Is contaminated bleed air harmful? YES...

[AOPIS]

Conclusions of The Contaminated Air Protection Conference, London 20/21 April 2005.

The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) invited every leading airline, aircraft manufacturer, engine manufacturer, lubricant manufacturer, regulators and every person who has ever had an input into the issues of contaminated air, whether independent or from industry to make a presentation at what was a very well organised conference by BALPA. BALPA also sensibly invited experts from issues which appear to have very similar medical effects to those being reported in crews and passengers, issues related to the Gulf War Syndrome and the Sheep Dippers.

Everyone who wished to present a paper was accommodated by the conference organisers BALPA. This only reinforces the conclusions drawn as a result of some 25 presentations made over the two days by the doctors, regulators, scientists, industry representatives and interested parties.

The conclusions were very clear, alarming, simple and included:

‘There is a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew)’.

‘Further, we are concerned the passengers may also be suffering from similar symptoms to those exhibited by flight crew’.

‘Fume events are clearly being under reported’.

‘This, we conclude, is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications’.

‘Pregnant passengers are probably most at risk’.

'It is most likely the synergistic effect of the chemicals being breathed in by crews and passengers that is causing these medical effects.'

'Filters exist to remove most of these contaminants but airlines have not chosen to fit them'.


www.aopis.org

[JIPPO]

WELL DONE TO THE PILOTS FOR THE CONFERENCE BUT WHAT ABOUT US YOUR WAGE PAYERS...THE PASSENGERS?

I often fly to Belfast and back from Gatwick where I work near.

The 146 often sting of dirty socks and other smells due to polluted aircraft air. I feel so sorry for those crew stuck on what can only be called a flying gas chamber. Many times I walk off with a headache & nausea and sometimes tell the cabin crew. They tell me they have the same but are not in a union and can do nothing.

Why does the HSE not do something.

Its a public disgrace.

I have decided to now do the longer journey via Heathrow with Midland rather than be gassed any more.

146 ARCRAFT ARE NOT GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH!

Why does a journalist not get on airplane with some sort of detector like a CO detector and write a front page story!!

GROUND 146 AIRCRAFT NOW OR STOP THE GASSING ITS NOT 1943!

[Croqueteer]

Ater 17 years flying the 146, I can only say "B------s" A pax on the 146 is on one of the safest airliners in this world!

[lomapaseo]

Intertesting opening post by AOPIS.

The report that I got from the conference was just the opposite than he reported.

The scientific data showed that there was little support for claiming a persistant hazardous threat to safety of flight.

With exception of two incidents the complaints were subjective in nature and certainly not in a safety of flight category to affect any immediate action (bottom of the barrel safety concern)

Looks like little will be done on an industry wide basis and probably only affect some problematic aircraft.

[AOPIS]

Dear lomapaseo

Sounds like your sources must have been asleep.

Perhaps you didn't see the document drawn up by BALPA and signed at the conference by so many present with the conclusions we previously reported....Crews are sick from exposures and flight safety is being seriously compromised.

If anyone has any doubts that 'lomapaseo' is trying to protect industry we filmed the whole thing and have copies of all the papers presented by all the speakers.

If you don't trust us as sponsors call BALPA, IPA, T&G, ITF etc... They cover about 2 millions workers, ask them what they think.

If you don't trust them contact Channel 4, BBC radio, Sky, ABC TV etc.. who interviewed many of the presenters who also confirmed the conclusions we previously reported.

I hope you will discontinue your 'misinformation campaign' especially without revelealing your name and who you represent.

[Paterbrat]

From UK. Used long haul for flights to from re-current in US from ME. frequent to and from home for hols, or positioning to from A/C when on maint or long deployement. Have noticed very frequently will pick up infections on these flights. Has been too often for mere co-incidence. Use multiple airlines, different routes only commonality is most sectors in excess of five hours some up to 12-13.
My conclusion has been that I tend to pick up these mainly respiratory or airborn vectored complaints due to the decreased outflow and increased re-circulation of cabin air and close proximity/ exposure of pax to infected people 'sharing' their various sneezes and sniffles.
Son daughter-in-law and another daughter-in-law to be are all in the longhaul business, all have complained similarly.
Not imagination. based on a small pool of regular travellers in the profession.
I would say based on my experience. YES the conclusion that bleed air in modern systems may be harmfull to your health is more than likely.

[cwatters]

New book on this subject coming this year...

http://www.chemport.de/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,5-199-22-45769600-0,00.html

Air Quality in Airplane Cabins and Similar Enclosed Spaces
Series : The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry
Vol. 4: Air Pollution , Part H
Hocking, Martin B.; Hocking, Diana (Eds.)
2005, Approx. 254 p. Also available online., Hardcover
ISBN: 3-540-25019-0
Online version available

Due: September 2005

The issue of aircraft air quality is attracting considerable attention of late, as access to public air travel has expanded exponentially. Aircrew and passengers are increasingly concerned about operating and service decisions that could affect their health, comfort, and safety. The editor of this volume invited a wide range of experts to provide an in-depth treatment of virtually all aspects of aircraft cabin air quality. The topics are covered at a level comprehensible to all who fly as well as being of sufficient depth to be informative to decision makers concerned with purchase, design, operation, and servicing of passenger aircraft.
Topics are grouped under: Control of Aircraft Cabin Air Quality; Possible Effects of Low Humidity, Decreased Outside Air Flows; and Effects of Some Aircraft Malfunctions on Cabin Air Quality. The volume concludes with Air Quality Systems for Related Enclosed Spaces, in which chapters cover air quality in buildings, ships, submarines, and spacecraft, which provide novel approaches potentially applicable to aircraft.

Written for:

Scientists, engineers, graduate students in the field of Environmental Sciences, Aerospace Engineering, Risk Assessment and Risk Controlling, Toxicology and Ecology; decision-makers in Government, Industrial and Regulatory Bodies.

[lomapaseo]

Well I won't refute the claim that pilots have tremors and hacking coughs etc. I guess all those that have chronic breathing borne difficulties will be claiming bleed air problems aggravated by the poisonous innards of modern jet engines.

The problem is that one can not provide sound technical data to support other than hearsay or an extremely local sample to support industry wide findings.

This is akin to the cellphonemania that has swept the industry.

If you want sympathy then carry on per usual. Hold news conferences etc. sprinkled with tales of horror and attact the public to your case and I'm sure that they will add even more emotion to the subject.

If you want a specfic corrective action taken than provide the irrefutable technical data that shows a statistically valid comparison of medical illnesses within high time flyers of various age groups, and low time flyers, to clearly show whether or not such medical problems occur for the reasons claimed And correctable by your proposed action.

Lacking that, your industry will continue to priotitize technological advances towards items affecting the greater comfort and safety of its users. Things like more legroom and CFIT etc.

[Smokie]

Iomapaseo,

More leg room, more movies are all fine and dandy if you have your Health!

Can I politely suggest then that you make a more concerted effort to conduct all your short haul buisness travels on the BAe146 or MD80 and all your Medium/Long haul on the B757 or A320.

And if your feelin cute and decide to hitch a ride on an EMB 145; Beware! Because there are a lot more reports comming in regarding Contaminated Air on these aircraft now and they are not that old ( Industry wise)


Tick... Tick... Tick... Tick ........

[lomapaseo]

In my first post on this subject I did admit that there were problamatic fleets. However to present this as an industry wide problem in front of the public is a stretch.

And yes I shall continue flying all the aircraft you mentioned, because I have faith in the corrective actions taken to date vs my exposure risk.

I also avoid smoke filled rooms when able and smoggy cities except for very short stays. However I don't expect that the citiy residents will all move out of town.

[fernytickles]

As an ex-146 pilot, and small contributor to the research that has been ongoing, I hope that a solution is found, especially for those who have lost their licences and careers.

After only 2 years of flying the aircraft, I suffered, in comparison to others, minimal negative effects, but there is no doubt my symptoms were related to the time I spent flying the aircraft. At no time before or since have I had the same problems. I am (relatively) young and healthy and lead a pretty harmless lifestyle - no smoking etc.

I knew nothing, at that time, of the problems others had experienced, and only put two and two together after I had stopped flying the 146, my problems faded away and I came across some documentation, either in The Log or on here.

So, Croqueteer, as a 17 year veteran of flying the 146, I guess you are one of the many fortunate people who have enjoyed a good career flying this aircraft. From what I've read, the problems, which vary from mild to severe, seem to be selective, not affecting everyone, kind of like the ever elusive Gulf War Syndrome, or the effects of organophosphates on farmers. No one else that I worked with complained of any problems, but then, neither did I complain - I just thought I was getting old or something. I ended up in hospital having assorted tests and things stuck in places where they ought'n't to be stuck :uhoh: Nothing was ever found, and now, four years since I stopped flying the 146, I'm fine. Go figure... I'm not a person who suffers from, or enjoys, ill health, something must have caused me to be ill, and if the research helps prevent others suffering the way some people have suffered (I can't imagine what it must be like to be told that due to health problems, you can never fly again), then so much the better.

ps - I'm not Australian, have never been there, nor as far as I'm aware, ever flown an Australian aircraft, so I'm not quite sure what the quip regarding AOPIS's nationality was referring too.

[G-LOST]

To the skeptics out there, I too say b******s!

As the captain of a regional jet variant (not the 146) which is prone to cabin air quality incidents, I feel well qualified to report first hand to the armchair critics that I have experienced the effects several times. On the most recent occasion I smelt the familiar 'sock' odour just after takeoff and within seconds developed a moderate headache and the sensations of the 'leans' and being out of touch with my surroundings. The smell stopped once we selected climb thrust and my symptoms cleared soon afterwards although the headache remained for an hour or so. The other pilot smelt the odour but did not notice any effect. Interestingly, no sooner had we released the cabin crew and the No1 (who sits close to the flightdeck) called through to say that she felt ill and dizzy.

There is definately a reluctance to report these incidents. There is always the self doubt aspect - am I being overly sensitive, why is it just me that feels ill?, etc. The effects are so difficult to prove after the event that you feel like a fool when you have to answer to the company and the engineers if you Tech the aircraft with nothing solid to back you up. The smell may not reappear for days afterwards - in my experience these faults are not consistent.

You are also faced with a quandry - on the occasion in question it seemed safer to continue to destination once the problem and symptoms had cleared than to immediately return and attempt a landing whilst feeling the full effects. On the turnaround, the fault did not go 'in the book' because (a) no-one wanted an unscheduled nightstop, (b) there would have been hell to pay and (c) we were convinced by the engineers to do some diagnostics and operate back with the 'suspect' a/c pack off. Sure enough, the problem did not reoccur and the aircraft operated single pack for several days.

Foolishly, I did not tech myself. I felt fine by that stage and as I have a medical to protect there was no way I want any history whatsoever logged against me. The No.1 filled in the requisite forms and was required to have a mandatory period off work and a visit to the doctor. Again, people are reluctant to report because of the rigmarole.

[Dream Buster]

I have been on the 146 for 15 years and been following pprune for the last five years but this is the first time I have felt the urge to post a reply.

I remember, about 15 years ago when I started and for the first ten years or so feeling very unwell and it was DEFINITELY caused by the rotten egg odours about which so many people have experienced - mostly from the APU on the ground.

We were being gassed and I guess it's easy to prove a link between gassing people and illness?

I have to say that in the past five years or so the problem does seem to have been sorted out but I am still left feeling exhausted and generally not 100% after a long day on the aeroplane. Wonderful aeroplane in every other respect.

So if things have changed then there MUST have been a problem in the first place, which they have admitted and common sense says that it's still there, but not as much as before?


I just feel sad that in aviation you have to have an actual accident and wipe out a few people before anybody will take any notice. Half doing the job doesn't appear to work. There's too much money at stake and the crews can't possibly take on the manufacturers and airlines until there's irrefutable proof which is rather difficult to gather.

I know my short term meory has been effected; at the end of a long day I can hardly add the times up in the tech log or at least it takes me a few minutes which is a bit scary. It's easy to disguise it though and as somebody else said it doesn't do to go around saying that you can't add up as people will think you're cracking up - which we might well be doing!

It would be interesting to give a crew a real full blown emergency diversion at the end of a long day and monitor the performance, compare it to SOP's and then wonder why there was such a gap in the actual and the expected.

Mind you if the authorities tried this they would be so alarmed by the results they would probably dicontinue the experiment in case it got out to the outside world.

So sorry I haven't come out sooner and said this in public but I guess like everybody else eventually one gets around to it.

I can't imagine anything is going to change without any concrete proof. Perhaps that's why I didn't bother to do anything.

Rant over.

[Dr Illitout]

In the past two weeks I have had the pleasure of flying on a 146/RJ twice. Diferent aircraft each time. Both times on entering the cabin the smell of oil was noticable. On the first flight the smell did not go untill we were well into the cruise. In fact the smell was almost un bearable for about 10mins.
On the second flight it was a little better. The cabin crew gave me a "customer satisfaction survey" to fill in. I did the decent thing by the crew but when it came to the "Coments" bit I said I was an aircraft engineer and knew of the problems the 146/RJ have had but I expressed my concern for the long tearm helth of the crews (Crawler!).
The next thing one of the crew came down and said they had read my coments (I thought they were confidential?). She said that they were all concerned about it and she had been suffering from headaches and dizzy spells since joining the RJ fleet.
Not knowing the 146/RJ is there a quick fix for this? or eaven a slow one?

Rgds Dr I.

[timmcat]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

BBC link here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4485515.stm)

[IFixPlanes]

Sorry, but the title is characteristic for the press.
Only to catch attention. :yuk:

Tataaaa here comes the major point:
Quote
...The oxygen levels would not be harmful to healthy passengers, we are only talking about people with health problems, such as lung and heart...
/Quote

Ingo

[OneBall2]

I don't get it dreambuster.... 15 years being gassed????

Why stay on an airplane that is poisoning you? Did the vapours first destroy your capacity for reason??

Health or career.. what's more important....

[airship]

Air is composed of 78% Nitrogen (N2) 21% Oxygen (O2) and .3% Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Well about that, at sea level, away from big trees and heavy breathers.

There can be major benefits in modifying gas levels to the range of 3-5% oxygen and 3-10% carbon dioxide. These gas levels slow respiration (calming effect) and thereby slow physiological ageing (at a fraction of the price of plastic surgery or those slimming lotions), inhibit enzymatic browning (whatever that is - something to do with tanning?) and slow microbiological growth (they must be nasty little things - always there but you can't see 'em).

Oh sorry, I thought we were talking about flying fruit... :O

Take me home, country roads, to the place, I belong, JetBlast beckons...

[Dream Buster]

Thank you for the excellent advice about changing careers, which I am in the process of doing as I write.

It ain't half challenging changing though, and yes with hindsight I should have got off the 146 a while ago but plan to get out of aviation altogether.

When I started flying the 146 it seemed a really good aircraft and one doesn't necessarilly imagine that it might be doing long term damage and take the correct action.

After all, all the experts said there was nothing to worry about.
They would say that though, wouldn't they?

I am a simple pilot, after all.

[Smokie]

Hmmmm....... The "Experts" ( Manufacturers, Regulators etc) were invited to attend the Conference but alas most of them couldn't be bothered.

Shame really.


Quick Fixes? Well yes there are but alas the Industry again can't be bothered.
Most of the solutions have been around for a long time too.:{

[Dutchjock]

The daily mail has an even better story....

Air passengers put at risk by lack of oxygen (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=346296&in_page_id=1774)


:mad: idiots!!!! :yuk:

Maybe BALPA can respond?

[cwatters]

It might be scare mongering, it might not be bad for you but perhaps it explains why it sometimes it feels so Claustrophobic and airless. Particularly the period between shutting the doors and pushback/engine start. That can be really dreadful if there is any delay.

There can be major benefits in modifying gas levels to the range of 3-5% oxygen and 3-10% carbon dioxide. These gas levels slow respiration (calming effect)

I'm sorry but feeling smothered doesn't have a calming effect on me (most people?).

Colin

(A glider pilot)

[zlin77]

The reality is, despite the recent conference in London, will anything worthwhile be done to totally eliminate the ongoing problems in various aircraft types? As a former 146 pilot I have experienced firsthand the fume problems, but so far seem to suffer no medical problems myself. Keep in mind that everyone has a different tolerance level to the toxic chemical compounds.
How many more will have their health and careers ruined in the future?
Let us hope the plight and suffering of the Susans, Alysias and countless others will not be once again swept under the carpet by aircraft manufacturers, airlines and the petro-chemical companies who make the offending products.
My thoughts are with the victims, good luck in the future to you all.

[Poingo]

This is a really serious subject for all of us in the Industry and warrants more authoritative investigation. The best information that I could find is Here - Links to the DFT website (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=9778&l=3)

The research appears to have been carried out on UK BAE146s and B737s and has relevance to this thread.

[arcniz]

I think the necessity is for flight crew members to do some methodical air sampling when they believe cabin air quality is inferior.

This can be done with the help of small portable devices that allow drawing environmental air through tiny sample cannisters in a controlled manner. The cannisters can then be sent to a lab for very specific and comprehensive analysis. If observers can take samples at the time they observe - or expect to observe - air contamination, the true facts should be readily ascertainable from these timely samples.

Given the high level of concern about onboard air quality, a modest stream of resources to pay for this type of sampling should be forthcoming from pilots associations, unions, or other "interested parties", including government agencies.

'Methodical' is what makes commercial flying work so well. Same approach will get to the facts for this.

[JW411]

Running packs in "Manual" and "Fully Cold" at the start for a good two minutes before going to "Auto" and then selecting the required temperature works well.

[Dream Buster]

arcniz ,

Good idea about sampling the air; somehow I think this may already have been done.

However there would be nothing to prevent investigators setting up a control experiment where oil is either deliberately put into the packs in various amounts ( with no pax - obviously) and the crew on oxygen and then test the air which has been polluted with harmful oil vapour. It would then be a case of persuading some pet guinea pigs to join the experiment to see how they faired.

I can't see this happening though as the results would be kind of obvious and predictable; it may proove to obvious a link to what is going on.

Then what would the authorities do?, a commercial nightmare or what.

As with all the previous uncomfortable academic research into contentious aviation findings it would be covered up instantly as being too complicated. The only thing the authorities are rather good at is, actual accident investigations.

First, you have to have an accident.

[lomapaseo]

As with all the previous uncomfortable academic research into contentious aviation findings it would be covered up instantly as being too complicated. The only thing the authorities are rather good at is, actual accident investigations.

First, you have to have an accident.



Well it does answer a lot of what-ifs, and could-it-have-beens rather nicely.

Of course in the case of cellphonemania no answers have been discovered this way.

[arcniz]

Trying a test with an imaginary scenario is not going to prove much. The one thing coming through loud and clear is that there's no consensus about the origin or the exact nature of the 'bad air'. If actual problems exist, they may well be different ones in the cabin vs the flight deck.

Most suspect, in my view, is the air management hardware. It goes through a great many variations in temperature during the daily cycle, and also comes into contact with various living things be found in the air. One possibility is that relatively stable cultures of mould or bacteria are living on the inner surfaces of individual air systems, especially in temperate climates, producing germs or just noxious byproducts under certain conditions.

The DFT study seems credible enough, but it did not have specific clues or bird-dog assistance to guide the process in a particular direction. That is where flight crew taking samples on the flight deck could prove invaluable, IF they actually captured something that could be used to guide further study.

This is a case for some real diagnostic sleuthing. A couple thousand pounds for supplies and some pro bono analysis could have real effect. It just takes one corroborated "positive" sample to change the problem from "if" to "how". The ideal type of person to assist would be a University researcher with access to analytical equipment.. a chromatograph and a mass spectrometer for starters. Quid pro quo is that researcher gets material for a paper or even a thesis, and the airline industry gets a chance for some tangible evidence of an actual mechanism explaining the recurring complaints.

[Dream Buster]

arcniz,

Of course it wouldn't be an 'imaginary test'.

I'm suggesting that real oil is cooked in the pack in flight and the air is then sampled.

Perhaps University research is the way ahead but they seem to take for ever to reach conclusions and then their findings seem to be quietly ignored in the absense of any actual wreckage.

Politicians always seem to go by 'independent reports' and I guess that's what you've got to do here, try and introduce some independence.

I wouldn't trust the manufacturers one inch.

Lets face it, inconvenient findings would be incredibly damaging for the industry and have enormous repercussions, so they would not be in too much of a rush to find the truth.

[Smokie]

Dream Buster, you are absolutely correct. Independant reports need to be presented to the Politicians. They would have a field day with this one. Think of the publicity that they themselves would get if they championed the cause.

The Evidence is there already with Tricresylphosphates being found in Aircraft,
Re-Circ Filters, HEPA Filters, Flight Crew Clothing and Swab Sample taken on various aircraft have also tested positve!

Interestingly, a Re-Circ Filter on one aircraft also tested positive for Cocaine and Amphtamines!

Not surprised really considering the longer hours that we now all work:eek:

[arcniz]

Dream Buster - I didn't say "imaginary test", but said "imaginary scenario". The concept was - if you don't know the real cause, and you do not get an infinite number of tries to solve the problem, then go for a broadly inclusive testing method that can identify any of a large number of pollutants in the same process. Then proceed on the facts as observed. This is likely more a persuasive method, when viewed by outsiders, and has greater success of leading to an actual result.

I don't disagree with your observations re oil fumes, since you are there and I am not ( Been there, had that experience, also. ) The necessity, to prompt corrective action, is to create some evidence that will be plausible to outsiders That's my thrust.

Actually, U. Warwick might be a good place to talk it around. A niece of mine studied there; she fared well. You might want to shop it around the med school research dept:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/


SMOKIE - sounds like you have access to some useful monitoring resources and data. Next step is to get the sample source materials into a "chain of evidence" sequence, with known handling procedures and custody by persons between sample location and test lab, so as to make the results credible to authorities, etc.



There's nothing to say we cannot have a dozen different sets of people working this problem in a dozen different places. Objective test results from a distributed group of independent sources are very hard to ignore.

[Smokie]

arcniz,

I coundn't agree more. Trying to present the evidence is a little more of a challenge. As no airline would want anyone snooping around with equipment on their aircraft that had not been authorised by themselves.

As far as I know, BA are the only ones prepared to have some sort of monitoring by their crews. The problem is a world wide issue unfortunately.

I for one, would take the results of the DFT survey with a very large pinch of salt.

These were controlled experiments OK, but on fully servicable aircraft, the best the airlines concerned could muster at the time.
Only one sector per aircraft was recorded, with exception of 2 flights that were return flights, so out of the 12 planned flights 14 sets of recordings were actually taken.


The 146 was chosen and quite rightly so.
The 757 should have been the next candidate but for reasons only known to themselves, the 737 was chosen instead.
Hardly a comprehensive survey in my book.

Had the experiment been done on aircraft that had a history of Cabin Air problems, and there are many; then the results would have certainly made a positive contribution.

[CALIFORNIAN BABE]

I got this from a good source, its amazing how much the governments B/S everyone to protect their own, in this case British Aerospace.


The UK AAIB and the UK CAA published reports last year saying Cabin Air Quality was OK. Part of their report was supported by work looking at the pyrolysis products of heated engine oil which the UK CAA / AAIB said despite Exxon Mobil saying its in the oil, contained none of the Organophosphate known as TCP in any pyrolysis products during their testing. This goes completely against the TCP being found in filters, swab tests and on pilots clothes reported recently at the BALPA Contaminated Air Protection Conference in London, so how can this be?

Mistake or deliberate cover up?

The UK CAA refer exclusively to a report (DERA, June 2001, DERA/FST/CET/CR010527) by the UK female researcher Marshman for BAe Systems. The report is listed as "restricted commercial" (therefore we the public nor the unions can see it!) and this 'classified' report is entitled: "Analysis of the Thermal Degradation Products of a Synthetic Ester Gas Turbine Lubricant".

Just to make sure you get the picture, the UK CAA uses a BAe Systemes "restricted commercial" paper to say air quality is good! No bias there!!!

Now BAE use the UK CAA / AAIB work (which was based on BAE work!) and write to the MP Paul Tyler and say that the AAIB / CAA found nothing wrong with the cabin air and no organophosphates such as TCP or other nasties in the pyrolysis products of heated oil despite Exxon Mobil saying its there!


And why did MARSHMAN (i.e BAE Systems) not find any, well a reliable source who has a copy of the paper says the oil used is chemically nothing like Exxon Mobil Jet Oil II or Shell 2380, the most widely 2 used jet engine oils causing the problems for crews and passengers!

Might as well have been Olive Oil !!

Next the UK CAA / AAIB get BRE to test the air on the 146 and 737 and conclude no Carbon Monoxide (CO) found but in the small print: 'air sampling only done on non fume event flights!!


Well a contact tells me British, Italian and Australian Crews on the 146 are frequently getting high CO readings on the BAE 146.

So why does the UK CAA / AUSTRALIAN CASA etc do nothing ?

It protects its own, BAe.

IF YOU ARE A PASSENGER ON A 146, TAKE A CO MONITOR WITH YOU AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF.

I AM A PASSENGER BUT MY SISTER IS CREW AND SHE CANNOT SPEAK OUT BUT SHE IS GETTING SICK FROM AIR QUALITY ISSUES AS ARE SO MANY OTHERS.

TIME FOR JUSTICE!

[A Sayers]

Dear Lomapaseo.

"Firstly you have to have an accident".

There has been one, the airline did not report it to AAIB however. (I was hospitalised/incapacitated so could not report it myself). AAIB now refer the matter to the CAA, who refer it to HSE who refer it to AAIB. Not everything gets investigated properly.

My point is to agree with you when you state that the problem is aviation wide. Fume contamination into the cockpit/cabin makes people ill. I am still receiving disability support four years later. My aircraft was not a jet, did not have bleed air/pressurisation. Contamination can come from a range of sources.

Andrew.

[Dolly with brains!]

I am a cabin crew member with a UK airline and its not all just about tech crews. I cannot talk out on these issues or I will be on benefits! Thankfully my union is on the case and good on them for doing so.

I have often smelt what is clearly an oil / dirty socks smell not exhaust smells (as we were not on the ground!) on Boeing and Embraer aircraft and then developed headaches, nausea, fatigue (and i am a very physically fit EARLY 30s girl), as well as eye, nose and throat irritations.

I have been told by the company nothing to worry about, all normal! I have never been shown the products i am exposed to so I can't seek suitable medical help according to my GP.

On all the flights i have experienced the above symptoms so have 50% of the crews and many passengers, one 3 months pregnant she told me, but passengers are told NOTHING!!

If there is nothing to hide and no doubt Airline Managment will read this then do the following:

1. Issue a notice to crews to tell passengers the truth.
2. Allow us to tell the media the truth.

[Mobil Jet Oil II]

Lots of you talk about me behind my back, lets not be shy. My name is Jet Oil II and I live in a nice shinney blue tin. I am a nice synthetic engne oil made by my mum Mobil. My mum got married and now my parents are called Exxon Mobil. Mum and dad are very rich, they made US$ 35 billion last year so i have been spoilt. I have travelled in most jets and been to every country in the world I think.

I like to enter your lungs especially when I am heated in the engine and then able to drift through the cabin and cockpit air.

My favourite game is to get into your brain, I do this by avoiding your defences. I avoid them by travelling up your nose and then into the olfactory nerve and then to your brain where i kill your brain cells slowly. I avoid the blood brain barrier defences.

I make you sick but i dont want to really (grandad says I cause 'Chronic Neurotoxicity') but I don't know what that is, I just want to play, mummy and daddy tell me to stay in the engine but I escape sometimes.

Some nice folk called 'managers' say I am not really bad but even my mum and dad have this label on my back, its called my Material Safety Data Sheet or something like that:

Prolonged or repeated breathing of oil mist, or, or prolonged or repeated skin contact can cause nervous system effects.

and also

This product contains TCP which can cause symptoms associated with cholinesterase inhibition. TCP may also produce neurotoxicity associated with inhibition of neuropathy target esterase (NTE). Effects of cholinesterase inhibition are expected to occur within hours of exposure, but neurotoxicity related to NTE inhibition may not become evident for several days. Treat appropriately.

So please don't be angry with mum and dad, they have told you I am bad!

Take care, see you all soon!!

[Paterbrat]

Two obvious sources of contaminatin/ irritation discussed seem to be those that can be considered as part of the aircraft and it's systems primarily in this case pressurisation and conditioning, the second amongst the passengers themselves being those who will be carrying an infection on board and by virtue of circulation distributing this amongst the other passengers.
The fuel crisis which saw aircraft manufacturers seeking fuel ecomony in the decreased tapping of of engine bleed air and increased use of what was taken by re-circulation and decreased outflow, has been coupled with known maintainance deficiencies in regard to cabin air filtration systems where abuse/misuse in filters not being replaced as often as they should can only excaerbate the problem.
Day to day variations in risk of pax induced infections will alter with the embarkations points types of passenger and the associated diseases connected to those groups and destinations.
Have there been any studies to date with cabin samples taken which might go towards helping us better understand some of the problems in this field.
It may well become of more particular interest in light of the recent Ebola/ Marburg outbreaks in Africa and the potentially disasterous bird flu threat in the far east. The method of rapid worldwide dissemination will be air transport. It behoves governments to turn their attention to this particular vector as a matter of some urgency

[voyager65]

I HAVE JUST BEEN FAXED A COPY OF THE CURRENT BALPA LOG MAGAZINE ARTICLE ON FUMES (PAGE 19 APRIL:MAY 2005) WRITTEN BY A MARTIN ALDER LISTED AS CHAIRMAN - FLIGHT SAFETY GROUP WHAT A DISGRACE TO BALPA.

HOW CAN BALPA SAY SUCH RUBBISH AND MAKE A JOKE OF CREWS WITH GAS MASKS ON WHEN MANY OF THEIR CREWS ARE SICK.

HOW CAN HE SAY THAT 'MOST EVENTS AND SMELLS WILL BE UNLIKELY TO CAUSE A SERIOUS HEALTH RISK OF THE TYPE DISCUSSED AT THE CONFERENCE'

WHO IS THIS GUY ?

I ONLY GOT PAGE 19, DOES ANYONE HAVE A CONTACT AT BALPA TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT TO ?

IS BALPA NOW AN INDUSTRY UNION ?

TOT SIENS

[Dolly with brains!]

For immediate release – Wednesday 4th May 2005
Newsdesks: transport correspondents, health and safety specialist media

Cabin crew are suffering from poor air quality on aircraft

The Transport and General Workers Union, the UK’s leading trade union representing cabin crew on aircraft, today called on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to make it a mandatory requirement for airlines to advise passengers that they have been exposed to contaminated air rather than maintain the current silence. This demand followed the ‘Contaminated Air Protection Conference’ which was organised by the pilots’ union BALPA in London last week. That conference concluded that crews and passengers exposed to contaminated air are getting sick. This conclusion confirmed what the T&G has seen with its crews working in the confines of commercial jet aircraft.
“It’s not maybe our people are being sick or perhaps but they definitely are,” said Oliver Richardson, T&G regional industrial organiser who represents cabin crew members. “How many passengers are also suffering? Who knows? Airlines do not tell passengers when they are exposed to contaminated air.”

Mr. Richardson said the T&G is now calling on the HSE to require that all British registered aircraft have bleed air filtration systems (cabin air supply) fitted on all aircraft used for passenger transportation above a maximum take off weight of 5700kgs so that crews and passengers can be protected from contaminated air as a matter of urgency. He added that the largest inquiry prior to the ‘Contaminated Air Protection Conference’, the 2000 Australian Senate Inquiry, had also called for air supply filtration systems to be mandatory. These systems are estimated to cost less than £15,000 for a typical holiday jet aircraft which costs millions of pounds to manufacture.

“The cost to put these filters on aircraft is a small price to pay to protect the travelling public,” added Mr. Richardson. “That’s why the T&G is now calling on the aviation industry to make the fittings of contaminated air sensors on all aircraft above a maximum take off weight of 5700kgs used for passenger transportation compulsory.”

ENDS

For further information please call Oliver Richardson on 020 8573 9494 or the T&G Press Office on 020 7611 2550/49

[Tony Bonzo]

Dear Voyager

Martin Alder of BALPA is a former British Airways manager and now BALPA FSG chairman, who is an unelected rep.

Probably explains why BALPA FSG has such an uninterested view.

Is this BALPA policy ?

[Preppy]

"Aircraft manufacturers design their aircraft to meet the regulatory standards, including those for cabin air, and airlines operate the aircraft in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

Studies of cabin air quality have consistently shown that the cabin air on commercial aircraft meets all regulatory standards and is as good as or better than that of typical offices or homes. There is no evidence to suggest that crew or passengers are exposed to levels of contaminants that could be harmful to health.

Incidents of smoke or fumes do occur occasionally as a result of minor malfunctions, such as electrical faults or oil leaks. Flight and cabin crew are trained in the procedures to follow in such events, as recommended by the regulatory authorities to all airlines. Research into such incidents carried out by and on behalf of the CAA has found no evidence that exposure to fumes in these circumstances has any persisting health effects."

[Tony Bonzo]

Preppy

You possibly need to make an effort to read all the postings rather than post such inaccuracies.

I will agree that on most flights the air quality appears to be good but as far as the CAA testing goes give me a break. Have you read it? Did you read the posting by Californian Babe?

Please tell me what paper you are reffering to where the CAA or anybody has studied the effects of exposure to Exxon Mobil Jet Oil II for Chronic Neurotoxicity via inhalation.

You won't be able to present a paper because it has not been done so stop wasting readers time with lies and nonsense PLEASE.

When the testing is completed then the industry will thank those who currently have the solutions and you will thank the crews and organiosations like AOPIS who pushed them to make these solutions!

[Martin Alder]

Thanks for the personal attack on me. Nice to know that one is the receiving end of a mature and logicaly expressed viewpoint that is so well justified, that in order to sustain the argument one needs to destroy any differing views!
I don't choose BALPA cartoons, the editors do that and as explained to someone earlier today, the article was written well before the conference, so could not reflect anything said at the conference.

Having completed over 15 years of un-elected and voluntary work within BALPA I am also pleased to see how much some have appreciated my contributions in both time, lost earnings and work!

Whoever wrote it , you might like to state exactly how much time etc and in what role you have put it in consistently over the past 19 years for BALPA as a comparison.

As to the cabin air issue, BALPA has a policy and strategy concernng this issue I will not discuss it here, as it would not be appropriate to do so. BALPA members can communicate via the usual BALPA channels to find out what is happening.

Thanks

[cargo boy]

Perhaps Voyager65 and Bonzo would care to make their criticisms of Mr Alders efforts face to face? If not face to face then perhaps they would at least have the conviction of their beliefs to put their real names to their complaints.

It never ceases to amaze how vociferous a few people become when it comes to complaining about someone trying to do something about a known problem. Invariably, we only get to read non-constructive complaints which goes to show that it is far easier to moan than to get up of your backside and actually try and do something about the problem.

At least BALPA are taking part in the organisation and research into the problem. Also, knowing how much time and effort Martin Alder puts in to the BALPA FSG only goes to show how ignorant many people are about what exactly BALPA do aside from provide a collective back up to individuals. There lies the real problem for BALPA, educating the large number of pilots who know very little about the association.

[-400 Heavy]

I dont agree with all that CARGO BOY implies about the BALPA FSG but agree at least as a union they seem to be doing something albeit a bit late for a chap I went through flight training with, a victim to air quality.

The following was posted on the BALPA forum by one of the NEC reps yesterday and may be of interest.......


Dear All

BALPA has been pursuing the issue of contamination of the cabin air supply for some time now and is currently the leading pilot union authority on these matters worldwide. Our research led to the recent BALPA Contaminated Air Protection Conference held in London in April. All interested parties were offered the opportunity to speak such as airlines, engine and aircraft manufacturers, industry representatives etc.. and all those who responded were accommodated, including representatives of the FAA, the RAAF, and medical and academic authorities from the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia. Unions, doctors, lawyers and air system manufacturers also presented papers.

The conference conclusions were:


There is a workplce problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew).

The workplace in which these illnessses are being induced is the aircraft cabin environment.

This, we conclude is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications.


Of some concern was whether crews were:

1. identifying the presence of fumes,
2. correctly carrying out the drills developed by manufactures and operators to minimise the health risk to crews and the risk of incapacitation of the crew,
3. accuracy of reporting of both serious and less serious occurrences of cabin air contamination.

The need to consider and act on the first two aspects mentioned above should be obvious to all, so should require little further explanation except to say that whilst BALPA works with ASHRAE and others to develop contaminated air detection equipment, everyone has a different sense of smell and crews are not tested at medical renewal for their ability to smell, so do not expect both crews to perceive the amount or level of contamination equally. Also, please remember that several incidents have clearly shown that crews quickly become de-sensitised, i.e. can no longer tell that contaminats are still present. The third item, the accuracy of reporting should be of interest to all if issues related to air contamination are to be minimised. Without accurate reports there can be no rectification of the problem, be it an intermittent one or, one needing a service bulletin or modification to correct.

Thus, we would urge you to follow the drills that have been provided for you diligently to ensure the immediate safety of the aircraft and occupants as well as to protect your health. To ensure the safety of future operations, record accurately the details needed both to solve the problem and to avoid unnecessary costs due to inappropriate response to a poorly recorded event.

Further information is available from the UK CAA in the FODCOMs 17/2000, 14/2001 and 21/2002. These three FODCOMS give more extensive guidance and information on this subject. FODCOM 17/2000 details incapacitation procedures. FODCOM 14/2001 gives details on the use of oxygen masks. FODCOM 21/2002 details smoke and fume occurrences in some detail and is a very good read. Very clear guidance includes the statement:

These should at least include the necessity to use oxygen masks at 100% whenever contamination is present or suspected and the need to establish communications by the appropriate switch selections.

It is also worth mentioning in these difficult times for airlines globally that filter manufacturers advised at the conference that hot bleed air filtration exists and would cost less than £15,000 to fit on a twin engine jet such as the Boeing 757.

[Preppy]

Tony Bonzo

You make the serious accusation that my posting was "lies, nonsense and innacurate".

Where is the evidence to support to support your rhetoric?

Personal attacks don't win scientific debates or encourage the authorities to change their regulations.

[Rupert S]

I'm not an aircraft engineer or professional pilot so apologies if this question has an obvious answer. From the side of engine fumes etc. (leaving aside airborn diseases from other passengers within the cabin), am I right in thinking that air enters the aircraft through the engies in most aircraft. The risks of this are fairly obvious. It doesn't take much for engine fumes to get to the air supply so why not change the point at which air enters the aircraft? Lord knows the manufacturers have had long enough to come up with a new way of pressurising the aircraft, even if it is less convenient.

[Danny]

Rupert, you may want to do a bit of research into 'turbine' engines as opposed to 'reciprocating' engines. The air that is 'bled' off the compressors (hence the name 'bleed air') is taken out before the combustion stage. Any fumes being mentioned here are due to leaks from the bearing seals of the oil used to lubricate them. We are not talking about carbon monoxide associated with combusted fuel.

[Rupert S]

So I suppose it's a problem that would be associated with most methods you use to compress the air. Do pressurised light aircraft use the same system or do they have separate compressors?

[Martin Alder]

-400 heavy , I am interested in your mates problem. Do you have any details? If so, please forward them. By the way, if no one contacts BALPA FSG we do not know of a problem whatever it is and cannot do anything about it either, we are not mind readers!

[AOPIS]

We started this thread and are pleased at the mostly constructive replies and open debate that has followed.
We would like to make a couple of observations.

Point 1.

Danny stated: We are not talking about carbon monoxide associated with combusted fuel.

This may be correct but we are talking about carbon monoxide associated with the pyrolisis of engine oil especially on the BAe 146. I am aware as is BALPA of many UK crews flying the 146 with elevated Carbon Monoxide readings on many flights with good quality CO detectors.

Point 2.

Martin Alder of BALPA states: no one contacts BALPA FSG we do not know of a problem whatever it is and cannot do anything about it either, we are not mind readers!

We at AOPIS are aware of at least 14 BALPA members who now suffer long term the effects of contaminated air exposures as well as several hundred who have suffered short term in the UK. I have evidence that many of the long term sick members did contact BALPA so it is unfair to imply no one has contacted the FSG.

An AOPIS member gave a talk to the BALPA Medical Study Group some years ago and highlighted this very fact.

Perhaps someone from BALPA could confirm the exact number of crews who have suffered short term and long term symptoms to get a scale of the issues within BALPA.

Further details of UK crew effects by way of the BALPA B757 survey available at:

http://www.aopis.org/BALPA757SURVEYp253-262.pdf

[Smokie]

AH! Mobil Jet 2. I belive that I have recently met your borthers and sisters, the TOCP, DOCP and MOCP's.

I have also met your more insidious cousins the Metas and the Paras.

A very unhealthy Familiy group if ever I met one.

Unfortunately you do everything that it says on the TIN!:{

[Dream Buster]

I learnt the other day (Can't remember where - memory still not brilliant) that the A 380 does not use engine bleed air for any air conditioning purposes.

Can anybody confirm this, the info. shouldn't be that difficult to come by...........

If it's not, perhaps the manufacturers finally know something about the effects of using bleed air for conditioning, but are hardly likely to admit to.

Just thinking.

[AOPIS]

Hi Dreambuster

Hope the following helps

The Airbus A380 uses the standard bleed air system design.

However the Boeing B787 is going to be BLEED FREE

In the past the B707, DC8, Comet, VC10 did not allow the bleed air (bleed air is the air supply from the engines for the passenger cabin) to directly enter the cabin and used compressors etc...

The late 60s early 70s saw the introduction of the current bleed air technology but as smoking was present until the later part of the last century, people were slow to pick up on the contaminated air issue.

First contaminated air reports we have on file date to late 70s early 80s

Although the technology is there, virtually no current airliner has any filtration system to remove contaminants in the bleed air supply. If the bleed air becomes contaminated then passengers and crews WILL be exposed.

[Martin Alder]

Dear AOPIS,
I think that you are somewhat overstating the case on Carbon Monoxide. The fact that ONE person had one detector for some flights and the detector sometimes detected CO, does not constitute many persons for many flights. Neither does it say why CO was present, after all, ground running is notorious for ingesting other exhaust plumes and in flight , who knows what state the local external air is in, power station plumes, etc.
If you overstate your case in this manner your error will be revealed and undermine any serious attempt to resolve this issue, which hardly helps BALPA members , or anyone else for that matter.

Before anyone gets all nostalgic, turbo compressors failed and filled cabins with smoke and fumes, especially if bearings failed. Read an old BA flight safety magazine or two of that era. The industry ditched turbo compressors for good reason, weight, complexity and reliability. The modern system with pressure regulating valves and compressor bleed off-takes is light and reliable, with few moving parts. Some smaller engines with sonic nozzles have none other than open and shut valves. The system has been in use since the Spey engine at least, dated about 1962, so well before the 1970s.
On small engines and aircraft of smaller than the long range 4 jet 707 and VC-10 it was not economic to have turbo compressors. So, if no modern light weight bleed systems had been developed, no small aircraft and if that was the case possibly no jobs either!
The 787 will use electric compressors, so not engine bleed, but not yet sure of failure modes, so will there be a bit of smoke if the electric motor goes phut? Perhaps someone from Boeing can answer that?

[Torycanyon]

I believe that there are several operatives around and have been for over a year now collecting data with several Airlines.
The sooner the figures are published the better.

Trial by media is the only way to get things done these days.

Get the politicians involved.
Get them to embarrass the authorities and manufacturer's.
Get UK PLC to pull it's finger out.

[cabincrew47]

For those who don't believe it happens.................or is a problem..........read on>>>>>>>>>>>


Date A/C Type Location Occ Num
05.09.2001 B757 Trent (TNT) 200106194
Flt Phase Location Info
CRUISE 8nm S
Occ Classification Event(s)
Occurrences Smoke / Fumes (not engine)
Crew Illness / Incapacitation
Emergency Call
Diversion /Return
Engine Malfunction

PAN declared following smoke on flight deck due contamination of air conditioning system. Adverse reactions felt by some crew members. A/c returned.


In climb, oily smell noticed on flight deck which then steadily worsened and became apparent in mid cabin. Adverse reactions felt by some crew members. Air conditioning was identified as source of smell and QRH actioned for both air conditioning fumes and fume removal. PAN declared and a/c returned. Windows opened after landing but fumes/haze remained and were noted by both fire personnel and engineers on entry onto a/c.
LH and RH engine spinner/anti ice tubes removed, cleaned and refitted iaw Rolls-Royce Troubleshooting Procedure and FIM 71-05-00. APU inspected and no evidence of cracking or oil contamination/leaks - APU oil level checked and found correct. Fault recurred during subsequent airtest, therefore, ADDs raised for LH engine/APU/air conditioning pack component changes. See also 2001/03044 and 2001/03661 (same a/c).
CAA Closure: Investigation progressed under 2000/08363.

[AOPIS]

Ref the comment by Martin Alder, Chairman of the BALPA FSG

Dear AOPIS,
I think that you are somewhat overstating the case on Carbon Monoxide. The fact that ONE person had one detector for some flights and the detector sometimes detected CO, does not constitute many persons for many flights.


Mr Alder

You are mistaken and in doing so are misleading readers at PPrune of the facts.

The facts are as follows:

You say that one person had one detector for some flights. Your comment is incorrect.

BALPA members took many readings of Carbon Monoxide in flight and this data was even presented to the ASHRAE SPC-161 Committee last year.

To date 7 BALPA members and 4 cabin crew members have provided us directly with CO data from the 146 in the UK, all of whom had elevated readings on some flights. Not from ingested ground sources that you refer to, as these were taken in flight. We also have many other recordings from around the world taken on the 146 so this is not just a UK issue.

Therefore when the UK CAA publish a paper on air quality (CAA PAPER 2004/04 - Cabin Air Quality) stating it was OK but was not done during fume event flights, we see this as a deliberate attempt to misinform the public and crews.

As you are a representative of a trade union, we would rather hope your focus would not be the same as industry but rather attempting to provide a duty and care to protecting your members. As you know BALPA has over a dozen sick crew members due to fumes.

The recent BALPA conference conclusions signed by Jim McAuslan the BALPA General Secretary and many others stated that:

There is a workplce problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew).

The workplace in which these illnessses are being induced is the aircraft cabin environment.

This, we conclude is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications.

Now that it has been finally agreed within BALPA that crews are sick, lets hope that the BALPA focus is now on stopping more crews and passengers from getting sick short and long term both in the cockpit and in the cabin. We hope that BALPA will work with other unions campaigning these issues in the UK like the IPA / IPF, T&G, ITF.

We will as always work with your association and many others to progress these issues.

[Martin Alder]

Dear AOPIS,
As far as BALPA were aware, only one person from one operator was involved, at their own initiative and not in a manner with which I would consider the most effective for a number of reasons. If other persons undertook activity for your organisation, then it is for them to decide. Any activity by other trade unions and their members are for them to deal with, not BALPA. Similarly, BALPA is not responsible for actions of AOPIS members, of which there seems to be no information published as to constitution or, membership numbers , election process and officers.

There seems to be clear discrepancy in the AOPIS numbers of confirmed sick pilots due to this cause and the numbers of which BALPA is aware. One would need full medical information to do this. I understand that eminent specialists within the UK are far from agreement over the whole range of issues associated with OP poisoning. Thus to claim the numbers you do that are confirmed sick due to this cause, would seem somewhat less than precise in scientific and medical terms, to say the least. Suspected may be reasonable, but confirmed is rather stronger than the agreed science and medicine would seem to justify!

BALPA has made a statement about the conference and taking part of the statement out of context is pretty poor journalism and in the best traditions of spin, of which many now have experience due to the UK political landscape! The full statement includes a need to work with all of industry to find out what is happening and how to solve it. BALPA is a part of industry and as such works with it to get solutions that fix problems and don't loose people their jobs in doing so. Behaving in a confrontational manner akin the Animal Liberation Front or such , as seems to be the case with the rather personal slurs on me in this thread, is hardly compatible with that approach. It is the only way to get the issues resolved, as it is unlikely that an organisation such as AOPIS will have the resources or, authorisations to gain access to a substantial amount of very personal data on individuals or, the sensitive commercial information on equipment to gain a complete picture of events and solutions that suit each circumstance, whatever that might be. The implication of a legal motive driving the AOPIS stance is hardly likely to help open up the doors for full frank and open discussions with all of the players.

Loosing your job because of an economic hit on your employer as a result of a scare story, can cause death, as I know that as a result of the death of a friend when he lost his job. Hence another reason for a cautious approach.

The short term flight safety issues are well covered by the application of normal smoke fumes procedures that all of us have for our aircraft types. Longer term health problems need to be separated from these issues. Long term means just that and requires long term research to prove it. Immediate and permanent damage may be clearer in some cases, scientist and clinicians who specialise in the field will no doubt provide us with answers.

[lomapaseo]

What a great way to sum up pages and pages of endless context.

Point not proved, time to move on.

[-400 Heavy]

For those of you not from the UK you may be interested to learn that Martin Alder who posts as if he is 'BALPA POLICY' is not an elected representative of BALPA, is not the Chairman of their specialsed working group looking into these matters known as the 'AETG' and was a former manager at British Airways.

Therefore please do not take what he says as BALPA policy, but for what it is: The views of one member of BALPA, Chairman of their FSG group who are critised by many BALPA members for their lack of effort on these issues and well known to be a 'non believer' who I am informed did not even bother to attend the BALPA conference.

Some in BALPA have worked very hard on these issues and as a member it disturbs me to see what clearly is alot of infighting within my own association. As I have posted before, a good friend of mine who is now sick from fumes was not given the support BALPA should have given him. This lack of support generated from within the BALPA FSG structure. I suggested he post on PPrune his story but he tells me he would rather not tarnish his union as its does alot of good in other areas.

What is the official BALPA line ?

[Texas Air Dog]

I think that Pprune is a great tool to help talk things over and as my first posting I commend them.

From this thread it may be implied this is purely a British issue but I fly the seven fifty seven for a large US carrier and I am well aware of the oil smell. (got 8000+ hours on it) Also had it on the C-141


Do I write it up:

Hell No

Do I want my pay check:

Hell Us

Should I write it up:

Hell Yes

Do passengers know didly ..... they are being exposed:

Hell No

Dont ask us to write it up when we have Chapter 11 spreading like the plague in the States. I suggest you fit a contaminated air detection system so the guys and gals can just say, hey the gadget acctivated and sure I smelt it.

We say nothing not because we don't care but because pay is king and those who talk WALK.

[Martin Alder]

-400 heavy, could you forward details, privately if you like, of who your friend is? I did ask a few days ago, but no answer yet, either publicly or privately. I looked at the BALPA Forum and could not find the release you quote, must have looked under the wrong title, so could you tell us all exactly where it is?
No one in the FSG is elected, all volunteers with lots if time spent doing it, who elect their respective group chairman. so some democracy there! I don't make policy, the NEC does and I have not knowingly contradicted any of the policy they have made. The concerns about getting it right are real, for the very reasons that our American contributor mentions, Big scare, no passengers, no jobs, which is a hell of a price to pay for what may not be an issue at all for most I would say.
I am sure that we all do want answers, but we don't want to cause panic that causes jobs lost for no reason either. This is especially so when the evidence is patchy at best and unfortunately, none so far would meet normal standards for such data to be used as a basis for some pretty fundamantal changes. If that evidence turns up after a programme to capture data has captured it, analysed it and identified the risks and solutions, then solutions will be developed or fitted, mods made etc.

Risk is ever present in all activity and it has to be against that one judges whether this is within an acceptable range or not. After all, jumping in your car, flying an aeroplane , cutting the grass and even sex, all involve risk. It is just determining what the acceptable risk is and controlling it that allows society to function at all.

I assume from your comments that you are in contact with members of the CAQTG and thus know of my non-attendance. this was due to leave, booked as you well know some 8 or 9 months before the conference and some 4 months or so before the conference dates were given. No consultation was made outside of the AETG as it was then over dates, so not surprisng that a number of people could not attend. Were you there?

Non -believer is spoken of as if this were some kind of religious crusade. Sorry, but I and others need some hard facts before acting. Whatever my own feelings may be, I doubt that anyone reading this would thank me for following a gut feel and getting it very wrong for BALPA because I went all emotional not logical. Just like flying itself, you sometimes have to suppress gut feel and initial reaction to get to the bottom of the issue and that is all I want.

[-400 Heavy]

Martin

You say there is no evidence, you say I looked at the BALPA Forum and could not find the release you quote, must have looked under the wrong title, so could you tell us all exactly where it is?

Now it all makes, sense. You as Chairman of the BALPA FSG say there is no problem but you don't look at the data, do you?

The release is on the BA part of the BALPA forum, it was posted on: May 7th, 2005, 6:44pm, by Tristan Loraine listed as Boeing 757/767 / NEC / Pool Rep / AETG. Are you not also a BA pilot? How can you miss it?

I notice on the 'General' BALPA Forum you posted the following:

As far as that surveyy done on BA 757 crews goes. Is there a table with de-identified id's of the crews, the hulls and dates etc for analysis? It still seems odd that a mere 100 crew members should get 1500 events, that is 15 each and the rest of the fleet seem to get none. I assume that they are are flight deck crew members or were there cabin crew as well ?If someone got 1 then someone else got 30 and that does seem unusual in terms of statistical spread.

Do you know how many flight crew members total were on the fleet during this period? If cabin crew members are included, how many in total were operating on the fleet at this time?

How is it possible for someone in your position to make such errors, clearly showing you have not attempted to read the paper. I read it from our own website about 4 months ago. As it is published surely we as members should expect that the FSG Chairman might have read it.

You say long term research is needed, crews like my flight training buddy flew the 146 back in the 80s and 20 years later are sick, surely thats a long enough study term?

You attack the NGO AOPIS but surely if unions like ours had done the duty we should have on these difficult issues, the sick from around the world would not have started AOPIS.

I have smelt fumes a few times on the -400 but was on the 757 in the past and glad I left the health issues you care little about.

Thankfully not all in BALPA appear to aggree with you. I am sure PPrune did not set up this forum for BALPA failings to be debated so I will refrain from embarrasing you further, I cannot 'not' vote for you as you are not elected. I will simply vote for the elected reps who do care and do the work:

[cabincrew47]

Mr Alder

Perhaps you ignored my post as I'm Cabin Crew!

You want evidence! Then read my post at the bottom of Page 4.

As you will notice the MOR refers to three incidents on the same a/c in 2001 and the investigation progressed under another incident in 2000!

I can assure you that my health has suffered due to this incident.

And I did attend the BALPA Conference!

[Martin Alder]

No one say that failures never occur! Just how often and how bad . The question that keeps coming up is do you get affected when it is a normal operation and you don't notice any contamination. The one you have described you could clearly notice, so falls well within a failure case scenario and inhalation of smoke is not good anytime, no matter what it is , including cigarettes!

Obvious smoke is abnormal, hence the response, checklists etc. Bearing in mind that cabin fires and electrical fires ar far more frequent, the smoke is also toxic, then the probability is then that most will be more likely to have ill effects from that than engine oil. Does not make the effects any less, but you have to put into perspective the risk of smoke at any time on any flight and smoke fumes from engine defects as a percentage of those.

Whether you are cabin crew or not did not enter my mind.
I cannot comment on the state of your health, that is for you and your doctor to discuss. Of great interest generally in these events is what were the effects on the range of people on-board? There frequently seems to be quite a variation between people to an event and getting to the bottom of that is another urgent requirement, as it will probably affcet the solutions needed. Was that the case in your event?

ps -400 have looked , but still can't find it, send me a link

- I did read it some time ago. However, it still begs the question as how on a broad basis why some had a great number of events, which averaged over the numbers who had them is about 15, but why no one else and why such a concentration? If we ask why, then so will someone else. The CAA did try to make sense of the survey, but the data was incomplete such that it was not possible to draw valid conclusions. That is not to say that those people did not have an event or otherwise, merely that the data was unable to be used in any meaningful way to assist. As the number of ASR\'s or MOR\'s fell well short of the 1500 , then it is unfortunate that more of those which would have supported a better analysis were not filed. That is why we have spent some effort in getting people to report things officialy, so as to get data that can support the case.

Hence the desire to get a survey done that does provide the correct data. With that you have a case, without you don't. As this argument is now circular, no more comments from me on this forum. It has hopefully not been too boring for those of you who stumbled on it by mistake! private messages gratefully received and keep on reporting or we don't get the data!

[Tony Bonzo]

Martin Alder British Airways manger or BALPA spokesman or both, it seems he appears to be all bent on trying to convince us fumes are a rare event and nothing to worry about, nearly as much as an industry spoksman would.

He tells us that Bearing in mind that cabin fires and electrical fires ar far more frequent, he has never had a fume event or that cutting the grass or having sex involve risk.

To me as a a pilot and graduate with a first in psychology these comments WORRY ME!!

NOWHERE have I read anything from Mr Alder and therefore BALPA (as he is the BALPA FSG Chairman and I am certain he would not be posting this if not endorsed by those upstairs in BALPA) on this thread to show that BALPA has any condolences for its sick crew members or the families who now no doubt live daily with the consequences of fumes on their partners, any care for his members health or any support for those who seek change.

He clearly paints a BALPA that does not care, is uninterested in protecting its members health and puts industry profit over health and carrers.

He clearly has not read any of the published data.

THANKFULLY AS IPA / IPF MEMBER AND DON'T HAVE PEOPLE LIKE MR ALDER / BALPA LOOKING AFTER MY WELFARE.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK PHIL!

[Martin Alder]

Dear Tony Bonzo not wishing to leave readers with another assumption about me and a mistaken faith in the acccuracy of your statements etc. Obviously as a phsychology graduate you are aware of how your misquoting and good old political answering one question with a totally different answer can leave readers with an impression of something that was actually never stated, but twisted to suit your needs, not anyone else's!

No one talked about the touchy feely stuff. It was not a debate on whether anyone here actually had any sympathy for or, with somone who is ill from whatever effects. Of course everyone is, but it does not change why they are ill.

The views were mine, if you want a BALPA view join up and go to the BALPA site. If you want to recruit for another association, that is your privilege, but wild accusations about BALPA are unreasonable.

Just the same about my past, I was a flight technical officer, not a manager or even assistant manager. Its a nuts and bolts job for keen techies. No longer exist and if you had checked your facts you would have known that. Done about 16 years work for BALPA over the last 19. BA then actually encouraged BALPA techies activity and it got BALPA techies to places that they would otherwise not have got to. Ask yourself much have you actually done for your fellow aviators and for how long?


I came on to this site because I was made aware of a personal attack on me by persons whose identities seem familiar , as much of the phraseology is fairly familiar. I did not come on here to primarily advertise for BALPA. Thus the views are mine and if you want an official view , go to the BALPA site.

If you wish to continue further, happy to take private messages to avoid boing the hell out of everyone! This will be the last one for sure!

[Torycanyon]

Not too sure how the Math stacks up on this one.
1 Oven Fire verses countless Cabin fumes incidents at Flybe?
Several recent incapacitations? Go figure.

[Dolly with brains!]

Having just got back from a 3 day trip, some on the 757 and some on the 320, I fail to see why BALPA do nothing on air quality matters. We as cabin crew can't write up fumes we need you people to do it. I approached the F/O and told him the plane (A 757) stank of dirty socks and he simply said 'I know' but then told me the Captain did not want to 'rock the boat'!

IS IT LEGAL FOR PILOTS TO IGNORE WHAT WE TELL THEM ?

I have reported him to the T&G who thankfully are on the case.

Having reread, the complete thread and the AOPIS website data I fail to see how a BALPA official such as Martin Alder can work for BALPA and make comments like:

Behaving in a confrontational manner akin the Animal Liberation Front or such , as seems to be the case with the rather personal slurs on me in this thread in relationship to AOPIS.

BALPA were happy I understand from my T&G official to take copies of the AOPIS DVD for all their members and their sponsorship money for BALPA's recent conference and now they or Martin Alder (as he appears to be the only voice of BALPA) attack them.

Amazing!

What is clear is that Mr Alder is a non believer, does not care, does not know the facts and seeks to do all possible to bury the truth AND he is head of their safety unit!!!! SCAREY STUFF

What is not clear is why he is the only BALPA voice on this thread. Can a BALPA representative please confirm if his comments are BALPA policy ?

At least we in the T&G have a clear position which is with the government!!



The Transport and General Workers Union, the UK’s leading trade union representing cabin crew on aircraft, today called on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to make it a mandatory requirement for airlines to advise passengers that they have been exposed to contaminated air rather than maintain the current silence. This demand followed the ‘Contaminated Air Protection Conference’ which was organised by the pilots’ union BALPA in London last week. That conference concluded that crews and passengers exposed to contaminated air are getting sick. This conclusion confirmed what the T&G has seen with its crews working in the confines of commercial jet aircraft.
“It’s not maybe our people are being sick or perhaps but they definitely are,” said Oliver Richardson, T&G regional industrial organiser who represents cabin crew members. “How many passengers are also suffering? Who knows? Airlines do not tell passengers when they are exposed to contaminated air.”

Mr. Richardson said the T&G is now calling on the HSE to require that all British registered aircraft have bleed air filtration systems (cabin air supply) fitted on all aircraft used for passenger transportation above a maximum take off weight of 5700kgs so that crews and passengers can be protected from contaminated air as a matter of urgency. He added that the largest inquiry prior to the ‘Contaminated Air Protection Conference’, the 2000 Australian Senate Inquiry, had also called for air supply filtration systems to be mandatory. These systems are estimated to cost less than £15,000 for a typical holiday jet aircraft which costs millions of pounds to manufacture.

“The cost to put these filters on aircraft is a small price to pay to protect the travelling public,” added Mr. Richardson. “That’s why the T&G is now calling on the aviation industry to make the fittings of contaminated air sensors on all aircraft above a maximum take off weight of 5700kgs used for passenger transportation compulsory.”

ENDS

For further information please call Oliver Richardson on 020 8573 9494 or the T&G Press Office on 020 7611 2550/49


http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=89253

[Fargoo]

FWIW if you're a BA cabin crew member - all our 757's stink of dirty socks (or fish). Nothing to do with oil, just their natural aroma.


PEL?

[Trislander]

Fargoo,

Just because they always smell like that and you're used to it doesn't mean it's their 'natural smell'!

[uncle sam flies]

THIS IS A GREAT THREAD BUT ITS CLEAR MANY ARE TRYING TO DENY THE TRUTH LIKE WITH TOBACCO, ASPESTOS, ETC...

FARGOO

YOU MUST BE A BRITISH AIRWAYS LAWYER FOR SAYING THE DIRTY SOCKS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL!!

EVERYONE KNOWS THIS IS PART OF THE ENGINE OIL MOBIL JET OIL II SMELL

WE ALL KNOW THAT MANY PILOTS AT BRITISH AIRWAYS SUFFER NEUROLOGICAL LONG TERM PROBLEMS FROM EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED AIR AND ALSO ITS KNOWN EVEN HERE IN WASHINGTON THAT 4 BRITISH AIRWAYS CABIN STAFF ARE SUING BRITISH AIRWAYS FOR THEIR CURRENT CONDITION DUE TO CONTAMINATED AIR (I.E EXPOSURE TO MOBIL JET OIL II). THE FIRST OF MANY NO DOUBT.

HOW MANY PASSENGERS ARE SICK DUE TO AIR QUALITY ON COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT BUT DO NOT KNOW AS AIRLINES DO NOT TELL THEM ?

WE DEMAND TO BE TOLD WHEN WE ARE EXPOSED.

PASSENGER RIGHTS GROUP MEMBER

[ULTIMATE TEST PILOT]

Its not only British Airways that owns the dirty socks smell. I fly for Flybe & I get that sock smell most times I go to work on the 146. It\'s just more normal than not.

The industry cover up has gone on long enough & it has to stop NOW. Crews and passengers demand it.

I have obtained a copy of much of the information that was presented at the recent BALPA conference and for those who still want to ignore and say that \'the information is at best patchy\' -your time\'s up!!

The conference I was told presented strong conclusions linking crew short & long-term illness with the contaminated air and raised that the same could be happening to passengers.

Times up for those who dont want or perhaps can\'t read the data available and surely time has got to be up for the jokers in BALPA such as Martin Alder who has posted on this thread.

Come fly with me if you want to be gassed!

[Fargoo]

YOU MUST BE A BRITISH AIRWAYS LAWYER FOR SAYING THE DIRTY SOCKS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL!!

Obviously you've been in for your sense of humour bypass :*

Seems every time someone on here says something that's not liked they get accused of being a lawyer or a reporter. I'm neither.

I hope the industry gets to the bottom of this as i am one of the unfortunates who has to spend long periods in the f/d looking for the source of these smells. Invariably they (on the 757) don't re-occur on ground runs but we have in the past replaced engines and APU's. Don't know if the cabin being pressurised has any bearing on how concentrated the smells become.

***Uncle Sam Flies - Step on virtually any BA 757 with just ground power on and you'll get where I was coming from in my last post - they're not exactly a bed of roses!!***

[Torycanyon]

UTP. Word on the apron is that SOU is the in place for a roller coaster of sensual experiences waiting for the unwary punter.

Tense, nervous, headache? Dizzyness? Burning eyes, nose and throat? Think you suddenly caught a cold?
Does that Hostie really smell like that or is the Captain still wearing yesterdays socks?
Why am I feeling so tired?
Can't think straight? Problems doing basic arithmetic at the end of your shift? Can't fill in the techlog properly? Keep getting letters from the Boss complaining about your house keeping/ tech Log ?
Why can everyone else smell it but not me?
Why can I smell it but nobdy else can?
Why does my mouth taste like an Oil Can?
Why is my skin Oily?
Why have I got more Spots and Rashes than normal?

WHY is it still allowed to continue? WHY?


WELCOME TO MY WORLD

MY FINGER, IS ON THE BUTTON......WORLD!

[Hamble Boys]

Having been in this industry since the 70s, I have to comment on Mr Alders and BALPA attack on AOPIS of 10th May 2005 10:45. This behaviour would never have been allowed by previous NECs, so why now ?

For an association like BALPA to liken a crew group of sick crews to the Animal Liberation Front is a disgrace.

Having watched their DVD which BALPA (and the IPA) sent me I was grateful that my health is being looked after when BALPA do nothing it appears.

I am sure I am not the only BALPA member who does not support the comments made by Mr Alder.

I agree with 'Dolly with Brains' why is there no BALPA official comment ?

As far as fume occurences go, we used to smoke on the Trident so don't recall from those days, but the 757 frequently stank of oil on my short spell I had on that.

[Dolly with brains!]

The other consideration here is value for money?

T&G at £2.15/week and lots of action on these issues.

BALPA 1% for denial of the problem and no action!

If I was a 'Nigel' I know where my money would go T&G.

[JW411]

Now here is another possible view of this problem:

I was born in 1941 and went solo in 1957 and have been flying ever since. I have never had a problem with "fumes" or any other associated problems.

I have however met some young pilots who have, in my opinion, become quite seriously ill in the short term with this problem.

I have been told by a good friend in the medical profession that this is a function of age. You youngsters have very little in the way of an immune system. You have been immunised against every bloody disease known to man and have been shielded from every possible bug and infection that your parents could possibly manage.

I can remember having as a child; mumps, measles, German measles, chicken pox and every other known common disease. In fact, we used to be sent by our parents to play with sufferers of the latest disease so that we could all get it out of the way.

When I joined the Air Force we used to clean the exhaust stains off of cowlings with Toluene (which I am now told is lethal) and every morning, the Ops Board was cleaned with gallons of CTC (Carbon Tetracloride).

CTC was banned years ago.

What is my point? Simply put, I have a rattling good immune system and have not taken a single day off work for 18 years now.

If you are a vulnerable youngster then remember my advice:

Start the packs in full manual cold and run them in this way for a good 2 minutes before going to auto.

For those of you out there who do not think this is a problem, then you are probably an old fart like me but your kids are vulnerable because they have so far been protected from everything known to man and you probably did it!

[Torycanyon]

JW411, Some good points well made.

Dolly, ditto.

Hamble boys, I think that someone from BALPA other than Mr Alder ought to make at least some sort of statement, or are they quietly endorsing all that Mr Alder says?

[Smokie]

In no particular order, the words, Fence, On, Sitting and The, spring to mind.
BALPA, Pull your fingers out of your collectives!!!:(
Surely MA is not the only voice??

What has happened to the committee set up to deal with this particular problem within BALPA?

[Ian Wilson]

I flew with a well known British carrier from Southampton to Bergerac on one of their 146 jets for a long weekend break, and on both flights there was a definate wiff of 'smelly socks' that has been discussed.

I had a bit of a light head, especially on the return journey during the desent where there was a more definate wiff ... pong.

The same thing happened with I flew last month from Istanbul to Heathrow on a 757 jet, but didn't notice this on the outward journey from Heathrow, only on the return about 30 miutes before landing.

Is nothing being done about this, how do these air crews work in these conditions? In the six flights I have taken this year, there has been three flights that I would say I have noticed this. Any other 'passengers' out there find the same problems?

Ian W
--

[Tony Bonzo]

Ian

The Dirty Socks smell will be the pyrolisis products of the engine oil that contain the organophosphate TCP that is NEURO TOXIC.

I am sure the airline in question offered you medical support! NOT!!

Sadly, the CAA DON'T CARE.

If you want a real laugh read the propoganda paper on Air Quality from 2004 from their website.

WHAT ALOT OF BULL!!

Don't forget the CAA is 100% funded by industry!!

If I was you I would do what crews should do SUE THE AIRLINE!

Tony

[alibaba]

Last week I was returning to London from southern France.

The Skip lined up the 73-800 and we were cleared for t/o. The skip spooled up the engines, we set the t/o thrust, and about 85 kts we got a disgusting smell similar to rotten eggs. At this point the aircraft is just slightly pressurising.

Nothing was said in the t/o role. Last night's Madras could have been taking it's toll on one of us.:ooh:

Anyway we had just started the climb and the initial turn on the departure through 2500ft and the cabin crew ding us as they have had a very strong smell throughout the whole aircraft.

There were no birds on the roll, and we checked the engine indications. The smell disappeared and everything looked normal so we returned to London without a problem and had engineering meet us on stand and check everything. :confused:

We came to the assumption that it was a fume event. The engineer didn't want anything put in the tech log and said he would check it out. Obviously nothing heard since.

Apart from a company memo from Boeing that overfilling of the hydraulic reservoirs can lead to fluid ingestion into the air con system.

All a bit on the dodgy side.

:*

[AOPIS]

ALIBABA

In Australia alone we have had 37 reports of what you describe reported to us from 737-800 crews.

We recommend such defects are always written up and oxygen used when the air is contaminated or you suspect it is contaminated as per common sense & checklist requirements.

We are well aware of the reluctance of crews to write up fume events but call on all pilots, engineers and cabin flight attendants to get fume events written up.

Only by reporting all defects can we progress these serious health and safety issues.

PLEASE REPORT ALL FUME EVENTS IN THE AIRCRAFT TECHNICAL LOG REGARDLESS OF DURATION.

AOPIS

WWW.AOPIS.ORG

[Horace Batchelor]

Bloody BALPA?

BALPA is made up of pilots and is controlled by pilots. As we all know only too well, pilots - whether BALPA members or not - have lots of opinions on lots of issues. Usually these opinions are different from each other. Sometimes they are the same and when this happens, all involved need to sit down with a medicinal drink in order to cope with the shock.

Any opinion shared on this forum by (someone purporting to be) a senior member of BALPA will be different to the opinions of other members of BALPA.

The driving force behind this issue is another senior member of BALPA.

"What's BALPA doing about contaminated air?" Plenty. Thank goodness and they have my confidence.

[Tony Bonzo]

Word has it that FlyBe have lost nearly 100 crews from their 4 engined gas chambers better known as the British Aerospace BAe 146.

Well done boys and girls!

If the company and the CAA will do nothing then walk with your feet but sadly the flight attendants and passengers just get gassed some more.

Does the 100th to go get a free bottle of Champagne ?

A mate of mine used to get gassed in Dan Air days and here we are 25+ years later and still it goes on.

[Ian Wilson]

What are my rights as a passenger to cancel my reservation off one of these British Aero 146 'gas chambers' in the light of what is happening, or am I to get the usual dribble of no refunds and no changes from the airline. What concerns me is nothing seems to being done, and the problem seems to be more wide spread that what was briefly said in the papers a few weeks ago, are the papers keeping in with the airlines because of their advertising contracts, are the papers afraid of loosing their contracts with them if the public is made fully aware of the health issues? I've notice some expensive looking adverts in the different nationals. Where is the best place to sit on the plane that has the 'freshest' air, or is all contaminated once airbourne. I am beginning to think that flying from my local airport is not always the best choice, and maybe I should be looking at other aircraft types to fly on. What aircraft is the healthest to fly on?

Ian W

[barlozza]

Hi guys..I have been flying the Avro and now the 146 for nearly 7 years..just looking for some serious advise on how bad is the problem and what can be done to limit or prevent the effects(beside changing ship).


thanks.
the dude

[alibaba]

AOPIS

I totally agree with you in relation to reporting the issue in the tech log. I would have no question in putting it in. That is not my decision of what to put in the tech log though.

But you have to think of the consequences of what will happen to the aeroplane and if it would need to be grounded? The effect on other crew's health etc etc. It is a weighing up exercise.

With referance to oxygen useage and starting to go into the "AIR CONDITIONING SMOKE/ FUMES" checklist. Well I think that is overkill. We talked about it but thought it would be slightly extreme. If you look at the start of the checklist it says to switch recirculation fans OFF. That would compound the situation. Also messing with the isolation valve and packs is not going to help as the aircraft still needs to be pressurised. After that we start talking about removal checks. Slightly extreme. :ugh:

I seen the cd balpa gave out and this is my first encounter of this problem. For what it is worth I now know that there is a problem and that it needs looking at seriouslly.:hmm:

[Torycanyon]

I belive that Paul Tyler, MP Labour,who opened the "Contaminated Air Protection " Conference in London just recently, has just been elected to the House Of Lords.

This is Excellent News considering his recent work and campaigning on Organophosphates issues.

Roll on the next House of Lords Enquiry I say!:ok:

[AOPIS]

Dear ALIBABA and crews

Over the years crews have failed to take contaminated air events seriously. This has led to low level contaminated air exposures generally seen as a normal working environment.

THIS IS WRONG

All crews must start to log ALL fume events and use oxygen to protect their health and the the safety of the aircraft regardless of duration or severity of the event. Too many crews in the past accepted low level exposures as normal and are sick today.

CREWS MUST USE OXYGEN REGARDLESS OF DURATION OF THE EVENT

This was made very clear in the UK House of Commons in 2004:


Official Report (Commons Hansard), Vol.428, Col. 420W, Tuesday 7th December 2004

Air Passengers (Chemical Exposure)

Mr. Tyler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether UK airline captains experiencing cockpit or cabin air contamination event serious enough for pilots to use emergency oxygen have a responsibility to inform passengers to which chemicals they might have been exposed. [202745]

Charlotte Atkins: Pilots are required to use oxygen as a precautionary measure in all cases of suspected cockpit air abnormalities irrespective of severity of event. Flight crew are not professionally qualified to verify the cause of air contamination or identify what chemicals if any, passengers may have been exposed to. The captain has discretion to inform passengers of an event.


If you do not report fume events, it does not allow the appropriate engineering work to be done and puts the health of your work colleagues and passengers potentially at risk.

REPORT ALL FUME EVENTS TO YOUR EMPLOYER, UNION AND REMEMBER THE FINDINGS OF THE RECENT BALPA CONFERENCE:

CREWS ARE GETTING SICK.

AOPIS
www.aopis.org

[pom]

I don't see why switching off the recirc fans would compound the problem - quite the opposite in fact as it will pump the contaminated air straight out of the a/c.

Who is AOPIS? Their site gives no details of the organisation. If I was a sceptic I might think that they are involved with the firms manufacturing filters. It seems that only the Australians and the Brits suffer from this problem - the pilot organisations in every other country don't think it's important enough to concern themselves about it. In fact, only a couple of airlines in the UK seem to have a problem. I've been flying 757's for years with no fume events.

If crewmembers are dropping like flies because of exposure to contaminants, where are the multi million pound settlements against the airlines and manufacturers for causing this?

If there is no proof, as I suspect, this thread is in the right place - the rumours section of a rumours site.

[Terraplaneblues]

On Boeings when the recirc fans are turned off the pack goes to a hi flow mode, allowing more contaminated air in.

[Torycanyon]

Re-Circ does exactly that. Recirculates the already Contaminated Air, and not supplying anymore Fresh Air. The Flow rate is also stronger on the 146 unlike the Boeing in Re-Circ.:{

[Baby Jane]

Must comment on the comments posted by 'POM'.

POM you make 4 industry type comments:

1. Where are the multi million pound settlements against the airlines and manufacturers for causing this?

2. I've been flying 757's for years with no fume events.

3. If there is no proof, as I suspect, this thread is in the right place - the rumours section of a rumours site.

4. Who are AOPIS


COMMENT 1

Many cases are ongoing in court here in OZ but also in the UK and USA, but everyone here in Oz knows that Judy Cullinane got US$2 Million out of court settlement to not put forward the data she had. Also, what about the 50 plus workers compensation claims that have SUCCESFULLY found in the sick crew members favour here ? Most crews know nothing about the health implications and just accept things as a normal working environment but that is changing slowly and passengers, well, they are treated like baggage and told nothing. I was a cabin crew member on the 146 and 320 here in Perth and had hundreds of passengers with paper in front of their noses with fumes over the years and asking for head ache tablets such was the effect of the fumes.

When you have seen colleagues affected for life, then you will take it more seriously.

COMMENT 2

Maybe you haven't and thats great news but do you know what you are looking for? The 757 crews in the USA tell me that when they put the packs on after start they get a whiff on 75% of flights, even though it may be quite low in intensity, but its the low level exposure to these things that is the worry. They also tell me they never write it up as the industry has enough problems so of course their union will not know!! And I know what I am talking about as my brother-in-law is a United 757 pilot and he says they all know!

COMMENT 3

NO proof you say, well you are obviously not a BALPA member as they had a conference in April in London and invited ALL the world experts and concluded:

‘There is a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew)’.

‘Further, we are concerned the passengers may also be suffering from similar symptoms to those exhibited by flight crew’.

‘This, we conclude, is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications’.

COMMENT 4

AOPIS is an Australian non profit group set up some 5 years ago and made up of over 700 affected crew members world wide. I am a member and I believe they have done more for this issue than all other unions put together. They made the DVD which is used by BALPA, the ITF and others in the UK and the RAAF and AFAP etc.. here in Oz along with many other unions. They get my vote.

Bet your brother is that Martin Alder guy!

[lomapaseo]

NO proof you say, well you are obviously not a BALPA member as they had a conference in April in London and invited ALL the world experts and concluded:

‘There is a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew)’.

‘Further, we are concerned the passengers may also be suffering from similar symptoms to those exhibited by flight crew’.

‘This, we conclude, is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications’.

The above certainly may mislead the readers of this forum.

Yes a conference was held and yes it was the opinion of the conference organizers that the conclusion above should apply and that's why they mostly invited folks with like opinions.

However there was no consensus at the conference even though the organizers tried in vain to convince all attendees of their pre ordained conclusions.

A little bit like the opening title of this thread which attempts to answer its own questions.

So after all these pages of discussions have you yet concluded that your case has not been made?

In the end, if you want something done, you have to convince all stakeholders of its viability.

[cabincrew47]

The above certainly may mislead the readers of this forum.

Yes a conference was held and yes it was the opinion of the conference organizers that the conclusion above should apply and that's why they mostly invited folks with like opinion

Iomapaseo,

If you return to the original post of this thread you will see that representatives of all interested parties were invited to make a presentation at the conference.

Please get your facts correct before denegrating the people (BALPA, AOPIS and T&G) who are willing to give up time and money in the interests of flight and cabin crew.

[alibaba]

Terraplane blues, I think you agree with me.

I am not an engineer, but common sense dictates that if the contamination is from the bleed air which is what air con is running on, making a higher flow is giving more fumes into the cabin.:confused:

The very point is that it is not fresh air you are putting into the cabin. By switching the recirc fans off, all you are doing is eliminating a possible source of smoke fumes and making a/c units go to high flow. :confused: It is this air that is contaminated. If you are trying to remove the smoke/ fumes you increase the ventilation rate by the outflow valve posistion.

Effectivelly depresurising the aircraft. A bit extreme. That was my point.:ugh:

[Dolly with brains!]

CAA LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND LIES

Have you read the CAA Cabin Air Quality Paper of 2004 ? What a lot of bull! They never asked anybody in the T&G for our input!

Section 3.5.1 reads.... The tricresyl phosphates are organophosphates and the ortho isomer is an anticholinesterase which can induce “Organophosphate Induced Delayed Neuropathy” (OPIDN). The meta and para isomers of cresyl phosphate are not as toxic as the ortho isomer and are not reported as inducing OPIDN. The delayed peripheral neuropathy is a progressive condition where the peripheral nerves become unable to transmit impulses. This produces a characteristic set of symptoms which are not consistently present in the symptom profiles reported in the cabin air quality incidents.”

The “symptom profiles” is highly selective and conveniently ignores the numerous symptoms being experienced in crews and passengers and is focusing only on the medical condition known as OPIDN. As crews are hardly examined following fumes events by the CAA it appears that important data is being ignored.

The CAA statement in 3.5.1 only looks at OPIDN and conveniently forgets about Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity (OPICN) which comes from repeated low level exposure to organophosphates such as the TCP in the engine oils, as distinct from OPIDN studies which require significantly higher level of exposures to produce that condition. The symptoms being experienced by crews around the world from my research on the web and from chats in the galleys seem very much in line with TCP exposure. A search on Pub Med shows that OPICN is now being linked to engine oil and hydraulic lubricants exposures:

“Furthermore, OPICN induced by low-level inhalation of organophosphates present in jet engine lubricating oils and the hydraulic fluids of aircraft could explain the long-term neurologic deficits consistently reported by crewmembers and passengers, although organophosphate levels may have been too low to produce OPIDN.” - Prof Abou-Donia - Archives of Environmental Health - August 2003 [Vol. 58 (No. 8)]

So perhaps the UK Committee on Toxicity (COT) were on the right path in 1999 when they commisioned research into low level exposure to OPs and Abou-Donia seems to have confirmed this.

Will any industry folk who post their lies on this site please post in their true name / business and under write any future illness to crews from repeated low level exposure to OPs and contaminated air ?

Don't think so as they know their time is running out.

If I get pregnant I know I won't be flying at all whatever more lies the CAA come up with.

[Joetom]

A few points of interest.

1. Think the B787/7E7 will not use engine air for air con.???

2. Most airlines now keep 757 eng oil below full.???

3. More understanding of long term exposure to oil fumes.???

I belive that we will have a greater understanding to the effects of exposure to oil fumes in the future.

Do you want a fagg.???????????????????????

[Mr. Sanderson]

During my former job engineer specialized in airconditioning systems I have delt with complaints of crews and passengers smelling dirty socks or suffering from headaches. To be honest I (we) have never found a reasonable explaination (except for one occasion in which it was caused by the ground crew attachting a jet starter to the aircrafts extenal airconditioned air jack, and thereby blowing exhaust air from a small jet engine directly into the cabin). We have taken measuring equipement into the cabin, cleaned entire bleed air systems, replaced filters and had them chemically analysed, cleaned airco ducts but never really found a reason for the dirty sock smell. The next step that I was planning to do was to check the route of the airplane that it flew and see if maybe the smell was caused by the ingestion and compression of polluted air, however I left the company before I could start this part of the investigation.

And with regard to the fact that the problems are only emerging since the beginning of the 80-s, that because the aircraft manufacturers started to introduce re-circulation fans to decrease the amount of bleed air to be taken from the engine and thereby increasing the fuel efficiency of the aircraft but still meet the FAA/JAA required level of "fresh" air to each passenger. This lowered the number of times the air in the cabin was completly refreshed considerably. The filters in the recirc system cleaned the air from airborne particles making it "fresh" again, but since particles that cause air to smell are very small this was not filtered out. The latest HEPA filters are somewhat of an improvement since the mesh size of the filter is such that it filters out more airborne particles cleaning the air even more. However this does introduce a new problem and that is that the filters should be considered medical waste since it also filters out aerolized germs. When following the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) in that case, maintenance personel should wear protective clothing and mouth and nose protection...

So you see when "solving" one thing you introduce another problem.

Cheers

[Full Moon]

Having read this thread and experienced what is being discussed I thought i would put my bit into the discussion for whats its worth for all sides.

I fly the 757 for a UK Charter airline and YES I have often smelt the dirty sock smell as have many of those I fly with, like nearly all the crews I know we accept this as the normal 757 smell. The smell may be a few seconds, sometimes minutes but who knows how long its there for as its clear we become desensitised. I too have often felt tired, slow and had the other symptoms reported to be linked possibly to contaminated air exposure like headaches, nausea, fatigue etc.. I have made mistakes on the plane I have never made in the simulator when I have smelt the contaminated air, so I do believe the symptoms and errors are linked to the smells. I go home washed out and some hours later feel better so hopefully I am only affected short term but who knows!

My doctor does now!

I agree that contaminated air detection systems should be fitted to make the decision making easier for the crews and this will also protect them from employers and the CAA who have different priorities. Commercial over health.

I think this thread shows a clear difference between believers and non believers. I think it a sad reflection on BALPA that their own FSG Chairman Martin Alder should be a clear non believer when many in BALPA obviously do care as they sent me a DVD on the issue last summer which must have cost alot (and money well spent). This no doubts stops the union progressing the issue as it deserves to be progressed with energy and determination.

Rather than argue, take the logical solutions:

> Fit Detectors
> Fit Filters
> Analyse the oil for toxic effects as crews are exposed to confirm the Chronic Neurotoxic effects suspected to be link to inhalation of the oils.

If the passengers get to know the truth, we will all suffer.

I am alert to this issue now but most are ignorant, BALPA must educate the membership as a matter of urgency

Tony

[Torycanyon]

Tony, some good points there.The most of which are worrying to me, as I have only recently joined FLYBE on the BAE146.
I hear a lot of mumbling in the crewroom when this topic is approached and answers do not seem to be forth coming.:confused:

[cwatters]

Aside:

I think companies that fill compressed air bottles for divers and other purposes are aware of a related issue - the possibility of oil mist contamination from the compressor. Perhaps they have done more resarch on this or have access to air quality testing facilities that would be of interest?

[West Coast Flyer]

I fly the 757 for a US Carrier, mostly out of SFO and often smell the smells discussed on this thread.

Before this I flew the 146 for a US Carrier and boy was that a stinker!

Fumes are also real in the States, not just the Uk and Australia.

[cabincrew47]

From thread - Birdstrike at MAN

Yep, twas a Monarch A300 bound for CHQ. I know. I was on it. Takeoff was pretty
noisy down the back where I was, but the noise and vibration declined to
something close to normal once power was reduced. The only nasty
bit was the unpleasant smell of burned bird that drifted through the cabin during
the takeoff roll. Return to MAN was uneventful and nicely handled by all
concerned.

Thanks are due to the folks who turned out on their days off to fly us to HER
that night on a replacement A330. Boos and hisses are due to Swissport for checking
in the same two pax twice throwing out the tally and delaying our eventual departure
by a further two hours over the 12 already incurred

How did "The only nasty bit was the unpleasant smell of burned bird that drifted through the cabin during the takeoff roll" happen????

Do I take it that the bleed air got contaminated?????

Interesting!

Discuss

[lomapaseo]

How did "The only nasty bit was the unpleasant smell of burned bird that drifted through the cabin during the takeoff roll" happen????

Do I take it that the bleed air got contaminated?????

What's your point?:confused:

Are you trying to get a discussion about the meaning of thje word contaminated:confused:

It could be that most of the responders to this thread have assumed different meanings.

Are we talking purely olefactory, short term or long term, single flight dibilitating or chronic being influenced by non-flying enviorments as well?

[satis 5]

what does it say,
when crews comment on alledged smells,
but do not follow company procedures for such,
do not complete air quality forms....?

most aircraft can be made affected by smells if operated in a certain way,
contrary to operating procedures.

if problems occur, it'll take rational people to help identify the cause, the more information the better.

certain operators have flown with analysers on aircraft alledged to be problematic,
for no abnormal readings to be found.

[allsystemsgo]

The thing is everyone knows the 146 has a very unique odour & its just been accepted as normal, but its not Ok anylonger & the manufacturer has to address the leaking oil properly once & for all, no matter what it takes. After all thier own Service bulletin says that the fumes used to be seen as a nuisance & now must be seen as a threat to flight safety!! What about the crews safety, namely their health.

It's time for the regulators to acknowledge they are way out of their depth & start listening to the independent experts & take this seriously. The coverup HAS TO STOP.

Then again I hear its not only the 146, but also the 757, A320, MD80, E145............... Fix the PROBLEM before the passengers make you!

[airship]

Anyone interested in gas-detection instuments might like to browse here. (http://www.draeger.com/ST/internet/UK/en/Products/Detection/detection.jsp)

[Dolly with brains!]

If anybody thought BRE were looking after the workers or passenger welfare, think again. BRE are the industry puppets who did some of the useless air sampling for the UK government a few years back. Useless, because the flights they did were not fume event flights but then that should not surprise anybody, look at page 62 of the full report:

Similarly, we thank BAE Systems, in particular XXX and XXX. They helped us identify and recruit a suitable airline with BAE 146 aircraft and XXX accompanied and helped on each of those flights.

WHAT A SURPRISE!!!!

BRE are in bed with BAE and not to be trusted.

Remember the 2003 BRE air quality conference when they invited everyone who had vested interests to their 'meeting of lies' and forgot to invite the sick crews, unions, scientists or doctors who had the facts they did not want to hear.

How the government can allow such lies is a disgrace.

Congratulations on BALPA for holding the first open and honest conference on air quality.

[Tony Bonzo]

'Dolly with Brains' I agree, but its not just BRE than cannot be trusted, the CAA are as guilty as sin for their part in the cover up and failure to protect the crews and passengers.

The CAA in their 2004 Cabin Air Quality paper states in section 3.5.2 of their report...

“3.5.2 The occupational exposure limit for tricresylphosphate should be interpreted in the light of the ortho isomer of tricresyl phosphate (TOCP) being the most toxic and the meta and para isomers being listed as relatively non-toxic.”

Tricresylphosphate (TCP) is a generic name for 10 structurally similar isomers. TOCP is one of the isomers that makes up TCP but not the most toxic. MOCP and DOCP are more toxic isomers and present in engine oils at considerably higher levels than TOCP.

Amazingly the CAA paper fails to mention the existence of these more toxic isomers anywhere in their paper. Poor research or cover up?

[Billy Sampsom]

Interesting thread, with some obvious 'interested parties' posting here. I decided to sign up and post to give you a US perspective having researched this issue for 3 years.

We have 2 main industry players in this game the FAA and UK CAA who have their strings pulled by the rest of the industry.

The FAA are currently researching this issue as the NAS concluded more research was needed. FAA accept crews can get sick, its the 'how' they don't fully understand yet.

I know 7 pilots who now have neurological problems which their occupational history links to fumes in the workplace.

The CAA in the UK say all is well but the British CAA is funded by industry and hence the difference in attitude to the FAA. I believe the CAA is protecting BAe who are in law suits with numerous plaintiffs.

Whats gets me is how the CAA say its all OK when their 2004 Air Quality paper (which reminded me of Pravda such were the number of errors) states clearly: '...Finally, it is important to note that, although some references are made concerning long term health effects, the scope of this research did not include an attempt to determine the extent of any such risk.'

Lets accept crews are sick and protect the industry and passengers from future lawsuits by sorting this matter out as a matter of utmost urgency.

Billy Sampsom
Portland
Oregon

[Dream Buster]

A few weeks ago now there was an article in the Daily Mail about some scientists from a Belfast University who had done some research on lack of oxygen in pax (not pilots!) whilst flying and had found that levels in the blood drop from 97% before flight to 93% at altitude. If this same thing happened to a patient in hospital (who wasn't flying!) they would immediately be given 'extra oxygen'.

Perhaps there is a problem with low O2 and being gassed and that the former problem is the real culprit.

Anybody got a link to that study as I think it's probably relavent.

Just thinking.

:E

[lomapaseo]

A few weeks ago now there was an article in the Daily Mail about some scientists from a Belfast University who had done some research on lack of oxygen in pax (not pilots!) whilst flying and had found that levels in the blood drop from 97% before flight to 93% at altitude. If this same thing happened to a patient in hospital (who wasn't flying!) they would immediately be given 'extra oxygen'.

Perhaps there is a problem with low O2 and being gassed and that the former problem is the real culprit.

Anybody got a link to that study as I think it's probably relavent.

Just thinking.

Wow! I've been in the low 90% several times without the need for O2. In fact I can't recall any feeling of unwell. Now being in the 80's is a bit more concerning.

[Thimphu]

Interesting that contamination in the air supply of the 146/RJ, is still an emotive issue, as it should be , after all this time. And it would appear to be still unsolved.
I flew the 146/RJ for 10 years, including Australian registered ones. On some aircraft there was a definite smell of oil or dirty socks if you prefer. The usual fix from the engineers, was " pack cleaned, tested and found servicable" But more often than not, the smell returned.
During the period that I flew the 146/RJ, I cannot recall feeling unwell.
However three years later my medical was withdrawn by the CAA, and that was the end of my flying career. After 34 years of flying all round the world, I was forced to retire, at the tender age of 53. And the reason - I was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease . My PD nurse said it could be that breathing contaminated air, for all those years could have acted as a trigger , to the Parkinson's - who knows. But how to prove it, now that is another matter entirely.

[Trol E Doll]

I have flown on many aircraft in my days..and found occasionally an oily smell, usually during take off. The 757 is one of the worst. But neither I , nor anyone I know, has ever had medical side efffects from it.

So, can anyone put scale on it. How many crew, as a percentage of the worldwide crew numbers, have suffered PROVEN side effects from fume inhalation on board an aircraft?

[neutrino]

Just came across this thread folks, been gone awhile; all I want to do is log my symptoms of 146itis: every morning for about two hours, severe hayfever-like symptoms; went back on the 737, cleared up within a week. Non-smoking free-range country boy, early thirties, no allergies. That airplane was unhealthy.

[BirdyBoy]

Neutrino, I know what you mean having flown the 146 for 4 years but now with XX on the 737 but still get gassed but to a lesser extent.

The 146 is not a safe working environment and after one of our pilots was terminated because our employer could not 'ensure a safe working environment' you had to shut up or vote with your feet! I recall several flights where crews forgot to lower the gear, or missed RT calls or acted dumb as their heads were not working as you would expect when we smelt the dirty socks. But you know how it is, nobody speaks out. I should have then and do now.

To answer the question by Trol E Doll, first we had many passengers complaining and getting off sick but we never asked who they were so hell knows what happens to the sick passengers and young children. My cousin is a legal guy in Perth and he tells me there are over 100 accepted 'workers compensation claims' in all states of Australia due to individuals being sick due to air contamination events.

I remember one flight into Perth we had nearly all the passengers asleep and the plane smelt bad, 2 FAs could not get off their seats and it was lunchtime! To me that was CO and others toxic compounds that did that, the captain refused to write it up.

We never used oxygen but if I was back on the flying gas chamber I would now. It has affected me I am sure of it.

[Dave]

How would I know if I am breathing contaminated air? Is there a smell or is it odourless?

I have experienced a "wet oily rag" smell on A320 aircraft.

Whats the risk - is it a cumalative affect or will one exposure cause problems?

What about fumes from jet engines (eg when taxying behind another aircraft)?

Also, when the engines are shut down they are smokey as oil seems to be burnt. This is causing concern amongst fuelers and pilots doing the walk-round. Is there any potential problem with this?

Cheers.

[safetypee]

Dave
You pose some basic questions that I suggest you should not be over concerned about.

We all breathe contaminated air in aircraft and our daily activities, the issue is the extent of any harm (if any) from contaminants – what are they and thus what are their concentrations. The current and quite rightly valid concern arises predominantly from oil in the air supply. Most modern oil formulations contain potentially harmful contaminants, but to date none of the science based investigations have identified any concentrations that would endanger health, even after a major oil leak. Some research suggests that there are several orders of magnitude of safety margin.

The immediate in-flight risks arise from the irritant effect of a contaminant and other constituents of oil. For example the ‘sweaty socks’ smell may come from valeric acid (Pentanoic Acid) in oil. Apart from the smell it is highly irritable even in the lowest concentrations and may effect vision and give a distinctly unwell feeling (sickness).
Oil contamination can result from overfilling APUs, engine leaks, or residual oil deposits from previous failures that have not been cleaned properly (plus de-icing fluid, acid rain, skin, and everything else in a conditioning system).
The defences are to apply threat and error management principles; avoid the problem in the first place with good maintenance and rectification; where problems are identified combat the threat with safety drills and then mitigate the effects; if the problem is serious then the aircraft safety is paramount - divert. Serious problems are rare events, although currently there is excessive attention on the subject. Perhaps like flight without hydraulics when the novelty of the event occurrence wears off the industry will revert to a more balanced view.

If more than a transient oil smell is detected then precautions against irritation should be taken; use oxygen masks, goggles, etc. Beware the human factor of adapting to the intensity of a smell, you think that it has decreased over time, but it has not. Also be aware of differences in personal susceptibility to both irritants and smells; some smells in the extreme can be disabling.
Illness or degraded performance due to irritants are rare, but can be self generating and infectious, this may result in pseudo illness in other crew members. Again human issues - ‘it won’t effect me’, but it could.

Fresh oil smell is an indicator of a transient or change; old oil smells and a range of other smells have been associated with longer term problems – residual oil, dirty air conditioning systems (or aircraft), or the original problem not being fixed. Beware of ‘ground tested found serviceable – no oils smell/leak detected’.

Jet engine fumes are predominately carbon monoxide; whilst this is potentially lethal your exposure risks are far higher on the journey to work than taxying behind another aircraft – it is the change of conditions that you are detecting.

As for cumulative effects the debate continues, but I think your best policy is to avoid smokers rather than worry about flying. Worry contributes to stress, which degrades human performance, which is central to safe operations.

[Dolly with brains!]

Its nice to see that industry by way of 'safetypee' are up to their ususal games of misinforming everyone.

Lets look at the facts:

1. Crews are reporting neurological problems and Exxon Mobil and other lubricant manufacturers admit they have never tested their products for any effect less than OPIDN, they have NEVER tested for Chronic Neurotoxic effects and NEVER tested the effects of their product heated and inhaled by test animals (except crews and passengers).

2. UK CAA admit in their 2004 paper they have not look at long term effects.

3. The organophosphate TCP has been found on the walls of the cockpit, on pilots trousers in HEPA filters and in roof top filters (Chris van Netten BALPA conference, London 2005)

4. CAA and AAIB are protecting British Industry i.e. British Aeropace and not crews and the passengers. T&G, ITF, BALPA and IPA all accept crews crews are sick, but CAA DEAF!

5. British pilot union BALPA conference of May 2005 concluded crews are sick.

So stop the lies and listen to the facts. Crews and passengers are sick when filters could have been fitted to protect them. My best friend is also UK cabin crew and she is sick and her employer has accepted liability on a fume exposure.

When I smell fumes I tell any passenger who asks exactly what the smell is what they are being exposed to as the pilots are too scared to do so.

[RF101C]

An interesting thread here! Seems like a number of people, not as many as appears from the names, but does appear from the style of writing, are trying to get a campaign going! I assume like over here, some serious green stuff stands to be made if they win.

Always thought that those who shout loud and aggressive have a poor case and so it seems. Anyone who challenges these allegations (unproven it seems) get a real earful! The USAF had 500 plus F111’s 500 plus C130s so where are our affected persons, or do the Aussies have something unique to deal with? Perhaps after all our junk food we have got hardened to it!

How do you filter out the smell of Bar B Q seagull or, do you Brits and Aussies have the technology for that ahead of us? We get stuff like that on TV, this will fix your cooker clean your car, etc. I figure if it really was that cheap and easy it would be done already, but I am a simple old country boy flying airplanes!

Can I get stocks in the outfit making this claim to fix this problem, they will be printing cash if it works?

[OCTANE100]

Gents,

Do yourselves a favour and have a look at the M.S.D.S. (Material safety data sheets..) sheets for jet II, If that is the oil the 146 runs.... It is very nasty stuff. As a vapour I am sure it would be even worse!!
Regards...

[AOPIS]

FAA bleed air research project, including incident exposure data and health effects gets the go ahead.

We wish to congratulate the American Flight Attendants Association (AFA) and the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) for being accepted as the 2 union representative bodies on the US$ 1.9 million Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funded project on bleed air research, which was given the final approval to begin last week and will finish in March 2007. This research will be conducted by the "Occupational Health Research Consortium in Aviation" (OHRCA) and members of the “FAA Center of Excellence for Airliner Cabin Environment Research" (ACER).

We also commend the US FAA for taking a world lead on researching openly this issue unlike some other regulators who do all they can to 'confuse' and 'mislead' the public and crews.

[Jane @ Mesa]

I work for a 'leading' regional carrier, good job but we also have repeated air quality events. My union the AFA are doing video screening and information sessions in August and I hope to attend one of those. Visit http://ashsd.afacwa.org for details. People ask what its like to live an air quality event. It really depends on the individual, I have seen crews with tremors, others cannot count or remember what the guy in 20A wanted to drink. If we had an emergency many would not be able to open the doors let alone help the passengers. Air Quality events may not be every day on the job but they are real and you need to know the symptoms to make the link. Jane.

[Torycanyon]

Looks like Flybe's troubles are just starting, with more reports and incidents on their Dash 8- 400's coming to the fore.
Todays divertion to LBA is just another example of trouble a head.
With the introduction of the Embaer 195 next year you would have thought their troubles were nearly over. Far from it, it seems.
With the large orders for the -400, they may be in for a rude awakening.

[T-20 Minutes]

One of my buddies was crewing the flight below and he is NOT the first to smell the oil fumes but maybe one of the first to have the courage to act within US Airways.

We know what your talking about!

I know our airline has at least 2 gals sick from breathing the stuff.




US Airways plane makes unscheduled landing due to "odor" in cabin

http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=72924&SecID=2

[Tony Bonzo]

Yet again Fly Be exposing passengers and crews to contaminated air. They must do more than all other UK airlines put together! I agree with "CosmosSchwartz" Its always a Fly BE 146 or Dash 8 in the news for gassing sessions. I wonder if the passengers were told that they may develop neuroligical problems or have preganancy problems as a result of being exposed to burnt oil that contains the neurotoxic organophospahte TCP. I guess not.

It is a real disgrace that airlines do not offer crews and passengers the appropriate medical care following such events.

What is the CAA or HSE doing about this ?

Dash 8 now number 5 in the gas chamber charts...


1. Bae 146
2. MD80
3. B757
4. E-145
5. Dash 8
6. A320
7. B737-700
8. A330
9. F27
10. B777

[PilotsPal]

Radio 4, 12.04pm tomorrow, Wednesday 10 August - You and Yours. This subject gets an airing.

[marsipulami]

Remember flying the F27. After the flight, if you wiped your head with a white towel, it turned completely black.

And the smell with came from your clothes, just terrible.

[Nite Prowler]

I am left seat on a 757 for a cargo company and whether you believe the fumes are bad or OK, its happening alot. I and crews I fly with often get headaches, fatigue and blisters in our mouth soon after brething the fumes.

[Trislander]

Had the old smelly socks smell on the aircraft the other day whenever APU bleed air was selected. Some of the cabin crew felt nauseous and extremely weary but apparently because the problem could be isolated by not using APU bleed air and no-one passed out, it could not be entered into the tech log according to the engineers. And so the cycle of contaminations with nothing done to fix the problem repeats. :rolleyes:

[arcniz]

The ill wind of still-unknown circumstances that brought down the Helios 737 on Sunday will, with great certainty, bring concentrated attention to the topic that many have discussed here.

Organize your information and get your facts ready. Become prepared to describe the specifics you know - about incidents of flight deck and cabin air contamination - in a clear and unemotional manner.

Sad circumstances, but the connection is inescapable. The longer-term reaction to this tragedy seems to have the potential to focus greater attention regarding onboard air contamination in a manner that will lead to positive changes for future health and safety.

[brain fade]

Used to get it on our ERJ-145's but can't remember when I last smelt it. Was a 'smelly socks' type smell. Bleed air comes from one of two stages depending on power setting and it may have been present as air changed over from one stage to the other. It is fixable and has been as like I said it doesn't seem to happen now, but was very common at one time.
Never affected me anyway (I think!)

[Tony Bonzo]

Reference the sad news of the crashed Cypriot 737:


See:

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=21375&cat_id=1


“There are many theories being discussed. For example, I have just got off the phone to some colleagues in Greece who suspect that toxic and non-detectable fumes, like carbon monoxide, from the air condition system, may have leaked into the cockpit and caused the pilots to lose consciousness. However, that would not explain any possible cabin pressure drop.”


It may be nothing to do with this thread but surely this should be a reminder that detection systems be fitted URGENTLY.

[jaja]

We have had this problem on our A320 fleet for year, coming and going. Some times the "old socks" smell, other times a "chemical" smell. It appears almost always during descent, around 10-15000 ft, often starting in the rear cabin.

Most times maintenance finds a oil or hydraulic leak at the aft underside of the fuselage, and says these fluids enter the APU air inlet, and then then the aircondition.

Our company says engine oil is NOT harmful, but only hydraulic fluids in aircond. system is harmful ?

Other out there with contaminated cabin air experience on the A320 ?

[missioncontrol]

Have occasionally smelt an emulsion paint type smell, also a bit like "Fuller's Earth".

Only experienced this on one A320, during descent and as previous correspondent describes, passing FL150 down to 100.

Will be interesting to see if industry addresses this issue.

Hold your breath chaps.

[Dolly with brains!]

A friend at Air Canada tells me a British Airways Boeing 777 diverted into Montreal in early August with oil fumes and the Canadaian Air Safety people are now investigating.
Does anybody know any details ?

For the A320 the wet dog smell is a familiar smell and is the neurotoxic engine oil being discussed on this thread.

[Dream Buster]

I had a chat with an AME (Aviation Medical Examiner) yesterday about the problem of fumes from the BAe 146; he practices from a major 146 base in the UK. I have been flying them for the last 15 years.

It became apparent that he wasn't aware of the problem at all. At one point he mentioned something about 'germs in the air conditioning' which told me that he had no idea that it was an oil based source.

I was quite shocked that he knew nothing, especially as there was a conference about it this spring etc. He also said that the CAA don't tell AME's what is going on.....

So my questions are - Do you think it strange that this Doctor is still totally unaware of the problem? Is it not part of their job to keep up with events? Shouldn't the CAA have advised them?

I can assure you that if you ask a professional Doctor for his opinion about the issue and he genuinely denies any knowledge that it even exists, should I be surprised or worried?

I would be interested in your thoughts, chaps and chapesses.

[Paterbrat]

Remember the mouldy/wet sock smell from the BAC111 years ago, generaly on the descent through about 12,000' or lower. Any commonality with the 146 pressurisation system ?

[Trislander]

Paterbrat,

It is possible that the contaminated air in this case originated in the APU as the APU is started up during the descent ready to provide the air con and gnd power once the engines are shut down on the ground. Anyone else with greater tech knowledge care to correct me/elaborate?

T

[Torycanyon]

Flown most of our 146's now and they all stink to High Heaven.
Why is there nothing done about this? Is it lack of interest, Manpower, cost or not really bothered?

Unless there is another Helios.

[AOPIS]

1 September 2005

HELIOS BOEING 737 CRASH, CONTAMINATED AIR ?

AOPIS PRESS RELEASE

WORLDWIDE


Whilst investigations continue into the circumstances of tragic accident to the Helios Boeing 737 crash of last month in Greece, it is important that the investigators look into all aspects of the investigation WITHOUT being influenced by interested parties.

The question in everyone's mind is how were the pilots incapacitated.

Some tell us that the aircraft may have been only slightly pressurised as the crew are reported to have taken off in 'Manual' mode instead of 'Automatic' with the controller in the 1/3 open position and hence it is hypoxia that caused the crew to become incapacitated however this story does not appear to be the full truth but may be a convenient way to blame the pilots rather than accept what could be an industry cover up.

All commercial jet aircraft have a cockpit warning system which warns the pilots when the aircraft internal cabin pressure reaches 10000ft. Maximum cabin altitudes on commercial jet aircraft can reach about 8000ft so at 10000ft the flight crew have enough time to cancel the aural / visual warnings and deal with the problem and this is why 10000ft was accepted as a sensible point to warn the crews.

It is reported that on the Helios flight the crew were ALREADY incapacitated by the time the cabin altitude reached 10000ft as the warning was never cancelled by the crew as is standard practice to do so. So how is this possible and what could have done this ?

It is reported by other Helios crew that the crash aircraft had a history of 'Strange Smells' yet those who have publically reported these events have NEVER been contacted by the accident investigators. Strange smells on commercial jet aircraft are usually linked to a CONTAMINATED AIR SUPPLY, so what could have contaminated the air to produce the smells and what effects could it have ?

The air being breathed by the pilots and flight attendants WHICH IS NOT FILTERED FOR TOXIC FUMES could have been contaminated by electrical fumes due to wiring problems or by engine oils and hydraulic fluids. This has been known for over 30 years in the airline industry and yet there are NO contaminated air detection systems fitted on commercial jet aircraft!

We are aware of many previous examples of pilots becoming incapacitated due to exposure to invisible oil and hydraulic fumes, we and the industry are also aware of many serious flight safety errors where crews have made serious flight safety errors due to contaminated air.

Boeing, Airbus, British Aerospace and other manufacturers all know about this problem but like the early days of smoking, many choose to deny the issue or do all they can to cover the issue up. Crews around the world often experience contaminated air and do nothing to protect themselves out of ignorance or fear of being seen as a trouble maker.

In 2000, following a double crew incapacitation, the Australian Senate completed a year long inquiry into these matters and concluded crews WERE getting sick and that flight safety WAS being compromised.

Since then, in 2000 the Canadian Transport Bureau Interim report on Swissair 111 accident, stated:

"…recognition that within the aviation industry there has been belief that odours are often a non event diminishing concern about minor odours."

British Aerospace who have known for over 20 years of contaminated air problems on the BAe 146 stated a few years ago in an engineering Service Bulletin (number SB 21-150):

"In the past oil leaks and cabin/flight deck smells and fumes may have come to be regarded as a nuisance rather than a potential flight safety issue. However whilst investigations are being carried out to determine the nature of any agents that may be released into the cabin environment and to define any necessary corrective actions, oil leaks and cabin flight deck smells must be regarded as a potential threat to flight safety not just a nuisance."

The Australian Safety Board (ATSB), the British Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB), The Swedish Air Accident Investigation Branch etc… all know about these issues and have done so for many years but manufacturers and many airlines fail to take adequate actions to protect passengers and crews.

Below are some examples from the UK alone where crews have been incapacitated due to fumes but the same reports exists in all countries. It may well be that on this sad occasion it has had tragic consequences but we were warned…..

Former Australian BAe 146 pilot Mr Nevan Pavlinovich stated in the AOPIS documentary: 'Contaminated Air: An Ongoing Health and Safety Issue' in 2003 that:

"if there is an accident it won't be an accident, as everyone knows about it!".

The Greek coroner Mr Kotsaftis tells the media that the dead pilots had no carbon monoxide poisoning so there was no contaminated air. The industry knows that you frequently get contaminated air with no carbon monoxide!

The oils crews are breathing contain organophosphates which are neurotoxins which the United States Air Force previously warned were dangerous when inhaled!

The accident investigation should be part of an open public inquiry and not allowed to be another industry cover up where pilots are blamed for errors when they may have become incapacitated due to an industry in denial of what is a serious health and safety issue.

We have numerous examples of crew becoming incapacitated in flight and available on request by email.

For more information visit www.aopis.org or Sally at [email protected]

[Kalium Chloride]

pax cant see a 146 engine shut down


Because they've been half-blinded by leaking oil fumes, I presume? :uhoh:

[MOR]

More ignorance! It is Boeing aircraft that lead the way in fumes incidents (particularly the 757/767).

No more dissing the queen of the skies without, you know, actual facts... :ok:

[CosmosSchwartz]

MOR - BALPA beg to differ, and they have the facts;)

Plenty of occurences on Boeing, but the 146 is the main problem as far as they are concerned.

[MOR]

As far as fumes go, the BALPA study was actually directed at 757,737 and A320 air quality - see http://www.aopis.org/BALPA757SURVEYp253-262.pdf

The 146 has a longer documented history of fumes, which merely prompted everyone to look at other types. It is interesting that in the Balpa list of the worst offenders, the 146 was second behind the 757. In terms of numbers, the 757 has affected far more people than the 146 has (owing to numbers in service and number of pax carried). The 757 was clearly the focus of concern, no doubt driven by the many BA pilots who have experienced fume problems.

More to the point, the number of fumes incidents on the 146 declined dramatically once the problem was understood, and proper maintenance procedures put in place. Our company was particularly picky about making sure the ducts were clean.

Personally, I think it is outrageous that more has not been done in the way of filters etc, but there you go.

I'd still far rather fly the 146 than the Q400.

[prob30]

MOR,

Carry on flying it then and stop being a t*t every time a q400 thread is mentioned on this forumn. Personally id rather my 737 than your quardapuff but now im decending to you level (and speed) - if you get my drift.

[GrahamCurry]

>your quardapuff

Surely it's spelt 'wiff 'n puff' ?

Didn't they write a song about it?

[iskandra]

Oh dear- do I, as pax, have to be ashamed to actually *like* the quadrapuff? Never had any fume problem travelling in one....the only emergency I ever had was aboard a Fokker 100- and it was one hell of a fume problem; vision below 30 cms in the cabin!:yuk:

[Mach1October14]

This is a very interesting thread to which I will add my few words based on 40 years flying experience.

When I flew the F4 for the USAF in the 60s we had problems with contaminated air and the oil was MObil Jet OIl II back then if I recall correctly. Many crews made alot of errors which was believed to be due to this but quickly hushed up by those upstairs.

When I flew the 320 for a US carrier we often had the same smells with passengers and the gals down the back with the symptoms reported on this thread and yes the passengers were never told anything.

How can a problem that everyone knows about go on for over four decades ?

If the Helios crash is linked to contaminated fumes then Boeing may well be in serious problems so it does not surprise me (but very worrying for justice) to read that Boeing are part of the Greek Accident Team.

Saw this information link on the net:

http://ashsd.afacwa.org/?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=1396

[CosmosSchwartz]

Good display of selective reading MOR. That particular survey was aimed at boeing aircraft, however the catalyst behind the campaign was Balpa - The aircraft environment (http://www.balpa.org/intranet/BALPA-Camp/The-Aircra/The-Aircraft-Environment.pdf)

with such gems as

"Most aircraft, such as the Boeing 747 and 767 and the Airbus A340,have virtually no reported flight deck contamination problems. Others, however, and most notably the BAe 146, are well known for the occasional leakage of contaminated air into the bleed air system."

and

"....while the BAe146 is clearly one of the main culprits, other aircraft such as the Boeing 757 also produce significant amounts of pollutant"

[Torycanyon]

MOR,

The 146 is top of the league table, always has been and always will be untill they address the problem seriously.

Closely followed by the :-

B757
Emb145
MD83
A320
With a New Entry just bubbling under.........at..........
Yes you've guessed it, the very Soon To Be INFAMOUS............



Wait for it.............













The Bombardier Dash8 Q400.

[Mach1October14]

MOR, Are you a manager at FlyBe? Your comments on the 146 being low fume are totally unfounded and a lie.

Do a proper search on the Internet if you want to know the truth.

Allso the 757 story is not as straight forward as the 146 story as it has different engine suppliers whereas the 146 always had the junk engines with the seals which still do not work properly!

Torycanon, your comments on the Dash 8 being another flying gas chamber in FlyBe are equally well placed here in the US as Horizon Air have had fume problems as well.

Can anybody tell me why FlyBe in the UK seem to have so many fume events accordinging to an Internet and search of the UK AAIB website ?

At the BALPA conference in London earlier this year, a friend who attended was told that every BAe 146 pilot in the UK was being contacted by BALPA. Has the data been published yet?

Perhaps this should be on the other PPrune thread on contaminated air ?

[MOR]

Well I'll pass on telling you who I am, however I will tell you that I have read all the confidential memos from BAe, have been to one of the earlier symposiums on the subject, and have been involved at a fairly high level in a few of the investigations. I have also been involved in two fumes incidents myself.

One of the problems with the 146 is that the stats on fumes events on this aircraft paint a far worse picture than actually exists. This is mainly because BAe were keen that every operator record every event, no matter how trivial. In my company, very few of the events recorded were of a serious nature, and I know for sure that several were completely spurious. There was one I was involved in, for example, where the F/O felt ill but nobody else did, and there was no evidence of fumes. Nevertheless we diverted back to our departure aerodrome, and a toxicological examination of the F/O's blood revealed no evidence of fumes or even CO (you have to do the blood test within 30 mins to get a viable sample, which he did). So despite the fact that our man was clearly ill for "other reasons", it went down as a fumes event and there was a major investigation that grounded the aircraft for the whole day whilst all the ducts were removed. No trace of oil was found, and I spent the entire day doing paperwork on it.

Because the culture at the time was to report every little event, the figures on 146 fumes events are in fact artificially high compared to other manufacturers. The diligence shown in reporting has become a rod for BAe's back, who have been very upfront about the whole issue.

It is also worth noting that once proper procedures were put in place to monitor the aircraft and detect any oil contamination, no matter how slight, the (actual) fumes events virtually stopped. Our aircraft underwent thorough examinations weekly for any oil contamination, over and above normal checks during dailies.

There are other anomalies too - for example, the Australian Senate investigation was thoroughly alarmist and wasn't supported by CASA. It was considered by many to be a backside-covering exercise with a view to future claims. CASA did nothing to stop the aircraft operating, and neither has any other authority.

The bottom line is that any aircraft with an air conditioning system fed by bleed air can have a fumes event. The ATP used to regularly fill the cabin with smoke, usually as a result of failure of a labyrinth seal in the intercompressor region (from memory).

The 757 may not have had as many recorded fumes events, but if you look at the actual reports, you will find that only serious events were recorded anyway (unlike the 146). Even if you take the extant reports on the 757 as prima facie, the fact remains that more people have been affected by fumes events in the 757 than have in the 146.

There is a lot of complete crap put about about fumes events... it's a pity I can't just publish the confidential reports, because they would make quite a few posters here look like ill-informed fools.

And anyone who thinks the BALPA studies are either exhaustive or definitive clearly hasn't read them.

And frankly, anybody who forms a conclusion on the fumes problem solely on the basis of what is on the internet is a fool beyond belief. There are more lies about the subject on the net than anywhere else!

I suppose you believe the con-trailers too... :rolleyes:

[bleed_air]

Think people have forgotten how this topic started...Yet again another Q400 has been sent to the hangar and the 146 is left to pick up the bits....fact. It may have the air quality of a local nightclub but seems to peform better when airflow is passing over the wings. and being a right hand seater on a 146 and being called to do dash routes every other day...we see it how it is.

More worrying is the fact that the 146 is 60's technology that is still working well, where as a Q400 is modern technology that..well just isnt...and they are getting 40 more of the things! Great!...for my logbook as a 146er i guess!!

[Torycanyon]

There is still massive under reporting on the 146 ref fumes and air quality in general. The big incentive NOT to report it or enter anything into the techlog, is a compulsory visit to the local A & E department, for very painfull Arterial Blood samples to be taken if you do make an entry or file any reports.

I would suggest that this is merely the tip of the iceberg really.
How do you address the under reporting issue?

[Mach1October14]

MOR, I understand you are keen to promote the 146 as a nice plane and visually I agree its cute but 'you cannot be serious' as another famous countryman would say.

The 146 truth.... PART 1

More crews are sick long term and short term from the 146 than all other aircraft commercially put together. From Air BC over the border to FlyBe in Britain to NJS in Australia.

The internet shows the 146 has nearly 230 Service Bulletins and related engineering information sources in relation to contaminated air as compared to the 757 that has less than 25.

A Honeywell (well Allied Signal to be precise) employee produced a draft report which I have a copy of from air testing on the 146 where they found organophosphates at 4 times the level they 'would expose their own workforce'.

Having read the Australian Senate Investigation books I can tell you that CASA were VERY willing witnesses and stated that the issue was OUTSIDE THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE. BAe said that they could not fix the problem only try and improve it but based on the ongoing FlyBe, Sabena & Flightline incapacitations I hear about, I guess they have not got there yet!

The 146 is a flying gas chamber and it is only the British Government that has allowed this disgrace to go on so long. If it was a Boeing our FAA would have grounded the thing and sent it to the scrap yard years ago. Commercial aviation in the US votes with action and hence why we don't have many of them.

[MOR]

I don't think you would know the truth if it bit you in the ass.

First of all, the figures you come up with are completely meaningless. So what if there are more SB's in relation to the 146 than the Boeing? That could simply indicate a greater willingness on the part of BAe to deal with the same problem than Boeing has shown, and a greater effort to sort it out. You say that more people are sick long-term from working on the 146 than any other aircraft type. Where did you get that gem from? In all the years I was flying the 146, in a company running 17 of them, not one crewmember stopped work for medical reasons linked to fumes on the 146.

The reality is that many pilots have come out of the woodwork since the fumes problem first surfaced, and are claiming all sorts of things now that they have some basis for their claims - in true American fashion. We have you to thank from the present tendency to sue for anything.

Honeywell (well Allied Signal to be precise) employee produced a draft report which I have a copy of from air testing on the 146 where they found organophosphates at 4 times the level they 'would expose their own workforce'.

So what? One aircraft. I'll bet you could do the same for most types if you selected the right aircraft.

If CASA had any confidence in the report at all, they would have immediately revoked the type certificate in Australia and ground the aircraft. They didn't, and nor has any other national authority. Now why do you think that is? The only possible explanation is that they don't agree with the finding.

I'd be very interested to hear from anybody in flybe who knows of a pilot who has been incapacitated recently, because in the years I have been there I have only ever heard of one - and that pilot was back flying shortly thereafter.

it is only the British Government that has allowed this disgrace to go on so long. If it was a Boeing our FAA would have grounded the thing and sent it to the scrap yard years ago. Commercial aviation in the US votes with action and hence why we don't have many of them.

What a load of complete crap. The FAA could ground the 146 in the US tomorrow if they believed it was dangerous, and they have not done so. The fact that ANY 146's are flying in the US indicates that the FAA have no problem with it.

Well I had better go off and start preparing my lawsuit, I spilled my coffee just now and it is clearly due to nervous system damage caused by fumes on a 146 I flew five years ago...

[Tony Bonzo]

Dear MOR

You posted:

I'd be very interested to hear from anybody in flybe who knows of a pilot who has been incapacitated recently, because in the years I have been there I have only ever heard of one - and that pilot was back flying shortly thereafter.

Everyone in the airline business knows the FlyBe 146 fume problem. AAIB investigated a near crash you had into Birmingham a few years back.

Is that not why 200 pilots have left for cleaner better paid jobs in the last 18 months ? Does FlyBe not have the highest turnover of flight crew in the UK ? Don't hear of many at Virgin pilots leaving!!!

Any person with a portable air measuring device like a Carbon Monoxide detector could probably fly on 4 of your flights and get elevated readings on 75% of these flights. Why don't you invite the media to do it tomorrow if your so convinced they have alpine quality air!!!! You know the day the media take a trip and start measuring the air it will be time up.

I have 4 cabin crew friends in Fly Be who have all been sick with fumes now gone to safer air.

Reference the pilots you asked for, the following may refresh your memory....


SUNDAY TIMES
April 10, 2005

Leaking oil fumes threat to air crews
Dipesh Gadher, Transport Correspondent

THE co-pilot of a British passenger jet had to be put on oxygen in mid-flight after being overcome by a suspected leak of engine fumes into the cockpit, safety records have revealed.

The alert at 26,000ft meant the captain of the Flybe airlines plane had to land single-handedly in Belfast even though the fumes had left him “in a state of euphoria”.

The flight was one of five last year in which pilots are said to have been “incapacitated” after breathing in potentially toxic fumes given off by engine oils leaking into the cabin.

Details of the incident, which is being investigated by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), have emerged amid growing concern about the health risks of such leaks to airline staff and passengers.

The British Air Line Pilots Association is so concerned by the problem it is hosting a conference on contaminated cabin air next week. Symptoms reported by pilots include dizziness, fatigue and memory loss.

The pilots who fell ill on the Flybe flight from Gatwick to Belfast on December 8 last year were at the controls of a BAe 146, an aircraft that has previously experienced fume-related incidents.

A mandatory occurrence report filed by the airline with the CAA says: “During the cruise, the P2 (co-pilot) felt unwell (faint and breathless with shaking hands) and oxygen was administered for the last 20 minutes of the flight. The P1 (captain) also had a headache with flu symptoms and confirmed to be in a state of euphoria, although successfully landed the aircraft.”

The report adds: “Subsequent investigation identified a fault, now rectified, which may have allowed a small amount of APU (auxiliary power unit) exhaust to enter the cabin airstream.”

The incident is believed to be the most serious fumes-related alert on a British plane since another Flybe flight in November 2000. On that occasion — when the airline was known as British European — the captain complained of feeling light-headed and nauseous and had difficulty in judging height as he brought the plane in to land at Birmingham airport.

The oils used to lubricate aircraft engines contain organophosphates, which have been linked to neurological disorders. Where engines have faulty seals, oil fumes can be drawn into the cabin along with fresh air used in the air-conditioning.

[MOR]

AAIB investigated a near crash you had into Birmingham a few years back.

You MUST be a tabloid journo... it wasn't even close to a "near crash". Try reading the whole report.

Is that not why 200 pilots have left for cleaner better paid jobs in the last 18 months ? Does FlyBe not have the highest turnover of flight crew in the UK ?

No... the better paid bit, maybe. I know a lot of those guys and I know why they left. It wasn't air quality. If you want to see high crew turnover, have a look at BACX, Eastern, Emerald...

Any person with a portable air measuring device like a Carbon Monoxide detector could probably fly on 4 of your flights and get elevated readings on 75% of these flights.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Extensive tests were done on flybe aircraft a year or two ago, by independent testers... not a single positive result was found. That included some pilots who voluntarily flew on an aircraft that had just had a suspected fumes incident, and submitted to a battery of tests to establish their exposure. All the tests were negative.

You know the day the media take a trip and start measuring the air it will be time up.

You think they haven't already tried? How naive can you be?

Regarding the Sunday Times article (the Sunday Times being the paragon of aviation reporting... yeah right), I know the pilots and I have read the reports into the incident. You should too, unless of course you would rather just go with the paranoia you clearly revel in.

[Ausie Chick]

MOR, I have had to sign up to this Forum because I cannot allow you to talk so much bull about the Australian Senate Inquiry into Contaminated Air and your BAe 146. Having sat in on alot of the hearings I think people reading this forum need to know that what your saying is a lie.

I am focusing on your 2 comments:

1. If CASA had any confidence in the report at all, they would have immediately revoked the type certificate in Australia and ground the aircraft. They didn't, and nor has any other national authority. Now why do you think that is? The only possible explanation is that they don't agree with the finding.

2. There are other anomalies too - for example, the Australian Senate investigation was thoroughly alarmist and wasn't supported by CASA. It was considered by many to be a backside-covering exercise with a view to future claims. CASA did nothing to stop the aircraft operating, and neither has any other authority.

If the investigation was such nonsense why did BAe, Mobil etc attend ?

The inquiry never said the aircraft should be grounded it concluded that when the air was being contaminated it was resulting in crews suffering short and medium term medical effects (which were quoted as up to 10 years, more than 10 years was not investigated as nobody had been on it for more than 10 years at the time) and was not therefore compliant with FAA regulations such as FAR 25.831 which had to be complied with to ensure the aircraft continued to be air worthy.

The following quotes best show the CASA and BAe position:

CASA-Hansard 1/11/99
Mr Toller (Head of CASA) p39 - _'One of the problems we have is that this is outside our area of expertise completely.'

Mr Toller p35 - I ' think it is fairly clear that we are not in a position, as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, to recognise that there is a significant aviation safety authority issue here, but we do recognise and have had concerns from the outset about other issues, particularly health issues. '

Mr Toller, p48/49 - 'When you start talking about the general subject of toxins in atmospheres, and specifically in this case in the atmosphere within an aircraft, then it is outside CASA’s area of expertise. We are responsible for aviation safety. I think we are now getting into occupational health and safety issues.'

SO PLEASE DON'T THEN SAY BECAUSE CASA DID NOT GROUND THE AIRCRAFT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM, THEY HAVE NO EXPERTISE AND COULD ONLY ISSUE SBs!!!!

British Aerospace, 2/11/99 , Canberra, 10.35am
Mr. Black, p74 - 'An airworthiness directive is issued by the regulators when they feel sufficiently concerned that a real or potential risk exists to the safe operation of the aircraft.'

Mr. Black, p76 - 'The regulatory bodies, as admitted by CASA yesterday, are not competent to rule on such a highly specialised area. Neither are the airlines or the manufacturers.'

SO BAE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE IS A PROBLEM AND AN AIR WORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS ISSUED SOON AFTER THE INQUIRY BY WAY OF SERVICE BULLETIN 21-150 BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGING CONTAMINATED AIR WAS A PROBLEM.

NATIONAL JET SYSTEMS HERE IN AUSTRALIA FINISHED REPLACING ALL THEIR PROBLEM ENGINE SEALS WITH THE NEW MORE EFFECTIVE SEAL LAST YEAR WHEN FLYBE AND OTHER BRITISH AIRLINES HAD YET TO START!!!!

So MOR continue to put out lies and misinformation and if you REALLY want the truth in your airline which I think you say is Fly Be then do what Ansett did and ask all crews to report all fumes WITHOUT BEING HARRASED AS YOU ARE REPORTED TO DO and see what the results are.

GO AHEAD MAKE MY DAY!!!!

You mention tests done on 146 pilots and air sampling, if you are reffering to the BRE work then read the samll print.....'no fumes repOrted during these flights!!!

Maybe just an Ausie Sheila but been also have a Phd in Aeronautical Engineering and this aircraft is the WORST for air QUALITY trust me. :O

[MOR]

First of all, it isn't MY 146. I am only interested in bringing some balance to what is a highly charged debate.

If the investigation was such nonsense why did BAe, Mobil etc attend ?

They had no choice. Non-attendance would have been construed as an admission of guilt. They had to demonstrate good faith with the enquiry.

The inquiry never said the aircraft should be grounded it concluded that when the air was being contaminated it was resulting in crews suffering short and medium term medical effects (which were quoted as up to 10 years, more than 10 years was not investigated as nobody had been on it for more than 10 years at the time) and was not therefore compliant with FAA regulations such as FAR 25.831 which had to be complied with to ensure the aircraft continued to be air worthy.

...which is exactly the same thing. If they found that it was not in compliance with the FARs, the only possible course of action is to ground it until it IS in compliance. If they decide that the aircraft has a problem but is still airworthy, nothing changes other than possibly some ADs. However, the bit you conveniently forget is that any (first world) aviation authority reserves the right to ground an aircraft for whatever reason they like, if they consider it to be a risk to the public or the crews. The fact that they took no action tells you all you need to know about how bad they thought the risk was.

It is also true that CASA (and any other authority) can choose to take advice from other experts, and implement their advice if they think it appropriate. They didn't.

What Mr Toller is saying, inter alia, is that they recognise that there is an issue, but do not consider it sufficiently serious to spend any resources on it, and certainly do not consider it to be a safety issue. The important bit is:

we are not in a position, as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, to recognise that there is a significant aviation safety authority issue here

SO PLEASE DON'T THEN SAY BECAUSE CASA DID NOT GROUND THE AIRCRAFT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM, THEY HAVE NO EXPERTISE AND COULD ONLY ISSUE SBs!!!!

Why not? They were clearly not all that concerned. None of the information they had led them to the conclusion that there was a need for action. Considering how quicky CASA move when they think that there IS a safety issue, their inaction speaks volumes about their perception of the risk.

If you want an example of how quickly authorities can move, even with little concrete information, look at how rapidly the CAA grounded Concorde when there was even a hint of a problem with the aircraft.

SO BAE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE IS A PROBLEM AND AN AIR WORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS ISSUED SOON AFTER THE INQUIRY BY WAY OF SERVICE BULLETIN 21-150 BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGING CONTAMINATED AIR WAS A PROBLEM.

Sure, but not the problem that you are making it out to be with your alarmist claptrap.

do what Ansett did and ask all crews to report all fumes WITHOUT BEING HARRASED AS YOU ARE REPORTED TO DO and see what the results are.

All airlines were requested by BAe to report, in minute detail, any fumes encounters. I have the form in front of me (all four pages of it), and the memo telling us in no uncertain terms that we were to report ANY fumes incident, and that it had to go in the tech log.

I reported three, and I was never harassed in any way, nor do I know of anyone else being harassed (unless there were other factors, which I am sure there were with one or two reporters). You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have clearly been listening to the worst sort of gossip and innuendo.

You mention tests done on 146 pilots and air sampling, if you are reffering to the BRE work then read the samll print.....'no fumes repOrted during these flights!!!

The tests done on the flybe aircraft were done on an aircraft THAT HAD JUST HAD A FUMES INCIDENT. It could therefore reasonably be expected to show some level of toxins, as no maintenance work had been done between the two flights. It didn't. Draw your own conclusions.

Maybe just an Ausie Sheila but been also have a Phd in Aeronautical Engineering and this aircraft is the WORST for air QUALITY trust me.

No, I don't think I will trust you. You say you are a Phd, but frankly your argument is full of holes and doesn't make any logical sense - and you don't seem to be able to spell or use correct grammar. I certainly don't believe that you know what goes on between an airline and its crews.

[Ausie Chick]

HEY MOR, AFTER 10 CANS OF XXXX I THINK I DID A GOOD EFFORT MATE.

WHAT YOU NEED IS 10 CANS OF REALITY CHECK.

THE OPENING COMMENT ON THIS THREAD SAYS IT ALL....

BALPA YOUR OWN PILOT UNION HELD A CONFERENCE, INVITED ALL AND SUNDRY TO ATTEND AND CONCLUDED CREWS ARE GETTING SICK.

NEXT TIME YOU TALK TO YOUR MATES AT BAE ASK THEM WHY THEY PAID ANSETT MILLIONS TO STAY QUIET ON THE MATTER. I KNOW AS I HAVE THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF ME ANY MANY OTHER GEMS WAITING FOR THAT BIG DAY IN YOU KNOW WHERE!!!!:ok:

FAIRDINKUM MATE

NITE NITE

[Smokie]

If I recall, the 3 Major Fume events in a two week period during November 2000 on:- G- JEAK, G-JEAM and G- JEBD, nearly brought the whole of the UK's 146 operations to a grinding halt!

It was only after major pressure from the CAA insisting on a serious overhaul and preventative maintenance programme that they were let off by the skin of their teeth.

90% of the passengers on one of those aircraft were unconscious on a midday flight!:hmm:

[MOR]

Smokie tells us: If I recall, the 3 Major Fume events in a two week period during November 2000 on:- G- JEAK, G-JEAM and G- JEBD, nearly brought the whole of the UK's 146 operations to a grinding halt!

90% of the passengers on one of those aircraft were unconscious on a midday flight!

You know, that is such an obvious piece of nonsense that it is barely worth responding to. As if that could happen without it being on every TV screen, and in every paper, for days afterwards.

Anyway. I have, sitting in front of me, the flybe ASR/MOR summary for 2000. This document lists all the ASRs and MORs reported during 2000 (on all the fleets).

It is a long document, and in it there are only three fumes incidents, all on the same aircraft, all within a month. Of those, two were on the ground and resulted in no ill effects, and one was in the air. The one in the air resulted in some symptoms, but no difficulty in completing the flight, and no unconscious passengers. In fact, no passengers complained of any symptoms, and none received any medical attention that is known to the airline.

The only other related incident was fuel fumes on a CRJ, sorted out on the ground.

So, nice attempt to smear your employer there Smokie, but like so much of the stuff on this thread, your allegations have no basis in fact.

Drunken Aussies pretending to have Phds, pilots with an axe to grind... what will emerge next from the boiling pit of conspiracy and paranoia...???

Oh, nearly forgot:

I KNOW AS I HAVE THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF ME ANY MANY OTHER GEMS WAITING FOR THAT BIG DAY IN YOU KNOW WHERE!!!!

If you had it, you'd use it. Grow up. You think you might get a bigger payout if you wait? Because money is eventually what this is all about.

Why not put your documents where your mouth is?

[Smokie]

The CAA database says otherwise.:ok:

[MOR]

Well that explains one part of your allegations - it was obviously sub judice until the report was out.

It doesn't explain any of your other allegations though, particularly the stuff about 90% of pax being unconscious during a flight. In fact, the report on the CAA website, regarding the incident to G-JEAK, says the following:

There has been no incident reported to the CAA, involving adverse effects to BAE 146 flight crew, due to oil contamination of ECS air, since June 2002.

... and that report was last updated in March 2004.

Kind of blows a lot of the allegations here out of the water really...

[FlyBe Truth Team]

DEAR READERS

MOR IS FLYBE MANAGER AND NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

HE SAYS ONLY A FEW FUME EVENTS IN 2000....

HERE IS THE TRUTH AND CAA REFERNCE IF KNOWN (OR IF THEY WERE TOLD!!).....

THESE ARE JUST THE ONES WE THE EXETER CREWS KNOW ABOUT AND WE CAN TELL YOU 90% OF EVENTS ARE NOT REPORTED FOR REASONS YOU CAN GUESS.

G-JEBC 04/03/00
G-JEAV 21/04/00
G-JEAK 08/05/00
G-JEBC 08/05/00
G-JEAK 09/05/00
G-JEAM 03/06/00
G-JEBC 11/07/00
G-JEBC 05/09/00 CAA Ref: 200005129
G-JEAV 12/09/00
G-JEBC 20/09/00
G-JEAV 21/09/00
G-JEAV 28/09/00
G-JEAJ 15/10/00 CAA Ref 200007650
G-JEBC 15/11/00 CAA Ref 200007724
G-JEBC 02/11/00 CAA Ref 200008146
G-JEAM 02/11/00
G-JEAK 05/11/00 CAA Ref 200008340
G-JEAK 08/11/00
G-JEBD 09/11/00 CAA Ref 200008834
G-JEAM 23/11/00 CAA Ref 200008697
G-JEBD 19/12/00

SO 'MOR' WAKE UP AND STOP YOUR NONSENSE.

[MOR]

Lol... guess again...

Let's see... just registered today... list of unverified reports... none appear on the CAA list... none appear on the ASR/MOR list... clearly an axe to grind... whole post in caps... hmmm not unlike the drunken Aussie of a few posts back.

Please tell us where you got this from, because it is a complete fabrication as far as I can see. Come up with some verifiable information and I will happily apologise.

Now I wonder what the CAA have to say...

1 UK PUBLIC TRANSPORT SMOKE/FUMES OCCURRENCES 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 The rise in the number of reported smoke/fumes events on UK Public Transport aircraft is viewed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as a potentially serious issue. This FODCOM looks at these events in more detail. Four aircraft types noted to have a higher than normal history of smoke/fumes events were selected for comparison. Only UK Public Transport reported events have been examined. 1.2 History 1.2.1 Between 1990 and 2001, there were 263 reported smoke/fumes events on the four selected aircraft types. Approximately 25% of these occurrences resulted in the crew or passengers suffering some degree of physical discomfort such as nausea, sore throats and light-headedness. On rare occasions, and only on two aircraft types, flight crew have been incapacitated to a greater or lesser degree. 1.2.2 For each of the four aircraft types there have been some aircraft that have reported more than one smoke/fumes event in the 12 year period studied. For example, there were 113 events recorded by 65 aircraft of the same type with 30 aircraft reporting two or more events. The maximum number of events recorded by individual aircraft in the time period studied was five. There are several cases of an individual aircraft reporting two or more events in a relatively short time period (e.g. a particular aircraft that reported three events in eight weeks) perhaps indicating that the causes of these events are difficult to identify.

(from http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200221.PDF)

Lots of juicy stuff in there, but let's look at one sentence a bit more closely:

The maximum number of events recorded by individual aircraft in the time period studied was five.

And looking at the list above.. you will note that, according to our brand new poster, G-JEBC has 7 events, G-JEAK has four, and G-JEAV has four also. But hang on... the maximum number of events per individual aircraft in the time period studied was five. Hmmm... and the period of time referred to was 12 years.

So BC managed to fool the CAA completely by having 7 events in one year, and AK and AV have four each in only one year of the 12 years that were looked at.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist, does it?

And before somebody says reports were suppressed or occurences weren't reported... for our new poster to have come up with his or her list, we must assume that the list exists somewhere within flybe organisation. If that were so, it is highly unlikely that the CAA are not aware of it, as there would have to be a paper trail... and if you think this stuff doesn't get picked up during audits, you know nothing about the process.

Nah... you'll have to try harder than that.

[Torycanyon]

Aren't those CAA MOR reference numbers?
Surely they should be reasonably easy to check out if Bona Fidea?

[Dolly with brains!]

Just been told that a British Airways Boeing 777 registered G-YMMB had oil fumes in early August 2005 in Canada and is now subject of a Canadian Air Transport Safety Board Investigation.

Can anybody expand on the details ?

[Sparticus]

Well what an interesting thread. Im normaly too busy being gassed to read prune but felt I should contribute. I would say its relatively common for us to have minor fume events on the 146. I feel dizzy sometimes but am reluctant to mention it. I often have lots of joint pain, definitely have short term memory loss and even very occasionaly feel slightly sick. My wife suggested a while ago that it could be bleed air as she was concerned about the state I was coming home in. I thought I was just working too hard but maybe there is another explanation? I also have some health issues that are real including a possibility of asthma which I have never suffered previously. I notice it takes about three days before I return to normal depending on how much time I have spent in work.
By the way after flying the 146 for 5 years I can only once remember putting a fume event in the tech log. Time to get my loss of licence insurance sorted. I would also say it wouldnt be the first time that an industry has spent years trying to convince a workforce that their chemicals are safe.

[Dolly with brains!]

Anybody know about the Easy Jet fume incident last week, crews with headaches, nausea and blurred vision ?

[Tony Bonzo]

Any details available on the BMI A320 which had a contaminated air event yesterday on landing into Belfast City airport. Many crew and passengers with effects and aircraft stuck in the Shorts area of the airfield?

[NEW YORK BY NIGHT]

MOR CAN I SEND A TEAM OF FOLK TO COME OVER TO YOUR COMPANY TO INSPECT YOUR DUCTS AND PUBLISH THE RESULTS?

IF THEY LOOK LIKE THE 727, 757 DUCTS I SEE IN THE HANGAR YOU WILL KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALWAYS SATURATED WITH ENGINE OILS AND OTHER LUBRICANTS WHICH IS NOT SAFE MY FRIEND AND YOU KNOW IT.

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE 146 OR ANY PARTICULAR CARRIER BUT EVERYONES PROBLEM WHICH NEEDS US TO ACCEPT THIS ISSUE AS A PROBLEM TO BE ABLE TO THEN TARGET CHANGES.


WE (CONTINENTAL) HAVE OFTEN HAD FUME EVENTS. WE ACCEPT THIS.

[MOR]

Let's see... registered today... posts in caps... Oh yes it is FlyBe Truth Team /Ausie Chick again! Not obvious at all, are you... :rolleyes:

146 ducts are now inspected regularly for any trace of oil. If found, it is removed before the aircraft flies again.

If you have fumes events and you just live with them, you are irresponsible.

If you have aircraft with oil-saturated ducts and you do nothing about it, you are just plain stupid.

Nobody is saying it isn't a problem, but it needs to be seen in context from a sensible perspective. What we see on display on this thread is a mixture of paranoia, conspiracy theory, and a good old American-style search for somebody to sue.

Finally, if any aviation authority in the world though there was any risk with certain aircraft types, they would ground them immediately. This has happened many times in the past. None of them think there is a risk, as none of them have taken any action.

Meanwhile, pilots groups are preparing the ground for a raft of claims.

I have several years in the 146, and I have yet to meet a pilot with genuine health issues as a result of flying it. There isn't even much agreement on what effect engine oils could have.

Personally I feel a lot safer flying the 146 and living in the nice clean countryside, than living 24/7 in the yellow crap that covers London or Birmingham...

[Dolly with brains!]

Dear Mr / Miss Ms 'MOR'.

I have to disagree with you. I and my crews all too often get air quality events which we try to report to the TGWU but most dont get reported.

If you are FlyBe head office team then have a look at the increase in FlyBe TGWU membership numbers and ask why. I hear from TGWU head office that lots of FlyBe cabin crew are signing up.

And incase you are as paranoid as you seem, AUSIE CHICK is my sister and the other one is my brother!! Do you check if your being followed alot as well ? (have a laugh you know its funny!!)

My point... Its real, crews are sick its not paranoia, trust us the workers or slaves as it feels sometimes when the call button goes all flight.

[MOR]

The only reason cabin crew sign up with the TGWU is that there is no-one else to represent them. Personally I think cabin crew have had a very raw deal for a long time, but generally speaking few of them stand up for themselves.

I'm not flybe head office, I am but a humble pilot. In my case, any fumes incident goes straight in the tech log (as it ALWAYS should). Do you ask your captain to do so before you run off to the TGWU?

As far as paranoia goes, I'm about the only one here who isn't paranoid.

You may think it is real, however nobody with expert knowledge seems to agree with you. Given the anal retentiveness of the safety nazis we see every day around British airports, don't you think action would have been taken by now if there was any credible evidence?

Show me any evidence that is not anecdotal and I will happily change my tune.

I still can't get over people like Sparticus who apparently suffer symptoms but don't report it. What is that about? He is either winding us up, or he is completely addled. If he really felt the way he says he does, he should at the very least report it to the CAA medical unit (as he is clearly impaired whilst flying), and put the incident in the book.

If you take no action, you can't complain. Unless of course you are just looking for a payout.

[Sparticus]

I hardly ever make a post on this forum. The reason is a hundred people will then try and make you look like an idiot.

I would have thought it obvious why incidents go unreported. Not to the engineers, not to the doctor and certainly not to the CAA. I really admire people who can stand up for themselves, however, for the majority it is simply easier to vote with ones feet.

[Raw Data]

You don't need other people to make you look like an idiot... :rolleyes:

Part of being a professional pilot is knowing what constitutes a risk, and then having the backbone to do something about it.

[Torycanyon]

MOR, a good friend of mine who is cabin crew & fly's for British Airways, has told me that this week, a BA 146/RJ100 flight has had a major problem enroute BHX-STR-BHX with 60 passengers unconcious on the return flight. It appears that there was a problem with the airconditioning on the out bound flight which became worse on the return flight inbound to BHX.

[MOR]

I don't believe that for a second. If what you say had happened, it would have been a news story of major significance - more so than the A320 story last week. And yet - nothing! All these unconscious people apparently unwilling to discuss their experience with the Sun. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

That is the reason that this debate is so pointless. Stupid people claiming ridiculous things. Paranoia and conspiracy theories masquerading as facts - and behind it all, greedy people looking for a payout.

Pathetic.

Now please supply some evidence that what you claim actually happened...

[Dolly with brains!]

Can you please give me some references I can show crew in the galley which specifically relate to toxicology inhalation testing of heated engine oils for the complete spectrum of neurological problems, i.e. chronic neurotoxicity and lung injuries ?

Thank you

'Tea or Coffee ?'

[MOR]

Can you please give me some references I can show crew in the galley which specifically relate to toxicology inhalation testing of heated engine oils for the complete spectrum of neurological problems, i.e. chronic neurotoxicity and lung injuries ?

Nope. Neither can you. That is the whole point! Nobody knows FOR SURE either way. There are many assumptions. Some studies have been done, including some good ones by various manufacturers, but of course none of you will believe them, will you?

So I pass it back to you. Prove to me that the actual fumes that I may have experienced in my years on the 146, are in any way harmful to me.

Even in the case of two crew members suffering symptoms at the same time... how do you know that whatever affected them didn't come from a different source? How do you know, for example, that it wasn't some plastic burning somewhere close to them? The fumes from that are highly toxic.

Please understand, I'm not saying that case WASN'T fumes, and I'm not saying fumes aren't dangerous in some way. I'm simply saying that the problem has been massively overstated.

What I am saying is that the problem has now been hijacked by some groups with clear (financial) agendas, not to mention the ones telling bare-faced lies about aircraft arriving with 60-odd unconscious passengers.

'Tea or Coffee ?'

Coffee, thanks, milk and no sugar. Oh, better not, how do we know the potable water isn't contaminated? And I shouldn't have milk in it, I mean how do I know the dairy it came from isn't infected with salmonella... and how do we know the cups aren't contaminated with something...??? :rolleyes:

[Torycanyon]

MOR, thats a bit harsh "Bare faced Lies"
I was only relaying info from a colleague.

Don't Shoot The Messenger.:(

[MOR]

Torycanyon

OK, nothing personal - but do you honestly believe that the event you described actually happened? You know as well as I do that the first thing that happens after ANY event - even a minor one - is that all the pax reach for their cellphones and call the various news agencies. Do you seriously believe that an aircraft could land with 60 unconscious pax following a fumes event, and that NOBODY would call a paper or TV station? That is has never been reported in the press? If you DO believe that... well all I can say is that you must be incredibly gullible.

bral

One generalised study does not make the case for the fumes conspiracists. There are many, many things in this world that can harm you - some people who rarely go out in the sun get skin cancer, some people who don't smoke get lung cancer. How many people still believe that living under power pylons can harm your health, or that using a crystal can heal you?

What all the sensible people (you know, government, CAA, manufacturers etc) are doing is trying to find out what the facts are before rushing ahead with some foolish course of action. There are ample precedents in other industries for immediate action to be taken if a direct link is established.

In any case, I am not for a minute suggesting that there CAN'T be a link between organophosphates and health, merely that nobody has proved anything yet, and that the emotional twaddle masquerading as fact that we see from the various pressure groups is not helping.

[Ausie Chick]

Hey MOR its your triple personality XXXX drinker wishing you good day mate. I will look over you and check your safe while you sleep.

I had to laugh when you said 'What all the sensible people (you know, government, CAA, manufacturers etc) are doing...'

That a typical pommie thing to say. The CAA are not 'sensible' .....

Quote:

The CAA commissioned research into the make up of the engine oil a few years ago and found that the inhalation of bleed air could cause some short term irritation. But we found no evidence of long-term damage at all

(ref: CAA interview in Heathrow Skyport, May 6, 2005)

and then the contradiction of:

“Although some references are made concerning long-term health effects, the scope of this research did not include an attempt to determine the extent of any such risk.”

(ref: CAA cabin Air Quality Paper - 2004)

A typical pommie government BS to protect BAe.

Why don't you do your own research and do the blood test suggested by BRAL and if you sadly come up positive you can post an exclusive here on the PPrune forum and finally admit we are not lunatics but simply bearers of the truth. Ask your boss to pay for it and post the results here.

I'll bet you a crate of XXXX you too have neurological damage. I hope you don't but if you have been on the flying gas chamber for 5 or so years, you got better chances of being positive for neurological damage than sleeping with Miss World.

(BRAL can you please email me direct the details )

[MOR]

bral

Dr Furlongs paper was non-specific in the sense that it did not look at the particular OPs that are present in aviation oils. He is simply identifying and quantifying markers (or biomarkers in this case). His research could equally be applied to those suffering from exposure to agricultural OPs (which is apparently what sparked the study in the first place).

The second study by Professor Abou-Donia reaches conclusions that could equally apply to other sources of OP/TCP, and doesn't correlate the levels that cause damage to the levels typically found in aircraft.

Some of the studies done by manufacturers indicate that, even in an aircraft that is know to have a fumes problem, the levels of the really nasty toxins (the ones that can cause damage) were insignificant. By insignificant, I mean less harmful to you than the toxins found in a cigarette.

Chances are that you could get a higher dose of OP/TCP if you happened to breathe in the smoke from a smoking tyre at a motor race.

The evidence is not yet compelling.

Ausie Chick

Why is it that so many Australians are simply incapable of having any form of reasoned discussion without becoming abusive?

Your recognition of "truth" is about equal to your ability to spell your name, which isn't great.

The statements you quote are not only not contradictory, they are both out of context.

You don't even understand how to construct a sentence. Just to help you out then, 99.99999% of the population of the world have "got better chances of being positive for neurological damage than sleeping with Miss World."

Didn't really make your case, did it?

Have a few more beers. I'm sure that does you no harm at all. :rolleyes:

[cabincrew47]

MOR
[QUOTE]Even in the case of two crew members suffering symptoms at the same time... how do you know that whatever affected them didn't come from a different source? How do you know, for example, that it wasn't some plastic burning somewhere close to them? The fumes from that are highly toxic.[QUOTE]

Suppose four people suffer symptoms at the same time after a fume event?

It has happened and the airline admits liability!

Does that help satisfy you?



And how do you know plastic fumes are toxic?

Oh! You believe that research, but not research on OPs?

[MOR]

It has happened and the airline admits liability!

Where, what aircraft, what airline?


You believe that research, but not research on OPs?

The toxicity of burning plastics has been proven by hundreds of post mortems. The toxicity of the actual OP's found in engine oils, at the concentrations experienced by crews, has been proven by... what, exactly?

[Mach1October14]

MOR buddy you want to learn to chill out dude. Crews are getting sick and thats why congress is paying US$ 2 million bucks to get to the bottom of this matter.

If your airline has no problem then ask its pilot union representatives to do a joint reporting initiative and see what happens when folk feel they are alllowed to speak up. You need to get real pal and realise folk want paid as well.

The answers to many of your questions are available at: http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,5-198-22-45769600-0,00.html

[cabincrew47]

MOR

The information for your first question is in this thread. If you read it all you will find it!

The information for your second question can be found at:

http://www.aopis.org/Mobil%20Jet%20Oil%202%20label.html

As you will see; the manufacturers warn of the problems.

It does what it says on the tin!

[MOR]

M1O14

I am perfectly chilled, thank you. It is all the "believers" who are getting hot under the collar.

The precis for the book you have linked to makes no mention of OP or any other cabin contaminants.

US$2 million is peanuts and is highly unlikely to come up with any new information.

In my airline, folks are allowed to speak up (unlike the where you live, it seems), and frequently do. I have done so myself on several occasions.

folk want paid as well.

Exactly, that is what this is really all about. Put your hand back in your pocket.

cabincrew47

You should really try reading this stuff before you quote it. Let me help you out:

"Hazards Identification. Effects of overexposure: This product is not expected to produce these effects under normal conditions of use and appropriate personal hygiene practices.

The only risks identified in the MSDS for the product are prolonged skin contact, swallowing, and prolonged and repeated breathing of the mist. The mist referred to is that of the raw product, not in it's pyrolised form. The concentrations required to suffer harm (as identified in the MSDS) are many orders higher than anything you will experience in a 146 or whatever.

Quoting an MSDS out of context indicates just how little you know about the issues involved.

[cabincrew47]

MOR

Overexposure to TCP by swallowing, prolonged or repeated breathing of oil mist, or prolonged or repeated skin contact may produce nervous system disorders including gastrointestinal disturbances, numbness, muscular cramps, weakness and paralysis.....".

As you will note; your quote was incorrect in that it states "prolonged or repeated breathing" and not and as in your supposed correct statement.

Perhaps this shows who is reading things properly!

I would count an hour of breathing the mist as "prolonged"!

Perhaps you ought to get to know more facts before denegrating people who know more because "they've been there'.

[MOR]

cabincrew47

The mist referred to is oil mist, NOT the pyrolised mist you could find in a cabin. It is also implying a much higher concentration than you would ever get in a cabin.

I read it right the first time...

[Mach1October14]

MOR, why do you not buy a copy pal and then you will read what I read!!

You are so full of nonsense. Have you read the stuff the USAF did on pyrolised oils ? NO, why not ?

The conclusions were....

'Thus, the process of vaporization is causing a change in the compound, resulting in the potential to produce neurotoxicity.'

Also, Wright Patterson who did the work were only looking at OPIDN not chronic neurotoxicity which will be worse.

So cut the bull pal and turn around and look at the guy VERY close behind you, stimulating your senses, he is a manager, not a sick crew member!!

If your such an expert how come I never see your name on any papers, in expert groups like SAE etc ??

Pyrolised synthetic turbine oil IS toxic.
:ok:

[Never Trust A Manage]

This thread is amazing.

Lets sort the facts from fiction:
[list=1]
The oil sometimes contaminates the bleed air supply - FACT.
Synthetic jet engine oils have NEVER been tested for chronic neurotoxic effects via inhalation - FACT.
Crews report a selection of neurological effects that have only occured following repeated exposure to contaminated air - FACT.
Operating crews have become incapacitated during a contaminated air event - FACT.
Sampling of the air supply by BRE for the CAA was NOT done during a reported contaminated air event and therefore only sampled air during non contaminated air events. BRE stated: '“The intentions of the study was not to monitor the air quality during any ‘unusual circumstances’ rather emphasis being on obtaining data from scheduled flights.” Therefore the air during a contaminated air event is unkown - FACT.
BALPA conference in 2005 concluded crews are sick long term - FACT.
CAA DON'T know if there are or are not any long term effects from exposure to contaminated air as they acknowledged in their 2004 Cabin Air quality paper by their comment: ' “Although some references are made concerning long-term health effects, the scope of this research did not include an attempt to determine the extent of any such risk.” - FACT
Exposure standards do not apply for commercial aviation - FACT
BAe 146 has 3 ADs related to contaminated air - FACT
'Bleed Air' could be filtered if airlines wanted to - FACT
T&G have called for filtration systems to be fitted to ALL commercial jet aircraft above a MTOW of 5700 Kgs - FACT
T&G cabin crew in legal action against their employer for neurological problems following a contaminated air event - FACT
[/list=1]
SOLUTION IS SIMPLE, ACCEPT CREWS ARE GETTING SICK AND FIT FILTERS - ITS A COMMON SENSE SOLUTION TO A 30 YEAR OLD PROBLEM!

[lomapaseo]

Never Trust A Manage

Seems to be more supposition than fact here. Maybe that is why a fix to a as yet unidentified problem has not been incorporated yet.

[MOR]

Mach1October14

Let's talk about full of nonsense, shall we? Nonsense being what your argument is.

resulting in the potential to produce neurotoxicity

Please note the word "potential" in that sentence - in other words, "we think it might be possible, but we don't know".

If your such an expert how come I never see your name on any papers, in expert groups like SAE etc ??

Well since you don't know what my name is, how do you know you haven't seen my name on any papers? Are you sure you aren't on some sort of mind-altering substance?


Pyrolised synthetic turbine oil IS toxic

Prove it.

Never Trust A Manage

lomapaseo is right, your list is largely supposition.

But just for some sunday fun, let's look at a few of your "facts" -

Crews report a selection of neurological effects that have only occured following repeated exposure to contaminated air - FACT.

You don't know what caused the neurological effects in those crews - the link has yet to be established scientifically.

Operating crews have become incapacitated during a contaminated air event - FACT.

No, they suffered "some degree of incapacitation". If they had been incapacitated, everybody would be dead.

Sampling of the air supply by BRE for the CAA was NOT done during a reported contaminated air event and therefore only sampled air during non contaminated air events. BRE stated: '“The intentions of the study was not to monitor the air quality during any ‘unusual circumstances’ rather emphasis being on obtaining data from scheduled flights.” Therefore the air during a contaminated air event is unkown - FACT.

Sampling was carried out on an aircraft that had just had a fumes event, and had not been touched between the two flights (with respect to the air con system). Other than monitor every flight, there is no better way to carry out research. By the way, this "fact" compromises your previous "facts".

BALPA conference in 2005 concluded crews are sick long term - FACT.

Well they would, wouldn't they, they are a pilots union which smells massive payouts, under significant pressure from their major customer (BA pilots).

The rest of your "facts" come under the heading of "so what?"

[-400 Heavy]

MOR have you seen a doctor recently ? You may be suffering from the sometimes reported physiological problems associated with exposure to organophosphates.

When you say rubbish like:
No, they suffered "some degree of incapacitation". If they had been incapacitated, everybody would be dead.

The point I think 'Never Trust A Manage' was making and he is correct is that some of the crew have become incapacitated.

So far we think we have been lucky but who knows?

I think the dig at BALPA is unfounded especially as BA is the minority within the membership. Are you a member ?

I fly the -400 and it is not for BA but know many crews who have been affected, some for ever.

Get a life man and help the issue rather than talk rubbish

[MOR]

The point I think 'Never Trust A Manage' was making and he is correct is that some of the crew have become incapacitated.

Well I think s/he was overstating the case wildly in true "oh my god we're all going to die" fashion.

I think the dig at BALPA is unfounded especially as BA is the minority within the membership. Are you a member ?

It is only recently that BA has had a minority membership in BALPA, it has long been known, quite rightly, as the "British Airways Line Pilots Association". I know from experience that, good as BALPA can be for the little guy, they are driven by BA membership. A cursory glance at The Log will confirm that.

And yes, I am a member. Have been for over 20 years. When I joined, BA were far and away the majority membership.

What will help the issue more than anything, is some clear thinking and proper research, not the crap maquerading as fact that so many posters here would prefer to indulge in.

[Danny]

I have to agree with MOR on the points about scientific research. It is all very well expounding on this or other forums about second hand experiences or even first hand experiences where there was no conclusive proof as to the source of the experience in the first place.

Until there is proper research into the suspected problems no one is going to admit to anything, especially if they may be liable in some way.

Dramatic statements on here and infuriating responses to people like MOR who are pointing out to you the flaws in your arguments only serve to show you up as over sensitive drama queens. You may not agree but that is how it appears to those of us who have not had any experience of contaminated air events and have flown some of the types that are supposedly more likely to have them.

I think that it is agreed that there should be more research into the problem. However, you first have to convince someone to part with the money to fund the research. Ranting on here without acceptable evidence is a waste of time and effort. If you can agree that it hasn't been proven but there MAY be a problem, then you are at least one step nearer to finding out, one way or another, as to what all the fuss was about.

[cabincrew47]

This may be of interest; and believe it or not, it was written in 1977!!!


Clin Toxicol. 1977;11(4):423-6. Related Articles, Links


Human intoxication following inhalation exposure to synthetic jet lubricating oil.

Montgomery MR, Wier GT, Zieve FJ, Anders MW.

A previously healthy member of an aircraft flight crew was acutely incapacitated during flight with neurologic impairment and gastrointestinal distress. His clinical status returned to normal within 24 hr. The etiology of his symptoms was related to an inhalation exposure to aerosolized or vaporized synthetic lubricating oil arising from a jet engine of his aircraft.

Publication Types:
Case Reports

PMID: 589955 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=589955&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=6

[MOR]

Look at me! Look at me! I can use Google!

No idea what the article says, or where it can be found, or what's in it... but that doesn't matter, does it? After all, it (might) support my case! :rolleyes:

[Tony Bonzo]

Danny

I agree more research would be very sensible but as long as it is free of industry influence and not more of the past 'hired gun' type of research such as BRE work in the UK.

Let universities do it as they have nothing to gain from the answers is my suggestion.

Thanks

[Torycanyon]

I believe that The University of Oregon and the Imperial College London, are curretly undertaking studies into contaminated air in aircraft cabins and cockpits.

[JIPPO]

As a concerned passenger I asked the pilot today what information she had about fumes in the aircraft. She (pretty as well) kindly told me to look at the pilot union website and gave me the internet address.

For those wanting more information, the pilots have some good informative stuff. I have pasted the internet address below as it took me a while to find it. Just click on the link.

http://www.balpa.org./intranet/BALPA-Camp/The-Aircra/index.htm

[Mach1October14]

Thanks for the info 'Jippo'. BALPA should be congratulated for being the first pilot labour group to take these matters seriously.

Come folks here in the US, WAKE UP!

This needs to be approached with the same energy.

[Smokie]

Looks like a post was deleted. I had an e-mail alert that a "Mister Geezer" had replied to This Topic that I contributed towards recently. Dated 25/10/2005.

Where is this reply.
And No I can't find it on "Tech Log " forum either???????:confused:

[Dolly with brains!]

T&G says government should come clean on contaminated air on commercial aircraft

The Transport and General Workers Union today called on the government to tell the millions of people who fly on commercial airlines that they are sometimes being exposed to contaminated air on jet aircraft. Union officials representing cabin crew said these risks have been present for over thirty years but successive governments, as well as the airlines, have not told passengers what they have been exposed to nor have they spelt out the risks of exposure.

Oliver Richardson, T&G regional industrial organiser, said when air is contaminated on commercial jet aircraft this results in a slightly chemical, wet dog, vomit, dirty sock type smell in the cabin. He added that the T&G has been advised that contamination means crew and passengers breathe air which will contain volatile organic compounds such as benzene, the organophosphate TCP and possibly carbon monoxide as these would be present due to the air being contaminated with pyrolised engine oils and hydraulic fluids.

“Exposure to contaminated air results in crews having symptoms which include headaches, nausea, respiratory, gastro-intestinal, temporary mild flu-like symptoms and such like in the short term and a selection of neurological type problems in the long term,” he explained. “The chronic neurotoxicity of inhaling these heated compounds has never been tested. Only extreme medical conditions such as the medical condition OPIDN has been investigated in hens. This is very different to the neurological and other injuries consistently being reported by crews and passengers following these events.”

A report last week by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on ‘Crop Spraying and the Health of Residents and Bystanders’ was cited in support of the union’s concerns. Section 5.47 of that report said: “We recommend that in consultations and in dialogue with the public concerning pesticides, as in other areas of uncertainty, science should not be positioned without argument as being beyond doubt. It should be presented in a manner that is open about the level of risk and uncertainty involved.”

Mr. Richardson said union representatives were calling on the government to:
Stop the denial that there is a serious health and safety issue linked to contaminated air on commercial jet aircraft both in the UK and worldwide.
Tell airlines that they must inform passengers and crew they have been exposed rather than the current silence.
Advise passengers and crews of the fact that they are sometimes being exposed to these toxic compounds and the neurotoxicity of inhaling these heated oils and hydraulic fluids has never been tested.
Recommend to all airlines to fit bleed air filtration systems to commercial jet aircraft as currently the air being supplied from the engines is not filtered for contaminants.
Fit contaminated air detection systems on commercial aircraft.
Set up a proper medical protocol for dealing with passengers and crews exposed to contaminated air.

For further information please call the T&G Press Office on 020 7611 2550

[Dream Land]

Spare me. :yuk:

[BEagle]

.......a slightly chemical, wet dog, vomit, dirty sock type smell in the cabin.

A pretty accurate description of many BAe146/Avro RJ85 cabins, in my opinion.

[411A]

.......a slightly chemical, wet dog, vomit, dirty sock type smell in the cabin....

Hmm, about like a Lockheed tri-motor, with one pack OTS, during the Hadj, in the rear cabin.

Phew....!:yuk:

No wonder the CC complain.

[Smokie]

Hmmm , not quite too sure what's going on here :confused:
The above post was nowhere to be seen on this site yesterday and the post from " Mister Geezer" is Still missing :hmm:

[Dolly with brains!]

Danny and others ask for proof as if the Australian Senate concluding crews were getting sick is not enough but now all you have to do is light the fire, get a nice cup of tea and read these 2 new publications which clearly show passengers and crews are sick from exposure to contaminated air.

1. Air Quality in Airplane Cabins and Similar Enclosed Spaces. ISBN 3-540-25019-0

2. Proceedings of the BALPA Air safety and cabin Air Quality Aero Industry Conference. Held at Imperial Colleg, London, 20-21 April 2005. ISBN 0-7334-2282-9

Happy Christmas

Dolly

[Agent Oringe]

It is about time there were some decent publications on this subject.

Because Comtaminated Air is coming to an Auto-Immune System near you... NOW!

[lomapaseo]

It is about time there were some decent publications on this subject.

Yes, I'm still waiting for some, that are above reproach.

[Gorgophone]

CAA and Professor Boobis named in shaming document. “Dozens of the Government's most influential advisers on critical health and environmental issues, including cabin air, have close links to biotech and drug corporations, according to a dossier of Whitehall documents obtained by The Observer.
“Internal papers from the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) reveal for the first time the extent of the close connections between big business and scientists hired to give independent advice to Ministers. Many work as consultants for the firms, own shares in the companies or enjoy lucrative research grants from them.
Confidential documents disclose that former Environment Minister Michael Meacher and Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty, were deeply concerned that scientists with industry links were dominating committees on everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of GM crops. Both Meacher and Whitty were alarmed that the scientists' commercial links jeopardised the independence of the advice they gave.” Antony Barnett and Mark Townsend Sunday July 13, 2003 The Observer



Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: 'It is now crystal clear how big business is setting the agenda right at the heart of government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made transparent. How can the public trust what Ministers say if their advice is coming from those with vested interest in the biotech or pharmaceutical industry.'
A Defra spokesman said the committees publish their members' interests.
He went on: 'Defra has full confidence in the capability of independent advisory committees across the range of issues the department deals with to provide high-quality, well-informed advice and support.'
The Observer contacted many of the Government's scientific advisers, who denied that their links to industry compromised the impartiality of their advice.
Professor Boobis, who took legal advice on which interests he should declare, summed up their view: 'It is almost inevitable that any scientists of international repute will have some current or past links with industry.
'To say we would risk our professional integrity because we own a few shares in a company is ridiculous.'

However, The Countess of Mar in a speech to the House of Lords highlighted how “filters could be put on aircraft to filter the air supply and protect the travelling public from exposure to known neurotoxins at the cost of ‘peanuts’ in aviation terms but the CAA and airlines had done nothing.”

The Countess of Mar highlighted how “the government in its attempt to bury this issue have passed the vast volume of data supplied to them by the pilot union BALPA ,to a team under the leadership of Professor Alan Boobis. Professor Alan Boobis is a well known advocate that chemical exposures are all safe, despite this be a differing view to that held by the Royal Commission.”

Discredited or what?

[lomapaseo]

Discredited or what?

It sure makes you wonder about our government decision making accomodating the lack of scientific knowledge of their subjects.

Do we want scientists in the govenment who understand the problem well enough to cover it up, or do we want Doctor Quack with an elixir for whatever bothers us?

[Gorgophone]

Hi CALIFORNIAN BABE (posted 30th April 2005)

QUOTE:

Governments covering up air quality issues.
I got this from a good source, its amazing how much the governments B/S everyone to protect their own, in this case British Aerospace.___The UK AAIB and the UK CAA published reports last year saying Cabin Air Quality was OK. Part of their report was supported by work looking at the pyrolysis products of heated engine oil which the UK CAA / AAIB said despite Exxon Mobil saying its in the oil, contained none of the Organophosphate known as TCP in any pyrolysis products during their testing. This goes completely against the TCP being found in filters, swab tests and on pilots clothes reported recently at the BALPA Contaminated Air Protection Conference in London, so how can this be?PRUNE


You may be interested in the following:

8 Dec 2005 These are excerpts from a speech in the House of Lords by the Countess of Mar:-

Dr Ruge, a member of the AHWG, in referring to the UK Government and CAA-initiated and sponsored research paper Cabin Air Quality published in
2004,stated:

"The results did not suggest that there is a health risk for passengers, including infants, and crew".

A look at that paper reveals that:

"The research described in this report addresses the effect of cabin air contamination on the pilot's ability to safely fly and land an aircraft.

The CAA decided to conduct this research following a small number of events where flight crew effectiveness was reduced, possibly due to oil products present in the cabin air. Although some references are made concerning long term health effects, the scope of this research did not attempt to determine the extent of any such risk".

It makes no reference to passengers or infants. The research paper relies heavily on a BAe "Commercial—in confidence" paper by Marshman and neither
paper has been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal, and yet they seem to be accepted as gospel.

Just prior to the publication of the recent Royal Commission report on environmental exposure to chemicals, there appeared in the Observer of 18
September an article that with a began:

"Britain's leading poison experts united last week to denounce pressure groups for mounting a 'hysterical, scaremongering' campaign about dangerous
chemicals in the environment".

The report includes a quotation from Professor Alan Boobis who, as a member of the Committee on Toxicity, will be reviewing a great deal of the evidence submitted by BALPA to the AHWG. In relation to a recent statement by the WWF, he stated:

"These compounds can cause diseases but not at the levels found in these [blood] tests".

As for the chemical cocktail effect, he stated:

"There is simply no evidence it exists".

There is an ever increasing body of scientific literature from around the world that indicates that some chemicals are giving rise to adverse health
effects.

Even the royal commission accepts that there is clear evidence of
ill-health which may be attributable to exposure to small quantities of toxic
chemicals. I remind the Committee that Toyber said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I continue to find it extraordinary that our so-called experts exhibit so little scientific curiosity. Their objective seems to be to maintain the status quo and dismiss out of hand any hypotheses others
may propose. Their pronouncements in the face of so much contrary evidence do not tend to engender public confidence.

I could go on giving examples. I could comment on the complacency of Written Answers that I have received in recent weeks to my Questions about cabin air quality. I could be justifiably angry that sick people are being ignored—as long as they are fit enough to fly an aeroplane, no one is responsible for how they feel or the conditions under which they are expected to work.

Neither the aviation regulators nor the airlines seem to consider that occupational health and safety are their business. They are currently using the excuse of waiting for the Government's advisory committee to report after the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity has reported to them and then, presumably they will be waiting for legislation or regulation. I have seen it all before.

John Woodley, the Australian former Senator who chaired his government's
inquiry into this subject is reported to have said:

"Some people in the industry and some of the regulators seem to think they are God and so can take risks with the lives of their employees and
customers, but they are not God and this is not a joke. It is time they got serious, stopped mucking about and started to play the game seriously".

I most earnestly ask the COT to heed his words.

The Minister knows what I think about stand-alone epidemiological studies.
As another eminent scientist whom I know said to one of my correspondents just the other day:

"In the final analysis data trumps models. Why on earth won't they measure?"

The answer that he gave is that they really do not want to know"

[Ian Corrigible]

Channel 4 report on the subject here (text summary) (http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2744) and here (streaming video) (javascript:void window.open('/player/playerwindow.html?id=5905&vert=news','windowName','width=428,height=444,resizable=true ');).

I/C

[Jonty]

I watched that. Very interesting. Hopefully the commission will authorize a full investigation but as both aircraft (B757, BAe 146) are now out of production I don't know what good it will do.

[Aloon]

OK, I know it's not bleed air... but....

If an apu is u/s, gse can privide air con on the ground..... Ok so doors are open.... but what are they pumping into the cabin???

~~ not read the whole thread so sorry if it's been mentioned!! ~~