B757 Flight Deck Contamination - Toxic Fumes

[Majorbyte]

I have just been made aware of a campaign and research being conducted by BALPA, (an excellent free CD is available) it makes for disturbing reading/viewing

There is growing worldwide evidence of contamination of the flight deck and aircraft cabin due to fumes generated by engine and APU oil, which on occasions, finds it's way into the aircraft's ventilation system, certain aircraft types are more prone than others, the worst offenders are as follows:

B757
Bae 146
MD80
And others such as B737 & A320

These fumes are highly toxic and dangerous, often manifestering itself as a smell, not too dissimilar to smelly feet/socks, vomit type smell, bluish mist, I have experienced these signs many times during my career in commercial jet flying, spanning some 25 years, but until now, perhaps like many pilots, I was blissfully ignorant to the significance of these smells.

There are short and long term effects of these 'fumes', in the short term (within minutes); the flight crew can experience severe headaches, dry throat, nausea, disorientation, intoxication, diarrhoea, stinging eyes, positional awareness, light-headiness, tunnel vision, fatigue and dizziness

In the longer term; chronic fatigue, memory problems, pneumonia, lung cancer, higher rates of other types of cancers, MS, Parkinson Disorders, the list goes on

To highlight this problem, I have obtained a recent list of reports ASRs/MORs made by British Airways pilots over the last few years, this list outlines 'fume events' on the B757 aircraft of BA, with dates, aircraft registrations and CAA reference numbers, with comments by the pilots, here is a small sample of the many reports ;

'During third sector P1 & P2" experienced burning of eyes & throat'
'P2 felt nauseous & member of cabin crew experienced eye irritation'
'P1 felt dizzy/light headed, both flight crew donned oxygen masks'
'Tunnel vision, disorientation, dizziness experienced on arrival'
'Both Flight crew and 1 cabin crew experienced nausea'
'Both felt light headed. On shut down, both pilots still felt light headed and also shaky'
'Both crew felt nausea and had headaches'
'V. strong smell of oil from air-conditioning'
'Oil contamination of aircraft. Long history of this problem'
'Flight deck air contaminated with oil 'P1 & P2 dizzy'
'Crew unaware that they were becoming partially incapacitated, P1 then forgot to slow a/c'
'O2 used'
'Crew both felt headed with a shortness of breath, coughing & unable to breath normally'

There are special contamination filters that can be fitted to these B757 aircraft, however, the fit is expensive and BA did not take up this option

I understand that these same B757s (44) were acquired by DHL Air and converted to cargo configuration, though, again, the contamination filter option was not fitted.

In the interests of flight safety and pilot health, I have listed below the following aircraft registrations, which have a known history of 'fume events'

G-BIKR G-BMRG G-CPEL
G-BIKS G-CPER G-BPEE
G-BIKO G-BMRH G-BPED
G-BIKY G-BMRA G-CPES
G-BIKT G-CPEO G-CPER
G-BIKC G-BMRI G-CPEN
G-BIKV G-BPEC G-BPEI
G-BIKL G-BPEK G-BMRF
G-BIKG G-BPEJ G-BMRB
G-BIKN G-CPET G-BMRD
G-BIKV G-CPEM

If you fly or are about to fly any of the aircraft listed above and find yourself smelling these toxic fumes you would be well advised to think again, of course it is up to individual pilots.

It takes a brave man to stand up to a company and say 'I will not fly this aircraft' but your health and well-being should come before everything else.


Majorbyte

[Daysleeper]

I understand that these same B757s (44) were acquired by DHL Air and converted to cargo configuration

I think you will find that many of those aircraft remain in the BA fleet flying passengers day in day out.

[safetypee]

I think that you will find this is the subject of an older thread and that the significant safety issues have been dealt with.

BAe146 operators were sent several All Operators Messages explaining the situation, commencing cica 1999. Corrective action is either in hand or complete; details are available via Service Information Leaflets from SIL 21-45, Nov 2000 and up-issues thereafter.

The CAA issued FODCOM 17/2000. Also see the main CAA report here CAA PAPER 2004/04 Cabin Air Quality (http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/publicationdetails.asp?id=1250)

[woodpecker]

Safetypee,

Why were 146 operators sent details of flight deck contamination on the BA 757's?


I flew many of these aircraft and "suffered" the smell and eye discomfort. Numerous tech log entries but no action!

Good on you BALPA, look after the good guys.

[DEAD ZONE]

"safetypee" is perhaps not aware that a source in BALPA has told me that earlier this year they took some CO readings on a BAe 146 over several flights and the data on top of the range kit showed that the BAE tests were nonsense as BAE said readings were always 0 but BALPA guys got alot higher reading with headaches etc...

I agree with Woodpecker "Good on BALPA!"

"safetypee" forgets that BAE have had Service Bulletins on this issue since 1984!

"safetypee" forgets that at the 2000 Oz Senate Hearing BAE stated that no one modification would solve the problem completely.

Why are all BAe 146 aircraft not fitted with the protective activated carbon filter that is an option? Why does the CAA not protect crews and make the option mandatory. Mind you if you read the rubbish that makes up the CAA Cabin Air Quality paper you soon learn they dont care much.

[Smokie]

Sounds like the CAA have still got their heads in the sand.
I belive that the HSE are getting involved now and about time too.

That should rattle a few cages.:ok:

[ukeng]

Numerous tech log entries but no action!

If you're refering to the BA 757's I can assure you we always took tech log entries for oily smells seriously and spent hours on ground runs identifying the causes. Generally APU or Engine oil seals were the initial cause on the 535 engined 757's but on the E4's it seems to be overfilling the oil tanks causing it.
There is a fix in service at the moment and a lot of effort is going into it.
Spare a thought for us who spend hours on the flight deck sniffing the stuff and trying different bleed configs to figure where it's come from.

For info - all the G-BIK? and G-BMR? series a/c have now gone and are either DHL Freighters or waiting to become.

[JIPPO]

Why is it I often fly from Belfact City to Gatwick and back on a 146 and I frequently smell an oily smell?

A hostie told me last time "Its just the fumes". It only gives you a headache!!

Why does the CAA not do anything like fit filters or fix it?

Why should those girls and us the fare payers have to accept what surely is not good for you.

Who is responsible ?

[DJohnsen]

Greetings... Just to shed some light on this issue. The fumes from synthetic turbine oil, such as AeroShell 560, BP2380, BP2197, MJO II, MJO 254 etc. are not toxic as commonly suggested. Now there is an extremely small amount of tricresyl phosphate (TCP) used in most synthetic oils, which if swallowed in large amount, is certainly undesirable. You literally have to bathe in these types of oils for a looong time to get a skin reaction... :p Now I will not argue the fact that the odors can be uncomfortable and cause dizziness and headache, just like most strong odors... but not necessarily toxic. The problem you are describing, as mentioned above, is typically a leakage from the engine or APU oil seals, which allows for a small amount of oil to enter the compressor and eventually the ventelation (ECS) system. Additionally, engine manufacturers have different solutions to dynamic oil seals; such as carbon seals typically used on P&W and I believe also Rolls Royce engines?, rotating air/oil seals used by GE engines etc. Unfortunately the BAe146's Textron Lycoming engines have not completely solved this problem, and you can often get a good "whiff" of engine oil fumes during high power settings... but will eventually dissipate. Don't know about the newer AlliedSignal engines? A severe internal oil leak, where oil enters the compressor, will initially manifest itself by strong odors in the cabin and eventually high oil consumption. This is often recognized by a borescope of the compressor where “staining” will be evident and subsequently corrected as "ukeng" pointed out... Over servicing is another problem, where the engine has to “shed” the excessive oil through the oil sumps and overboard… but will again dissipate once the correct oil level is reached... I know this is somewhat simplified but should shed some light on this topic... :ok:

Dag

[VH-Cheer Up]

This problem (air quality in the BAe 146) has been the subject of a senate enquiry in australia - here's their 188 page report http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/bae/report/report.pdf

Cheers

[Blackball]

I have learned that the IPA/IPF have also been quite involved in this subject. They are due shortly to present all their members with a good DVD covering the investigation into the problem. The Australians have done a lot of hard work into this.

[lomapaseo]

Dag

Excellent technical perspective on the subject.

From my own perspective it sounds like these fumes are like numerous other odors detectable by the nose including body odors including foul smelling wind.

Somewhat objectionable and difficult to tolerate for long periods of time. However not a degradation on ones health except in repeated extended exposure.

The repeated exposures seem to be more of a maintenance issue (following the manufactures recommendations) with somewhat of a variation between engine models.

This would suggest that crew objections should be aimed at their maintenace departments who in turn should press the airframe manufacturer for easier solutions.

[DJohnsen]

Well thank you “lomapaseo”… Good summary! It is often difficult to bring all aspects of a complex topic such as this into a forum “reply”. Also, certain individuals can’t be bothered having to read more than a few lines anyway… :p :p :p

Cabin air quality has been a topic of discussion for some time and I see a lot of “media hype” and often-incorrect assumptions. Fact is that most modern airliners’ air quality is well above common households, public buildings etc. as far as fresh air replenishment and filtration is concerned. We use sophisticated HEPA filters in the ventilation (ECS) system, which are strictly maintained. Now the problem is that you can be sitting adjacent to Typhoid Mary, who is coughing right in your face, and you will certainly have a large exposure to viruses and bacteria… and a sophisticated HEPA filter in the recalculation air is of no help… The same thing will happen on a bus, in a movie theater, public buildings etc.

Anyway… to your points;

First, as you pointed out, an offensive odor does not necessarily mean toxic fumes! I’ll bet you will find more “toxins”, such as Phosphoric Acid etc., in a Coca Cola, than you will find in turbine oils… and we drink Coke! “I hope I don’t offend anybody here and I have to admit I drink a Coke once in a while too…”.

Second, and even more directly to the point, a technical problem with the engine oil seals, given the inherent design of certain engines or some sort of malfunction, should be adressed immediately. Now we know all operators does not always follow the same guidelines, and some have a tendency to “defer” certain recommended maintenance tasks, subjecting flight crews and most of all, our precious “self-loading cargo” to an uncomfortable, but not necessarily life threatening experience…

Dag

[411A]

Well, not entirely phooey, but lets get real here.

Oil odors/fumes have been prevalent in jet transport aircraft since the very early days in Boeing 707's, especially the early design turbocompressors used on the straight pipe engines.
I can recall several times when oil in the t/c duct resulted in smoke/fumes so thick (briefly) that I lost sight of the First Officer in a blue haze.

It was 'supposed' to be a better idea to use engine bleed air directly for cabin pressurization with improved engine oil seal design, but clearly as seals wear/engines develop higher time, leads to a few unsavory odors for both crew and passengers.

Look on the bright side with the 146.
At least when you smell the oil fumes, the engines are actually running, instead of winding down...as has happened with several in the past.

[DEAD ZONE]

DJohnson who posted on 2nd October 2004, is either misinformed or attempting to fuel the industry misinformation campaign which has gone on for too long and which the pressure group AOPIS (www.aopis.org) have highlighted very well in their DVD "Cabin Air Contamination" - An Ongoing Health and Safety Issue, which Is being used by many unions worldwide such as the AFAP here in Australia to educate crews to the safety issues, misinformation and nonsense that many manufacturers and regulators put out in connection with contaminated air.

Lets talk FACTS.

DJohnson tells Pprune users that you can bath in TCP and its not toxic.

NTP CHEMICAL REPOSITORY (RADIAN CORPORATION, AUGUST 29, 1991) states the following in relation to TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE (TCP):

*ACUTE/CHRONIC HAZARDS:
This compound is toxic by inhalation, ingestion or by absorption through the skin. It is an irritant of the skin and eyes. It is also an irritant of the mucous membranes and respiratory tract. When heated to decomposition it emits toxic fumes of phosphorus oxides.

Conclusion TCP IS TOXIC.

Next,

DJohnson also tells us that “odors can be uncomfortable and cause dizziness and headache….but are not necessarily toxic.”

The UK CAA in their 2004 Cabin Air Quality Paper seem to disagree with DJohnson, as they state:

5.1 Definition of Toxic Effects
A toxic effect is defined as any effect on the organism which is deleterious to health. The effect does not have to be life threatening, any effect which is outside of the normal phsysiology for the organism can be described as toxic. Thus, irritation of the skin, eyes or respiratory tract, nausea and vomiting, dizziness or collapse are all types of toxic effect.

And just to remind ourselves that the effects the crews are getting is the oil and not some “industrial hysteria” as one airline once called it, the MSDS for Jet Oil II states:

“Symptoms from acute exposure to these decomposition products in confined spaces may include headache, nausea, eye, nose, and throat irritation.”

DJohnson tells us that the odours can be “uncomfortable…” and this is OK, well if he looked at the Airworthiness Regulations for Ventilation he would find in regulation 25.831 (a):

“Each crew compartment must have enough fresh air (but not less than 10 cubic feet per minute per crewmember) to enable crewmembers to perform their duties without undue discomfort or fatigue.”

And this rule has been there since 1965.

Finally, lets look at the Carbon Monoxide part of air contamination events…

AAIB statement.
“BAE Systems also undertook an in-flight sampling programme of in-service aircraft in an attempt to establish the concentration levels of various contaminants. The sampling was carried out on 68 revenue flights, on a variety of aircraft types, including the BAe 146. This programme monitored other substances, which included carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as relative humidity and temperature. On some flights the following was also measured; Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Formaldehyde (HCHO), Sulphur dioxide (SO2), acetic acid, volatile organic components (VOC) and Formaldehyde. The results of this programme revealed that all the flights monitored had acceptably low concentration levels of the measured parameters. Indeed the levels of CO measured never reached detectable levels of the sensor used.”

These tests were obviously done on specially selected aircraft as the UK pilot union BALPA apparently undertook CO monitoring in 2004 with data logging capability on some BAe 146 aircraft and recorded Carbon Monoxide peak values in flight of 14 to 22 ppm on 7 flights with 15 minute TWA figures as high as 10 ppm.

For more information visit: www.aopis.org

[ironbutt57]

All tech aspects aside, the 4+ years I spent on a 757PF with RR535-E4 engines, after EVERY eng start there was a smell similar to "fresh oil-based paint" in the flight deck BEFORE the packs were selected on......oh sweet mysteries of life...beats by far the smell of the cabin or toilet I have to use now....

[Smokie]

Dag,

Fact: Trycresyl phosphate is Toxic.

Fact: Only Bae RJ series aircraft have Carbon filters as standard fit, optional on Bae146 aircraft.

Fact: Latest SIL from Bae is mandatory on RJ serise aircraft, still only optional on Bae146 aircraft.

Fact: Bae on 13th engine seal design and still not adequate.

Fact: Hepa filters are usless in filtering out TCP's, We operate an Ex BA aircraft ( the only one with any sort of filter fitted) with these filters fitted and was useless in a past Fume Event.

Fact: Carbon impregnated/ Activated carbon will filter out TCP's including Sarin and Tabun Nerve agents which they were designed for.

Fact: My airline is failing in it's "duty of care" to,
a: It's fare paying passengers.
b: It's Flight and Cabin Crews.

Fact: Long term low does exposure WILL DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH.

IT DOES EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TIN .........................................Unfortunately.





Lights blue touch paper stands well back!!

[DJohnsen]

After a good 17 years in this industry I do consider myself having some level of knowledge in this area… and I was merely trying to shed some light on this topic without submitting a PhD level thesis.

I did NOT, as you should have read, state that you could bate in TCP but rather in synthetic turbine oils, which is obviously a figure of speech, but nevertheless a fact, without any adverse effects. The industry is required to put warning label on just about everything you purchase there days, from the label on coffee cups “Contents in this container is hot and can burn you”… to “Do not touch the rotating blade of you chain saw” and so on… The government mandates the oil companies, for which I do not work by the way, displaying warning labels on the oil cans, stating that this product, regardless of any amount, contains TCP, with the appropriate effects. I therefore went on to state that there certainly IS a small amount of TCP in most turbine oils, which if swallowed in large amounts is hazardous to your health… and I went on to compare this to for example Coca Cola which contains Phosphoric Acids… also hazardous to your health I large amounts…

Let’s leave the definitions on the shelf for a minute… “TOXIC” means poisonous or deadly to most people and by this definition, a bad case of BO is also toxic? Last, there are a multitude of reasons causing “offensive” odors in aircraft cabin and I pointed out some of them; Poor engine rotating oil seal design, loss of oil sump pressurization, failed carbon pressure face seals and so on and it is up the airline maintenance department, or in the design case the manufacturers, to take appropriate steps to correct this. As far as the CO and CO2 readings, drive your car behind an old exhaust spewing truck in Bombay and you will find all kinds of fumes and chemicals in your automobile and drive on a country road in the middle of your beautiful country and you will have nice clean air coming through your vents.

Finally, the problem I have with these types of reports are that they tend to be subjective and attempting to make a “case” for special interest groups. Lots of practical details are often generalized or even left out; such as in this case the responsibility of the airlines, and the public is led to believe they are traveling in a poisonous death trap…

Dag

[Smokie]

There by lies one of the problems, the route of ingestion.
Granted if you eat 70Kgs of the stuff( which is what the CAA are advocating) you probably will get Organophoshate Induced Delayed Neuropathy.

It is the Route to Hell where it is most dangerous,
which leads to Cronic Nuerotoxicity and that is the route of Inhalation; multiple low dose exposures which effects your system a lot quicker, producing a synergistic effect at altitude.

If you can smell it I'd say it was generally too late, you are already getting exposure.


Even CO is 50% more toxic at our cabin environment of 8000ft.
This is just the tip of the Iceberg I'm afraid.






Asbestos ? Cigarettes? Seem familiar?

[ironbutt57]

At the end of the day, nothing can be healthy about loading people inside of an aluminum (aluminIUM for u teabags) tube and transporting them about for hours on end...or inviting them to any fast food outlet for the "upsized" meal of the day..it's unhealthy to be born..you can die..:confused: :confused: :{

[Smokie]

Be nice to live just a bit longer, to enjoy that meagre pension.

[ironbutt57]

Smokie..please don't use the "p" word around an airline pilot...

[DEAD ZONE]

The TCP may be at about 3% but repeated low level exposure to Organophosphates is not good for you as the Gulf War veterans found out.

As we should always talk facts lets listen to an expert in the field:

Professor Abou Donia who is an Organophosphate expert and a Professor of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Professor of Neurobiology at the Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology at Duke University Medical Center.

He states:

“Furthermore, Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity (OPICN) induced by low-level inhalation of organophosphates present in jet engine lubricating oils and the hydraulic fluids of aircraft could explain the long-term neurologic deficits consistently reported by crewmembers and passengers, although organophosphate levels may have been too low to produce OPIDN.”

So why don’t we stop the “its OK to breath it, drink it, bath in it” nonsense and ensure it stays out of the cabin and cockpit air.

[Smokie]

Couldn't agree more.:ok:

[SLF3]

Without taking sides, the operative word in the professor's statement is 'could'.

[DJohnsen]

OK… this is turning into a Presidential Candidate Debate and I like to end mine with these closing statements;

Three words… Context, Perspective and Reality.

1. Statements, such as Professor Abou Donia’s comment here, although correct in itself, are often taken out of its context…

2. We are exposed to various levels of toxins in our everyday lives, such as chemicals used in pesticides, mercury levels found in fish, my example of Coca Cola etc., but all things should be considered in perspective! It has been concluded that “at the dosage required for neurotoxicity, it would be virtually impossible for a person to absorb or ingest enough jet engine oil in the normal workplace (or in an aircraft) to cause such toxicity.”

3. The reality is that there are equally many scientific studies, supported by the NTSB and other independent universities, indicating there should be no significant toxicity concerns from potential exposure situations in aircraft due to the TCP present in synthetic turbine oils. These studies were also published in the UK and Australia. Now we can argue these facts all day long… and go nowhere!

It sounds to me that you are on some sort of crusade with your own airline to either correct a maintenance culture issue, or correct an inherent design issue with a particular aircraft type you are operating, such as the BAe 146, but this does not mean we all are traveling through the same “DEAD ZONE” so to speak...;)

Dag

[ornithopter]

The arguments here only serve to underline that proper research has to be done (if it has not been already). It is often the case that manufacturers play down the effects of some of their products, the list of examples is huge. It is also true that some people greatly exaggerate (or misunderstand - more likely) the numbers involved.

As a quick question - did the BALPA testing take place in the cabin or the flight deck? Ditto the BAe testing. There may be a significant difference as in the 757 for example the air piped to the flight deck is different to that to the cabin. (cabin has more recirc, FD almost none).

It is important to put all this in context. I fly the 757 and while I don't want to stop flying it or run about screaming about toxicity, I do want to make the air I breathe safer if it does have a deleterious affect on my health.

As an aside, I think the health affects of eating too much airline food can be pretty bad. I just need to look at my tum to see that. Too much saturated fat! (esp in the brekkies!). Some of it is great quality (first class!), but the crew food and the pax stuff is sometimes grim as grim can be and certainly not good for you in the long run.

[Majorbyte]

After reading 'DJohnsens' remarks, one is left to ponder who is right and who is wrong in this debate,

Perhaps breathing engine and apu oil fumes is completely harmless and safe.

Perhaps the many reports of pilots suffering from headaches, dizziness, nausea, sore eyes, fatigue etc., after breathing in these fumes, are simply the product of a 'sensitive type' pilot, someone who has a vivid imagination, a troublemaker.

Perhaps when Exxon conducted safety tests of their Mobil Jet Oil on some laboratory hens and found it to be safe, aircrew should be satisfied, with this unbiased report.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence that some of the ingredients of Mobil Jet 2 are to be found in Sarin nerve gas, insecticide's, Gulf war personnel.

All I would say to anyone reading this thread, is to be aware and informed of the very real dangers of 'fume contamination' and don't just ignore it.


Majorbyte

[Smokie]

Anybody who needs convincing, is more than welcome to join me for a week on one of our offending aircraft ( All things being equal). As I seem to be "the only one" who appears to "Ride" on the same aircraft for the whole tour, whilst the rest of the crew normally seem to get assigned and dispersed to other aircraft during their tour. This almost certainly helps alleviate their problem but not unfortunately mine.

I think that the results that Balpa have obtained recently,
show that there is no doubt at all about the Contaminated Air that we breath in on a daily basis.

What is needed now is to convince the owners of the offending aircraft ( The Airlines ) that fitting the appropriate Carbon Filters is the only solution to the problem. They are there ready to be fitted and have been for several years now.

I know it is Expensive and a hard pill to swallow but it will be far, far, cheaper than any ongoing litigation from any Public or Private Law Suites that will inevitably follow.
You only have cast your minds back to the Asbestos and Cigarette industrial fiasco's.

[Smokie]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Article in last Sundays "Mail on Sunday."








Or was it a Fig box of my emancipation?

[lomapaseo]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Article in last Sundays "Mail on Sunday."

I'm surprised you didn't are you baiting us for an opinion while witholding your own:=

[TURIN]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Article in last Sundays "Mail on Sunday."

Considering the high esteem in which that particular hack rag is held on proon, you really shouldn't be!:* :=

Back to the thread.

Does this all mean that when I'm wandering around the tarmac inspecting aeroplanes I should be wearing an O2 mask everytime one of you chaps turns the a*se end of an aircraft in my general direction?:eek:

[Smokie]

Majorbyte,

" Sensitive type Pilots, vivid imagination, trouble maker"

These are all buzz words that are very familiar to me.
They are used by the very people that should be addressing a very real problem.

I assume when a whole crew are effected and have to use Oxygen then it is Mass Hallucination?

I find it a convenient coincidence that a whole crew who could be "sensitive individuals" just happend to be rostered together on a troublesome aircraft.