View Full Version : Danger in the skies

26th Feb 2006, 20:34
Toxic cockpit fumes that bring danger to the skies

Dozens of pilots have flown while dizzy, nauseous and suffering double vision on crowded passenger flights. The cause is contaminated air and it can strike without warning - but the cases have been kept from the public. Antony Barnett reports

Sunday February 26, 2006
The Observer (http://www.observer.co.uk/)

Three weeks ago the pilot of a FlyBe flight from Belfast international airport to Gatwick was preparing his passenger jet for take-off . He had just received clearance from air traffic control and released the aircraft's brakes, pushing forward on the power levers in the cockpit to open the throttle.

As the plane began to accelerate down the runway at more than 100mph, he began to smell a strange odour described as similar to a 'central heating boiler'. His throat became very dry and his eyes began to burn. Such was his discomfort that he was forced to hand control of the plane to his co-pilot. His fingers were tingling and his shirt soaked in sweat. He was confused, talking incoherently and unable to answer questions from his co-pilot. He could not accurately do safety checks. An emergency was declared and the flight returned to Belfast.

In December, a pilot flying a passenger aircraft for another airline experienced something eerily similar when he brought his aircraft in to land. The captain had complained of a strange smell on the flight deck before his first officer pointed out that he was making 'operational errors', including missing calls from air traffic control and misjudging the aircraft's altitude and speed on descent. Over the next two days the captain was unable to fly, suffering severe headaches and fatigue. Two months earlier on a flight to Gatwick, a pilot handling the take-off had pains in his chest and complained of breathing difficulties. His heart was beating unusually fast. The captain quickly realised his co-pilot was in trouble and took the controls. But at an altitude of 850ft and within 10 seconds he began to feel similar symptoms himself. Both pilots had to don oxygen masks.

More (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1718222,00.html)

26th Feb 2006, 21:05
I think I'm going to quit flying. That was a very convincing article for all to be afraid... be very afraid.:eek:

Buster the Bear
26th Feb 2006, 21:20
Having flown as a passenger in a 146, at times, the smell like oil :eek: can be awful in the cabin.

Just an observation.

Dolly with brains!
26th Feb 2006, 22:43
Numerous stories in the media today about the ongoing contaminated air scandal. The Aviation Minister Ms Karen Buck has now resigned.

Typical media story:

Pilots at risk from toxic gas

Sunday, 26th February 2006, 12:01

LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Pilots have called for an inquiry over dramatic new evidence of gas fumes poisoning British cockpits.

In the past three years, there have been over 100 cases of fumes inside British aircraft, according to records of airline regulator the Civil Aviation Authority and confidential testimony from pilots.

In more than 40 of the incidents, it appears pilots who inhaled the gases were partially impaired while flying.

Many reported feeling sick and dizzy and needed oxygen masks. Some have admitted they made mistakes while taking off or landing.

In many cases, the fumes are caused by burning engine oil leaking into the ventilation system. The two planes worst affected are the BAE146 and Boeing 757, which are used by a string of international and regional airlines.

A University College London report has also suggested that up to 197,000 passengers are being exposed to contaminated air each year.

Now the British Airline Pilots Association is warning the Government that it is unacceptable that the safety of its members, cabin crew and passengers is being jeopardised.

Jim McAuslan, BALPA's general secretary, said today: "It's quite clear we have to get to the bottom of this urgently.

"All pilots need to get together and realise we have an emergency situation. The safety of pilots, cabin crew and passengers should be of paramount importance.

"What will happen otherwise is that people will become ill and a few pilots and cabin crew will have to retire early.

"The industry has largely ignored this but as these figures show, it is a real problem.

"This is something the government and airline regulator must start taking seriously. We urge all parties to work out a solution."

Copyright 2006 National News +44(0)207 684 3000

Ausie Chick
26th Feb 2006, 22:50
Rather than be faced with numerous questions in the house on why the UK Government continues to cover up for BAe and the ongoing BAe 146 scandal, the Aviation Minister has resigned.


Whose next for the gas chamber ?


26th Feb 2006, 23:08
I don't think her resignation has anything to do with this. Check out this story...


Another vacancy will be created this week when Karen Buck, a junior transport minister, is expected to quit her job. She said yesterday that she found her portfolio unsuited to her interests and wanted to work on the London Child Poverty Commission. She insisted that her resignation did not indicate any disillusionment with the government.

26th Feb 2006, 23:21
I don't think her resignation has anything to do with this.

Steady, yer in danger of letting informed knowledge and fact get in the way of a good story. :D

-400 Heavy
27th Feb 2006, 00:17

You guys need to stop being so naive. Do you really expect her to admit she was pushed ?
Political lies are frequently couched in the form of a denial - remember Bill Clinton's famous denial, 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.' When a politician denies that he is going to introduce a new measure, like raising taxes, you can usually take this as a sign that the measure is about to be introduced. As Otto von Bismarck said, 'Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.' Liars are more likely to use negative statements. For example, during the Watergate scandal, President Nixon said, 'I am not a crook.' He didn't say, 'I am an honest man.'
Tony Blair's missing WMD in Iraq....... have you already forgotten ? :

27th Feb 2006, 00:20
I do recall that BAE146's were a bit stinky.

I hope an old DC8 driver can remind us all of the wonderful cabin superchargers located beneath the radome.

on the dc9 we always said, "change the socks" when the special air conditioning filters got wet.

oh well, I believe just about everything in that article, thanks for posting it!


27th Feb 2006, 00:46
I'm sorry to do this, but this is utter and complete crap, and the result of a hugely misguided campaign by the pilots unions.

Three Pilots ( Yes, I mean that, THREE Pilots) have been directly responsible for filing 98% of these reports of fumes. All three work for UK airlines , two for a 757 operator, and one for a 146 operator. Now read that again .. 98% of all reports of oil fumes in aircraft cockpits have been made by THREE pilots)
This is the worst example of scaremongering that I have witnessed in my (long) career as a pilot, and the Pilots Unions involved should be ashamed of themselves for putting their name to this hoax. I have said as much to my Union Rep, in writing.

There is NOcredible , tangible or widespread evidence of oil fumes in the cockpits of aircraft.

There were two specific problems a long time ago. One involved overfilling of 757 engine oil by a certain big carrier based in heathrow ( since resolved) , and seals on BAE146 that have since been replaced.


27th Feb 2006, 01:19

I find your attitude absolutely unbeliveable! How on earth can only 3 (Three) Pilots be responsible for filling that many reports? If this is indeeed the case then the under reporting is MASSIVE on a criminal scale and should be investigated without further ado. Perhaps the media were correct to highlight the problem if the under reporting is as bad as you say it is.

"Three Pilots ( Yes, I mean that, THREE Pilots) have been directly responsible for filing 98% of these reports of fumes. All three work for UK airlines , two for a 757 operator, and one for a 146 operator. Now read that again .. 98% of all reports of oil fumes in aircraft cockpits have been made by THREE pilots)"


"There is NOcredible , tangible or widespread evidence of oil fumes in the cockpits of aircraft."


27th Feb 2006, 02:11
I agree 3 pilots responsible for 98% of the reports? My maths isn't what it used to be but it surely would mean that they would have made almost 100 complaints each then? Maybe i'm wrong but if there were 300 complaints and 294 of them were from 3 people then this would be 98% coming from the 3 people!

Is this really true? Does this airline only operate 3 a/c, all of which have 1 crew and all of which have some kind of CO problem which only affects the flight deck? Come on, just another case of mis-reported cr@p


27th Feb 2006, 02:23

As a former, perfectly healthy, airline pilot who flew the 146 I have to beg to differ. I knew nothing of the air contamination problem until a good year after I left the airline and moved abroad. After reading something about it all on pprune, and recognising symptoms similar to those which caused me to go into hospital for tests prior to leaving for the US and their exhorbitantly expensive medical system, I contacted the folks in the UK doing the research and added my tu'penny worth to the reports. If my experience can help prevent anyone else from suffering in any way, so much the better.

From what I read, I was one of the lucky ones, suffering only temporarily (no symptoms now for about 4 years) and relatively mildly.

As I haven't worked for the airlines for nearly 5 years now, I don't think your statement that ""Three Pilots have been directly responsible for filing 98%" is very accurate.

Aside from this current kerfuffle, what I can't comprehend is the vehement denial by some people that there is anything wrong. If there is even a tiny chance of some kind of contamination which could have a direct and detrimental effecton the health, lives and careers of some crews, surely you'd want to see some action taken to remove that contamination? This research and the end result is unlikely to have a negative effect on the crews, (anything that improves the air quality in any working environment is an asset) therefore why get so aggressive about it, making accusations of hoaxes etc?

Loose rivets
27th Feb 2006, 02:40
If it were always the case that only one pilot suffered these symptoms, I would be deeply concerned.

The sensations of smell, followed by the other debilitating feelings, can be symptomatic of another quite serious malaise. It is the times that there is only one pilot thus affected that worries me.

There needs to be a clear cut assessment of the incidents defining when both pilots have symptoms v one pilot.

Having said this, some people react to smoke etc by shallow breathing. The result during a period of increased heart-rate, i.e. take off phase, will of course be accentuated.

Going onto oxygen is the obvious course of action even if the problem is slight.

27th Feb 2006, 03:57

"There is NOcredible , tangible or widespread evidence of oil fumes in the cockpits of aircraft."

I offer as proof this lack of tangiblable widespread evidence:

:{ As Sartre examines, proving definitive lack of something can be tricky, no?

Say again s l o w l y
27th Feb 2006, 08:51
I personally know 2 chaps who were severly affected by fumes from the 146. One of whom was hospitalised and the took nearly 2 years to recover.
These are just the worst cases I know about, but certainly not the only ones.

Since I sent in a report, am I one of the 98%? Doubt it. So show us your figures or press the rewind button on your neck.

27th Feb 2006, 09:00
To add to the 'confusion' in 'JMC-man's' mind, I and another BA Captain at LGW reported a 737 a few years back - so we've found the three.:)

I recall that was a faulty oil seal too, and only evident at take-off power.

Kalium Chloride
27th Feb 2006, 09:49
You guys need to stop being so naive. Do you really expect her to admit she was pushed ?

While a degree of scepticism is healthy, I think there's few people more naive than those who insist on trotting out sweeping generalisations about politicians - or any group - and cite them as 'evidence' in order to attack an individual about whom they know nothing. :rolleyes:

Dream Buster
27th Feb 2006, 10:01
Will this Observer article be the one that finally opens the can of worms that has been waiting to be opened for the past few years?

As a recently prematurely retired ex airline Captain from 15 years on the 146 I can categorically state that flying them continuously can "Seriously damage your health".

I know this because I haven't been anywhere near a 146 for over 6 months and one just feels so much better for it. It may also have something to do with not having the rediculous pressures of low cost flying to balance, but that's another story.

Perhaps this time the CAA and the Lords may start to listen and then act a bit more responsibly. I just know that where there's smoke, there's often fire (if you will excuse the pun) and ignoring it or hoping it will go away does not normally work.

What happened to 'fail safe' and 'benefit of the doubt' and all those other sound aviation principles that we normally take for granted?

It may be worth everybody who has been effected giving the Observer a ring to confirm the extent of the problem and the obvious 'under reporting' that has occured.

There is definitely a problem. Unfortunately, for everybody.

Kalium Chloride
27th Feb 2006, 10:34
How on earth can only 3 (Three) Pilots be responsible for filling that many reports? If this is indeeed the case then the under reporting is MASSIVE on a criminal scale

Or it's over-reporting on a criminal scale ;)

Why has this 146 stuff suddenly emerged now? It's not a new story, I remember Private Eye doing it a couple of years ago.

27th Feb 2006, 12:55
As someone who suffered a sudden massive allergic reaction to petrochemicals I had been working with for years, I can relate to these incidents.

It effectively put an end to my normal working life over two decades ago, and the after effects are still with me, and only slightly diminished.

Agent Oringe
27th Feb 2006, 13:08
I have to agree with Torycanyon and the others, the math just does not add up.

I recall on other threads just recently that there was proof of the contamination, as TCP had been found in re-circ filters of the B737, B757 and BAE146. There was also swab samples taken that had found TCP on the cockpit walls of the BAE146 and also found in a pilots pants.

Kalium Chloride,
"Why has this 146 stuff suddenly emerged now? It's not a new story, I remember Private Eye doing it a couple of years ago."

Exactly, it is not a new story and has been ongoing for over 25 years.
What is Criminal is still nothing has been done about it.
Well done to the OBSERVER for bring this into the spotlight again.
There needs to be a Public Enquiry to reveal the extent of the Cover Up once and for all.

27th Feb 2006, 13:22
Pprune strikes again!

Lots of fodder in here for news stories on this subject with long running threads on the subject and of course the latest headline grabbers now being posted.

The only thing new in all this is that still nobody knows.

Remember, when all is said and done more will be said then done

27th Feb 2006, 15:11
And I wonder whos fault that will be?:hmm:

27th Feb 2006, 15:57
I'll stick with KC's "degree of scepticism". One does wonder, though, how Ms Buck got stuck with a ministry that has so little to do with her declared interests.

27th Feb 2006, 16:06
Absolutely Broadreach. When you look at M/s Buck's website it has hard to imagine anybody less qualified to dabble in aviation. For whatever reason, she is going back to where her expertise " lies."

27th Feb 2006, 16:24
Corporate affiliation bias and BAe 146 aircraft: Senate report

Andrew C. Harper Occupational Physician, Western Australia

The Australian Senate has completed an inquiry into aircraft air quality in the BAe 146 aircraft because of many incidents of apparent toxic illness among the crew.

The Senate Committee concluded that cabin contamination continues to occur(1) and that this has led to short?term and medium?term health problems for a number of BAe 146 flight crew.(1)

The inquiry has tested the ability of medical science in Australia to objectively appraise the evidence of the health effects of the aircraft. The inquiry found professional opinion differed. Opinion of some experts was that the cabin air quality was hazardous and other opinion said it was not.

Submissions to the Senate inquiry spanned a full range of opinion. At one end of the spectrum toxicologists and others documented the neurotoxicity of organo?phosphates and naphthalenamines in aircraft oils and fluids and design faults in the BAe 146 aircraft with resulting cabin contamination and illness among passengers and crew.

In contrast to this, the executive general manager of Ansett Australia stated "t is the clear view of Ansett Australia that its fleet of BAe 146 aircraft are safe for crew and passengers alike".(2)

"The (Senate) Committee notes that opinion on the hazardous nature of exposure to oil fumes is divided almost exactly between affected flight crew and their medical advisers on the one hand, and the airline industry and CASA [Civil Aviation Safety Authority] on the other". (1)

Of course, some variation in professional views is to be expected. However, these findings indicate that professional opinion was not independent and varied according to affiliation with either employee or employer.

This finding calls into question the credibility of expert opinion, This affiliation bias of professional opinion in the context of occupational liability is another example to add to the existing compendium of documented medical biases.
(3) Such an affiliation bias is not new to industrial medicine.
A classic case was asbestosis, which was recognised for decades before acknowledged by employers.

The findings of the Senate inquiry substantiate a corporate affiliation bias towards the under?recognition of health problems associated with the BAe 146 aircraft and the general reluctance of private business to uphold the value of human health.

We need to reflect on the origin of this failure to publicly acknowledge illness associated with work. We now learn that flight crew in this aircraft have been affected in Australia and overseas for years and design modifications to rectify cabin air contamination have been implemented repeatedly for just as long.

It has taken a Senate inquiry to inform treating doctors of the presence and nature of the occupational hazard, professional experts consulted by the airline having failed to do so.

We are in a corporate era in which accountability to employees and responsibility for individuals' welfare will not be assured without government authority routinely upholding standards of public health. Privatisation is fine for profit but not for public protection.


1. Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.[I] Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality in the Me 146 Aircraft Report. Canberra: Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, 2000 October. p. 97, 100, 101.

2. Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality in the BAe 146 Aircraft: Submission. Canberra: Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, 2000 October. volume 2, p. 188.

3. Sackett DL. Bias in Analytic Research. J Chron Dis 1979;32:51?63.


27th Feb 2006, 18:17
JMC MAN I hope you do not fly as you are clearly seriously lacking upstairs pal!

If its 3 guys / gals and the PPrune reporters only why the hell are the Feds spending millions on research?


Bet you are just an industry player who always dreamt of being a flier but never made it through flight school as thats how you come accross.


George Tower
1st Mar 2006, 18:57
Does any one know whether the problems discussed above have ever occured in the Avro RJ as distinct from the 146.

I'd be interested to know



2nd Mar 2006, 00:10
No worse than the diesel fumes pumped out by decrepit old wagons on the run to the airport......just open the window !

2nd Mar 2006, 17:09
I took a flight from Heathrow to Birmingham a few years ago where there was a single pilot. I was in the front right seat and could see the pilot at the controls as he had the door open.
As the flight progressed the pilot started yawning and streching his neck and his arms - all the movements expected if trying to stay awake. He acted like this all the way on this trip (about 30 minutes) flying and landing were perfect however.
I assumed that he was desperately trying to stay awake and I was quite concerned, it could have been CO but he looked pale rather than flushed.
What would you have done if you had seen a pilot in this condition?

2nd Mar 2006, 23:32

In a word, nothing.

But your experience is not entirely relevant to the thread, is it. The issue is toxicity of fumes that occasionally get into the cockpit and cabin. "Occasionally" because it's not all aircraft nor is it all the time. And when you open the doors at destination, hey presto, there's nothing there to prove the argument.

But, it's a few distinct types of aircraft, and it's fairly frequent, sufficiently so to go beyond urban legend or scaremongering.

The asbestos parallel in Kaos's post above is very pertinent.

3rd Mar 2006, 00:41
Erm..... is that like trying to prove that fatigue was a factor in an accident. Where's the evidence?

Few Cloudy
3rd Mar 2006, 10:29
I almost stopped a take off some years back on an MD-80 because de-icing
fluid pouring off the wings had entered those big vacuum cleaners at the back and got into the aircon.

The smell was indeed similar to an overheated central heating boiler.

If this latest incident followed de-icing, it may be a line to follow up. In our case, far too much fluid had been applied by a temporary employee. Symptoms at the time were an acidic feeling in the throat and (later in the flight) slightly burning eyes.


3rd Mar 2006, 11:15
That's the very reason we had to turn off the APU during de-icing on the 747.

George Tower
5th Mar 2006, 18:29
I'll say it again, any one know whether these incidents under discussion here are experienced on the Avro RJ ir are unique to the first generation 146 a/c?

Major Attack
6th Mar 2006, 16:13

can't give you a specific answer, but it seems that it's engine related, as implied in this investigation by the Swedish Accident Board:



6th Mar 2006, 17:16
Not April 1st is it?

Charles Darwin
6th Mar 2006, 19:54
Can the answer be here? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=190700&highlight=farting)

Agent Oringe
8th Mar 2006, 13:06
Sky News and 5 Live both had articles about the problems of Toxic Fumes in aircraft cabins today.There were good presentations from Peter Jackson, Malcom Hooper and Vyvyan Howard. I was rather disappointed that BALPA did not put across their view point on the subject.

Have BALPA been left out in the cold? Are they no longer the credible Pilots Union that they once were? Only Time will tell.:hmm: Come on BALPA, the IPA are stealing your Thunder.:{

8th Mar 2006, 16:24
I imagine it's because IPA issued a press release. Anyone who suggests that BALPA have been doing nothing is either ignorant or mischievious.
This, I think is an open link to BALPA's view:

As a matter of interest I went throught 10 pages of Google and still couldn't find the IPA as a UK pilots organisation. Do they have a website?

9th Mar 2006, 05:23
The IPA website is:

www.ipapilot.com (http://www.ipapilot.com)

On a more light-hearted note, could it be the after-effects of baked beans at breakfast time causing the foul odours.

Sorry, just made it home and am half dead....

9th Mar 2006, 07:21
Thanks Speedbird-400,
Nothing on that about toxic fumes. Seems the BALPA site shows a far greater understanding of the problem. I wonder if the IPA nicked the BALPA facts?

10th Mar 2006, 09:29

Low cabin air pressure and poor oxygenation enhance the risk of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in susceptible passengers, a study suggests.

Until now, DVT has been most widely associated with remaining inactive for long periods, like in the cramped conditions of an aircraft cabin.

But a study in today's issue of The Lancet journal suggests there may be additional risk factors.
DVT occurs when a clot forms in leg veins during periods of sedentary activity. The clot can then migrate to the heart, lung or brain, sometimes days or weeks later, and inflict a heart attack or stroke.

Even though the phenomenon has been known since World War II, it has in recent years become a major issue for the airline industry, through lawsuits in which people who have had DVT place the blame on cramped economy seating in long flights.

The airlines retort that DVT can occur long after a flight, which thus makes it impossible to establish a link, and point out that clotting can occur in other forms of sedentary activity, even from sitting and reading a book.

The latest research puts the ball back into the airlines' court, pointing the finger at cabin air quality as a potential risk factor.

A team led by Professor Frits Rosendaal of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands, monitored levels of a key clotting protein called thrombin-antithrombin (TAT) complex among 71 healthy men and women aged 20-39.

A total of 40% of the people in the study were selected as they took the contraceptive pill, had a gene variation called factor V Leiden, or both, conditions which greatly increase the risk of blood clotting.


10th Mar 2006, 09:55
Low cabin air pressure and poor oxygenation

The latest research puts the ball back into the airlines' court

I wonder if these people realise that for an aeroplane to fly it has to go up? And if they do, do they realise that going up leads to low cabin pressure, and poor oxygenation?

It seems to me that the only solution is either for the airlines never to fly above sea level, or fly with no passengers.


Dream Buster
10th Mar 2006, 10:06
It always amuses me to see how DVT / Cabin air issues can effect passengers so badly after what is probably a reasonably brief exposure.

What about the poor old pilots who have to sit in these conditions for most of their lives.

Surely their health is of equal concern?


10th Mar 2006, 12:41
It always amuses me to see how DVT / Cabin air issues can effect passengers so badly after what is probably a reasonably brief exposure.
What about the poor old pilots who have to sit in these conditions for most of their lives.
Surely their health is of equal concern?

but are you also on the pill:hmm:

10th Mar 2006, 12:53
Yes, check the forums -- pilots get DVT too; but their seats are big enough for them to stretch their legs, and many more passengers seem to suffer from it.

It's an interest article, but I'd be hesitant as accepting it by itself as the gospel truth.

Still, it's provocative, and I don't think the 'only' solution is 'don't carry passengers at altitude.'

For one, I'd suggest looking at the history of pressurization and recirculation on passenger aircraft. My limited understanding is that the cabin pressure at altitude today is pretty much what it was 30 years ago. What's changed is the increase in cabin air recirculation, so that these days you see a complete change of cabin air in something like 16 minutes, whereas in the pre-deregulation generations of jets (There is not necessarily a link, but heating all the air takes fuel) it was more like 8 minutes. Add to that the increases in space efficiency, and the O2 content of a current-generation cabin may be far below what it was in the seventies.
My wild-ass guess would be that cabin pressure levels were established with an eye towards providing comfortable and safe amounts of oxygen assuming a certain rate of air turnover and a certain number of persons per volume of air. Decades of engineering improvements have reduced the air turnover and volume per person in the name of "economic optimization", and now the system is showing the signs of failure.
Or I could be dead wrong. If so, feel free to send me an economy ticket to Australia on an A380-900, level 2, row 63, seat L.

10th Mar 2006, 12:58
It always amuses me to see how DVT / Cabin air issues can effect passengers so badly after what is probably a reasonably brief exposure.
What about the poor old pilots who have to sit in these conditions for most of their lives.
Surely their health is of equal concern?

Fair point, and worthy of further investigation especially if you can answer "Yes" to each of the following questions:-

1. Do you sit in exactly the same type of seat as the pax?
2. Do you have to store your briefcase and overcoat in front of your feet for the duration of the flight?
3. If you want to get up and stretch your legs do you have to ask two other people to move out of the way first?
4. Does the glareshield jam itself against your knees as soon as you extinguish the seatbelt lights?
5. Do you have the same legroom as pax?
6. Do you have to wait until a mask drops from the cockpit ceiling before you can supplement your oxygen intake?

Dream Buster
10th Mar 2006, 14:14
1) No, of course not.
2) No.
3) No.
4) No.
5) No.
6) No, but it would make sense to have drop down oxygen for when we 'forget' to put it on.

Pilots must be OK then?

Fergus Kavanagh
10th Mar 2006, 16:18
Solution; 1.Rudder pedals for passengers.

2. Re-introduce smoking, only make it compulsory. That'll get the
refresh rate up.

10th Mar 2006, 22:03
Interesting thread.

I know one pilot who got blood clots in his lungs from flying 767's. It can happen to anyone.

I was lucky to fly the DC9 which didn't have recirculation of air and I enjoyed the air for the most part on the old 9. also, the 9's legs at about an hour each allowed for stretching the legs as one did the walk around.

On the 9 there were actually small places one could put their feet on the instrument panel...actually designed that way.

I AM NOT A DOCTOR, but if I were flying long legs I would drink lots of water, walk around and take an aspirin or two to keep the blood moving...AGAIN I AM NOT A DOCTOR.

Please note that Boeing is going to max out their cabin altitude on the new 787 at 6000' instead of the present 8000'.


12th Mar 2006, 13:53
I flew the C130 for a number of years. Did anyone else notice from time to time a strong smell? All doors shut and pressurised. It was sort of paraffinny and stuck to your clothes?? :rolleyes:
Ah yes. They all did that. It's a feature sir. Nothing to worry about. It's like the odorant they put in natural gas to tell you not to strike a match right at this minute. Just a timely reminder that you are not in the sim but in the real thing.
Well that's all right then. :p How clever of Lockheed to put a pipe between Mr Allison's wonderful engines and the cabin air system. That BAe and even Mr Boeing appear to have followed suit just goes to prove how non-injurious the whole nonsense is. Far better to keep fumes INSIDE the airframe than have them outside in the open air where they would merely aggravate global warming and further deplete the ozone layer.
Presumably the Royals don't notice it in the BAe146 because the whole world smells to them of fresh paint anyway.

13th Mar 2006, 02:21
Allegedly both Prince Charles and Princess Anne have complained about the fumes and odours in the Queens Flight's Bae 146's.:uhoh:

14th Mar 2006, 01:20
I'm sorry to do this, but this is utter and complete crap, and the result of a hugely misguided campaign by the pilots unions.

Three Pilots ( Yes, I mean that, THREE Pilots) have been directly responsible for filing 98% of these reports of fumes.

Beg to differ - bunch of 146 fume cases in Oz spread over several operators, and not just a few crew.

14th Mar 2006, 10:48
It is history that pilots in OZ have receiv
ed loss of licence payouts for respira
tory problems several years ago. There is one unfortuna
te fellow who has lung cancer. Coincidence?
How many of your 146 flying mates have a persistent cough?

Sick Squid
14th Mar 2006, 11:02
One Captain on my fleet been off for over 6 months with DVT, and one of my friends (longhaul copilot) diagnosed just a fortnight ago with same, good job his wife forced him to go to the doctors.

That's only the two I know of for sure, but have heard of at least two more cases. Percentage-wise versus exposure compared to pax numbers carried versus their individual exposure? A greater mathematical mind than I required there...

15th Mar 2006, 19:08
Sick Squid

You are a moderator and have my profound admiration.

And you (appear) to accept the fact that DVT does really exist, not only amongst those consigned to cattle class but the flight deck as well.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I've been banging away at this subject (it seems) for eons but to no avail.

IMHO international air travel (as it is organised now) does not have to be so catastrophic healthwise.

The aveage sector length is 7 hours. Let transit people get off the aeroplane and book into an hotel with a bed and a shower, a proper meal and a nights sleep.

Is it going to cost the airline more? NO!! Most waypoits have waiting lists for people who want to join transit flights.

Do you really have to be with your daughter in Australia in 22 hours or could you not wait for three days?

I used to work on passenger ships in the days before the 747 f****d us. You didn't get air/travel rage then