It is understandable that some crew may not be convinced that fumes are a concern. While sitting in the flight deck it is easy to simply accept that this is the aircraft’s natural aroma. After all, it is a piece of machinery and one would expect it to have some kind of metallic/lubricant type stench. Some people are more prone to the effects of the toxic stink than others. Many crew have not experienced the fumes at all. There is no smoke, no instrument or system abnormality evident and even after a reported event, no residual evidence of any sort (with the possible exception of blood tests etc) to indicate any fume problem in the aircraft. It is an extremely difficult occurrence to prove.
It is also true that it remains the few who voice their concerns. In any workforce we are faced with the same scenario. Some will talk about it and some won’t. The vast majority couldn’t be bothered spending time on their PC’s writing about it.
SQP1 – It is pleasing that you have joined the debate with an opposing opinion but it would be advantageous to everyone if you delivered a sensibly constructed discussion. Perhaps you could also hope to learn something that may make you more circumspect while at work. (The definitions of majority and minority may also be of interest to you.)
There are however, too many reports to ignore. Some reports are compelling. Anyone having heard the complete description of BarrowBoy’s experience will not only be convinced but should be positively concerned about the continuing operation of these engines. Another crew, for whom I have the utmost respect, described an approach proceeding normally until approximately 1,000’ whereupon a fine, moist, sticky spray was felt on their arms emanating from the eyeball vents. Immediately their eyes began to sting and a burning sensation was felt in the throat, much as previously described. Interestingly, 1,000’ or thereabouts equates to stabilised i.e. Thrust levers up – spray from vents. I haven’t experienced the fumes but have absolutely no doubt as to their existence.
Dropping oil levels in oil tanks is a great idea if it helps to reduce the number of fumes in cockpit events but is that not an indication that the engine oil system and engine operation is inherently flawed and as such should be replaced? And if engines should be replaced, who is responsible? Rolls Royce or DHL Air?
The only way to advance the recognition of this problem is to convince crews to lodge an MOR every time they experience a fumes in cockpit event. In fact crews have a moral obligation to do so. Failure in this capacity will leave the rest of the aviation community, including the CAA, ignorant of the 757’s poisonous existence and the management will continue to do very little.
For a management organisation who state emphatically that they are “passionate about safety”, ignoring or doing very little about the problem is tantamount to negligence. In the same way that the responsibility of the war in Iraq must rest squarely on the shoulders of Bush & Blair, DHL Air management must accept absolute responsibility for the continuation and subsequent consequences of the fumes in cockpit problem.