'Toxic' cabin air found in new plane study - Telegraph [Archive]

Dream Buster

14th Feb 2009, 19:03

For those who are STILL unaware of the type of medical problems that affect some crews - the following are official AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch - sic) descriptions of the medical effects on aircrew.

Passengers / customers don't count. Sorry.

The AAIB are not known for exaggeration and do not seem keen to want to face up to the reality of the issue either.

Unbelievable but true.

Aplogies for the length, but the evidence is ... overwhelming?

Extracts from actual UK AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch) reports.

All of these official statements are from different actual flying incidents and give an idea of the effect of the fumes on the flight crews.

• The pilot in command, following the onset of these fumes, had difficulty in concentrating on the operation of the aircraft, and suffered from a loss of situational awareness.

• …the crew had difficulty explaining the urgency of the situation (Aircraft diverted to Paris due to fumes and a smell of oil in the flight deck) to air traffic control.

• During the first flight the purser experienced an unpleasant feeling of fainting. She told the other two cabin crew members about this and they stated they had experienced something similar. They did not recognise any special odour.

• During the subsequent flight one of the cabin attendants who was placed in the forward part of the cabin experienced an odd pressure in the head, nasal itching and ear pain. The other two colleagues in the cabin also felt discomfort and the feeling of “moon walk” while working.

• The third flight the same day was flown by the Commander. During the flight, which took place at a cruising altitude of FL 280, all three members of the cabin crew experienced similar discomfort as during the preceding two flights but more pronounced. During the first portion of the flight the pilots did not notice anything abnormal but shortly before they were to leave cruising altitude the Commander began to feel a mild dizziness.

During the approach into Malmo/Sturup airport when the aircraft was descending through FL 150 the Co Pilot suddenly became nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. Then, after an estimated period of ten seconds, the Commander also became very nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. After a few seconds of breathing in the oxygen mask the Co Pilot felt better and thereafter had no difficulty in performing his duties. However the Commander felt markedly dizzy and groggy for a couple of minutes.
He had difficulty with physiological motor response, simultaneity and in focussing. Finally he handed over control to the Co Pilot. After having breathed oxygen for a few minutes even the Captain began to feel better and landing on Runway 27 without problems.

This incident was caused by the pilots becoming temporarily affected by probably polluted cabin air.

• All four cabin crew members reported feeling nauseous following passenger disembarkation, but they did not realise that they all had been similarly affected during the descent until the matter was discussed between themselves after landing. In addition to nausea, they reported feeling light headed and hot, but neither the flight crew nor passengers reportedly suffered any ill effects. The aircraft was reported to have had a history of such events and, despite satisfactory ground tests after this incident, similar symptoms were reported two days later by a different cabin crew when working in the forward galley.

• During the climb, the Senior Cabin Attendant (SCA) entered the flight deck to report that two passengers towards the left rear of the cabin had informed that they had noticed an oily/petrol like smell. In addition, a cabin crew member of a Company BAe 146 positioning crew had also reported a similar smell.

He (First Officer) sat in his seat but began to feel progressively worse, although his work load was low. He felt ‘light headed’ and had difficulty concentrating. He was aware of a tingling feeling in his finger tips and his arms started shaking.

At about this time the Commander also began to feel nauseous and asked the First Officer how he felt. The First Officer replied that he “felt dreadful” and the Commander looked at him and saw his face was white and that his pupils appeared dilated.

When she (SCA) arrived, the First Officer was on 100% oxygen, his seat was well back from the aircraft controls and his hands were seen to be trembling.

The Commander was feeling progressively worse. He felt light headed and recalled considering three aspects: landing, declaring an emergency and putting on his oxygen mask. However he felt able to cope only with one decision and continued his approach.

…the Commander seemed to have ‘double vision’ and had difficulty in judging height.

The Commander noted afterwards that it was all he could do just to land the aircraft as by now he felt very light headed and tired.

He (First Officer) did not consider that being on oxygen had made him feel better only after he had left the aircraft. However, he still felt as if he was in a daze.

• The crew noticed an “oily metallic” smell on the flight deck during an outbound flight from London Heathrow to Copenhagen. The same smell was noticed on the return flight. Towards the end of the flight, on approach to Heathrow, the crew missed numerous ATC calls, which prompted the controller to ask “if everything was all right”. In addition the Commander did not reduce aircraft speed to configure the aircraft for landing until reminded by the controller when the aircraft was at 3.7 nm DME (Distance Measuring Equipment). It was only after landing that the crew considered a possible link between the smell and their performance. When the smell was first detected, the crew had discussed the use of oxygen masks, but had concluded that there were no side effects to justify their use.

Subsequently, neither crewmember experienced any further symptoms or adverse effects.

• After parking on stand, both flight crewmembers experienced headaches and eye irritation.

• .….the Commander found it very difficult to concentrate on completing the fuel check and R/T tasks. He reported that his throat was dry, that his eyes felt irritated, that he had a headache and was generally aware that all was not well. The SCA reported that she also had a ‘very dry throat and eyes’ and the other crewmembers also had headaches.

• The Commander stated that, following the incident, he developed blisters inside his mouth, around his left inner cheek, on the roof of his mouth and left lower rear gum. He also had a tight chest, sore throat and suffered from coughing. The source of fumes was subsequently traced to No 3 engine, which was replaced on the following day.

• ……when fumes entered the flight deck and reportedly caused ‘dizziness and irritation to eyes’

However the problem recurred on 22 February 2001 when an oily smell was reported to have persisted on the flight deck for the duration of the flight, causing nose, and increasing throat irritation in both pilots.

• In addition to headaches, both pilots suffered from irritation to their mouths and nasal passages. An oily film was subsequently wiped off the flight deck CRT displays and passed to the operating Company’s engineering department for analysis.

• Both flight crew were left with a metallic taste in the mouth; the Commander also experienced a tingling sensation on his lips and a sore throat for several days. The First Officer was left with minor eye irritation.

• During the climb the Commander noticed a metallic taste coupled with an increasingly strong smell. The commander began to feel light headed and “un-coordinated”. The effects were still evident after landing with some reported errors of judgement and garbled speech.

• During the turnaround, the Commander alighted the aircraft in order to breathe fresh air but, after a short time, he suffered a head ache, itchy eyes, nausea and a bad taste in his mouth. The same crew then prepared the aircraft for return sector but, when engines number 3 and 4 were started, the Commander and the cabin staff felt increasingly unwell and as a result, the flight was cancelled. The aircraft was inspected in accordance with Service Bulletin ISB 21 – 150 but this did not reveal any oil contamination. However, following an air test it was found that engine No 4 and the APU were both the source of the fumes.

• The fumes reportedly affected two cabin staff and several passengers.

• The cabin manager felt overwhelmed by these fumes, and was on the verge of passing out, when her colleagues became aware of the situation and administered oxygen to her. After 10 minutes, the cabin manager recovered but was unable to resume her normal duties. Subsequent blood tests revealed that she had been exposed to higher than normal levels of carbon monoxide. (CO).

• The crew began to feel nauseous and so donned their oxygen masks, declared a PAN and returned to Heathrow where an uneventful landing was made.

• Then he started to feel dizzy and so donned his oxygen mask.

• The co pilot was limited in his capability of acting during the approach and landing due to the effects of fumes.

The medical examination of the co pilot after the flight showed that during the flight toxic exposure took place.

The medical examination of the Commander after flight did not show any results.

• They described it as a ‘burnt’ or ‘exhaust’ smell, but it was not accompanied by any visible smoke. Soon after, both crew members began to experience symptoms of tunnel vision, loss of balance and loss of feeling in the hands and lower arms. They immediately donned their oxygen masks, breathing 100% oxygen, which improved their condition noticeably.

• After a normal departure, and during the climb, the co pilot noticed a smell described as being similar to that of a central heating boiler. The commander, when asked by the co pilot, did not discern the odour.

Subsequently, the c o pilot complained of a dry throat and burning eyes. Control was handed over to the commander, shortly after which the co pilot experienced a tingling sensation in his fingers as well as complaining of being hot and sweating. The co pilot was placed on oxygen and the commander elected to return to Belfast. The co pilot slid his seat back and took no further part in the flight. The oxygen did not appear to be helping in the relief of the co pilot’s symptoms, although he remained conscious.

After an uneventful descent, approach and landing at Belfast, the co pilot was given first aid and began to recover. He was taken to hospital for further checks, including the taking of blood samples for later tests. Throughout the flight the commander did not suffer any ill effects and did not notice any smoke, fumes or odour.

Filter bleed air. It is NOT rocket science!

DB :{

Herod

14th Feb 2009, 21:25

People are dying from this stuff.

sthaussiepilot

15th Feb 2009, 00:50

I remember 5 years ago or something, on the ABC there was a documentary or something, and they were discussing the toxic fumes in the aircraft etc, If I recall correctly the main aircraft that seemed to have the most problems with these cabin fumes was the BAE146 and Ansett used to have issues with the smoke....

Not sure if I'm recalling all this 100% accuratly, but did anyone else see/ remember something along those lines?

flood350

15th Feb 2009, 01:24

Panorama (BBC) recently aired a report on this as well, also involving the BAE146.
GUBA - Panorama - Something In The Air (http://www.guba.com/watch/3000137216)

Yamagata ken

15th Feb 2009, 02:36

Yes, that's correct. There had been a long series of reports/complaints by Cabin Crew about contaminated air in the 146s. I don't think anything was ever resolved. At that time I was regular pax between Perth and Tom Price in the 146. I really liked them, very comfortable.

soddim

15th Feb 2009, 08:21

Organophosphates are particularly dangerous and action needs to be taken to deal with the engine oil systems or filter bleed air effectively on those aircraft at risk. The effects of ingestion of these toxins has in the past caused legislation to protect farmers from sheep dips and the use of these toxins in nerve agents is hardly reassuring to airline crews.

I was fortunate throughout my flying career to fly types where oxygen use was mandatory for the duration of flight although airmix settings allowed one to whiff the fumes occasionally. I would want to use oxygen if I flew an at risk aircraft regularly.

Unfortunately, the elimination of risk is going to cost a fortune - watch the bean counters try to bury this issue.

Dream Buster

15th Feb 2009, 08:41

Soddim,
You only need to read this newspaper article from 10 years ago to see how the bean counters have managed to bury this issue.

Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3943388,00.html)

Might these be the same bean counters who are presently facing jail for screwing up the rest of the economy?

It seems to me that the first problem is the poisoning of innocent aircrew / customers.

The secondary and slightly worse / more worrying aspect is the joined up and on going cover up.

Who has heard of aerotoxic? Certainly not the people who are suffering from it!

But people aren't THAT stupid. They will work it out, it's just a matter of time.

Perhaps the German people can bring some fresh logic and common sense to the discussion...

Filter bleed air - it is NOT rocket science.

DB :ouch:

BIGBAD

15th Feb 2009, 09:40

This telegraph report said that upto 200,000 pax could be affect every year. Sounds like a lot but to put that into context how many people fly per year ??? 500 million - 1 billion i don't know but it must be a lot !!

keel beam

15th Feb 2009, 09:51

BIGBAD This telegraph report said that upto 200,000 pax could be affect every year. Sounds like a lot but to put that into context how many people fly per year ??? 500 million - 1 billion i don't know but it must be a lot !!

A lot of those "passengers" are business/regular flyers. In my current job I pax on 40 to 70 flights a year.

200,000 passengers affected is a lot and no matter the total of passengers that fly a year, 200,000 is 200,000 too many IMO

Southernboy

15th Feb 2009, 10:07

Like global warming, there are lots of people who have a vested interest in this not being a real issue. Unlike global warming it would be a simple matter for the industry to get serious about some conclusive tests. They don't.

I've never been affected (to my knowledge) but now know a couple of people who are sure they have been & saner more balanced types I've yet to meet. What disturbs me is that there has been stock answer statements put out by those who are charged with our safety & regulation - and this includes manufacturers, pilot's union etc - for a very long time now.

The consequences of there being something serious in this are very big & where big consequences exist you usually find plenty of resources devoted to denial.

There will be many pax who are affected but have no idea how/when/by what or even what they have. Engine oil contains organophosphates - fact. It's a poison - developed by the Nazis to kill people - so go figure. How good are your oil seals??

What does seem to come out if you read these articles or saw Panorama is that most are not affected but some are and very badly. It needs looking at pronto before a crew becomes incap & kills a lot of people.

Basil

15th Feb 2009, 10:31

Unfortunately, sensible discussion of cabin air contamination was hijacked on this website last year by a group which appeared to have an axe to grind banging on about 'CO contamination', a very unlikely contaminant in a modern jet transport.
As far as I am aware the most likely source of contamination would be lub oil from a leaking forward compressor bearing seal.
I do not believe that I have ever suffered from contaminated cabin air but I did, at one time, have an ongoing lung problem. It was co-incident with spending long periods of time in Hong Kong.

Southernboy

15th Feb 2009, 10:40

Unfortunately Basil, People tend to "Bang on" because nobody is listening to something they feel is important.

I agree it is often alienating when they do but to suggest that pumping poison round a jet engine whilst separating it from the cabin air by a simple oil seal (designed to work as a wet seal) does seem a little questionable to my simple mind.

so, "banging on" or not they may still have a point.

And no, I do not have any vested interest one way or another.............

jshg

15th Feb 2009, 10:55

I'm puzzled by this line in the Telegraph article :

"However, these “recirculated air” filters do not remove fumes or vapours from the engine. So if engine oil or hydraulic fuel leaks, toxic chemicals can contaminate the air supply."

The recirc filters (provided they are clean and serviceable) are capable of removing SARS virus and similar, suspended in the cabin air. How can they 'not' remove these chemicals ?
As I understood it from that BALPA Clean Cabin Air conference a few years ago, the much-maligned recirculation system is the only filtration system technically possible at the moment; once TCPs, pyrolytes etc have made it to the cabin the recirc filters will (eventually) remove them. I would have thought they'd catch toxic fumes too.

AnthonyGA

15th Feb 2009, 11:01

Human beings have a remarkable and irritating tendency to latch on to specific issues for dear life, while sweeping other issues under the rug. The level of concern people have for specific issues almost never correlates in any way at all with the actual importance of those issues. Perception is everything, and reality falls by the wayside.

The issue of "toxic" air inside aircraft is one example. Another, which I've encountered more and more recently, is the issue of "chemtrails," that is, the belief that condensation trails contain vile toxic substances in significant quantities, beyond water and carbon dioxide.

Still another example is the disparity in coverage of two recent accidents. After the first accident, the pilot in command was promptly canonized; after the second, much more recent accident, the crew is being posthumously vilified. And these attitudes have virtually nothing at all to do with the actual circumstances of each accident and the probable causes. It's all illusion.

It seems that all you have to do is put an idea into a person's head, and he or she will run with it, improvising and imagining all the other details along the way. Most people will in fact prefer the imaginary details to the real facts, even if you offer to give them the real facts, and the fewer facts that are available, the more intense and detailed the imaginings.

frnikolai

15th Feb 2009, 11:14

I doubt this is true, simply because more cabin crew and flight deck officers would be taking time off as they are sick? How many flights do Southwest do each day? And how many times have they been off?

Exactly what is in this toxic air anyway?

I hope I am not breathing in toxic air, mainly as my children would be doing the same. But I have never been ill, nor have them... Nor has anyone I know who flys a lot.

Nikolai.

Moonraker One

15th Feb 2009, 12:36

Lots of people said the same about tobacco smoke.

They always know someone who smoked and lived to be 100.

Southernboy

15th Feb 2009, 13:49

Exactly Moonraker.

Just because you can't see it nor touch it it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Obviously there will always be conspiracy theorists but I don't think this issues falls into that category.

As I already said, the 2 people I know who fear they've been affected are simply not that sort. Asbestos underwent a similar denial phase with huge amounts of corporate resources thrown at denying any health risk meanwhile people continued to contract fatal diseases. It really is simple. The authorities have a duty to investigate ALL health risks that crews or pax may encounter in a pressurized cabin and it can be done fairly easily.

The more it isn't the more I think they have something to hide. There are too many sane people concerned about it now to simply say it's human nature to find single issues to whinge about.

Pinkman

15th Feb 2009, 14:09

The usual filters used in aircraft cabin air systems (made by PALL amongst others Clearing the Air on Airplane Cabin Air (http://www.pall.com/news_articles_36290.asp) ) will not remove what are commonly (and incorrectly) referred to as 'fumes'. This is because the organic chemicals (like TCP/TOCP) are at a molecular level. The filters WILL remove dust and fibres (large particles) and maybe some oil mist which may have TCP dissolved in it or larger particles with TCP adsorbed onto it. Basically they are a micron-sized tea strainer. Organic chemicals and small oil mist particles get through. If you have ever seen a used filter you would see how well these things work (for dust).

The problem that you have with this issue is that not everyone is affected the same way: a proportion of the population are what the toxicologists call 'hypersusceptible', so it is difficult to know what 'acceptable' levels might be.

Pinkman

PEI_3721

15th Feb 2009, 14:27

Re #20 “Filter bleed air - it is NOT rocket science”.
There are many problems: what are you filtering out, what is the contaminant / particle size? - see above.
What happens when the filter is full / blocked, if it subsequently fails do you expose people to a higher risk?

A quick look into many air-conditioning systems reveals a chemistry set consisting of old engine or hydraulic oil, de icing fluid, re circulated dirt/dust/detritus. What are the chemical processes that could occur with change of temperature / pressure / humidity during flight? How many of the serious events have occurred during descent – could there be a clue there?

A natural human reaction is to experience concern when encountering an unknown – the sense of smell can contribute a flee / fight reaction which in high stress situations / personal susceptibility (either personality or situation induced, e.g. fatigue) can contribute to actual or perceived physical deterioration. This is not to dismiss several well documented and as yet unexplained instances of crew incapacitation, but without knowing what the threat is, the range of defences might be restricted to reactive resources – use oxygen masks if smoke / fumes are encountered. Aspects of airmanship require us to control the stress of surprise – assessing the situation, protecting ourselves so that as crew we can fly the aircraft safely – rule 1.

Dream Buster

15th Feb 2009, 22:15

PE 3721,

You may be interested to know that there are many ex pilots, cabin crew who are absolutely certain and know 100% what caused their normal good health to alter for the worse whilst flying a certain four engine jet and other bleed air aircraft. Most still find out years later by mistake - NOT auto suggestion.

In contrast, we have various office bound doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats, regulators, politicians 'believing' (hoping) that toxic oil fumes in a confined space are not responsible for serious ill health.

Why do you think that the B 787 is bleed free? How is it that organophosphate deposits are regularly found in jet air conditoning systems and over internal surfaces? Why won't the UK Government tell the ex pilots which chemicals and concentrations are in the visible oil fumes from a cold APU start?

I'm sorry, but all of this is being logged (believe it or not) and when it is finally proved and after the scientists have finished testing Neanderthal man's DNA and other brain numbing equally usesless projects there will be heads rolling - and it won't be the pilots, I can assure you.

Last but not least, would finding oil deposits (including organophosphates) in ones blood / fat be a reasonable indication of a problem? Just like a drunk driver or a competetive athlete? That's what convinced me and many others, along with our serious untimely ill health.

Blood / fat check anybody? What happened to the precautionary principle, anyway?

I hope you agree that this is a black and white issue, no in betweens. Simple choice; Who do you trust - the vested interests or the GM aircrew?

KBO.

DB :ok:

FullWings

15th Feb 2009, 23:40

...there are many ex pilots, cabin crew who are absolutely certain and know 100% what caused their normal good health to alter...

...we have various office bound doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats, regulators, politicians 'believing' (hoping) that toxic oil fumes in a confined space are not responsible...

And that's the problem: a lack of proper evidence/research. There should be no need to "believe" in anything: it should come from proper analysis of the situation. It's a bit like living next to a nuclear power station and "knowing" it gave you cancer - this is not science of any sort and unlikely to lead to any changes.

I fly jets with bleed-driven packs, so I am *very* concerned about air quality from a selfish point-of-view. I also have some sympathy for the technical side of the airline industry in that hard data on this subject seems pretty difficult to come by. I've seen a couple of papers but they effectively say: "more research required". Most of the "facts" I hear quoted are such things as "an engineer told me..." or "did you know that...", etc.

There is a temptation to go for a sort of conspiracy theory but considering that the airlines/regulators/investigators have been formally told of this issue on many occasions (and are running studies), it would be rather foolhardy of them to try and cover up something that is so much in the public domain, IMHO. Now that aeroplanes (in the UK at least) are covered under H&S, the sort of fines and lawsuits that would follow discovery of withholding of this kind of information would be spectacular, to say the least.

Also, I hear "just fit filters". What kind of filters are these and what are they filtering? Do they work or are they just like putting a hanky over your mouth during a nerve gas attack (which is the class of chemicals we're discussing). It'd be ironic if the airlines caved in and rushed out some countermeasures which were found to be ineffective some years later.

If I'm giving the impression that I'm unsympathetic to those who are suffering from ill health in their flying careers (possibly from some sort of nervous poisoning), then nothing could be farther from the truth. What I do feel is that we need less emotion and more hard science, otherwise we're just going round in circles.

Dream Buster

16th Feb 2009, 07:28

Fullwings,

Good reply and well balanced.

The trouble is that this is not a balanced situation. If you and the previously mentioned vested interests actually took the time to look at the evidence, complete the studies and actually come to some conclusions - then we could all move on.

I take it you are already familiar with the well accepted vested interests tactic of 'never ending studies' to prevent a conclusion being drawn??

Boeing and BALPA know all about it. Boeing worked it out in around 1999 (hence the B787) and BALPA in 2005. It is now 2009 - 'on the balance of probability' Boeing and BALPA are both right. They are not stupid - nor are we.

I regret to say that any emotion stems from professionals losing their jobs, health, relationships as a direct result the ongoing denial. It's tough, I promise you.

David Learmount of FI was a famous non believer two years ago but he took the time to review the evidence of 40 years and called for filters.

Comment - Don't wait to take action over toxic cabin air (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/06/223476/comment-dont-wait-to-take-action-over-toxic-cabin.html)

Now I don't agree with everything Mr Learmount says especially as I don't believe he has recently operated a Public Transport aircraft BUT he knows a lot about the shennanigans of the industry, he looked at the evidence and published his opinion. He would never have risked his reputation and that of FI unless he was absoultely sure of his facts.

Can I suggest you order the 800 page Contaminated Air Reference Manual and then cast your vote - maybe taking into account the Precautionary Principle.

I showed the manual to my AME and he unhelpfully said it was too long.....:ugh: (did I mention that the industry 'doctors' also have vested interests?)

Fullwings, as an ultimate 'stakeholder' Perhaps you would like to review the factual evidence and help come up with a well balanced conclusion?

Take care - in contaminated air. It's NOT good for you.

DB :ok:

Big Bad D

16th Feb 2009, 09:09

Dream Buster, instead of yet another speech, please help share the answer to the reasonable question posed by FullWings: "What kind of filters are these and what are they filtering?"

Vertical Speed

16th Feb 2009, 09:28

I spent over ten years as a captain on the older 146 aircraft and although it had many good features one of it's worse ones was the quality of the air in the cabin pressurisation system. During the period I was flying it I suffered more colds and flu-like symptoms than at any other period in my life . I returned to Boeing 737 aircraft after that and almost immediately my health began to improve. Since retiring from flying and taking up simulator instruction about four years ago I virtually never suffer from colds or similar ailments at all! I attribute the extremely poor air quality on the 146 to two factors-
1. The high leakage rate through the engine oil seals into the bleed air.
2.The requirement to recirculate a high proportion of the cabin air to compensate for the inadequate thrust/bleed air from the engines (every 146 pilot knows how underpowered this aircraft is!)

Quite often apon initially starting a day's flying on the 146 it was common to start the APU and then select the highest possible cabin temperature in an attempt to try and "burn off" the residual deposits in the ducts before the rest of the crew and passengers boarded the flight!
Although the 146 and the Boeing 757 were known to be the worst offenders in the "dirty air" club I'm sure that eventually all new large aircraft will follow Boeing's lead and revert to indirect cabin pressurisation-- nothing new really-- the good old DC8 had cabin turbo compressors roaring away in the nose. (The downside of those was that most pilots ended up with with significant hearing loss!)

FullWings

16th Feb 2009, 12:11

Fullwings, as an ultimate 'stakeholder' Perhaps you would like to review the factual evidence and help come up with a well balanced conclusion?

That's a big job, currently being worked on by far better qualified people than myself and I don't see a conclusion even on the horizon yet...

I've just ploughed through some of the reports from the CoT (a distillation of a small amount of what's out there) and it definitely reads like a work in progress. Many small studies of various factors but very little in the way of statistical significance - and that's the main issue, for me.

Are some aviation workers becoming ill with chronic nervous disorders? Yes. Are there 'fume events' occurring on some aircraft? Yes. Is there a causative relationship between the two? Not yet proven/disproved. Are we seeing a much greater incidence of these ailments than you would expect in a general population sample? Wasn't obvious from anything I've read.

'Control group', 'confounding variables', 'selection bias', 'significance level', 'blind trial'... These are the sort of phrases you hope to see when, say, a new drug is being brought to market and is undergoing toxicity testing. At the moment, much of what I'm looking at reads more like a sociological study because of the lack of empirical data.

One thing that did strike me (and others) is the fixation on TOCP synthesised from engine oils as being "the problem". I'd have thought a more holistic view was in order, given that we are operating in a wholly manufactured environment. There are plenty of possibilities for other neurotoxic compounds and vectors which may be being overlooked.

There are striking parallels with "Gulf War Syndrome" and it took long enough to come to some statistically valid conclusions - and that was with a 700,000 person sample with 1 in 4 affected! It was the Uranium shells, then it was the Anthrax vaccinations, etc. In aviation we're looking at something that is hovering around the noise floor: I saw a rough estimate of 3-15 thousand monitored flights on the 146/757 in order to gather appropriate data.

Boeing worked it out in around 1999 (hence the B787)
Maybe they did but I'd suspect the major drivers for an electric system would be decreased weight, cost, maintenance and fuel burn (all popular with the airlines).

Radiation, pathogens, nasty fumes, low humidity, epidermal bits floating around... An aircraft is a terrible place to be! But hang on, all these things are around at ground level, sometimes in much higher concentrations. Many have been environmental issues since the start of evolution. You can't take these things in isolation.

Just suppose that filters (activated carbon?) were fitted to all bleed-driven aircraft, 'just in case'. A wise move, in view of the 'precautionary principle', even though we don't fully understand the problem? It would make a lot of people happy and the industry would be seen to be 'doing something'. Imagine now that the problem wasn't what we'd thought it was but something else, equally as nasty, that had been overlooked... How long until that was found because "it's all OK now."?

I don't want to be a 'believer', I want to be convinced. So far I've seen very little that I could file under that heading but a lot from people with a very personal interest in the subject - and they don't generally make the best impartial researchers, it has to be said. No offence intended - just the ways things are.

JW411

16th Feb 2009, 17:28

Vertical Speed:

That is exactly the wrong technique. The smart thing was to start the APU and then run the pack(s) at Fully Cold for several minutes (regardless of how cold it already was in the cockpit/cabin) so that any possible sh*t went overboard before any heat was introduced into the system.

I never had a problem in almost 20 years and I am delighted to report that I am still in the rudest of health (so far anyway).

Dream Buster

16th Feb 2009, 19:00

Big Bad D,

Dream Buster, instead of yet another speech, please help share the answer to the reasonable question posed by FullWings: "What kind of filters are these and what are they filtering?"

You can't win here, try and keep it nice and simple and there's not enough evidence - give the evidence and it's too much...

To be honest I am not a filter expert but I can put you in touch with one who assures us that anything is possible but in the past cost has put airlines off (may add 10p to the cost of a ticket...) but really it is the fact that all of us 'victims' will want to know "why now?" Which might be 'tricky' to answer?

Most kids would come up with filters as a means of cleaning air and the filter companies know all about it. We have been trying to get the UK Govt to identify the visible fumes from an APU on the ground, which can be generated in minutes. After 2 full years they STILL do not know. That sounds a bit like denial and not wanting to face the truth to me. (Correction they DO know, but they don't want the likes of you and me to know).

How does that make you feel?

Full wings

That's a big job, currently being worked on by far better qualified people than myself and I don't see a conclusion even on the horizon yet...

Can't you see that a full and honest confession of what they know would be a trifle inconvenient and that the best way forward is silence and denial.

Even the word aerotoxic is off limits for much of the media, including the BBC. That makes open debate quite difficult....

Full wings underestimate yourself, if you saw the data you would blow the whistle too.

I guess everybody is aware of the smoking issue which went on for years and years - I wonder why? and now MOST people agree that breathing smoke is BAD for you. Well I breathed visible smoke / fumes for 16 years (Thank you Vertical Speed) which contain neuro toxic chemicals - I only found out a year after I stopped flying that I had TCP in me....having had exactly the same symptoms that the oil tin described - IT DOES WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TIN!

By the way, they have taken the warning off now! As too many people were complaining of ill health. More evidence of a very dirty, messy business.

Just like V/S I have been lucky to have regained my former good health but I know many who have not been so fortunate and there is now an ever growing list of past victims dying prematurely - that's as bad as it gets and it just makes me feel sick - again.

Sorry to bang on but this is a really important issue which accounts for masses of serious mysterious ill health and it's about time it was stopped, for everybody's sake.

Full Wings, please PM me if I can help provide you with the convincing evidence you need and thanks to the Mods for letting it roll....

DB :ok:

Flare-Idle

17th Feb 2009, 01:36

Having spent over 9 years at university in Europe and the United States and close to 8 years in industrial research and development before changing tracks and becoming an airline pilot I´d like to add some views to this discussion.
Based on my own scientific experience with analytical techniques like chromatography, atomic absorption spectroscopy etc. , verification of compounds on a molecular level, i.e. single molecules, is state of the art. The fact that some compounds are shown to be present at molecular level doesn´t mean you will get sick. Now where is the pathogenic level ? While some people suffer from symptoms some don´t, at the same exposure level. Our own genetic fingerprint makes us unique in our looks as well as our ability to get sick or not.
While the TCP issue is of concern, I am always amazed about the fact that hard and cosmic radiation effects are quite often overlooked or even ignored just because you can´t smell it nor see it. We all drink a hot cup of coffee out of plastic cups on a daily basis, finish that PET-bottle of water every day to fight the dry air up there, yet we silently accept to “digest” small little molecules of PET processing additives without really knowing its long term effects on our health. We use our cellular phones and sit at the desk and write comments like this on PPRUNE while the WLAN antenna is radiating. Feel the headache ?
Our cardio-vascular systems are subjected to heavy loads of submicron or more trendy “nano” carbon particles from our engines on the ground and from our cars while driving to and from duty.
I think, I call in sick tomorrow…

Big Bad D

17th Feb 2009, 12:15

Dream Buster, I have in the past participated in the reviews of a number of the fune and incapacitation incidents that have been referred to; and my personal conclusion is that there is indeed a significant issue that needs to be addressed and which some people unfortuantely appear more prone to. However, behind the allegations of industry cover-ups, I have yet to be convinced that there is adequate understanding of exactly what are the causes and hence the appropriate solutions. And I don't believe that this is through a lack of industry testing and analysis. Hence my quite genuine desire to know what it is you believe we should be filtering against?

I am not disagreeing with you that there are people with severe medical issues and that something should be done based on sound investigations. But I am frustrated to keep hearing the same knee-jerk campaigns that seem to suggest that the industry already knows what the problem is and how it should be fixed. The only 100% safe solution I know of, where there would never be a risk of oil contamination, would be to ground all current generation aircraft that use engine bleed air...

Dream Buster

17th Feb 2009, 18:48

Big Bad D,

I'll try and keep it simple - as it is important.

When you start an APU on a 146 it is very easy to mistakenly fill the entire aircraft with visible or stinky invisible oil fumes.

I have many testimonies from pilots who will confirm this. This phenomenon is actually referred to in BBC Panorama - 'Something in the air?' here (http://www.aerotoxic.org/) At the bottom of the home page.

So if one flew for 16 years it would be say 10 minutes exposure to these fumes X 3 days per week = 30 minutes per week X 40 weeks per year = 1200 minutes = 20 hours per year X 16 years = 320 hours exposure to breathing visible oil fumes. Divide it by 10 for reality = 32 hours.

Over 24 hours breathing visible oil fumes in a confined space spread repetetively over 16 years.

You can put various numbers into the above equation but you are left with people (pilots and Cabin Crew) breathing visible smoke in a confined space - repetetively.

So the question is, what is in the fumes? We have been asking the DfT for the chemicals and concentration for over 2 years now and guess what? Nobody knows - well they do, but it is bad news so they don't want people to know.

This information would provide the filter manufacturers with a very good idea of how to make their filters and what to filter out.

None of this is 'knee jerk' - they are cold hard facts waiting to be published one day and the industry is in total denial of the danger of these fumes and what's worse, they know it.

How do they get away with it? Well the fumes cook ones brain to the point that one can't rationally deal with it. The perfect crime?

Any bleed air aircraft can create visible oil fumes - another fact.

DB :ouch:

PS. I also had a full blown fume event in 2002 when the whole a/c (not the cockpit) filled with thick white smoke for around 5 minutes after t/o - I felt really ill (I was already seriously ill at the time from 1989) for months and years afterwards until I finally quit flying in 2005.

I knew nothing of this subject at the time and would not know anything about it until mid 2006 - please learn from my experience, if you value your health?

old-timer

17th Feb 2009, 20:32

De icing fluid also can get into the system via the APU inlet, thats pretty nasty too apart from the organo' oil mist hazard.
This is a REAL problem folks but as usual the bean counters will win the day....:(

Dream Buster

19th Feb 2009, 07:01

Old - Timer,

With the greatest of respect to you; most people would agree that the 'bean counters' are being caught with their trousers down - at the moment.

DB :cool:

aseanaero

21st Feb 2009, 23:17

Just because you can't see it nor touch it it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As part of my business I do a couple of 'Z Checks' of Boeings or turbo props each year where we totally strip all components and then cut up the air frame for scrap.

Most of these aircraft will be 25 to 30 yrs old at the time.

The avionics bay insulation and underfloor ducts, wiring and cabling will usually have a sticky to the touch thin film of 'something' but it smells like engine oil , it's so uniform it looks like it's been sprayed on , these are in extremely unaccessible areas of the airframe which would rarely be viewed let alone cleaned during a major service.

To the curious Boeing 727 + 737 classic pilots and engineers have a look behind the the forward rack in the avionics bay with a maglite (near the relay bank) and to where the walls of the avionics bay meets the bottom of the floor and you should be able to see what I am talking about.

If you ever knew a really heavy smoker who liked to smoke with the windows closed in the car it's like the sticky tar that gets left on the inside of a car's windows.

By comparison cable runs and other components in the top of the fuselage (behind the ceiling panels) still look like new 30 yrs after installation , clean !

So there is some evidence as the aircraft get's older (due to components not working as well as they did or less than optimum maintenance) contaminents are entering the pressure compartment and over a period of decades you can see it in some parts of the aircraft.

David Learmount

23rd Feb 2009, 11:16

At Flight International/flightglobal.com we don't just believe toxic cabin air is a serious issue, we know it is and have demonstrated it, publishing the evidence.

The result has been total silence from the industry. No denials, because they know they can't deny it. No complaints, because they want the issue to remain obscure.

They know the burden of proof remains, at present, with the many pilots and cabin crew who have been damaged by TCP and other neurotoxins in aircraft cabins, and with the unknown number of passengers who simply don't have any way of knowing where their distressing symptoms have suddenly emerged from.

We have been appalled by the pilot unions' complicity in this cover-up. They think jobs are more important than lives and licences.

In the face of this apparently unscaleable wall of complacency we have set up a space on our forum AirSpace here:

Have you suffered from contaminated cabin air? - Airliners/Freighters Forum - AirSpace (http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/forums/have-you-suffered-from-contaminated-cabin-air-22393.aspx)

We are not trying to gather more evidence - we have that in spades and have watched in disbelief as the entire system, including members of parliament, either ignore it or have the wooll pulled over their eyes.

We are trying to get those have suffered or are suffering from aerotoxic syndrome, to tell us their story publicly.

They can identify themselves if they want to, but - especially if they are pilots who fear the loss of their jobs by reporting, or those who have received compensation subject to a gagging order - we promise we will keep their identities confidential if they want us to.

We want those who have suffered to paint a picture of the scale of human misery that this avoidable situation has created, and will continue to create.

Until such a time as there is a mandate from national aviation authorities for fitting contaminant detectors/alerts and bleed air filters to take out the neurotoxins in all aircraft (HEPA filters don't do it and they're wrongly placed in the system), this problem remains a risk in all pressurised aeroplanes flying today.

If you want the background to our campaign, visit my blog.but the most important thing is for those who have a story to tell to go to the previous link and tell the world just how bad it is if you get a dose of this contamination.

Southernboy

23rd Feb 2009, 17:10

It would be very interesting to get some sample swabs of that stuff, just to see.

Dream Buster

23rd Feb 2009, 20:41

Southern boy,

I regret to say that there are so many obvious things to test in connection with contaminated cabin air.

One is left with the impression that the lack of information says it all.

Any testing is dragged out over years and years or simply brushed under the carpet - all to prevent the truth coming out.

But it will one day - then what?

David L,

You and your team at Flight International are to be congratulated in bringing this serious issue right to the top of the agenda.

I used to read FI in the newsagent and buy it occasionally - I will be subscribing from tomorrow - I don't want to miss an issue as it heats up...

I particularly enjoyed the swipe at the Union but would remind you that the brave IPA are on side and have decent morals, fortunately.

What I can't work out is - How are they going to deal with this when it's all proved beyond reasonable doubt?

With great difficulty?

I really don't bet at all, ever - but I would on this one.

DB :D

Dartsinsync

24th Feb 2009, 10:27

David Learmount:

'We have been appalled by the pilot unions' complicity in this cover-up. They think jobs are more important than lives and licences.'

Your comment seems rather a sweeping statement. The Independent Pilots Association/Federation have been applying pressure on this subject whenever possible. Indeed all U.K. members received a DVD at the end of last year entitled 'Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines'.
They also provide support to the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive, as can be seen if you go to Global Cabin Air Quality Executive | GCAQE (http://www.gcaqe.org/index.html)

shortfinals

24th Feb 2009, 11:33

I just can't believe how so many people in this thread can ignore all the stories of the horrible human consequences to fellow pilots.

So you happen to be okay, right?

And you've been a pilot for years, right?

So you reckon the pilots who weren't so lucky deserved all they got, or are just wimps with no resistance, or they're making it up, right?

This just makes me sick. Go and have a look at the human stories DL provided links to and wake up! These are people, they are pilots, and they have been badly damaged. Right?

3bars

24th Feb 2009, 11:40

The avionics bay insulation and underfloor ducts, wiring and cabling will usually have a sticky to the touch thin film of 'something' but it smells like engine oil

DINITROL?!!!:E

shortfinals

24th Feb 2009, 12:35

Dinitrol's wax, not oil, and it's not knowingly used on cabling.

CocoCue

24th Feb 2009, 16:17

That's quite bad, a lot of people will be at stake as a result of these 'toxic' fumes. I would expect that the government would act appropriately.
Make I also ask, which organisation would be in charge in this sort of incident?

I also find it quite interesting that not all aircrafts are the same in terms of the Pressurisation. - Learnt something new! :ok: (I'm a wannabe)

Basil

24th Feb 2009, 18:15

shortfinals,
If you want to be taken seriously then you need to calm down a bit - and stop putting words into people's mouths.

shortfinals

25th Feb 2009, 13:07

Basil, with respect, I can't calm down when my fellow pilots are being poisoned and people tell me to calm down about it.

The fact that everybody's taking this so calmly that nothing's being done about it is what makes me angry.

Basil

25th Feb 2009, 14:47

I would not deny that there is or at times may be contamination in public transport cabins. A thread was started last year which seemed to have a bit of an axe to grind, together with some very unlikely contamination suggestions. Because one type has a bad reputation amongst crewmembers does not mean that all aircraft are affected.

I'm probably guilty of doing the old 'when I were lad' re air contamination in industry, plating shops, diesel engine rooms and industrial towns and comparing those conditions with modern elfin safety rules.

p.s. Sorry for being a bossyboots.

Dream Buster

25th Feb 2009, 16:05

Basil,

There were 48 Contaminated Air Events notified to the AAIB from 6th February 2006 - 11th November 2007.

This was made up of 19 different aircraft types.

Any bleed air system is capable of producing fumes / smoke when it goes wrong. Ask Boeing....

DB :eek:

TvB

2nd Mar 2009, 09:08

This is to inform you that the original German TV program about this issue as of Feb. 3rd 2009 is now available for online viewing at the following link:

DasErste - Video Player (http://mediathek.daserste.de/daserste/servlet/content/1609756?pageId=487872&moduleId=432744&categoryId=&goto=1&show=)

happy landings

TvB

wbble

17th Mar 2009, 16:14

The independent gave a full page to Aerotoxic Syndrome this morning ...

The Independent: Cabin fever: A bad case of Aerotoxic syndrome? (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/features/cabin-fever-a-bad-case-of-aerotoxic-syndrome-1646350.html)

hydroplane

18th Sep 2009, 07:45

According to a Dutch newspaper Kristof Van Gerven (35) a TNT pilot living in Genk (Belgium) was sacked by TNT Airways because he drew to much attention to what is taboo in the business "aerotoxic syndrome"!

In Dutch, "Planes are flying gass chambers..." http://www.hbvl.be/limburg/genk/het-zijn-vliegende-gaskamers.aspx (http://www.hbvl.be/limburg/genk/het-zijn-vliegende-gaskamers.aspx)

Google translation (beware for...):
Kristof Van Gerven 29/08 (35) from Genk was dismissed last week by courier company TNT Airways. There was no reason given, but perhaps he was put on the door because he was one of the few pilots a problem proposed that the airline industry for decades to suppress: that the air in most planes heavily polluted by highly toxic substances.

World suffer thousands of pilots, cabin crew and passengers on the so-called aero toxic syndrome, also known as the "asbestos of the air" mentioned. "Most appliances are flying gas chamber," Van Gerven.

He went in August 2000 as a pilot to work with TNT Airways Bierset. In 2003 he was the Dutch top photographer Anton Corbijn has Snapped at the cover of the annual report of TNT Airways, to adorn, but last week, the company made the pilot to the door. In the resignation letter gave no reason, but Van Gerven suspects that his long illness was the cause.

Asbestos Scandal of the air

In November 2007 the Limburger was forced to stop flying. Ill, by the polluted air on board the aircraft. Aero Toxic Syndrome, was the diagnosis. "This is a general term for health problems that you incur when your polluted air on board an aircraft have breathed," said Van Gerven.

"It affects everyone on board, pilots, cabin crew and passengers." The aviation industry remains silent about it for decades, but recently more and more articles appearing on what the "scandal of the Asbestos air 'painting.

In the 60s, the pure air through a compressor placed separately in the passenger cabin. Engineers have calculated that they could save weight and place when the air aftakten by the engine goes, the so-called bleed air system. "The idea is good in theory, to eventually follow, the inevitable leakage of oil in the combustion process correctly. This will organe phosphates in the air, including toxic and harmful TCP. "Frightening, because all aircraft in use today have some bleed air system. Only the latest Boeing 787 that will soon not start his career.

The toxic substances can cause problems in the short and long term. Short term symptoms are disorientation, tired eyes, irritated airways, breathing difficulties, coughing, vomiting, loss of balance, dizziness, tremor, blurred vision and headaches.

Lost consciousness

"In the beginning you think you are tired or cold and just keep working. So sometime I lost consciousness at the controls. Only when I start asking me questions and I soon noticed that I was not alone. Only attempt the sector - manufacturers and airlines - to conceal this. The fact is that most aircraft are flying gas chamber. Independent measurements have shown that the air on board is often heavily polluted. "Long-term exposure can lead to memory loss, acute diarrhea, respiratory problems, increased heart rate, hair loss, skin rashes, muscle pains, difficulty sleeping, increased sensitivity to chemicals and chronic fatigue. Van Gerven, whose sentences are constantly interrupted by coughing, suffering from most of these inconveniences. "I'm not the same. Previously I took part in triathlons, today I can not walk without my 100 meter air needs to happen. "

There is also a social drama. Thus, Van Gerven since November 2007 he was almost incapable of work have no money. "In the beginning I got unemployment, but fell away after six months. Now I get through a hole in the social legislation. No pay, no sickness and no unemployment benefits. To my resignation last week I received my monthly TNT Airways however loonbrief.Altijd same amount: 0 euro. "

Van Gerven flew above the BAe 146. The unit of British Aerospace manufacturer has a bad reputation in terms of air quality. "Most pilots or crew members have already become ill during flights of this type. "Currently there are more than 150 aircraft in use by the most famous airlines. TNT Airways has 14 copies still serve. Remarkable, because in its own bulletin in black and white that the high disease rate in the BAe 146 fleet is a major problem. And in the maintenance record is often reported problems with the oil. Van Gerven: "First I want to be known and solved problem. Even sick people every day without knowing the cause. More importantly, every day there are still risks. For the ignorant passengers. "

The probability is that Van Gerven his dream job can ever perform is nil. "My pilot training has cost 60,000 euros. But I will never fly an airplane. Why I retrained as a helicopter pilot. Such training also cost a fortune, around 90,000 euros, but if I can continue to fly without that I have to breathe polluted air. "

Roel Damian

Pace

18th Sep 2009, 13:53

"Long-term exposure can lead to memory loss, acute diarrhea, respiratory problems, increased heart rate, hair loss, skin rashes, muscle pains, difficulty sleeping, increased sensitivity to chemicals and chronic fatigue.

The problem with this and various "war syndromes" is the symptoms are very like stress.

Bring a soldier back from war where he might suffer post traumatic stress disorder and it packages up much better to claim the symtomes are caused by exposure to some unknown gas give it a name and sue for millions.

Maybe stress disorders are not an emotional issue but a chemical issue? Once claimed by people having conventional metal fillings in their teeth.

There has to be demonstrable reactions which can be scientifically proved to come from bleed air for anyone to do anything. At present there is no such concrete evidence and little will power to get to the truth.

On the Citation I fly loosing the aircraft heating requires using unfiltered air direct from the engine to restore heat at altitude which in this case doesnt bode well for the occupants if true.

It puts a question mark over the procedures recommended in the emergency flight manual.

Pace

cessnapuppy

18th Sep 2009, 13:55

Same issue with Rainboe in the cockpit area back in the 70's/80's

Even a much smaller case, far from the headlines, can provoke
Boeing's legal tenacity if manufacturing liability is at issue.
In the late 1980s, Lance Schaeffer, a San Diego attorney,
represented a USAir pilot, Richard O'Harren, in what became a
knock-down, drag-out legal battle with Gerrard and Boeing.

Boeing ultimately paid O'Harren $317,000 in compensatory
damages and legal fees, after a six-year fight, for injuries O'Harren
suffered when he was sprayed in the face by a windshield rain
repellent called RainBoe.

Invented by Boeing in the mid-'60s, RainBoe became standard
equipment on jetliners. It was usually stored in a canister inside the
cabin, within arm's reach of the pilot. Sometimes the canister
leaked.

Boeing to this day contends RainBoe is nontoxic, though 95
percent of it is a solvent, Freon 113, which has been blamed in at
least 12 deaths in industrial settings.

At a 1990 trial, Schaeffer produced substantial evidence that
Freon 113 attacks the human central nervous system, causing
disorientation, motor-skills impairment and sudden heart attack.
Schaeffer also established that there was a pattern of RainBoe
canisters leaking.

Led by Gerrard, Boeing's defense team disputed that RainBoe
was toxic, denied the company was aware of any instances of it
leaking and tried to portray O'Harren as a malingerer, court
documents show. The case swung in O'Harren's favor when the
company finally produced reports, years after Schaeffer first
requested them, indicating one airline had reported 55 RainBoe
leak incidents in a five-year period. There was a service history of
problems, after all.

You think its bad NOW, wait till Aum_Shinrikyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo) buys an airline ticket!

mpjswart

5th Nov 2009, 21:06

Whether it is TCP, a derivative or something harmless, the smell known as "wet sock smell" or "damp dog smell" is very very very similar to the smell of valerian acid, an oil based chemical used as esters to produce perfume.
If the smell is considered normal by some, can anyone explain to me quite simply How this oil based chemical enters the airconditioning system and why it's usually starting to happen around 5 minutes after T/D.?
I think if an airliner patents a new airconditioning system that's able to filter whatever compound that causes this will see a huge profit increase.

Dream Buster

6th Nov 2009, 18:28

mpjswart,

Aerotoxic Assiociation - Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome (http://www.aerotoxic.org) should answer your questions.

DB :ok:

Whippersnapper

9th Nov 2009, 16:43

The reason the contamination enters the aircon/pressurisation system is that it comes from the engine or PU compressor and is unfiltered. the reason you may notice it more frequently about 5 minutes after touchdown would suggest the type you are flying on is more prone to APU bleed contamination than engine contamination.

This is a serious issue (I know - I've had it). It is likely to be a contributory or principle factor in many "human factors/pilot error" accidents and incidents.

Banning TCP from engine oils would be a start, as would fitting filters to the outputs of the aircon packs. Boeing's decision to make the B787's pressurisation air source separate from the engines and APU is indicative of their internal acknowledgement of the issue ad is a welcome step in eliminating the problem entirely. It is appalling that Airbus did not do the same on the A380 or intending to do the same on the A350. I don't think any new aircraft should be certified if it uses bleed air for the cabin/flt deck.

Nemrytter

9th Nov 2009, 17:09

Apologies for my ignorance on this issue, but is there any scientific evidence for aerotoxic syndrome?
I've spent a while searching the normal sources for information and can't really find any articles about it. Have there ever been any in-depth studies as to the pollutants present within cabin air (based upon chemical analysis, not theory) or the effects of such pollutants upon crew/SLF?

awblain

9th Nov 2009, 17:44

Let's concentrate on the potentially dangerous part of `aerotoxicity': from all the reports, it seems to be ONLY engine oil contamination of cabin air.

Organophosphate components of turbine oil are essential to ensure the extreme reliability, longevity (and thus safety) of engines; however, they are very toxic to the nervous system. Nothing else that would get into cabin air is anything like as nasty.

Exposure of this type of material for a large crowd of punters can be found in farmers using sheep dip, and led to very nasty long-term consequences. Sheep farmers did effectively bathe in the stuff, though, and the concentrations of toxic compounds were higher (since the insecticide was the main ingredient). Farmers didn't however have to worry too much about losing high levels of concentration at work.

Active study of the levels and long-term exposure seems to be justified. There's a large number of former flyers that can be used in these studies. They all have excellent career-long medical histories available, and a good history of hours flown per type.

The move to `more electric' architectures, and pressing for improvements in the inspection, performance and lifetime of oil seals would also seem to be a sensible precaution.

wbble

19th Nov 2009, 10:59

Another news video from Fox news about cabin air quality and Aerotoxic Syndrome: Is Something In the Air When You Fly? (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/something-in-the-air-111709)

WASHINGTON, D.C. - When you get on a plane, you see the flight attendants, the passengers, even the bags getting on board.

What you don’t see is something else that might be sneaking into your cabin.

“Everyone was getting sick from First Class all the way to the back. People were vomiting.”

In 2000, flight attendant Ruth Medina says she was working on a 747 headed to Japan when, four hours into the flight, she says nearly everyone became ill.

“By that time, I had been flying for 28 years,” Medina says. “So, I had never witnessed anything like this before.”

Medina says she felt nauseous for the next 24 hours before she and her crewmates boarded the same plane to head back to the United States.

“The same thing happened,” Medina says. “Four hours into the flight, the entire aircraft was ill again. People were vomiting and they were just sick.”

This time, Medina says she also got sick and now, nine years later, she says she’s still dealing with confusion and other neurological problems. She is now one of several flight attendants who sued airlines saying they were exposed to toxic chemicals in the cabin’s air supply.

"There are chemicals that are in hydraulic fluid or jet fuel that can get brought into the air of the aircraft," says University of California San Francisco Occupational Medicine Specialist Dr. Robert Harrison.

Harrison says Medina was exposed to toxic chemicals in the plane’s “bleed air,” outside air that comes through the engines into the air conditioning system.

He explains that, "This problem occurs when the mechanical system of the aircraft malfunctions and these products, when they're burned, get into the air supply system and are circulated around the cabin air.”

The contaminated air, Harrison says, is similar to what you would find in dangerous pesticides and can lead to temporary symptoms that may be confused with jet lag. Sometimes, he says, the symptoms can develop into more chronic neurological problems like headaches, dizziness, loss of memory and concentration.

"The name for it is Aerotoxic Syndrome," Harrison says.

Aerospace Medical Association Executive Director Russell Raymond disagrees.

"That term has been discredited,” Raymond says. “It implies the airliner cabin is unhealthful and there are toxic substances in the cabin. That is not true."

Raymond’s group is made up of doctors and scientists who study medical problems with air travel, including bleed air. He says most airplanes use filters and the air inside a plane is actually cleaner than most people’s homes. "There are sometimes events in flights, but I think they are very, very rare and very unusual."

The Federal Aviation Administration says when toxins do get into the air supply; it’s called a “fume event” and must be reported to the FAA.

The FAA says there have only been 900 of these fume events in the last 10 years.

Others argue it’s more common. “We estimate that this happens approximately once every 4-5,000 flights,” Harrison says.

But former commercial pilot Captain John Hoyte says you probably wouldn’t even know about it because the airlines don’t have to tell you if you’ve been exposed.

"It’s a very well kept secret what's going on here,” Hoyte says. “I think most people wouldn't actually understand what was affecting them at the time. That was the case with me. I only found out about it a year after I stopped flying."

After more than 30 years in the air, Hoyte says he began to have memory and speech problems so severe, he was forced to quit. “One flight in 2002, the whole passenger cabin filled with white fumes.”

To push the airlines into using different air supplies, Hoyte started a website devoted to Aerotoxic Syndrome (Aerotoxic Assiociation - Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome (http://www.aerotoxic.org)).

Ruth Medina says she still gets so disoriented, she gets lost in the same neighborhood she grew up in. “I got confused and couldn’t find my way home.”

The FAA says it takes these kinds of complaints seriously and has scientists working on a device that could test for toxins inside airplanes. But it could take years to develop the technology.

Leaving millions of passengers to wonder if they feel sick because of jet lag or because of something else floating in the air.

Croqueteer

19th Nov 2009, 16:06

:confused:I flew the 146 for 17 years and was a sceptic of air pollution problems. I have now lost both kidneys due to my immune system attacking my kidneys and then my lungs, and it would seem that the immune system is the prime target of TCP contamination. What is my next step?

deeceethree

19th Nov 2009, 18:59

Croqueteer,

I suggest you look here:
Aerotoxic Assiociation - Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome (http://www.aerotoxic.org/)

and also here:
Toxic Free Airlines (http://www.toxicfreeairlines.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1)

ZQA297/30

19th Nov 2009, 20:02

Thinking back on it (a decade or more, so please forgive any memory lapses), we often used to notice a "hot cabin air" smell when someone (including automatics) overdid the demand for cabin heat. We used to think it was "just a little oil" condensed in the ducting, and being evaporated off by high duct temp.

Top of descent will call for engines back to idle, but at the same time enough bleed pressure to pump the cabin down, and possibly high cabin heat demand too. On some engines a high/low bleed system will go into high, and hot relatively high pressure bleed air will be run through the ducting, evaporating any volatile condensates in the ducting, even before the aircon packs, and possibly downstream too.

If there are organo-phosphates in the oil these could well be released into the cabin in this way. I don't know enough about organic chemistry to have an idea of evaporation or condensation temps, but I would not be surprised to find both in the operating range of of aircraft press/aircon systems.

Dream Buster

28th Nov 2009, 09:38

EASA Survey on contaminated cabin air.

http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_81

Please take 5 mins to fill in this survey at the end of the document on contaminated air, asap.

Remember, if you say nothing - EASA will assume that everything is OK......

DB :ok:

lomapaseo

28th Nov 2009, 13:44

The EASA NPA, discussion and survey is a decent document and path to resolution of this subject. Lots of well thought out information and explanations on this highly subjective subject.

However my read of it, is that it is initially addressing any needs and/or means for assessing the depth of the problem as it relates to regulated aviation safety. In the end this forum's thread will likely continue for a few more years.

Dream Buster

29th Nov 2009, 10:37

Following yesterdays post, it would appear that the EASA web site

http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_81 has crashed - probably due to the number of people trying to input information.

Here is an alternative link

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Cabin Air Quality survey (http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php/how-you-can-help/364-easa-caq-survey)

As you can imagine, EASA want as much evidence as possible (not) - so be sure to try again when it is............. 'fixed'

DB :mad:

Whippersnapper

1st Dec 2009, 10:51

[qouote=simonpro]Apologies for my ignorance on this issue, but is there any scientific evidence for aerotoxic syndrome?[/quote]

There is plenty of proof. Aside form the numerous incident reports and court cases (which many plaintiffs have won), there is the concrete knowledge of what organophosphate poisoning does to the human physiology and neurology, mainly from experience within the agricultural community. It is also an establiished fact that oils and skydrol create organophosphates when they break down due to the high temperatures encountered within the bleed air system.

thapr2

3rd Dec 2009, 12:18

awblain - quote- 'Organophosphate components of turbine oil are essential to ensure the extreme reliability, longevity (and thus safety) of engines; however, they are very toxic to the nervous system. Nothing else that would get into cabin air is anything like as nasty.'

In fact there are many other things which are just as nasty as TCP, for example acrolein - an aldehyde which may be formed on the decomposition of turbine engine oils. Carbon monoxide (in non lethal doses) can also give rise to some of the symptoms and would fit more with the instances where pilots are revived by oxygen. Carbon monoxide doesn't really explain the long term effects but suggest have a look at acrolein.

Basil

3rd Dec 2009, 12:40

. . and, of course, there's just walking along a city street in amongst the cars, buses, lorries, two strokes, strimmers, chain saws.

lomapaseo

3rd Dec 2009, 14:48

. and, of course, there's just walking along a city street in amongst the cars, buses, lorries, two strokes, strimmers, chain saws.

most people that take this walk eventually die from a host of maladies, but they haven't identified a specific link yet except by inference.

I probably have inhaled more oil fumes with these compounds then most folks alive today, but I'm still not sure which one of my many ills has been caused by them.

Dream Buster

3rd Dec 2009, 16:45

Iompaseo,

Organophosphate Poisoning - symptoms and treatment | Dr Myhill (http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/article.cfm?id=291)

Here's a good list for starters - real pilots don't get sick - they just have 'Mysterious ill's which they can't identify the cause of...until it's too late'

OP's take out your Central Nervous System (multiple system failure) and by definition - we all have different genes and exposures - it's a complete lottery.

One third - 33% are poor detoxifiers and will suffer - if you don't, good for you. I am seriously envious of the 67%.

DB :ok:

daved123

3rd Dec 2009, 18:50

I am surprised nobody has mentioned this report so far.. Credit to BBC news website.
BBC News - A cleaner future in the air? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8383358.stm)

Ref: I've never had any problems.....etc, about 30 years ago I took an interest in the un-willingness of MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) as it then was, to strive for any conclusions or further any definitive research into the OP/sheep-dip problems in the face of statistics showing the increasing numbers of farmers experiencing physical/mental/suicidal problems. Leaving out of the equation any possible pressures by the Agro-chemical industry, they were aided in their inertia by those users who would say - 'bunch of whingers, I've been gargling with/bathing in this stuff without any ill-effects for fifty years' while at the same time previously sane, upstanding, hard-working farmers who used OP sheep-dips were shooting/hanging themselves for no apparent reason.
As mentioned, it's a lottery who gets affected (in aviation and, previously ((before the banning of OP sheep-dips)), in agriculture) and who does not.

Dream Buster

12th Dec 2009, 10:37

What a load of complete alamist nonesense your site is. A blatent attempt to boost sales of a completely useless product through feer.
Absolute rubbish!

At the Aerotoxic Association we are all for freedom of speech and expression, here is a recent unedited slightly different comment from an Airline Manager about the Aerotoxic Assiociation - Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome (http://www.aerotoxic.org) site - hopefully he is right, but the evidence might suggest otherwise...

Generally we find that people 'get it' - but only when they have been personally affected by serious ill health, which they can link to their repeated 'normal' exposures to oil fumes over many years.

I can assure the Airline Manager that 'sales' are non existent, at the moment. It's colleagues health we are concerned about.

All comments gratefully recieved - in the interests of a healthy debate on the issue - that won't go away.

DB :ok:

wbble

19th Dec 2009, 17:54

More from the telegraph: Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a breath of fresh cabin air (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/6839234/Boeing-787-Dreamliner-is-a-breath-of-fresh-cabin-air.html)

Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a breath of fresh cabin air

The successful launch of the Boeing Dreamliner this week has highlighted concerns about the amount of toxic air in conventional aircraft cabins.

By Charles Starmer-Smith
Published: 8:00AM GMT 19 Dec 2009

The new lightweight plane, which is designed to cut fuel costs by 20 per cent, has been hailed as the answer to the problem of contaminated air that scientists claim affects up to 200,000 British passengers each year – known in the industry as aerotoxic syndrome.

Since 1963, all commercial aircraft have used the "bleed air" system, whereby compressed air is drawn through the engines and into the cabin. The air passes through filters that remove bacteria or viruses but do not remove fumes or vapours from the engine – so if there is an oil or hydraulic fuel leak, toxic chemicals can contaminate the air supply.

On its new Dreamliner, Boeing is to pump fresh cabin air from a separate source (away from the engines) for the first time since the Fifties. This had previously been deemed too expensive.

"This marks a serious milestone in aviation history, with the long-awaited first flight of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner," said Tristan Lorraine, a former commercial pilot and spokesman for the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE), which represents thousands of airline staff. "The GCAQE urges other manufacturers to design aircraft with this new 'bleed-free' design and stop using out-of-date technologies, which fail to protect passengers and crews from being exposed to toxic chemicals."

Earlier this year, undercover investigators claimed to have found high levels of a dangerous toxin on several planes using the bleed-air system. Of 31 swab samples taken secretly from the aircraft cabins of popular airlines, 28 were found to contain high levels of tricresyl phosphate (TCP), an organophosphate contained in modern jet oil as an anti-wear additive, which can lead to drowsiness, respiratory problems and neurological illnesses.

Dr Mackenzie Ross, a clinical neuropsychologist at University College London, has claimed that contaminated cabin air may affect up to 200,000 passengers each year. A Telegraph Travel investigation last year disclosed that hundreds of incidents of contaminated air had been reported by British pilots.

Reports linking exposure to contaminated air with long-term harm to health have led to an increase in the number of passengers and crew seeking redress. Earlier this year a former American Airlines attendant, Terry Williams, 40, launched a lawsuit against Boeing over illnesses she claims were caused by toxic fumes.

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority said that investigations were continuing, but that there was no evidence of a link between cabin air and ill health.

Basil

19th Dec 2009, 18:05

I'd like to see the design of the new compressors.
AFAIK a defective compressor can contaminate air.

In the current system the air DOES NOT pass through the engine. It is bled off the compressor several stages before the combustion chamber. Contamination may take place typically if the forward compressor bearing is leaking lubricating oil.

Will the new system have separate compressors with no forward bearing? Could be done - in fact it was done in the days of radial compressors.

Dream Buster

19th Dec 2009, 18:43

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority said that investigations were continuing, but that there was no evidence of a link between cabin air and ill health.
It is plain wrong that the CAA still claim breathing toxic oil fumes for hours on end in the confines of a passenger jet does not lead to ill health.

People might be poisoned - but they are not stupid.

As Mandy Rice Davies of Profumo fame, once innocently said:

"They would say that - wouldn't they?"

Bleed Air 1963 - 2009, 46 years old, R. I. P.

DB :yuk:

Basil

19th Dec 2009, 20:51

there was no evidence of a link between cabin air and ill health.
It is plain wrong that the CAA still claim breathing toxic oil fumes for hours on end in the confines of a passenger jet does not lead to ill health.
Is it just me or is there a bit of a leap between those two statements?

DB, I don't have an axe to grind, honest! If there is a widespread problem then I want to see it fixed. I have children and grandchildren who travel by air.
Bit like AGW, I'm not entirely convinced.

Dream Buster

19th Dec 2009, 21:54

Basil,

Most people accept that breathing toxic smoke fumes can kill in under a minute. Do you?

And surveying around 900 cabin crew produced the following result - why would people make it up?

Illness among cabin crew heightens toxic air fears - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/5849374/Illness-among-cabin-crew-heightens-toxic-air-fears.html)

We know that you have to personally experience it to believe it. But if you read most of the information at Aerotoxic Assiociation - Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome (http://www.aerotoxic.org) you might begin to understand the various factors and exercise the precautionary principle - for the kids sake?

All we are interested in are the facts - people can work it out for themselves.

DB :ok:

Dream Buster

6th Jan 2010, 19:05

Fellow aviators,

Here is your last chance to make your feelings known to EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) about contaminated cabin air.

Whatever your views good or bad, soon it will be the last opportunity to let them know how you feel about this serious health and flight safety issue.

New pilots may want some simple technical changes, if they expect a long, healthy career....

Whilst those who claim to have never been affected - can make their views felt too.

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Cabin Air Quality survey (http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php/how-you-can-help/364-easa-caq-survey)

Everybody is invited to complete the simple survey or send a more detailed e mail with your views - in confidence.

Remember,

If you tell them nothing, EASA will assume it's all OK....

DB :ok:

hydroplane

21st Feb 2010, 19:51

The best kept secret in aviation according to Zembla TV!
http://zembla.vara.nl/Afleveringen.1973.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=21913&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1972&cHash=cb708d89f8 (http://zembla.vara.nl/Nieuws-detail.2624.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news)

Intersting report, but how to explain:
Aircraft accidents and other causes of death among... [Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002] - PubMed result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12056676?dopt=Abstract)

"Due to aircraft accidents young pilots have a higher mortality rate than the general population; other harmful effects on the mortality of pilots in their workplace were not found. At all ages pilots have a better life expectancy than the general population."

hydroplane

22nd Feb 2010, 09:30

For those ho want to view the documentary on line (part in English) go:
Afleveringen: ZEMBLA (http://zembla.vara.nl/Afleveringen.1973.0.html?&tx_ttnews)

Dream Buster

14th Mar 2010, 16:31

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: 'Lethal toxic air' report attacked as a whitewash (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/162878/-Lethal-toxic-air-report-attacked-as-a-whitewash-)

DB :mad:

Dream Buster

14th Mar 2010, 23:23

Jetstar passengers, crew fall ill after chemical smell (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/crew-passengers-fall-ill-on-jetstar-flight-after-mystery-smell-20100311-q11f.html)

DB :mad:

tocamak

15th Mar 2010, 11:44

Has the report actually been published as I could not find it on the Dft website?

Dream Buster

16th Mar 2010, 17:40

No Cranfield report - despite waiting 2 1/2 years to "urgently identify the visible chemicals in a fume event" on the ground in a BAe 146.

Flight International are onto it though....."Clearing the fog".

It should make MOL splutter on his cornflakes.

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/newspaper_and_internet_news/Flight_International_Clearing_the_fog.pdf

DB :mad:

tocamak

17th Mar 2010, 13:23

So the report, which has not been published, is called a cop out. Thanks for the link to the FI article which indeed gives a good deal of background.It does not help though when interested parties just make knee jerk reactions and also the article could not be said to be unbiassed. There is a truth somewhere in all this but entrenched views on both sides don't help getting to the bottom of it.

Dream Buster

17th Mar 2010, 20:46

Tocamak,

David Learmount, who wrote the Flight International article, was completely unsympathetic around 3 years ago - then he took some time to consider the evidence and now is sure that repeatedly breathing toxic fumes in a confined space makes some people seriously ill.

The only way to get to the bottom of it is a bit of honesty - what are the visible oil fumes made up of - why won't they tell us?

The next thing is they will be telling us: "They are good for us...."

DB :mad:

Basil

17th Mar 2010, 22:13

repeatedly breathing toxic fumes in a confined space makes some people seriously ill
I don't think anyone would dispute that SPECIFIC comment :hmm:

Dream Buster

18th Mar 2010, 10:00

DasErste - Plusminus: ENGLISH Version: Aerotoxic Syndrome (http://mediathek.daserste.de/daserste/servlet/content/4015548?pageId=&moduleId=432744&categoryId=&goto=&show) Broadcast Tuesday 16th March 2010.

Do not watch this if you are upset at seeing "humans being treated like animals".

DB :mad:

tocamak

18th Mar 2010, 22:19

The bias or otherwise of the Flight International report actually was not my real point but rather the dismissal, in the sunday paper, of a report by Cranfield which is not likely to be published for some weeks yet. Capt Michaelis says the report is a "cop out" but has she been given a draft version to comment on or is this just an anticipation that it will not match what is wanted? I am not saying that there is not a problem but again just trying to highlight that it does no good pre-empting something which has not been seen. There are plenty of people I know who have an interest in getting to the truth and this does not help.

Dream Buster

19th Mar 2010, 09:11

Tocamak,

Cranfield University were very simply asked 'to identify the substances in a fume event' in 2007.

This is not rocket science.

The continued absence of this factual data - does tend to make many people wonder why it has not been published?

My bet is that it will be published on the UK General Election day. 6th May 2010.

That's what I would do.

DB :mad:

DC-10

28th Mar 2010, 09:36

Apparently the report will not be published for some months as Prof Muir passed away last week.

BritishMidlandMan

29th Mar 2010, 03:27

I found out recently BALPA know that no UK airline has done a risk assessment regarding toxic fume exposure on airlines, COSHH regulations not being enforced.

Come on.... What is a union for if not to protect the members. Come on BALPA be a union..... start protecting the workers.

Dream Buster

31st Mar 2010, 09:11

Airlines: Gift im Flieger? (engl. Version) - markt - WDR Fernsehen (http://www.wdr.de/tv/markt/sendungsbeitraege/2010/0329/04_aerotoxic.jsp?mid=159481)

In this German TV report of 29th March 2010:

The oil company admits the oil fumes are TOXIC.

The aircraft manufacturer admits they are DANGEROUS.

Whilst the airline admits they are a .......NUISANCE.

They would say that - but which is it - taking the precautionary principle?

DB :mad:

lomapaseo

31st Mar 2010, 14:00

Airlines: Gift im Flieger? (engl. Version) - markt - WDR Fernsehen

In this German TV report of 29th March 2010:

The oil company admits the oil fumes are TOXIC.

The aircraft manufacturer admits they are DANGEROUS.

Whilst the airline admits they are a .......NUISANCE.

They would say that - but which is it - taking the precautionary principle?

but which is it

It's like smoking or using tobacco. When does it become toxic?

Life is full of toxicity if things get out of balance vs individual tollerance

Dream Buster

1st Apr 2010, 19:59

Flight attendant wins landmark $140k compo - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/01/2862192.htm)

DB :ok:

Basil

1st Apr 2010, 23:26

Yes, the 146 of which I have no knowledge whatsoever except for that one aircraft's reputation for industrial smells in the cabin which seem to set it aside from any other western passenger jet.

Dream Buster

3rd Apr 2010, 09:20

Here is the official Court Judgement:

East West Airlines Limited v Turner [2010] NSWCA 53 (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2010nswca.nsf/09da2a0a2a27441dca2570e6001e144d/d8e672e1e209410dca2576f000030b49?OpenDocument)

DB :ok:

Dream Buster

10th Apr 2010, 18:45

Behind the toxic smokescreen - Learmount (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2010/04/following-the-delivery-of-the.html)

"BALPA must have as a primary objective to keep its pilots employed. If a few get sick well so be it, we are not a union - we are an association to further our members needs and salary. Passengers are not anything to do with us."

This comment sounds familiar....until the mindless author gets sick.

DB :yuk:

kuba

11th Apr 2010, 03:25

Filtering whatever suspended particulates there may be is one thing, but the real problem is that the troublemakers aren't IMHO particulates. By the time they reach your nose, I presume it's all gaseous. Given the flowrates for cabin air exchange, you may need a fairly sizable organic vapor absorbing cartridge. Think lavatory-sized, to be replaced daily if there is a significant sustained presence of volatile organics. Alternatively, have two cartridges, and switch the flow from primary to alternate once you start smelling things. I have never smelled anything in-flight, luckily, only on the ground during engine startup, so I wasn't even aware that organic vapors are an in-flight problem! One learns every day.

Alas, my personal biggest concern would be mold in the evaporators of the air conditioner packs -- both on-plane and ground equipment.

kuba

11th Apr 2010, 03:28

"The recirc filters (provided they are clean and serviceable) are capable of removing SARS virus and similar, suspended in the cabin air. How can they 'not' remove these chemicals ?" They are particulate filters. The bad organics are gaseous once they reach your nose.

kuba

11th Apr 2010, 03:53

I should also point out that individual sensitivity to VOCs varies, perhaps by an order of magnitude in terms of concentration for healthy people, and even more if you're already sick or presensitized.

As for presensitization, here's an anecdote: When I was a kid, I always had to take anti-nausea drugs before flying, otherwise I'd throw up and be miserable all the time (motion sickness!). Before I started taking those drugs, I'd sometimes make it through the flight, feeling quite ill but not quite having to use the barf bag. Then we'd land, go through all the motions, get out of the airport, and get on a city bus that was leaking just a teeny weeny bit of exhaust into the cabin. Bam, throw up right then and there, before the thing would even get in motion!

tocamak

11th Apr 2010, 07:32

This comment sounds familiar....until the mindless author gets sick

But do note that the "author" was actually someone else making comment on Mr Learmounts blog (to be fair to him).

However the parallels the blog draws between the tobacco industry and the aviation one are a bit tenuous. When litigation finally succeded in the mid 90's it was uncovered that there were numerous memos flying around that showed the industry was well aware of the damaging nature of tobacco smoking. The industry denied any link throughout and actively worked against any researcher who took a contrary view. Richard Doll showed in 1954 that there was a link yet the industry tried to rubbish his research at every turn. My view is that the airline industry and the campaigners are stuck in the position of not having enough evidence to show a definitive link as there has been no peer reviewed research which does show this. Individuals may win court cases based on law intended for other industries but no wide-srpead precedent has been set saying that the aviation industry is aware of the problem but are actively working to cover it up.

Please note that I am not trying to say there is or is not a problem here other than at the moment there is not enough research done which can be used one way or the other.

Dream Buster

12th Apr 2010, 11:32

Tocamak,

There has been enough international research done (and cover up's) to conclude that breathing toxic oil fumes in a confined space will cause ill health.

The only slight difficulty is that some people can't seem to apply this simple logic to the interior of a passenger airliner.

Until now.

Comment: clearing the toxic air (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/12/340442/comment-clearing-the-toxic-air.html)

DB :ok:

hydroplane

14th Apr 2010, 15:49

The pilots decided to land in Iceland due to a strange smell on board which had already caused some passengers to feel ill.
14 April 2010
American Airlines makes emergency landing in Iceland | IceNews - Daily News (http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/04/14/american-airlines-makes-emergency-landing-in-iceland/)

Dream Buster

19th Apr 2010, 13:39

"BALPA must have as a primary objective to keep its pilots employed. If a few get sick well so be it, we are not a union - we are an association to further our members needs and salary. Passengers are not anything to do with us."

Doesn't a few days in the airline industry remind one of how quickly the tables can suddenly turn on such a self centred point of view?

Good luck to all - stay safe and don't let the bxxxers - grind you down?

DB :ok:

wbble

22nd Apr 2010, 19:51

Five years ago yesterday after their conference on cabin air quality, BALPA General Secretary Jim McAuslan said in his closing speech “Is there a problem? The answer is quite clear – Yes. Story after story, study after study, testimony after testimony from across the world and from other industries with similar exposures, show that chemicals exposures of the type experienced by workers in the aviation industry cause health problems.” and pledged to get it all sorted out.

These days the BALPA line is “There is no evidence at present for a link to long term health effects but research concerning fume events continues.”

Oh yes, research. The great thing about it is that when you’ve finished it, you can call for more research, so you never actually need to admit there's a problem or do anything about it.

Video: McAuslan’s conference closing speech. (http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php/news-and-articles/495-balpa-and-cabin-air-quality-five-years-on)

Smokie

26th Apr 2010, 01:27

I was there at the conference 5 years ago, that speech is PRICELESS!

Shame on you Jimbo for allowing Martin and Sandy to "Encourage" you into your U Turn.:yuk::yuk::yuk:

What has been achieved 5 years on?

Bu@@er All.............

Dream Buster

30th Apr 2010, 17:20

Two German TV reports (English subtitles) which provide a useful comparison between the DC8, B 787 & bleed air.

YouTube - Airlines: Gift im Flieger? - Teil 2 von 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXZW87UvYNk&cc=1)

YouTube - Airlines: Poison in aircraft? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itaxftvuuyk)

As it says on a cigarette packet " Smoking seriously harms you and others around you" (except for oil smoke in an airliner)....:zzz:

DB :ok:

wbble

13th May 2010, 19:23

The Aerotoxic Association are also completely unimpressed by BALPA’s continued refusal to do anything and have filed a formal complaint (http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php/news-and-articles/495-balpa-and-cabin-air-quality-five-years-on#Formal-complaint-CAQ). Not only that, they even refuse to inform their members of the dangers. Who knows what the internal politics are or what cosy deals they have going on with the airlines, regulators or research establishments, but it’s not on – aircrew and passenger health continue to be ruined while BALPA continue to do less than nothing.

Dream Buster

23rd May 2010, 19:45

It's good to see the German pilot / cabin crew unions being proactive about their workplace and safety....

German unions press release (http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php/news-and-articles/504-german-unions-press-release)

.........Of all the countries in Europe, these are the ones who recognise that there are common sense solutions.

DB :D

Interflug

23rd May 2010, 20:10

Interesting that Boeing's 787 is explicitly mentioned in the unions press release as an alternative...

Dream Buster

27th May 2010, 16:26

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/medical_help/Medicalprotocol031909.pdf

The 'Best kept secret in aviation'.

DB :ok:

wbble

30th May 2010, 08:58

Following the press release posted by Dream Buster, it's good to see the German unions speaking their mind and not siding with industry interests.

sueddeutsche.de: “Invisible poison intoxicates pilots” (http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php/news-and-articles/506-invisible-poison-intoxicates-pilots)

FEHERTO

31st May 2010, 06:02

It will be possible for all flight deck and cabin crew members to show their records to proove how often they had been eposed to "aircraft air environment".

But being a frequent flyer (more than 350.000 miles a year) and till now not writing down all my flight details, it will be nearly impossible to claim anything, if the subject is treated more seriously.

The reality is that I am more hours in an aircraft compared with some crews.

wbble

29th Jun 2010, 07:39

Good to see Flight International continuing to cover this issue. This time they are documenting the work of the Aerotoxic Association …

Work Experience – Revealing aviation's toxic secrets (http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/newspaper_and_internet_news/Flight-International-Revealing-aviations-toxic-secrets.pdf)

JohnMcGhie

3rd Sep 2010, 20:00

Flight attendant wins in toxic-fume case (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/flight-attendant-wins-in-toxicfume-case-20100903-14ufi.html)

Been a long time coming, but sense prevails at last!

"A quarter of pilots who flew on the BAe 146 jet suffered long-term effects and could no longer work, a University of NSW survey found."

Cheers

Dream Buster

4th Sep 2010, 14:51

Flight attendant wins in toxic-fume case (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/flight-attendant-wins-in-toxicfume-case-20100903-14ufi.html)

Game, set, match and championship to Joanne Turner.

"But airlines, aircraft manufacturers and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority say there is no evidence it is a danger." - very scary......

Never give up.

DB

:ok:

Dream Buster

14th Nov 2010, 21:48

At last, a thesis on contaminated cabin air.

The phoenix girl - Learmount (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2010/11/the-phoenix-girl.html)

Congratulations - Dr Michaelis.

DB :D

wbble

27th Mar 2011, 21:14

Sunday Express, 27 March 2011

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/images/thumbnails/Sunday-Express-Poisoned-Air-Crew.gif

Shocking Toll of Poisoned Air Crew (http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php/multimedia-archive/572-shocking-toll-of-poisoned-air-crew)

AvMed.IN

28th Mar 2011, 03:05

Aerotoxic Syndrome (http://www.avmed.in/2011/02/aerotoxic-syndrome-a-cause-for-concern/), though being talked about in commercial aviation sector, is not even a recognised illness or entity as far as medical sciences is concerned. But for the isolated efforts by few individuals, unions and even regulators like CAA and CASA, this may remain a unknown malady, with physicians the world over treating the symptoms of the affected individuals as anything other than aerotoxic syndrome (http://www.avmed.in/2011/02/aerotoxic-syndrome-a-cause-for-concern/)!
Kudos to the German unions for being forthright in this matter.

wbble

28th Mar 2011, 22:06

Yes indeed - the German unions are quoted in this article from Der Spiegel magazine. Their media has been giving this issue a lot of attention over the past couple of years.

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/images/thumbnails/Der_Spiegel_Gestank_alter_Socken.gif

Der Spiegel: Gestank alter Socken (German) (http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/de/Der_Spiegel_Gestank_alter_Socken.pdf)

Der Spiegel: Stench of old socks (English translation) (http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/newspaper_and_internet_news/Der-Spiegel-Stench-of-old-socks.pdf)

Dream Buster

30th Mar 2011, 20:14

The long overdue Cranfield University report is meant to be published in the late spring of 2011 (originally 2010) to provide the 'urgent' answer of 'which substances are in the fumes' asked by the House of Lords in 2007.

Any bets that it will be published over Easter / Royal wedding on 29th April 2011 - a good time to dump bad news?

DB :zzz:

Shell Management

3rd Apr 2011, 12:02

I predict no scientifically significant causal link will be found.

This is just like global warming, a scientific con.

Cuban9

9th Apr 2011, 12:32

SM, if you beleive that, you are stupid; more likely you're part of the spin machine. If it looks like a duck................

Shell Management

9th Apr 2011, 13:26

I'm sorry, but this is a matter of science.

Clearly there are some who would stoke a compensation culture in the hope of big payouts.

lomapaseo

9th Apr 2011, 13:36

Shell Management

Your're playing with matches again in a tinder box of believers.

You could probably have some valid points. My summary of this is that engineers can not fix what they can't measure and that when all is said and done more will be said then done.

Shell Management

9th Apr 2011, 14:09

If it can't be measured the chances are rather in favour of it not being there.:)

ECAM_Actions

9th Apr 2011, 17:13

Cuban9 needs to open his eyes to the reality OIL is running out and the world is running around trying to figure out what to do when the black gold runs out.

Back on topic...

Is it more of a case of won't look rather can can't look, or did look but didn't find? If you don't look you can't see anything...

Why is it all these samples must be taken secretly? If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear, right? :E

ECAM Actions.

Croqueteer

9th Apr 2011, 21:14

:(Shell, It took time to agree that farmers were being killed by organophosphates in sheep dip, and eventually that was banned. I was a sceptic until I lost my kidneys three years ago after 17 years on the 146 due to my immune system running wild almost certainly the same problem as sheep dip.

BARKINGMAD

10th Apr 2011, 16:37

After 9 years on the Bae146, I await with some trepidation the medical effects of operating this quirky aircraft.

Working for an airline which was one of the first to use the type, it was a common pracice to start the APU some time before boarding so that when the packs were initiated we could observe the arrival in the aft cabin of a cloud of blue smoke which gradually dispersed.

Pax then boarded into a supposedly "clean" cabin, though one can only guess at the dosage rate to the unfortunate cabin crew performing their normal preflight checks. The issue was frequently highlighted as a defect in the tech log with the standard Not :mad: Fixed annotation by the engineers.

In the subsequent descents (APU NOT operating), the waft of sweaty socks occurred at around 8,000ft aircraft altitude as reliably as an auto altitude callout. The same "rectification" writeup would be observed.

Try getting hold of a copy of "Toxic Airlines" by Tristan Lorraine if you want a cracking good yarn with a suitable ending for more info on the topic. The book gives a very good explanation as to why we, as actual and potential vicims of this mass poisoning, are being kept in the dark, along with the mushrooms!

I shall now reflect on why I use this posting name..............:confused:

JW411

10th Apr 2011, 17:09

The trouble with all of this is the difficulty of collecting good evidence that will stand up in a court of law.

For example, if I were to be called as a witness, I would have to admit that I flew the Bae146 for nearly 20 years and retired at the age of 65. I am now 70and I am still (thank goodness) enjoying robust health.

As I have said on past threads on this subject, I have met a couple of people who have undoubtedly developed health problems and I sympathise fully with their problems but I think this is going to be a very difficult one to nail down.

The fact of the matter is that there were thousands and thousands of farmers involved in dipping sheep but not so many flying "smelly" aeroplanes.

Dream Buster

10th Apr 2011, 19:42

JW411,

Doubtless you are aware of the visible oil fumes that many 146 pilots repeatedly breathed and know CAUSED their ill serious health - the EFFECT?

We also know that it only affects about 30% of people seriously. This is known science.

I met a top lawyer (who also happens to contest the cause and effect of breathing toxic oil fumes) recently at my house and within minutes he was in tears and had serious respiratory problems. He went to bed very early - by the morning he was in even worse shape and considered going to A&E. He was the only one affected.

The CAUSE? - I have 3 cats and he was allergic to them.

So, whilst I am delighted that you personally have not been affected (yet), could you please understand that everybody has different genes, has had different exposures and experiences different EFFECTS depending on the CAUSE.

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/reports_and_evidence/MackenzieRoss%20Harper%20Burdon%202006.pdf#page=3

Here is a paper from UCL (University College London) which reports that in 2004 OVER 196,000 UK Passengers a year could be presenting their symptoms of acute toxicity to their GP's - who incredibly, are STILL not told that OP's are in the engine oil that their patients regularly breathe. Page 523.

How many aircrew? Do you really think anybody actually cares?

Whatever i$ it about thi$ $ubject, which make$ a $imple cau$al link - $o di££icult?

It would be great if everybody was like you JW411 - but sadly many of my good mates are dying prematurely now and many of us know - exactly why.

Just out of interest - are you allergic to anything? Do you recognise allergies?

Why & how could this be......all made up?

Anybody (especially BALPA members - as we are not allowed to advertise in The Log) wanting to know more should visit: Aerotoxic Association - Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome (http://www.aerotoxic.org)

Rant over, apologies...

DB :mad:

Shell Management

12th Apr 2011, 17:47

Dream Buster - thanks for showing (with your cat story) that there are plenty of ways for humans to have adverse reactions to perfectly innocent environmental stimuli and that an over-hyped oil based cause-celeb need no be the X-file conspiracy source.:cool:

BOAC

12th Apr 2011, 21:06

"an over-hyped oil based cause-celeb".........................:)

cwatters

13th Apr 2011, 09:31

I suspect that individual/obvious fume events might not be to blame. It's well known that regular low levels of exposure to various chemicals can sensitize people so that the reaction they experience gets worse and worse even though exposure levels remain the same. They can also start to react to other similar substances at levels that don't provoke a reaction at all in unsensitized people.

I managed to accidentally sensitize myself to super glue but fortunately it's easy to avoid. Took awhile to work it out but I used it a lot to build a model planes and spotted a pattern. I'd get mild flu like symptoms a day after use. I didn't get that reaction when I was younger or when using other adhesives.

Dictionary - Definition of sensitization (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Sensitization?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Sensitization&sa=Search#922)

Chemical sensitization: Evidence suggests that some people may develop health problems characterized by effects such as dizziness, eye and throat irritation, chest tightness, and nasal congestion that appear whenever they are exposed to certain chemicals. People may react to even trace amounts of chemicals to which they have become "sensitized."

overun

14th Apr 2011, 04:58

l believe that Bae Systems paid, under it`s previous name, an undisclosed sum to avoid future litigation.

l do have some history, and will dig it out.

Standby.

overun

14th Apr 2011, 05:14

Can`t find it.

Contact the lndependent Pilot`s Association 00441444441149 for a copy of the infighting.

Serious stuff.

wbble

14th Apr 2011, 11:03

Overun, is this what you were looking for?

British Aerospace / Eastwest / Ansett agreement (http://www.aopis.org/Tabled_documents_13August.pdf)

snail

1st May 2011, 20:49

I see a comment on the aerotoxic web site that a french company, NYCO, makes a non toxic oil for use in jet/turbine engines.
Does anyone here have experience with using this oil?
Is it an answer to the OP problem?
turbonycoil 600
Nyco, Spcialiste des lubrifiants militaires, lubrifiants synthtiques et esters (http://www.nyco.fr/content.asp?IDR=114273&IDR2=114286)

shortfinals

11th May 2011, 14:00

lomapaseo

11th May 2011, 15:30

I can't stand the smugness of people like BOAC who were fortunate enough to get through a career with health intact, then sit in their leather armchairs and dismiss the cases of those crew who were seriously damaged by a fume incident.

Good for context on this subject: Don't worry, there's only a little bit of poison in the cabin air today - Learmount (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2011/05/dont_worry_theres_only_a_littl.html)

I certainly didn't read any facts in the link above, just emotional posturing justifying ignoring of any scientific research because it didn't happen to confirm a theory.

If you want support, then approach the general media and have them write articles like this.

If you want something fixed that is broke then you are going to have to come up with facts based on a scientific method.

shortfinals

11th May 2011, 16:45

Iompaseo, the science is out there, you just can't be bothered to read it.

Not surprising, because there's a lot of it, and it consists of complex biochemistry. The authorities, for some time, have not denied (because they can't) the existence of fume events and their constituents. They are only arguing the legal technicalities of proving the connection between the events and the human consequences, just like the tobacco industry successfully did for years.

But then you probably still argue that there's no proven connection between smoking and lung cancer...

Dream Buster

11th May 2011, 16:59

East West Airlines v Turner - appeal dismissed ... twice (http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php/news-and-articles/482-east-west-airlines-v-turner-appeal-dismissed)

It took this Australian case 18 years to prove it and that was without a bullet proof blood test which is being developed:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/reports_and_evidence/Furlong_Lockridge_Development%20of%20diagnostics%20in%20the% 20search%20for%20an%20explanation%20of%20aerotoxic%20syndrom e_2010.pdf

Do you take bets Iomapaseo?

DB :ugh:

scanhorse

11th May 2011, 17:03

Scientists have recently determined that airports pose a much higher health risk to people than initially calculated. In a recent study, it was found that oil droplets jet engines spew on the runway while running idly can be broken up by sunlight into extremely dangerous particles.

Airports More Dangerous to Health than Thought - Softpedia (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Airports-More-Dangerous-to-Health-then-Thought-199675.shtml)

lomapaseo

11th May 2011, 19:45

Do you take bets Iomapaseo?

Certainly not on juries who don't understand science.

At least you can get some satuisfaction there if you live long enough.

Meanwhile, there is yet nothing for science to fix and that is a fact

Young Paul

11th May 2011, 20:34

Critical thinking skills:

1. Gather complete information - more than one source
2. Understand and define terms (make others define terms, too)
3. Question the methods by which results were derived
4. Question the conclusion: do the facts support it? is there evidence of bias? remember correlation does not equal causation.
5. Uncover assumptions and biases
6. Question the source of information
7. Don't expect all the answers
8. Examine the big picture
9. Look for multiple cause and effect
10. Watch for thought-stopping sensationalism
11. Understand your own biases and values

Just sayin'

Dream Buster

12th May 2011, 05:35

Newspaper and internet news (http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php/multimedia-archive/55-newspaper-and-internet-news)

Can we all agree that there is a problem but the airlines don't want their passengers or crew discussing aerotoxic in public?

I don't bet either but - as with tobacco - one day known fixes will be brought in.

Because it will cost them dear, if they don't.

DB :ok:

shortfinals

13th May 2011, 09:37

If you check out Iomapaseo's posts (most of them are in JetBlast) and you find out what really lights his intellectual fires you won't worry about his opinions again.

lomapaseo

13th May 2011, 15:11

shortfinals

If you check out Iomapaseo's posts (most of them are in JetBlast) and you find out what really lights his intellectual fires you won't worry about his opinions again.

maybe we ought to move this thread to JetBlast where your vacuous arguments would fit. :E

Dream Buster

14th May 2011, 07:30

Iomapaseo,

Why not have a dedicated toxic fumes section - Aerotoxic?

Clearly you have no idea of the scale or significance of this issue, which is exactly why it's kept quiet and continually dismissed - the airline industry gets it - why not you?

Latest:

Learmount (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/)

747JJ

14th May 2011, 10:40

The toxicity levels of engine oil and that of hydraulic fluids are a know without any doubt.
As for long term exposure to these contaminants such as Organophosphates, I would be qurious of the know effects to children of those exposed in the long term such as pilots. How many birth defects are there within people who work in an aircraft or engineers. Are the number of birth defects higher than say for average office worker and is there a link to long term exposure to solar radiation and fumes.

lomapaseo

14th May 2011, 20:52

Clearly you have no idea of the scale or significance of this issue, which is exactly why it's kept quiet and continually dismissed - the airline industry gets it - why not you?

Learmount sells his words. I work problems, identify, prioritize and implement solutions.

I can speak softly and be heard.

I do keep abreast of data that can be compared to measuable problems that can be solved by aviation professionals.

PR release are ignored by me

I'm not about to attack one problem within the industry and create an even bigger problem, so a measured response is always part of solving problems.

Dream Buster

14th May 2011, 21:21

Iomapaseo,

Plane forced to land over strong chemical smell moments after taking off | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381639/Plane-forced-land-strong-chemical-smell-moments-taking-off.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

Many people are becoming rather sick of their fellow humans being gassed in industrial numbers inside enclosed chambers and then have the cheek to pretend that they don't know why so many are ill.

Boeing absolutely know about it with their 'bleed free' B 787 - ask them. They have already told the House of Lords of the UK in 2007 - as much.

In the meantime, how about filtering the bleed air? - as a precautionary measure.

Which passenger in their right mind would begrudge paying a dollar a seat for clean air, whilst we all wait for 'bleed free' technology to appear?

Meanwhile, pilots aren't even told that 'bleed air is' not filtered.

Filtered or unfiltered Iomapa$eo?

hval

15th May 2011, 08:41

@DB

Filtered or unfiltered Iomapa$eo?

I prefer filtered to instant myself.

I apologise for my frivolity. It is just I am sitting drinking a filtered coffee and saw your comment. I saw (see?) the similarities between coffee and air supplies. Filtered is always better (my opinion).

Apologies once again; after all concerns re clean air supplies are valid.

lomapaseo

15th May 2011, 14:06

dream Buster

Plane forced to land over strong chemical smell moments after taking off | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381639/Plane-forced-land-strong-chemical-smell-moments-taking-off.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

Many people are becoming rather sick of their fellow humans being gassed in industrial numbers inside enclosed chambers and then have the cheek to pretend that they don't know why so many are ill.

Boeing absolutely know about it with their 'bleed free' B 787 - ask them. They have already told the House of Lords of the UK in 2007 - as much.

In the meantime, how about filtering the bleed air? - as a precautionary measure.

Which passenger in their right mind would begrudge paying a dollar a seat for clean air, whilst we all wait for 'bleed free' technology to appear?

Meanwhile, pilots aren't even told that 'bleed air is' not filtered.

Mostly true and properly addressed :ok:

Will filtering solve the problem? or is it like using screens in front of engines to stop the birds

What size filter is needed ?

What standard does it have to meet ?

Dream Buster

15th May 2011, 18:28

Iomapaseo,

We have a saying in the UK:

"Where there's muck - there's bra$$".

Cabin air filtration solutions (http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php/reports-and-evidence/530-cabin-air-filtration-solutions)

I reckon 'a dollar a seat - for clean air' should be enough to start a trend - if only the customers knew what they're breathing.....

Dream Buster

16th May 2011, 11:31

I hate replying to my own post but this was in the Sunday Express yesterday - odd that the rest of the media don't seem to think it's an important issue to report....

Freedom of speech & expression? In your dreams.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Posts | Breaking news, sport, showbiz, pictures and video from the Daily and Sunday Express newspapers - updated 24/7 (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246712/Toxic-air-cover-up-slammed-by-pilots)

JOE-FBS

22nd Feb 2012, 14:27

EASA has found no reason to change CS 25 (certification specifications for large aeroplanes) to control cabin air quality.

http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/agency-decisions/2012/ED%20Decision%202012-001-R.pdf

jcjeant

22nd Feb 2012, 16:02

Extract from the EASA PDF document

Article 2
According to the existing literature and study reports, the Agency understands that a causal
relationship between the health symptoms reported by some stakeholders (some pilots, cabin
crews or passengers) and oil/hydraulic fluid contamination has not been established. As there
is no conclusive scientific evidence available, the Agency is not able to justify a rulemaking
task to change the existing designs or Certification Specifications.

No scientific evidence
Yet this same agency wants to change the rules of flight time while scientific studies are in the opposite direction of that agency decisions
This agency takes into account scientific advice only if they are consistent with its interests and so the interests of the industry and airlines

lomapaseo

22nd Feb 2012, 19:48

That's the way it is supposed to work. That is the fundamental base of a regulatory environment.

One can always argue with the outcome and repetition for a review but the process is not flawed

jcjeant

22nd Feb 2012, 20:51

That's the way it is supposed to work. That is the fundamental base of a regulatory environment.

One can ask:
What is the (real) purpose of the EASA as regulator ?

mark exclamation

22nd Feb 2012, 20:53

Why isn't someone examining the filters removed from aircraft? Could be all sorts of grunge/TCP!

Just a thought!

AustinByrdEsq

25th Feb 2012, 11:47

Boeing recently settled a case with an FA for undisclosed amount.
Flight crews (and lawyers) are beginning to understand this is serious.

The FAA commissioned a research paper entitled:

MANAGEMENT OF EXPOSURE TO AIRCRAFT BLEED-AIR CONTAMINANTS AMONG AIRLINE WORKERS A GUIDE FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

A scientist in Seattle has blood samples from 92 people that have experienced symptoms. The suspected culprit chemical is a detergent in the turbine engine oil called tricresylphosphate. A more detailed discussion on the toxicity of
tricresylphosphate engine oil additives can be found in Attachment 1 to the FAA's whitepaper.

Teldorserious

24th May 2013, 17:14

You can read up on the definitive studies of diesel fumes causing lung cancer. Getting that start up whiff on the first flight of the day, times 20,000 hours might not be so healthy.

RAT 5

24th May 2013, 19:02

One has to consider who really controls matters anywhere: follow the money and it is the big guns that pull the switches. Same in politics, same in most industries. When authorities start to tread on rich toes and make life difficult they can be warned/paid off; doesn't matter what the industry is.
Years ago there were studies & reports about cosmic radiation effect on aircraft and personnel. It was tested and some deemed it dangerous. There was no economic solution. Who has heard of those reports and where are they? Buried. For years there have been reports & studies about crew/engineer fatigue and ensuing incidents/accidents. No simple economic solution. Where are those reports? Buried. What has happened to working conditions? Worsened. Aeroplanes fly further = longer = extended FTL's necessary. What has happened? Extended FTL's. The basic human problem has never been addressed. More pax/a.c. flying longer sectors with less crews = more profit. QED! Engineering qualifications diluted. Maintenance schedules massaged. I look back over 38 years and most things have been diluted. Technology has improved enormously, yes, but it is not the saviour of everything. The human is still the root cause of most accidents in most industries. There is no doubt in my mind that company profit is foremost. If all rules were obeyed and crews worked to rule then the air-transport system would collapse. Should it be like that?
But that's another story. Should known dangers be allowed to be brushed under the carpet? Damn it, there is enough nasty stuff under there already. The biggest problem is that if it is agreed that there is a case to answer on health grounds for the crews then what about the zillions of pax who are flying? The industry could not survive such a scenario. The DVT was a scare. It did not include crews, only econ -pax. Why? The pax could at least walk about: we are locked into our box for hours, and for more hours/yr than any pax. Our lively-hood and health were never mentioned. Too inconvenient. That topic has disappeared. The airlines have issued warnings and tips about twiddling your toes. Has the problem disappeared?
I can only say I'm glad it is over; the slippery slope is getting slipperier every year. Many authorities do not seem to be helping reverse the trend. As with most reversals in the ways of managing worldly affairs it will take a major catastrophe for a wake up call. I can think of many aviation crashes that caused wake-up calls and changes. They didn't require too much money. I fear we are at the point where necessary changes in the way you operate and live your lives will require financial investment and greed will win in the short term. In the long term? I wont be around to see it. Bon chance.