Family of pilot suing BA over ‘toxic cabin air’
A BRITISH Airways pilot who died after allegedly inhaling a cocktail of engine fumes throughout his career is at the centre of a High Court case that could eventually cost the airline tens of millions.
Almost 100 employees are suing BA and other airlines claiming to have suffered injury from routine exposure to pollution from aircraft engines – a phenomenon known as ‘aerotoxicity’ that is said to cause nerve and brain damage. The family of former BA pilot Richard Westgate who died in 2012 aged 43, is spearheading the case.
It centres around the practice – used on almost all passenger planes – of using compressed air taken directly from aircraft engines to pressurise the cabin. Some research has suggested this ‘bleed air’ can be contaminated with engine oils and hydraulic fluids, leading to illness among pilots and cabin crew through repeated exposure. The aviation industry argues there is no threat to passengers or crew.
Mr Westgate, of Malborough, Wiltshire, died of an overdose of sleeping pills taken while suffering from ‘mysterious pains and numbness in his limbs and head’ that his family blame on aerotoxicity. They are seeking £500,000 in damages and his case is just one of 94 aerotoxicity compensation claims already issued.
Judge Barbara Fontaine told London’s High Court that while the 94 claims include some actions against other airlines, ‘ the majority are against BA’.
A coroner ruled in 2017 that Mr Westgate’s overdose was accidental, but a post-mortem examination revealed damage to his heart and nervous system that his family attribute to aerotoxicity.
Michael Rawlinson QC, acting for the family, told a pretrial hearing last week: ‘During an extended period prior to his death he complained of then mysterious pains and numbness in his limbs and head which remained medically unexplained in life.’
He added that Mr Westgate
‘Mysterious pains and numbness’
had started to self-medicate and died from the pills he was using.
Mr Rawlinson said those suing complain about two types of exposure – heavy dose ‘fume events’ when leakage from an engine is actually visible, and ‘ low- level chronic leakage during normal flight’.
The airline denies liability and its barrister, David Platt QC, told the judge and there was no proof cabin air drawn from the engines damaged human health. In addition to facing tens of millions of pounds in damages and legal costs should the group action succeed, BA could also face a £6million bill for fitting air filtration systems.
BA says recent research commissioned by the European Aviation Safety Agency concluded that the air quality on board aircraft was ‘similar or better than that observed in normal indoor environments’.