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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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!
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.
Last edited by tocamak; 11th Apr 2010 at 14:31.
Reason: spelling
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.
"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?
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.
