COT Decision

[Dream Buster]

Paragraph 86. It was not possible on the basis of the available evidence in the BALPA submission or that sourced by the Secretariat and DH Toxicology unit to conclude that there is a causal association between cabin air exposures (either general or following incidents) and ill health in commercial aircraft crews. However, we noted a number of oil / hydraulic fluid, smoke / fume contamination incidents where the temporal relationship between reports of exposure and acute health symptoms provided evidence that an association was plausible.
http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/balpa.pdf
So now we know that breathing visible toxic oil fumes can not cause ill health in COMMERCIAL aircraft crews. Well, possibly (Just covering ourselves).
The available evidence was NEVER asked for, so how could it have been properly examined?
If the entire COT (Committee of Toxicity) had been bothered to spend 30 minutes in a fume filled aircraft fuselage, they would have been in no doubt whatsoever that toxic oil fumes do cause serious illness. It ain't rocket science.
They looked, but they didn't want to find the answer. It stinks.:yuk:
The really scary thing is that one day, sometime in the future - when it is more convenient, they will 'discover' that toxic oil fumes do actually cause serious ill health.
DB;)

[neil armstrong]

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/stathGCAQE.pdf
Interesting read
Neil

[beardy]

Dream Buster wrote

So now we know that breathing visible toxic oil fumes can not cause ill health in COMMERCIAL aircraft crews.

I didn't see that. I just saw that the evidence supplied couldn't prove it (as opposed to observing a relationship.) Answer: find the right evidence.

It's like saying smoking causes cancer. It doesn't, more than 95% of smokers do not develop lung cancer. BUT 90% of lung cancers occur in smokers. So there is a relationship but not a proof of cause from the effect.

[pilotpantsdown]

One thing I noticed on the Govt's website was that the basic content of the submissions could almost be predicted based on the position of the submitter.

For example, the airlines and any organisation which might have a vested interest in having this issue remain unrecognised say something along the lines of 'there's no problem' or 'nothing's been proven'.

Conversely, those who have had their health and livelihoods messed up are saying 'there most certainly is a problem'.

Can't both be right.

Looks to me like one group want commercial interests prioritised, and the other want the truth.

Draw your own conclusions.

PP

[ReheatMan]

For many years i have read the numerous comments on PPrune without posting but my blood is boiling and so I have signed up to post my first post. Sadly its not a happy post in that BALPA in relation to fumes on aircraft is failing us.

I fly the 146 for a UK airline and I am sick to death of breathing this stuff, feeling sick and seeing the girls and lads down the back get sick not to mention those who pay our wages!!

Last week a fellow Captain on handover said he felt terrible and the girls were all complaining again about feeling sick from the fumes. I asked him if he had grounded the aircraft and he said no. When i asked why his reply was what really shocked me.....'BALPA would not support me....Steve XXXX knows about it but does nothing.....'

When I rang the Head Office a person i will not identify in the technical section said the Government were looking at it and they trust the Government to do the research.

What alot of bull, we are getting exposed today, BAE build these heaps of junk and the CAA appear to turn their back on this BAE problem. BALPA have been told for years about this...where are the filters, why are crews not supported? Why is the CC doing nothing.

Come on BALPA ACT TODAY!!!

[outofsynch]

Why arent you posting this on your company BALPA forum? No one outside your CC can do anything for you. If your CC arent doing as you expect, then I suggest you join them at the next election.

It is very easy and 'cheap' to criticise, without being willing to assist. BALPA is just an association of your fellow peers. You have to inspire them to act. Not us!

However, I do agree with your cause. I have been affected by a fumes incident, and probably more, when I wasnt aware. It is a serious issue, which the Authorities refuse to recognise.

[autobrake3]

Agree, BALPA need to stop hovering on the side lines and get their hands dirty on this one. They are probably worried about the amount of cash it will cost them while persuing airlines and manufacturers in the courts. Got to finance head office and annual delegates conferences etc.

At a recent reunion of a defunct operator of the 146 I was shocked to hear of a number of pilots who are seriously ill following years of exposure to organophosphate poisoning. I consider myself lucky in hindsight for having only flown the 146 for a year. However the Airbuses that I now fly still exhibit the same old tell tale smell from time to time on aircraft over 3 to 4 years old, so the 146 is not the only culprit. Good preventative maintenance can control it but that costs money.

The IPA are showing far greater interest in this subject than BALPA, one of a number of reasons for which I will soon be increasing my salary by 1%.

[Speevy]

Ok, just pretend I am a 3 years old kid.
What are you talking about?
When talking about the airbuses you mean you could have the same problem on these types?
What are the simptoms and the long term conseguences?
Is there a study about it?
Is it just a rumur?
B4 you start I am not journo, but if it's a real problem I wouldn't mind if the press gets involved.
Speevy

[neil armstrong]

http://www.aerotoxic.org/ i a good start
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=272102 got lots of posts about fumes too !
Fumes mainly happen on the older 757 and the 146
The CAA have been denying there is a problem for years and i think a crash is needed before they will ever admit there is a problem.
There interest is with keeping the airlines happy as this could cost the airlines and the main plane producers lots and lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
there is also documented proof that BAe paid some Australian airlines money as a settlement for the fumes problem on the 146(back in the early 90s)

Neil

[Dream Buster]

Here is the link, full story in Private Eye or at www.aerotoxic.org (http://www.aerotoxic.org)- UK press coverage.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&
:ok: DB

[cwatters]

Looks like there might soon (if not already) be a mail in test kit to check for organophosphate exposure.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031024064724.htm

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5686237.html

[Torycanyon]

Isn't Prof. Clem Furlong, Washington State University, undertaking a similar project with Biosensors for the OCHRA project and in conjunction with BALPA?

Hasn't he done the majority of tests already?
Hasn't he also done experiments with the USAF and Boeing too?

[Dream Buster]

If you have been exposed to contaminated air or had a recent fume incident and need your blood tested, get in touch with the Aerotoxic Association at www.aerotoxic.org (http://www.aerotoxic.org/) who can arrange for Prof Furlong to check it with his very latest methods. - He's looking for.....guinea pigs? :eek:
If you still haven't seen the AOPIS video on Contaminated Air, you can now see it by clicking on this link.:cool:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=272139391103460907&q=aerotoxic&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
DB
:ok: