Dear AOPIS,
I think that you are somewhat overstating the case on Carbon Monoxide. The fact that ONE person had one detector for some flights and the detector sometimes detected CO, does not constitute many persons for many flights. Neither does it say why CO was present, after all, ground running is notorious for ingesting other exhaust plumes and in flight , who knows what state the local external air is in, power station plumes, etc.
If you overstate your case in this manner your error will be revealed and undermine any serious attempt to resolve this issue, which hardly helps BALPA members , or anyone else for that matter.
Before anyone gets all nostalgic, turbo compressors failed and filled cabins with smoke and fumes, especially if bearings failed. Read an old BA flight safety magazine or two of that era. The industry ditched turbo compressors for good reason, weight, complexity and reliability. The modern system with pressure regulating valves and compressor bleed off-takes is light and reliable, with few moving parts. Some smaller engines with sonic nozzles have none other than open and shut valves. The system has been in use since the Spey engine at least, dated about 1962, so well before the 1970s.
On small engines and aircraft of smaller than the long range 4 jet 707 and VC-10 it was not economic to have turbo compressors. So, if no modern light weight bleed systems had been developed, no small aircraft and if that was the case possibly no jobs either!
The 787 will use electric compressors, so not engine bleed, but not yet sure of failure modes, so will there be a bit of smoke if the electric motor goes phut? Perhaps someone from Boeing can answer that?
Last edited by Martin Alder; 9th May 2005 at 21:20.