the precautionary principle and cabin air quality: the ... · the precautionary principle and cabin...

The Precautionary Principle and Cabin Air Quality: The Methodology

Frank Brehany

Consumer Director

HolidayTravelWatch

By

P a g e | 1

Copyright HolidayTravelWatch 2015© - Images are licensed to HolidayTravelWatch and can only be reproduced by permission of iStockPhoto & HolidayTravelWatch. This Methodology has been created by HolidayTravelWatch but no copyright claim is made and no subsequent ownership of the

Methodology can be claimed by any party unless they have the express written permission of HolidayTravelWatch. This is considered to be an open working

model of a Methodology but in any re-production or re-drafted model of this Methodology, all drafters of the original and subsequent models must be acknowledged.

INTRODUCTION

The July 2015 Paris meeting of CEN/TEC 436, to discuss the future shape of a Standard(s) for Cabin Air Quality,

delivered a broad consensus accepting the principles of Risk Analysis and The Precautionary Principle.

Whilst there are some who do not accept that there is either a consensus or do not trust each other’s motives, the meeting

nonetheless served as a watershed in that analysis of risk must take precedence over ‘historic’ battles if progress is to be

made on the creation of a Cabin Air Quality Standard.

To focus attention on the general principles, the Author, through HolidayTravelWatch, created The Paris Statement,

which sets out in very broad terms, the history, positions and principles of precaution.

At this stage, only one person/body has signed The Paris Statement, which is the Author on behalf of

HolidayTravelWatch and on behalf of all Consumers.

The Author does not deem the lack of signatures as a failure of the adoption of the Precautionary Principle, on the

contrary, there will be those who cannot sign because of organisational policies, others need more time to absorb what

happened in Paris, but the Statement does now focus all the parties on how they can import value into any future

Standard.

The Paris Statement also remains as the one document, capable of being accepted by all, as demonstrating to the world

that they subscribe to the Precautionary Principle and its adoption into the creation of Standards or Law on the issue of

Cabin Air Quality.

The next stage of our position on the Precautionary Principle is to advance the practice of the Principle into a

Methodology. That Methodology can act as a route-map on how to achieve consensus, whilst achieving high goals in

risk analysis; this document seeks to define that Methodology.

P a g e | 2




THE IMPORTANCE OF METHODOLOGY

Introduction:

The Author refers the reader to his initial document on the Precautionary Principle; it contains the history, the law and the

practice of the Principle, both in International and EU arenas and should always act as the main reference in our

discussions.

As Paris demonstrated, there is at times a lack of unity of purpose, which if left unchallenged, will continue to divide the

debate and again produce a Standard or Law which is not capable of universal acceptance.

To understand why Methodology is so important in the Cabin Air Quality debate, there is a need to recognise the

professional disciplines of those taking part in the discussions and the principles that guide their work.

The Professions and their Guiding Principles:

The Principal Professions:

The principal professions represented include:

1. Scientific;

2. Engineering, and

3. Law

The Supporting Professions:

Other professions include:

1. Pilots;

2. Cabin Crew;

3. Health Hygienists;

4. Trade Unionists;

5. Standards Professionals.

The Skills of the Professions:

Whereas Pilots acquire a unique individual skill, their principal skills will lay in the field of Physics and Mathematics.

Cabin Crew, Health Hygienists, Trade Unionists and Standards Professionals may have some skills within the field of

science, however, their skill-set reflects those found within their unique professions, or within legal and social arenas. It

is important however, to acknowledge that their observational or anecdotal experiences contribute to the fields of

Science, Engineering or Legal disciplines.

P a g e | 3




The Methodologies of the Principal Professions:

In determining a Methodology we should examine the unique methodologies of each of the Principle professions.

1. Science; this is the study of the world around us by applying methodology and analysis. It is clear that there are

potentially many methodologies, according to what is being studied, but the following methodology, as defined

by Goldhaber & Nieto in 2010, states that Scientific Method1 is:

a. “A group of techniques to investigate a phenomenon, acquiring new knowledge or the correction and

integration of previous knowledge”.

2. Engineering; the engineer’s role has been defined as:

a. “The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus,

or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate

the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating

conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation or safety to life and property”2;

b. In his book, ‘Discussion of the Method: Conducting the Engineer’s Approach to Problem Solving’3,

Billy Vaughn Koen stated that:

i. “While the study of the engineering method is important to create the world we would have,

its study is equally important to understand the world we do have”, and that

ii. “The engineering method is the use of heuristics to cause the best change in a poorly

understood situation within the available resources”4;

iii. His book publishers describes the methodology used by engineers as:

1. “The heuristic-based reasoning used by engineers and generalizes it to a universal

method for problem-solving. Delving into the connection between engineering and

philosophy, this ground-breaking text illustrates how the theoretical and the practical

can merge to form real-world solutions”5;

c. Therefore, engineers no doubt use the field of science as the basis for their deliberations, but also use

heuristics to find those solutions; heuristics is defined6 as:

i. “Any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical

methodology not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals.

Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used

to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts

that ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples of this method include using

a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, stereotyping, profiling, or common

sense. More precisely, heuristics are strategies using readily accessible, though loosely

applicable, information to control problem solving in human beings and machines”.

1 http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/ajis/article/viewFile/816/847 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#cite_note-ECPD_Canons-2 3 https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/discussion-of-the-method-

9780195155990;jsessionid=A83142221C4ACCDCBDC02B03A34A5DBD?cc=fr&lang=en& 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#cite_note-ECPD_Canons-2 5 https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/discussion-of-the-method-

9780195155990;jsessionid=A83142221C4ACCDCBDC02B03A34A5DBD?cc=fr&lang=en& 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansatz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_solving

http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/ajis/article/viewFile/816/847

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#cite_note-ECPD_Canons-2

https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/discussion-of-the-method-9780195155990;jsessionid=A83142221C4ACCDCBDC02B03A34A5DBD?cc=fr&lang=en&


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#cite_note-ECPD_Canons-2



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

P a g e | 4




3. Law. Law defines the world we live in, regulates our behaviour and provides sanctions for those in breach of

our regulatory environment. In the last 2 decades there has been a greater emphasis on practitioners of law to

guide parties and clients toward mediation, the construction of law and helping to aid a consensual regulatory

process. Law has its own methodologies, often competing with each other for dominance. The principal legal

methodology, which has resonance with the Cabin Air Quality issue, can be found in the methodology of

Jurimetrics. Jurimetrics is defined by Loevinger7 as:

a. “Jurisprudence is concerned with such matters as the nature and sources of the law, the formal bases of

law,'" the province and function of law,' the ends of law and the analysis of general juristic concepts."

Jurimetrics is concerned with such matters as the quantitative analysis of judicial behavior, the

application of communication and information theory to legal expression, the use of mathematical logic

in law, the retrieval of legal data by electronic and mechanical means, and the formulation of a calculus

of legal predictability. ' Jurisprudence is primarily an undertaking of rationalism; jurimetrics is an effort

to utilize the methods of science in the field of law. The conclusions of jurisprudence are merely

debatable; the conclusions of jurimetrics are testable. Jurisprudence cogitates essence and ends and

values. Jurimetrics investigates methods of inquiry”.

b. Within Law, there is a need to combine the methodology of science with that of the Law. This can be

witnessed within Clinical Negligence, Environmental and some serious Social and Human Rights

cases.

In short, each of us in all Professions use process or a methodology to achieve our goals.

Conclusion:

The conclusion from this brief analysis is that each of the Principal Professions rely upon knowledge and methodology

pertinent to their discipline.

The difficulty, up to this point in time, has been to unite and apply so-called competing methodologies, to the broader

discussion of Standards in Cabin Air Quality.

In determining the importance of Methodology and why we need it within CEN/TC 436, we should perhaps examine the

commonality of methodology that exists within each of the Principal Professions; each operate around a set of assessment

tools or sign-posts and the following list should be classed as our unified methodology:

1. Investigation;

2. Testing;

3. Acquisition of Knowledge;

4. Re-assessment of that Knowledge;

5. Risk to Human Health & Safety;

6. Hypothesis;

7. Forecasting;

8. Design;

9. Problem solving;

10. Quantitative analysis;

11. Qualitative analysis;

12. Comparative analysis;

7 http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2945&context=lcp

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2945&context=lcp

P a g e | 5




13. Heuristics;

14. Economics (The reader should refer to our comments below under ‘The Guiding Principles’, in particular

Section 4 d of that commentary where we suggest that an economic consideration should include a socio-

economic and straight-forward costs/benefits analysis and clearly consideration of proportionality) ;

15. Temporality;

16. Obligations;

17. Communication;

18. Ethical Principles.

Therefore, if the above list represents the basis for commonality between the Professions, then that list also represents the

basis for a Potential Methodology, to which all the parties of CEN/TC 436 can agree upon.

It is therefore logical, that by already working with and recognising the key factors above, it presents the undeniable logic

to all involved, that this list should form the basis upon which a working Methodology can be enacted.

P a g e | 6




WHAT SHOULD THE CEN/TC 436 METHODOLOGY LOOK LIKE?

The methodology should take the following form:

The Overriding Principles:

If we are to succeed in this endeavour and make a Standard truly capable of acceptance by all parties and make it a

valuable Standard for inclusion into EU Law or indeed within any other legal jurisdiction, then the opening paragraphs of

the Standard should contain a Statement on the Overriding Principle of the Standard; we would suggest that the following

wording is used:

“It is the intention of the parties to this Standard to identify issues of Product, Prevention, Health, Miscellaneous and

Future issues within a framework of Provenance & Risk & Hazard assessment. The Parties will be assisted by an

Independent Expert Arbitration/Recommendation Committee. The ultimate aim is to create a more informed and organic

discussion and beneficial Cabin Air Quality Standard for all”

“Therefore, in constructing this Standard, the authors recognise the value of assessment utilising the Precautionary

Principle. The use of the Precautionary Principle is reflected responsibly and provides for us to create a Standard that is

both valuable to all users of the aviation product but we recognise that the Standard should reflect the temporal nature of

available information which in turn guides our use of the Precautionary Principle. We recognise that this Standard is

organic and future versions will reflect on the temporal nature of our work and how this Standard can be usefully

developed using the Precautionary Principle”.

The Guiding Principles:

All parties must absorb the principles of the EU Commission Communication Document on the Precautionary Principle8,

published in 2000.

From the Commission’s document and indeed before considering the Guiding Principles, we should have regard to the

following:

1. The Precautionary Principle is essentially defining a structured methodology toward assessing, managing or

communicating risk;

2. We must therefore be open to evaluating the uncertainties within the science we are examining, evaluating those

uncertainties and applying the same methodology to existing scientific principles or known facts;

3. As the Commission’s document makes clear, finding that ‘acceptable’ level of risk is a political responsibility,

so therefore, in applying any methodology, determination must be had to identifying the elements of that

political responsibility, or, moving as a Committee to inform the political cohort so that they can in turn define

or redefine their views within that responsibility;

4. The 2000 document further suggests that where a methodology suggests that action is necessary via the

Precautionary Principle, it should be:

a. Proportional;

b. Non-discriminatory, by that we define that as being inclusive in its action and respecting convergent

views;

8 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf

P a g e | 7




c. That it is by comparison with other scenarios, consistent in its proposed set of actions;

d. It should define and illustrate the benefits of action, potential or otherwise, but it should also measure

any decision against the consequences of a lack of action and should in any event make this analysis

either on a socio-economic model along with a straight-forward costs/benefits analysis;

e. Importantly, and this imports fairness in the application of any methodology, regular reviews should be

scheduled, particularly where new science becomes apparent, and

f. As the Commission’s document strongly suggests, the methodology should not resile from assigning

responsibility for producing scientific evidence, but this should always, as far as possible, be assigned

in an open and inclusive manner – the goal being to produce a more comprehensive risk assessment.

Within the Standard therefore, it is important that it embodies the above Principles and states clearly the 4 key principles,

as defined by the EU Commission, in how the Precautionary Principle could and should be developed; those principles

are:

“Hazard identification means identifying the biological, chemical or physical agents that may have adverse effects. A

new substance or biological agent may reveal itself through its effects on the population (illness or death), or on the

environment and it may be possible to describe the actual or potential effects on the population or environment before the

cause is identified beyond doubt.

Hazard characterisation consists of determining, in quantitative (in other words data) and/or qualitative (in other words

descriptive content that is not data) terms, the nature and severity of the adverse effects associated with the causal agents

or activity. It is at this stage that a relationship between the amount of the hazardous substance and the effect has to be

established. However, the relationship is sometimes difficult or impossible to prove, for instance because the causal link

has not been established beyond doubt.9

Appraisal of exposure consists of quantitatively or qualitatively evaluating the probability of exposure to the agent

under study. Apart from information on the agents themselves (source, distribution, concentrations, characteristics, etc.),

there is a need for data on the probability of contamination or exposure of the population or environment to the hazard.

Risk characterisation corresponds to the qualitative and/or quantitative estimation, taking account of inherent

uncertainties, of the probability, of the frequency and severity of the known or potential adverse environmental or health

effects liable to occur. It is established on the basis of the three preceding and closely depends on the uncertainties,

variations, working hypotheses and conjectures made at each stage of the process. When the available data are inadequate

or non-conclusive, a prudent and cautious approach to environmental protection, health or safety could be to opt for the

worst-case hypothesis. When such hypotheses are accumulated, this will lead to an exaggeration of the real risk but gives

a certain assurance that it will not be underestimated”.

9 IMPORTANT: In considering Cabin Air Quality and the above Commission commentary, we must acknowledge that

the purpose of the 2000 statement on the Precautionary Principle and indeed subsequent legislation incorporating the

Principles, is to deal with uncertainties. Therefore, using these principles we should assume that uncertainty exists in each

of the 4 key Principles and the apparent or otherwise uncertainties need to be considered and examined under each of the

4 key Principles

P a g e | 8




The Division of those Principles & The Unified Methodology:

In determining a methodology, we should expect it to help us deliver a discipline, which to date has been lacking, in our

consideration of key issues.

It is therefore important to divide the Principles and to apply the unified methodology (as detailed in page 4 & 5 above),

to enable the parties to provide key information about the subject matter in question.

It is strongly recommended that when considering key areas or work types within the Standard, that a document is

produced, setting out each Guiding Principle under discussion, supported by each Unified Methodology and where

possible, existing or future intended legislation.10 The document would then serve to act as a working aide memoire to the

drafters of the Standard, it should also be held in trust by the Secretariat to the Committee and it will also act as a useful

document to those charged with a future review of the said Standard.

The Guiding Principles should be divided accordingly:

1. Hazard Identification & Hazard Characterisation (Assessment using the Unified Methodology):

a. Investigation;

b. Testing;

c. Acquisition of Knowledge;

d. Re-assessment of that Knowledge;

e. Risk to Human Health;

f. Hypothesis;

g. Forecasting;

h. Design;

i. Problem solving;

j. Quantitative analysis;

k. Qualitative analysis;

l. Comparative analysis;

m. Heuristics;

n. Economics (The reader should refer to our comments above under ‘The Guiding Principles’, in

particular Section 4 d of that commentary where we suggest that an economic consideration should

include a socio-economic and straight-forward costs/benefits analysis and clearly consideration of

proportionality);

o. Temporality;

p. Obligations;

q. Communication.

10 IMPORTANT: The following is not intended to be an exhaustive list of legislation – US FAR 25.831, CS EASA

25.831, AR 25.831a & b, JAR OPS 1 & M & TGL’s, ICAO Definitions & SARPS (Standards & Recommended Practices

- http://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyManagement/Pages/SARPs.aspx), EU REACH Regulations, EEC Regulation

2407/1992, EC Regulation 1592/2002, EC Directive 2003/42/EC, EC Regulation 2402/2003, EC Decision No

2003/19/RM, EC Regulation 216/2008, UK Navigation Orders, CAP 393, CAP 382, UK Health & Safety Laws, UK

Control of Substances Harmful to Health, UK Memorandum’s of Understanding (MOU’s), UK CAA Regs

(http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?appid=11&mode=list&type=search&search=CAP&filter=2), NOTE: This list is

produced without prejudice to duplicate or extra legislation found in other EU Countries, the USA, Australia or other

Sovereign States or International Bodies.

http://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyManagement/Pages/SARPs.aspx

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?appid=11&mode=list&type=search&search=CAP&filter=2

P a g e | 9




2. Appraisal of Exposure (Assessment using the Unified Methodology):

a. Investigation;

b. Testing;




f. Hypothesis;

g. Forecasting;

h. Design;

i. Problem solving;




m. Heuristics;




proportionality);

o. Temporality;

p. Obligations;

q. Communication.

3. Risk Characterisation (Assessment using the Unified Methodology):

a. Investigation;

b. Testing;




f. Hypothesis;

g. Forecasting;

h. Design;

i. Problem solving;




m. Heuristics;




proportionality);

o. Temporality;

p. Obligations;

q. Communication.

P a g e | 10




The Key Areas for Consideration:

Through the use of a unified methodology and use of the 4 Principles, we can begin to look at the work areas that should

be considered and drafted into a new Standard; we would suggest the following key work areas:

1. Current Chemical Issues;

2. Air-frame or Engine Design Issues;

3. Prevention, Health & Training Issues;

4. Cabin Environment Issues;

5. Cargo Issues;

6. Passenger Baggage Issues;

7. Future Fuel or Other Issues;

8. Regulatory Issues.

These issues should be examined through the use of the Guiding Principles along with the Unified Methodology.

Each party should use this Methodology to highlight the issues relevant to their concerns or expertise; as stated above, we

would recommend the creation of a Standard document for dealing with each issue and the recording of matters raised

through the 4 Principles and the Unified Methodology.

By creating a Standard assessment document, the opportunity exists for continual review through drafting and subsequent

review of the drafted Standard as to the key issues for review, particularly where temporality exists as an important factor

for future discussion.

Disputes:

Written into this Methodology must also be a mechanism for dealing with disputes between CEN/TC 436 members.

It is our recommendation that:

1. There should be 3 base Experts, incorporating the specialism or area in dispute – where there is deadlock,

particularly on economic considerations, those experts should consult ethical expertise;

2. Each should be Independent;

3. CEN/TC 436 should receive a CV from each expert demonstrating balance in their work;

4. CEN/TC 436 should then approve the Experts membership;

5. Where possible, CEN/TC 436 should engage with the Experts remotely and in unison.

We would recommend that in the event of a dispute between CEN/TC 436 members, the members adopt the following

process to resolve/arbitrate such disputes:

Documentation will be required to assist the Experts along with a document of response; we recommend the creation of

The Experts Document (TED).

The primary purpose of the Panel is to adjudicate the issues raised by members of the Committee based upon the

documentation formulated by the Committee.

The Panel's secondary purpose is to examine the documentation and issues, along with questions posed either jointly or

by individual members of the Committee.

P a g e | 11




The Panel should then seek to either formulate an agreed response or where agreement is not achieved, to set out their

own individual opinions.

Ideally, the Panel should adjudicate upon the issues raised and make recommendations for the Committee to consider; in

the event of a lack of unanimity between the Panel members, it is permissible to present a range of recommendations for

the Committee to consider.

The TED should consist of the following sections:

1. Identification of the Panel Members;

2. A brief presentation of their qualifications;

3. Declaration of Interests;

4. The date request Adjudication received;

5. The issues/questions to be determined;

6. The documentation provided;

7. Your response to the issues;

8. Your response to the questions;

9. Is there unanimity amongst the Panel?

10. If not, what are the elements of disagreement amongst the Panel?

11. What issues or documents are offered in support of opinions in the event of disagreement?

12. What recommendations are you offering the Committee (list by recommendation by panel member if

there is a disagreement) (You should also include documentation in support of recommendations if

appropriate)?

13. Date of your Adjudication & Recommendations;

14. Signature of each Panel Member

15. TED should then be returned to the lead members of the originating Sub-Group of the Committee.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the Methodology we recommend for the CEN/TC 436 Committee on Cabin Air Quality should consist of:

1. The Overriding Principle;

2. The Guiding Principles;

3. The Division of those Principles & The Unified Methodology;

4. Key Areas for Consideration, and

5. Disputes.

P a g e | 12




CONCLUSION

This document is designed to support our earlier submission on the Precautionary Principle.

In formulating this document, we would like to thank 2 experts who at this stage would like to remain anonymous; they

have provided critical analysis in the construction of this methodology. In recognition of their time and efforts and in

recognition of their inquisitive & open minds, we offer this salutary anonymous quote which should focus all minds in

this endeavour:

“Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of

carelessness, incapacity, or neglect”.

It is clear, particularly from debates witnessed since the Paris meeting, that the Committee needs a central focus and

discipline in order to complete its task; it can achieve that discipline through the adoption of a Methodology.

We have analysed the Professions engaged in CEN/TC 436’s work and have concluded that it is possible to recognise the

processes we employ each day in our respective fields and to create a Unified Methodology around the key Precautionary

Principles.

We have created this framework which we believe can be universally accepted; the failure to do so will be judged by

those external to the 436 work as a failure by its participants to make progress through structured consensus.

HolidayTravelWatch embraces and accepts the Principles, Process and Methodology as defined in this document and its

July document on the Precautionary Principle and the Principles embodied within The Paris Statement.

Frank Brehany

Consumer Director

HolidayTravelWatch

8 September 2015.

the precautionary principle and cabin air quality: the ... · the precautionary principle and cabin...

Documents