considered  that this important issue was probably more an aviation safety issue  than an aviation health issue. SW offered to pass BALPA’s concerns to  the pilot licensing division of the Department to take up with the CAA.

Action:  SW to talk to colleagues in International and Safety Division.

CAD 14 May 2007