Toxic (TCP) Fumes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Toxic (TCP) Fumes
Interesting story on 60 Minutes Australia tonight, which I think has a lot of legs in it.
Here is the story for those who missed it (see "Toxic Flyer")
Interesting extended interview with the BA pilot but I can't find the video link in the "Extended Minutes" section.
A question for the engineers: To what length, if any do HEPA filters help in this instance?
Happy landings.
Here is the story for those who missed it (see "Toxic Flyer")
Interesting extended interview with the BA pilot but I can't find the video link in the "Extended Minutes" section.
A question for the engineers: To what length, if any do HEPA filters help in this instance?
Happy landings.
Last edited by Chocks Away; 1st Dec 2013 at 10:10.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Bleed Air', the legacy continues...
The whisper jet was an absolute dog for this issue. But the BAE146 is not the only aircraft to have poisoned its occupants. The issue in itself is not new, but the reality is that big business is in bed with the Governments so it is rare that they are ever penalised for the dangers they bestow on the unwary.
The spin doctor Consultant in the 60 Minutes story was nauseating to say the least. Boeing has had what some may say is a checkered past with 737 rudder faults and lap joint work issues, but that isn't really relevant here, but it does prove that it is very hard to ping a manufacturer for wrongdoing.
The girl in the below link went on to win a payout against AN for the exact issue discussed in tonight's 60 Minutes story;
Flight attendant welcomes Senate report on cabin fumes [ 13oct00 ]
As a footnote, the alleged inability to design a chemical detection system, cheaply, for the aircraft cabin is a complete crock. There are numerous designs and prototypes out there, it's just that the aircraft manufacturers and indeed many airlines don't want them installed. I wonder why?
Some more light reading;
Global Cabin Air Quality Executive - www.FumeEvents.com
The spin doctor Consultant in the 60 Minutes story was nauseating to say the least. Boeing has had what some may say is a checkered past with 737 rudder faults and lap joint work issues, but that isn't really relevant here, but it does prove that it is very hard to ping a manufacturer for wrongdoing.
The girl in the below link went on to win a payout against AN for the exact issue discussed in tonight's 60 Minutes story;
Flight attendant welcomes Senate report on cabin fumes [ 13oct00 ]
As a footnote, the alleged inability to design a chemical detection system, cheaply, for the aircraft cabin is a complete crock. There are numerous designs and prototypes out there, it's just that the aircraft manufacturers and indeed many airlines don't want them installed. I wonder why?
Some more light reading;
Global Cabin Air Quality Executive - www.FumeEvents.com
Last edited by Paragraph377; 1st Dec 2013 at 12:15.
Could you imagine the litigation if it turned out to be admitted by all.
The asbestos and tobacco issues took a long while to become accepted as a problem.
Ever read the fine print on a 44 gallon drum of Mobil Jet Oil II?
Of course "36 Minutes" wouldn't be beating this up would they? Like illustrating the story with file footage of the Helios crash which resulted from a failure to pressurise.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet aircraft have been flying for decades, if there was some long term health issue to every one we would know by now.
There is an issue with mechanical failures that results in contamination of cabin air. This in some case adveresly affects some people. This is no different to many other problems in society. We have enough statistics over the length of time now to say the problem is statistically insignificant.
Unfortunate for the people it does affect, sadely they will not be the same again, but the aircraft industry works on affordable safety. If you can come up with some numbers showing effects are significant for total number of people flying, then something will be done about it.
There is an issue with mechanical failures that results in contamination of cabin air. This in some case adveresly affects some people. This is no different to many other problems in society. We have enough statistics over the length of time now to say the problem is statistically insignificant.
Unfortunate for the people it does affect, sadely they will not be the same again, but the aircraft industry works on affordable safety. If you can come up with some numbers showing effects are significant for total number of people flying, then something will be done about it.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: 37000'
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, a good mate of mine (airline pilot) was recently diagnosed with leukaemia..The doctor advised that this type of Leukemia is caused by radiation and/or Benzine (a product found in oils and fuels)!!! Makes you wonder ??
Some companies in Australia do believe it is an issue and have strict requirements regarding the reporting of "unusual smells" in aircraft.
To say
is similar to "the earth is flat theory.
People smoked for years before governments stood up and confirmed that smoking was a health hazard. mobile phones, airport screening, aircraft fumes may well have long term issues. Until some one like CASA medical do a long term study we won't know.
What I do know is that I am aware of several people who have ceased flying using "fumes" as the likely reason for their medical condition.
I for one am not going to discount the possibility off hand.
Having said that I flew the 146 for many years without ever smelling fumes.
To say
if there was some long term health issue to every one we would know by now.
People smoked for years before governments stood up and confirmed that smoking was a health hazard. mobile phones, airport screening, aircraft fumes may well have long term issues. Until some one like CASA medical do a long term study we won't know.
What I do know is that I am aware of several people who have ceased flying using "fumes" as the likely reason for their medical condition.
I for one am not going to discount the possibility off hand.
Having said that I flew the 146 for many years without ever smelling fumes.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rh200
Would you like to tell all what those stats are you state are there. As far as I know there are no stats on air contamination.
As to it only being a problem with mechanical failure, that is incorrect. Ansett's 146s had a number of problems with contamination and the events had nothing to do with mechanical failure.
As to your statement "the aircraft industry works on affordable safety." Since when has any employer been able to state that as an excuse to not provide a safe work environment. That and this comment, "Unfortunate for the people
it does affect" sort of kills your it isn't happening belief.
I doubt any company could legally be able to provide a work environment knowing that a % of its employees will be harmed by that environment just by being present in it.
Like any company, airlines and manufacturers will do nothing until someone else provides irrefutable proof, don't expect them do anything which will cost them money in the future or provide a case for compensation in the past/present. Ain't going to happen.
BTW, I believe the 146 issue was caused (suspected) by seal issues. I understand a lot of effort was put into replacement seals.
As to it only being a problem with mechanical failure, that is incorrect. Ansett's 146s had a number of problems with contamination and the events had nothing to do with mechanical failure.
As to your statement "the aircraft industry works on affordable safety." Since when has any employer been able to state that as an excuse to not provide a safe work environment. That and this comment, "Unfortunate for the people
it does affect" sort of kills your it isn't happening belief.
I doubt any company could legally be able to provide a work environment knowing that a % of its employees will be harmed by that environment just by being present in it.
Like any company, airlines and manufacturers will do nothing until someone else provides irrefutable proof, don't expect them do anything which will cost them money in the future or provide a case for compensation in the past/present. Ain't going to happen.
BTW, I believe the 146 issue was caused (suspected) by seal issues. I understand a lot of effort was put into replacement seals.
I don't think that's how it all quite works ANCPER.
Everything is risk assessed and nothing is 'no risk'. There's always a chance of something happening, however remotely small even with safeguards in place. The workplaces of today with a decent OH&S system in place will attempt to get any activity in the very low/low range. Anything higher and further safeguards are required to reduce the risk. If the companies of today were legislated to provide risk free environments, we wouldn't have a job - it is affordable safety.
There is a very good chance the crap we breathe doing walkarounds behind an engine, or the oils we get all over ourselves, the sealants we smooth over with our fingers, the skydrol we have all over the hydraulic lines spewing out under pressure and all over the place, etc, do have an adverse effect on our health.
However, pinpointing any of them to any ailment when our normal outside of work environment is full of unnatural pollution which has been shown to cause illness over decades of exposure is going to be near on impossible. If people were dropping dead a week after a smoke/fumes event, different story, but the numbers don't stack up.
Like unleaded fuel..
Everything is risk assessed and nothing is 'no risk'. There's always a chance of something happening, however remotely small even with safeguards in place. The workplaces of today with a decent OH&S system in place will attempt to get any activity in the very low/low range. Anything higher and further safeguards are required to reduce the risk. If the companies of today were legislated to provide risk free environments, we wouldn't have a job - it is affordable safety.
There is a very good chance the crap we breathe doing walkarounds behind an engine, or the oils we get all over ourselves, the sealants we smooth over with our fingers, the skydrol we have all over the hydraulic lines spewing out under pressure and all over the place, etc, do have an adverse effect on our health.
However, pinpointing any of them to any ailment when our normal outside of work environment is full of unnatural pollution which has been shown to cause illness over decades of exposure is going to be near on impossible. If people were dropping dead a week after a smoke/fumes event, different story, but the numbers don't stack up.
The doctor advised that this type of Leukemia is caused by radiation and/or Benzine (a product found in oils and fuels)!!! Makes you wonder ??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
You're all missing one major point though fellas!
By Boeing's own admittance in a leaked Memo, TCP's are a real issue... and that was 6 years ago.
Review the video, as this internal Memo is at the rear of the story (13min mark).
By the way, here is the extended interview I was looking for, from the BA pilot.
By Boeing's own admittance in a leaked Memo, TCP's are a real issue... and that was 6 years ago.
Review the video, as this internal Memo is at the rear of the story (13min mark).
By the way, here is the extended interview I was looking for, from the BA pilot.
Last edited by Chocks Away; 2nd Dec 2013 at 11:53.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I lost my Kidneys 6 years ago after 17 years on the 146. Up till then, I was a sceptic on the fumes issue, but I had a rare condition (Good pastures syndrome) which shut down my kidneys in a week. The only clue I had was a consultant asking me if I had been in contact with oil. Apparently the organophosphates in the oil acts on the immune system and can give a variety of conditions, in my case , kidney failure. It is well documented in the farming world as the old sheep dip had the same effect. I know of many colleagues ex 146 that have been seriously affected in various ways, also including the 757. Don't tell me that Boeing went to the expense of using independent compressors for aircon in the 787 out of the goodness of their hearts! Anyway, I had a transplant two years ago, and am back to a normal life, still flying in a Jodel.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lapbandland
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally know of two other cathay guys other than Ben in the 60 mins
expos'e who lost their licence with this issue. They both have elevated levels
of this toxic crap in their blood, lost their licences and have long term mainly
cognitive problems. This will not go away , it seems to affect some people and will surely become an asbestos style " oh dear who would have thought"
scenario
expos'e who lost their licence with this issue. They both have elevated levels
of this toxic crap in their blood, lost their licences and have long term mainly
cognitive problems. This will not go away , it seems to affect some people and will surely become an asbestos style " oh dear who would have thought"
scenario
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I know a female former Ansett pilot who has no recollection of her dark stormy night arrival into YBBN from Rocky. Last flight of her career.
All the same symptoms, from the BAE 146.
It is real. For those who fly from the VA Brisbane base, many will know her husband.
Ansett even rates a mention here Toxic fumes in airliner cabins ignored by authorities
Some more reading here;
http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/tox200621addannex1a
This is no joke.
All the same symptoms, from the BAE 146.
It is real. For those who fly from the VA Brisbane base, many will know her husband.
Ansett even rates a mention here Toxic fumes in airliner cabins ignored by authorities
Airlines
Ansett Australia: "The source of the odours has been identified as Mobil Jet Oil II leaking past oil seals in the engines and/or APU into the air conditioning system."
Regulators
Despite crew incapacitation events, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of Australia said: "Oil fumes are more of a health problem than an aircraft technical defect as not all pilots are affected and there is no mandate [for CASA] to look at health." (CASA to the Occupational Health and Safety [OH&S] magazine in 2003.)
Ansett Australia: "The source of the odours has been identified as Mobil Jet Oil II leaking past oil seals in the engines and/or APU into the air conditioning system."
Regulators
Despite crew incapacitation events, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of Australia said: "Oil fumes are more of a health problem than an aircraft technical defect as not all pilots are affected and there is no mandate [for CASA] to look at health." (CASA to the Occupational Health and Safety [OH&S] magazine in 2003.)
http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/tox200621addannex1a
This is no joke.
So it seems that if CASA went after the cause with same vigour they persecute GA operators then we might have had a conclusion and/or positive result to this issue over 10 years ago... But engine manufacturers are not the same soft target and safe aviation workplaces are not "within CASA's mandate" are they?
Does the industry need yet another example of a dysfunctional regulator?
Does the industry need yet another example of a dysfunctional regulator?
