Pilots protest over 'noxious' air

[TheStrawMan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7053925.stm

Some crew at a leading budget airline are refusing to fly part of the company's fleet saying poor air quality is putting them and passengers at risk.
Crew from Exeter-based Flybe say they are scared to work on the company's British Aerospace 146 fleet.........

DISCUSS

[Nocti]

Well done Guys & Girls. A proper stand in relation to the oil fumes has been long overdue. Just wish our crews had the temerity to stand up when we had the146's.

[MR. PROACH]

Good article in aussie newspapers about Qantas flight crew being affected on 767 and 747.

I knew about the 146, but had no idea other a/c posed any problem like this.

Whaddya reckon?

[jettison valve]

... heard this is a "feature" of the Trent 500 on the A3456 as well..?! :confused:

Regards,
J.V.

[neil armstrong]

I wonder how much money FlyBe got from British Aerospace ,they paid off other airlines!!!
Dont expect help from the CAA or COT they are there to ignore the problem!
When i wrote to the CAA about fumes a year ago there response was that it was something between me and my company!

Spineless ,the lot of them.
The only people who might be interested are the AAIB but only if there are bodies scatered all over the place



Neil

[Maude Charlee]

Interesting that the article gives the impression the 146 is a 7-crew aircraft. Very fortunately on the flight where 2 CC became completely incapacitated, there was positioning crew on board. At least 1 of the crew involved has now given up flying completely following that incident - a great pity.

[swiss_swiss]

reading with interest the report that the crew had to be taken to hospital afterwards - how many people reading the report are aware of a SIL from bae that states after such an incident that crew have to have blood tests performed ASAP??
oil contamination of the packs can also be down to the apu, and smell is sometimes noted when changing over to apu air - simply because the apu air is hotter so will burn/vapourise any residual oil in the pack

regular pack burns can reduce the smells and is also suggested.

[TheStrawMan]

neil armstrong
I wonder how much money FlyBe got from British Aerospace ,they paid off other airlines.

Send me a PM about the above.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/airtransport/aviation.htm
Try Complaining to the HSE if the CAA aren't prepared to listen

[DrKev]

Why after 25 years of the 146 and variants in service is this issue only arising now? I'm not doubting there is an issue there, we've seen many posts around here over the last year or two about it but what's the story?

[applevid]

perhaps there has been a change in mx practice and the problem is more prevelent now. an airline I worked for had BAE146's when they were brand new... a real mx hog. I can imagine a cheap airline might not take all the pride in mx that they should

[zlin77]

DR Kev
Not a new problem on the 146, it was evident when I flew them back in 1990, in fact my former partner was a F/A who became ill in 1993 following an extreme exposure on the ground and never flew again!!

[Haul By Cable]

This problem has been around since the comet!

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=281345

http://www.aerotoxic.org/


Very sobering reading.

[Anotherflapoperator]

We used to burn off the packs first thing too, but the practice stopped, thankfully, before I joined our 146 fleet.

The only answer to these aircraft is to breed first officers with eyes in the top of their heads. The automatic cabin temp is crap, the manual control marginal and and any large power setting change requires a good look up and tweek on a lot of the older hulls.

Basically, the pack valves are ****e, they fill with crap, are notoriously difficult to respond to small signals from the automatic settings and are also a bitch to get out and clean up for engineers.

If you let the duct temps rise, you will get nasty smells. Simple. Unfortunately, in a two crew aircraft, you can't always keep looking and sometimes it's the smell that alerts you to look up and tend to the temps.

I hope the Q400 is better in this respect!;)

[pilotpantsdown]

A related link to this issue is the radio article that appeared today (Sunday 21 Oct) on the Rachel Burden's BBC radio station 5Live:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/
The article starts 1 hr 33 mins into the programme - no need to listen to the whole thing, just fast fwd to 1:33

CORRECTION
Its much easier to click on the link below which ILoadMyself has provided, then select 'cabin fever'. Thank you ILM!

[Lapwing]

Apologies if this is already known, but Private Eye have been running with this story for a while.
I haven't caught up with their story for a month or so ...............

[alert]

Better link direct to programme is http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive_aod.shtml?fivelive/burden

[ILoadMyself]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/fivelivereport.shtml

[swiss_swiss]

as we "SHOULD :rolleyes:" all know that the only cause of contamination is via engines or apu due to leaking oil seals( apu less likely) then as applevid has said maybe maintenace practice is the cause but i doubt it as no other eurpoen airline is having such great numbers of events.

might also be down to engineers not recognizing the tell tale oil stains or choosing to ignore it - which knowing a few UK CAA engineers i find hard to believe

[swiss_swiss]

ANOTHERFLAP OPERATOR: just a quick correction to your last writing if you dont mind?

the pack valves are a simple on/off valve and nothing to do with temperature control - the temp control valve however funnily enough controls the temperature it is however very easy to replace...the pack valve is a different story and can take upto about 4 - 5 hours. depending on the mod status of the pack valve it is a very simple process to replace the pack valve filters but if its an older unit lets say it can "be fun!" :bored:

[Croqueteer]

:rolleyes:I flew the 146 for 17 years, and like a great many 146 crew, never had the slightest problem. It should be remembered that this was first started by a bitter Ansett hostie, and in the last few years, kept on the boil by a demoted captain.

[pilotpantsdown]

Croqueteer,

The fact is that you have simply been extremely lucky. You will almost certainly have had a very significant exposure to contaminated air in that time. Your history of no problems probably means you are simply one of the lucky individuals with a tolerance of the particular cocktail of toxins which comprise contaiminated air on the 146. MANY others with a slightly different body chemistry (or whatever it is that determines tolerance) have not been so lucky - I personally know of more than a dozen people with messed up health as a result of contaimated air on a variety of types. Please check out the Aerotoxic Association to inform youself of the extent of this problem and the issues surrounding it. (www.aerotoxic.org)

The APU is deeply implicated in the 146s contaminated air problem. Maybe, like many captains in my experience you usually got the FO to fire up the APU while you did the walk round outside? If so, then you saved yourself from a nasty dose of contaminants each morning while your FO and FAs breathed in lungfuls.

It is a total scandal that pilots new to the 146 are not told 'there is a long history of pilots and FAs developing serious medical problems on this type. Now you know this do you still want to risk it?'


Personally, I advise my family and friends to steer well clear of this and other high risk of contaminated air types such as the 757

PP

[pilotpantsdown]

Check out this link to the Daily Mail's website:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=488912&in_page_id=1770

[pilotpantsdown]

The Sydney Morning Herald has a piece on this issue as well.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/21/1192301122191.html

[JW411]

Croqueteer:
I can beat your record; I flew the 146 for 19 years and never ever had a problem. Not only that, I am still in the rudest of health.

I do, however, know a few pilots who have had problems but it has to be said that I know hundreds of others who have never had a problem and many of them are still flying around in the aircraft quite happily.

[lomapaseo]

I can beat your record; I flew the 146 for 19 years and never ever had a problem. Not only that, I am still in the rudest of health

and should you get sick, like a bad cold or even (God forbid) a brain tumour will you then blame it on poluted cockpits?

That cause-effect is always available as a reason now that it has reached this stage of association via the internet.

I too was quite worried about my own health when I recently was strangely ill, what with many hours of breathing in engine oil fumes, burning Titanium dust transite dust, and last but not least vaporized lead fumes.

I was pleasently surprised when a whole series of tests showed all internal organs were unremarkable and no significant accumulation of lead But should I ever die, my wife will always have something to blame it on.

[JW411]

lomapaseo:
Why in God's name would I ever consider blaming some future malady on polluted cockpits? It is you folks living out there in the old colony who have perfected blaming every little thing on someone else and screaming for a lawyer every time you trip on a blade of grass.

When I was a kid, I used to clean the stains off engine cowlings with toluene. I spent 18 years in the RAF cleaning chinagraph boards with CTC. Nobody ever told me that these chemicals were lethal but I seem to have survived the experience quite happily just as I seem to have survived frequent visits to a coal-fired boiler house dripping with asbestos, getting covered in Jet A1, AVGAS and even cow sh*t.

I have already made the point on a previous discussion on this subject that it would be much more interesting to find out why it is that a very few people DO GENUINELY react badly to fumes. If we knew that, then they could be tested medically before taking up a career in aviation and perhaps directed towards organic farming instead.

If, and when, something goes seriously wrong with my health then I am more likely to put it down to:

1. Old age.
2. My undying support for my local brewery.
3. Smoking, in years gone by.
4. Indiscriminate wick-dipping on a global basis as a younger man.
5. General wear and tear brought about by 50 years of flying.

[JIPPO]

This problem has gone on for decades because the Civil Aviation
Authority and Department of Transport are putting airline interests
ahead of us the passengers.
A certain UK airline, and others know they will get away with this, profit
over health and safety......

[pilotpantsdown]

JW411
There is no suitable test at the moment. In any case, why should propsective pilots and other crew members get tested before starting a flying career?

Everyone has the right to expect that they will not be exposed to highly poisonous neurotoxins while at work. The airline industry needs to clean up its act. It should not not up to crews to see how sensitive they might be to fumes.

[JW411]

Yes, but in the meantime you somehow have to sort out the genuine cases from the mass hysteria cases.

[pilotpantsdown]

What's your evidence for 'mass hysteria'? All I see is a genuine concern by people to protect their own health.

[Croqueteer]

:hmm:JW411, I must say, I'm enjoying being retired. Just before I left, I offered the F/O a visual (nice day) and he/she said, " No, I might get disoriented!" I think that says it all.

[ADC2604]

Its all a load of tosh in my opinion - I mean how come none of the BE passengers have been affected only some nameless crew members who by the way do not appear to have told BE Management about it (Well not to the extent they have told the media)

JW411 :D A man (or woman) who actually talks sense

[HectorusRex]

Lawmaker Says BAE Tried To Mask Stinky RJ Cabins

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=d2bbfaff-c1f8-4160-ad27-d617274dd0b0&
Mon, 22 Oct '07
Something Smells Here...

BAE 146 regional jets are back in the news, after a member of the British parliament suggested the defense company had a secret deal between British Aerospace Regional Aircraft, East West Airlines, and Ansett Transport Industries, according to the London Daily Mail.

Lord Tyler claimed a document leaked to him, signed in 1993, shows BAE paid the airlines $674,000 to not reveal the aircraft leaked toxic fumes into the passenger cabin.

Claims the carriers were paid to be quiet over alleged design flaws that led to cabin contamination in the BAE 146 jets, also used on flights by the Queen of England, are being debated in the British House of Lords.

A British government spokesman says that there was no evidence to suggest that there was a major problem, but the Mail says, the allegations are an embarrassment to BAE.

One BAE official said, "We are not prepared to comment on any document that has been obtained illegally, and/or in breach of confidentiality agreements."
FMI: www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm

[Torycanyon]

I mean how come none of the BE passengers have been affected only some nameless crew members who by the way do not appear to have told BE Management about it

G-JEAM, 23rd November 2000, CAA MOR ref number: 200008697.

60% of the passengers were asleep.(Unconscious?)
This was a midday flight from LGW to BHD.

This is not the only flight where passengers were unconscious either.

G-JEAM is one of the worst offenders, G-JEBG is just as bad and is the aircraft involved in the event reported in the press and by the BBC.

[Smokie]

I was pleasently surprised when a whole series of tests showed all internal organs were unremarkable and no significant accumulation of lead

It would be helpful if you could say what specific tests you under took.
Did you have any Neuropsychological or Neurophysiological testing carried out?
What particular Blood tests did you have?
Did you have a Fat Biopsy?

It is all very well saying that you had tests carried out but if they were not the correct ones then the results are meaningless.

It is a bit like having a Blood test for Alcohol.
Sure, they will not find any traces of lead or other chemicals as they are not looking for them in those tests, they have to be specifically for the Hydrocarbons, CO, TCP, other SVOC's & VOC's.

[cwatters]

The Australian report on the 146 back in 1999 makes interesting reading...

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999-02/bae/report/report.pdf

It says that Australian 146 were modified to rectify the problem. Were those mods also done to other 146?

[tallsandwich]

Could those who just want to say the cabin-air equivalent of "I smoked 20 a day and am now 95 and it never did me any harm" please just shut up.

Your pin-brained comments about how you did not suffer any effects so there can't be a problem are of no value to anyone. It is those who have a problem and have no redress who are important, no one cares that Mr Selfish did not suffer.

I suppose you'll be saying that Polio does not exist as you didn't get it when you were a child?

Statistically, you could have flown the 146 for your entire working life and not suffered a problem, such a fact is utterly irrelevant and useless to the debate as it is worthless data.

It is sad that sometimes it is the pilots themselves who post the most rubbish on these threads.

Good luck to all those who are pushing this issue forward.

[Dream Buster]

Tallsandwich
Well said, absolutely spot on!
The oil fumes from the BAe 146 cooked my brains over 16 years - no question; now i've stopped flying i've at last got 95% of my health back. Fantastic feeling; highly recommended if you can do it.
However for the past 10 years I haven't had a common cold. Not once.
How strange is that?
:ok: DB

[Croqueteer]

Sandwich, I think your objectionable comments demonstrate the limits of your brainpower.

[pilotpantsdown]

Croqueteer

This response is made with the greatest of respect to you. No one is immune to the effects of exposure to the OPs in contaminated air, its just a question of individual exposure thresholds. Everyone, including you, has an exposure limit beyond which they will become symptomatic. Symptoms may well start insidiously if caused by frequent low-dose exposures, so they are invariably not initially identified as such even if the victim is aware of exposure issues.

After so long on the aircraft, I most highly doubt that you have zero symptoms, even if you think that is the case. Let me repeat that individuals typically do not recognise that they are suffering from symptoms to start with.

One of the many possible symptoms is to become more emotional, for example being easily irritated/angered and flying off the handle much more easily that would otherwise be the case. Those of us with experience of this dreadful scandal will back me on this.

That you have expressed youself in the way you have, and that you came back with the comment you did makes me wonder if you are in fact yourself suffering from the effects of exposure to cabin air.

I doubt you will agree with me on this, but please at least try to think this over and perhaps offer us a considered response, as distinct from an emotional reaction. I repeat - this response is made with the greatest of respect to you. Please show the same respect to others here who may not be so lucky as you.

PP

[ADC2604]

Torycanyon (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=111831)

I do pity anyone who has so much time on their hands that they are able to scan the CAA website for such details.

However I thank you for bringing one incident out of the god knows how many that are alleged to have happened to my attention. One would query this though - almost 8 years ago......................

Can anyone tell me whether all airlines operating the B737/B757 and F100 will be publicly accused of endangering their passengers??

Out of the 700 pilots operating for Flybe, is there anyone using this forum currently employed by Flybe who has told Flybe they are "too scared" or "will walk" if they have to fly the Bae 146 - because they haven't made a very good job - Flybe don't know about it so I would suggest you discuss it with them rather than divulging information like that to the media who in turn blow it out of proportion in turn making everyone's job a misery - especially those poor sods in Customer Service....

Another job well done by a member of crew.......:D

[lomapaseo]

I doubt you will agree with me on this, but please at least try to think this over and perhaps offer us a considered response, as distinct from an emotional reaction. I repeat - this response is made with the greatest of respect to you. Please show the same respect to others here who may not be so lucky as you.


There is no disrepect allowed on this board let alone intended from either side of the argument. Just because your arguments do not carry a convincing weight of evidence to the scientific community does not mean that we disrespect you personally. If it's empathy that you seek than perhaps in another thread. If it's action you seek based on your arguments than you are just going to have to hear the counter arguments that stand in your way. This board, in a manner, does represent the same arguments that you will hear elsewhere within the greater public, so what better chance to have your case heard and discussed pro and con than right here.

Just do not be misled by listening or seeking solace from like minded folks just as yourself.

[BarrowBoy]

For the cynics that don't believe this is an issue because it never afffected them read on.........

18 months ago I suffered a serious fumes event on a 757; on landing the cockpit filled up with fumes & both of us were affected to a degree.....I stopped the a/c & shutdown on the first available parking slot, from that point on I was effectively incapacitated. I was concious but couldn't focus, my skin was burning, my eyes watering & my throat swelling. I was taken to a German Hospital where they carried out a number of blood tests & refused to release me as 4 blood tests taken showed my blood levels were outside of accepted levels for toxins. The same company has had in excess of 40 incidents this year alone...........they even took scientists on board to monitor a flight & the scientists witnessed a fumes event whilst on board:}The report for that has yet to be released:suspect:

Eventually I was released & returned to the UK whereby I attended Biolab in London (the only Lab I am aware of that can test for TCP'S)...they informed me they were getting at least one call a day from flight crew regarding fumes. I had a number of blood tests & a biopsy taken, the results were shocking. My body fat cells were showing levels of TCP's 70 times more than allowed in industry, I have never worked around farms/ weedkillers etc so there is only one place the TCP's could have entered my body. I took the decision to move on to another a/c & since then my general health has improved markedly. I have greater mental ability, my memory has got better & I find I don't suffer with headaches following flights.

Just because you have a higher tolerance or haven't suffered the effects of these toxins don't knock the people who are suffering.........I have seen an internal RR memo that states it is a known problem........Do you really think the CAA & COT will find anything, imagine the law suits if it were proven, a number of airlines would cease to exist overnight.

And I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just someone worried about what the future holds for their health!:mad:

[flyingfox]

Croqueteer; You may actually believe your own post, but the problems which the 146 has with air quality are real. The company I work for has managed to get on top of the problem with new engine seals and other measures. The CAA in Australia takes the problem seriously as did Qantas. I didn't have a problem with fumes at first, but have become more sensitive to the issue with time and exposure. I can easily tell now if a problem exists, but fortunately the occurences are now much less frequent. There was an Ansett hostess who used the 146 fumes issue to line her pockets, but that doesn't cancel the issue of fumes in the 146. Some crew have been much more troubled by fumes than others, which probably reflect their personal immune response to toxins of various types.

[tallsandwich]

Croqueteer - I apologise for the directness of my remarks. However you are correct in one respect, my brainpower is actually somewhat limited :)

[Croqueteer]

:)Accepted. "Pin-brain" was what I didn't like.

[tallsandwich]

ADC2604 Your comment has just come to my attention.
I mean how come none of the BE passengers have been affected
Because if they are suffering (we can assume some of them may be) they just think they are ill due to something else. To study this subject it is pointless looking at pax unless, for a long period, they flew the same aircraft type for long durations every working day. It would be hard to trace such people and then when you do, you have to stumble on only those who are suffering the symptoms - not an easy data collection exercise for any scientific analysis.

Far easier to study the crew, many of whom who are in the cabin for the entire cycle (for example perhaps at certain problematic times when the pax are not - startup of APU for example was suggested) and therefore crew are better subjects to study.

In summary - how come the pax do not suffer? - they probably have done and put it down to air sickness.

A final thought - both the parents of an ex-girlfriend of mine died of a particular type of cancer - for this type of cancer, such an event to happen to a couple is almost unheard of, the explanation was that they probably had been exposed to something at the same time whilst together. I don't for a minute suggest that their deaths were related to the 146 or 757, but somewhere out there is the toxin - I would like to think that our society is proactive in its approach to such problems.

[pilotpantsdown]

I mean how come none of the BE passengers have been affected
.
This piece, aimed at passengers, should further enlighten those wanting to know more.
.
Airliner cabin air – the surprising truth about how and
why it could be very dangerous to your health.
.
An industry insider reveals the truth
.
What you are about to read may seem too far-fetched to be true. Sadly, it is an accurate picture of a little known yet serious problem.
.
At the altitudes at which airliners fly, the outside air pressure is very low so the cabin must therefore be kept supplied with a source of pressurised air to ensure that there is sufficient oxygen for the occupants to breathe. Early airliners used a separate machine to supply this air, however for several decades designers have used the engines as a source of pressurised air. This is cheap and convenient - but potentially dangerous - source of air for the cabin, as we shall see. Let’s have a brief look at the workings of a jet engine:
.
How jet engines work
Most people are familiar with the appearance of a typical airliner’s jet engine; a fat tube with a large fan at the front. This fan provides most of the thrust that propels the aircraft in flight. Behind this large fan lies a series of much smaller fans which take in the air that is used to burn the fuel. Each of these fans progressively compresses and heats the air before it reaches the engine’s combustion chambers. In modern airliners, a small amount of this very hot compressed air is ‘bled’ off; this bleed air is then used to supply the cabin after it’s treated for pressure and temperature. However, remarkably, no filters are used between the engines and the cabin. Yes, you did read that correctly.
.
Bearings
Now, each of the smaller fans runs in its own sealed bearing, which must be lubricated by engine oil. All is well with this system, provided that none of the engine’s many bearing seals become worn or damaged which can cause them to leak. Such leaks can allow engine oil to escape the bearing and become vapourised as it mixes with the bleed air on its way to the cabin.
.
Inhaling a tiny bit of vapourised jet oil may not sound too bad until you know what’s in it. Jet engine oil is not at all like auto oil – one crucial difference is that it contains around 4% organophosphates (OPs). Note that OPs are well known as a highly potent neurotoxin and were originally intended for chemical warfare purposes. Yes, what amounts to nerve gas might be in the air you have to breathe. Nice.
.
If vapourised oil does reach the cabin, the exposure mechanism is by inhalation against which the body has few defences. It is fact that passengers (and aircrews) are being exposed, and it’s happening on a daily basis to everyone on board. Aircraft are not fitted with fume detectors. Detection by passengers is impossible. Even when events are known about, airlines are not informing their passengers. Did I mention the lack of filters?
.
It seems that some people are particularly sensitive to exposure to OP toxins, and for these people even extremely small exposures are potentially very serious. Sensitive individuals can even find themselves literally incapacitated by the fumes in short order. Your pilot could quite possibly be one such individual. At least one such incident is on record, in which a crash was narrowly averted. There’s something to think about. Further symptoms then typically develop over many months. It can take literally years to recover from them. Some people never recover. Because of this time delay, pinpointing the cause of illness caused by this form of poisoning usually never happens - most people with Aerotoxic Syndrome as its becoming known, have absolutely no idea what’s wrong or why they have become so ill. Medical professionals are similarly unaware of this scandalous situation. From their point of view, the closest 'fit' is depression, so many exposed and symptomatic individuals are misdiagnosed and prescribed anti-depressants. A further dose of toxins in the form of synthetic pharmaceuticals is absolutely not what you need after being poisoned.
.
Please don’t underestimate just how unpleasant inhaling OPs can be. They are extremely toxic even in very small quantities. A brief summary of some of the many possible symptoms of Aerotoxic Syndrome is:
.
Short term symptoms
These can include severe fatigue, and even incapacitation. Also blurred or tunnel vision, disorientation, shaking and tremors, loss of balance and vertigo and seizures. The delicate chemistry of the brain is disrupted, typically causing the individual to be more emotional, reactive and volatile, and easily irritated and/or angered. Memory impairment, headache, light-headedness, dizziness, confusion, feeling intoxicated, gastro-intestinal symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, respiratory symptoms such as coughing and irritation of nose and upper airways. Breathing difficulties such as shortness of breath and chest tightness. Cardiovascular symptoms such as increased heart rate and palpitations. Irritation of eyes. There is also an increased chance of birth defects for newborns and miscarriages for pregnant women.
.
Long term symptoms
These typically include weakness and fatigue leading to chronic fatigue-type symptoms, exhaustion, hot flushes, joint pain, muscle weakness, muscular aches and pain. Other typical symptoms include memory impairment, forgetfulness, lack of concentration, reduced co-ordination, headaches/migraine, dizziness, depression, sleep disorders, gastro-intestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. Respiritory symptoms such as breathing difficulties and chest tightness may occur. Cardiovascular symptoms such as chest pain, increased heart rate and palpitations. Irritation of eyes, nose and upper airways. Chemical sensitivity leading to acquired or multiple chemical sensitivity. Physiological symptoms can include a severe reduction in libido and even a sensitivity to non-organic foodstuffs.
.
What can passengers do about this?
The bleed air system of pressurising airliners is as you can see, fundamentally flawed on health grounds. If you are on an aeroplane in which a contaminated air event, as they are known occurs there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The problem can occur on any aircraft type. One source estimates almost 200,000 individuals were exposed in one year in the UK alone. Boeing’s forthcoming new 787 will go back to the old and safer pressurisation system which was abandoned decades ago. In the meantime, personally, I will not risk travel by airliner any more. You have been warned.
.
If you want to know more, there's plenty of information including testimonials and a video at: www.aerotoxic.org

[Dream Buster]

OK, I regret having to do this but here is an extract from a passengers letter to a well known organisation trying to get at the truth of contaminated air.
Dear Sir,
I came across your site and information by accident.
I travel weekly to and from EEEEEEE, using BBBBBBB International as my access point. During the course of my flights, I became aware earlier this year of numbness in hands and feet (during flights), irritation of the eyes and sneezing (immediately post-flight) and chronic on-going tiredness. I started to keep some notes of flights and symptoms since, unscientifically, it struck me that there may be a connection.
That said, I am still concerned enough to have now consulted my GP who is referring me for blood tests.
Having read your information however, I am interested to know whether this experience is similar to that quoted by other individuals and would be happy to offer to be included in any data sample.
So as you can see, as passengers get wise to the symptoms they begin to ask questions and I guess that is the point at which airlines will begin to listen a bit more carefully to the evidence and facts of the matter.
It's long overdue.:ugh:
DB:ok:

[gulf_slf]

I have taken a keen interest in the toxic air syndrome, in recent years and regularly engage with air and cabin crew when I can to ascertain if they are aware of the issue.

Many Cabin Crew seem to be ignorant of the condition but have noted the AeroToxic.org website as well as the aopis.org site when i have provided the details. Some of flight crew I have spoken remain sceptical and cautious about the existence of the condition, and others (like many respondents in this thread) are in total denial of it.

If I am on a flight and notice any 'smells & odurs' out of the ordinary, I shall make the point to a member of the crew to see if they concur. I normally follow it up with a comment card to the airline.

I had reason to report 2 incidents on flights during the summer months on BA flights ( B744 & 767) when on push back and subsequent 'start-up' there were definite pungent 'fuel' odurs in the cabin. On both occasions the stewards agreed that they were also aware of the smell and reported it to the Purser.

I filled in the comment cards with my observations of the incidents and passed them to the Purser at the end of the flight.

I shall share you with you the response that I received on both occasions from BA customer relations...exactly the same letter....and no mention of the actual sort of complaint I was bringing to their attention!
I wonder if BA is trying to 'buy' my silence on this subject of contaminated air by providing me with additional Executive Airmiles??!!

"Dear Mr ………
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your concerns. Please forgive me for taking longer than usual to respond and for not writing back to you in as much detail as I would like. We are at the peak of our summer season and are much busier than usual.
We take our customer’s views very seriously and I am disappointed to learn you are not satisfied with your experience with British Airways. I want to reassure you that we have a number of initiatives underway to address shortfalls in our customer service and to improve the products and services we offer. Our customer feedback is very valuable to us and is used to help us identify and prioritise these improvements.
I have arranged for your Executive Club account to be credited with 20,000 BA Miles as a gesture of goodwill on our part to recognise the problems you have raised.
I am very sorry we have let you down on this occasion. I hope we have the opportunity to welcome you back on board again soon and restore your confidence in British Airways.
Best regards
J……… K…….
British Airways Customer Relations
Your case reference is:......."

When I thanked them for their generosity, but felt that i should like to understand the 'number of initiatives' that the airline is going to introduce in regard this matter, I did not receive any further comment.

Hopefully with pax as well as crews raising the matter more frequently & openly, the resources to undertake more independent research across all aircraft types will be made available. The subsequent findings should provided to an independent policy board as well as the airline industry for further action.

Given the interests of the various airlines, engine manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers & large petroleum firms, and a CAA that is more concerned with the health of the airlines rather than the Public's health and safety interests, I suspect that the chances of this occurring are slim.

[cwatters]

For those "I'm alright jack" types...
It's possible that repeat mild exposure causes sensitization. It's surprisingly easily done. I've managed to become sensitized to "zip kicker" an aromatic amine used to fast cure superglue. It took around 20 years of very infrequent use (less than weekly) without symptoms before I noticed a problem appear. More info on request.

Just when I thought that this might be a bit OT...
It seems there is quite a lot of different chemicals, including amines in bleed air...

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2004_04.pdf

"There are over 40 different chemicals contained in oil breakdown
products and many have no published toxicity data..."

http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/handle/1947/3349

"It was also claimed that contamination by the anti-oxidant amine additive, phenyl-α-naphthylamine, may also occur and it has been suggested that the compound causes sensitisation and may be carcinogenic."

I'm not a professional pilot but I'd be more worried about the possibility of continuous low level exposure than the infrequent but more obvious/noticable incidents.

[r supwoods]

Now to complicate things, what if the engine oil was stupidly mixed up with hyd oil .... as it happens ...

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=290536&highlight=om15

[AOPIS]

Where is the debate today?
AOPIS was set up in 2001 by Australian crews seeking to bring greater awareness of the contaminated air issue to crews and passengers worldwide.
In doing so we made a DVD, ‘Contaminated Air – An Ongoing Health and Safety Issue’ which was sent to over 20,000 pilots worldwide by pilot unions such as BALPA, IPA and AFAP.
Today we have welcomed our 2000th member, a pilot from Dallas in Texas.
Over the last six years we have funded research and part funded the 2005 BALPA conference in London on these matters. Most crews however remain poorly informed on these matters as can be seen by some of those who have posted on this and other threads. Some also seek to misinform on the issue to protect the industry. Why protect an industry that fails to protect its workers? Yes, we all work in aviation but that does not mean we should not force change to ensure we all have a safe and healthy working environment. Chance can only be achieved by working together.
Today, the leading group in the world is the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE) with one of the AOPIS founders as head of research, Susan Michaelis. Susan is working towards a PhD in these matters and has written the first ever reference manual on these issues available from libraries, entitled the Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual. GCAQE represents over 450,000 crews worldwide in 3 continents specifically on issues of contaminated air and has managed to get over half a million US dollars worth of research going. A tribute to the two Co-Chairs, Tristan Loraine and Judith Murawski, one a former airline captain and one an industrial hygienist from AFA. Tristan and Judith have done massive amounts of work for crews globally on these matters. They sit on the ASHRAE SPC-161 committee and played a big part in ensuring the next generation of aircraft will all have contaminated air detection systems.
Whilst the GCAQE is doing all in can for crews, not all unions are members. For example, in the UK both IPA and Unions Unite (TGWU) are members of GCAQE but BALPA are not and have embarked on a poorly informed and mad agenda with the UK aviation industry treating them like ignorant children such is there complete lack of understanding.
BALPA do not fund research into contaminated air, BALPA do not enforce current H&S regulations and on issues of contaminated air are seriously failing its members. In fact 365 of AOPIS members are listed as ‘BALPA’. The BALPA representative at Government level even told an AOPIS founder once that the TCP in engine oils was the same as TCP in Boots the chemist, such was his complete lack of knowledge.
We urge BALPA to actually start protecting its members and not have ill informed people making deals with Governments which compromise crew health. We need to work together globally and BALPA is sadly an example of one of the most ineffective unions in the world on contaminated air working against not only AOPIS but the GCAQE, ITF and others.
What can you do today?
The problem has many sides but the following should be seen as points which all crews should action so we can all collectively benefit.
1. If you believe or suspect the air is contaminated you must use 100% emergency oxygen. Don’t compromise flight safety. If you are cabin crew TELL the pilots immediately.
2. All contaminated air events are reportable events so have courage and enter them all in the tech log (technical log) or defect log. That’s what we are all paid to do.
3. Report all events to the CASA, CAA or regulator in your country regardless of what your company tells you to do.
4. Ask your airline for a copy of their Risk Assessment in relation to inhaling contaminated air and please send us a copy.
5. If you are sick or suspect your ill health is linked to contaminated air contact the Aerotoxic Association (www.aerotoxic.org) set up by a former Flybe Training Captain.
6. Write to your political representative and your regulator and ask them to ensure current regulations are actually enforced.
7. Don’t let engineers sign off a defect with ‘Please report further’ or ‘repair at company convenience’ If the air supply you are breathing is contaminated the aircraft is not airworthy.
8. Ask your company to use NON TCP based synthetic lubricating oils, these have existed for over 30 years!
9. If your union is a GCAQE member ask them to have your blood sent to their research projects.
Happy flying, we are winning and yes……today again we asked for the UK Transport Minister to resign but all things come to he (she) who waits.
Philip Lyng
www.aopis.org

[cwatters]

I'm no chemist but it looks like you can get sample badges for recording chemical exposure "reasonably" cheaply ($75 a day approx)..

http://www.assaytech.us/pricelst.htm

Sure they are too expensive for everyone to do it all the time but it looks like it would be quite possible for someone to monitor their own exposure for a say a week - or perhaps just keep one badge until an incident occurs.

I guess the problem is knowing which group of chemicals to monitor. Perhaps..

http://www.assaytech.us/541_panel_sales.htm

"Who Uses This Panel: People who have an Indoor Air Quality issue at their facility, but do not know exactly what chemical(s) might be in the air."

[remoak]

One of the problems with this issue is the lack of focus demonstrated by groups like AOPIS. Maybe this can be forgiven if we assume that most of the instigators are not experts in the field, but the collection of advice above is way too vague to be useful. For example, what constitutes "contaminated"? If I can smell the hot breakfasts sitting in the forward galley on the 146, does that mean that the air is "contaminated"? Because all we are talking about here is smells. It's easy for AOPIS to urge us to enter "contamination" (which is defined as...? anybody...?) in the tech log, but then it isn't their careers or livelihoods that are on the line. As far as asking a company for a risk assessment of the dangers of breathing contaminated air... why limit it to aircraft? The air being breathed on the drive to work, in many cities, is just as contaminated. People get sick all the time, so perhaps we should also report every instance of a colleague coughing at work - they could easily contaminate you. You could ask you MP or whatever to ensure that regulations are being enforced, however their first question will be "what regulation are you referring to?" When they find that there isn't any specific regulation... and that you have just wasted their time... expect little further help. Don't let the engineers sign off a defect with a "please report further"? That is , in equal measures, naive and stupid. A pilot can't stop an engineer doing so, particularly as the engineer will be unable to find any problem in most cases. And while we are on the subject, please tell me how the suspicion of contamination (a condition that AOPIS conveniently fail to define) makes the aircraft non-airworthy. If you want to get picky, virtually all aircraft that use bleed air are to some extent contaminated, so let's just ground 90% of the worlds fleet. And as for "we are winning..." - no, you really aren't, not in any demonstrable way. Some interesting work is being done, but samples are still too small and not enough is known yet. It's just been setback after setback for the fumes people. Those payouts are a way off yet... And I'm not on the side of the manufacturers... no reason to be. Just disenchanted with the sort of worthless advice and ambulance-chaser mentality evident amongst some (and only some) of the cabin air quality advocates. If you are going to fight the good fight, do it properly.

[Dream Buster]

Remoak,
Many BAe 146 pilots and engineers will tell you that the APU (the small jet engine at the rear of the aircraft - for the passengers benefit) has for many years given off visible light blue oil fumes when started from cold often for about 5 - 10 minutes just before the passengers board.
These fumes fill, the entire cabin and cockpit and the crew have to breathe them whether they like it or not. This is a fact.
These regular fume events have been going on for the life time of the aeroplane and although they may have improved things recently, I flew the aircraft for 16 years and probably at a conservative estimate did about 1000 early morning starts? This would equal about four full days of breathing oil fumes, spread over 16 years.
None of these events would have been put in the tech log, everybody knows they happen and after a while they just become 'normal' and part of the job.
The thought of the testers now trying to capture a 'fume event' at altitude is clearly extraordinary. The main engine oil seals maybe fail once in every 2,000 hours - so what possible chance has anybody of capturing an event? It clearly suits them to be seen to be trying, whilst completely ignoring the obvious events on the ground.
To my expert eyes this looks like extreme unwillingness to check the obvious things first...
My recommendation would be to start an old APU on a cold morning, mis set the airconditioning controls such that the whole cabin is filled with visible blue fumes and start testing! What chemicals are in the fumes?
Still nobody would seem to know the answer to this question. How very convenient.
It might also be prudent to seat all of the doubters, particularly the people who dictate about there being "no conclusive evidence of long term ill health in aircraft" in the fumed cabin for about an hour so that they can find out if they are one of the 30% of people who over time develop a serious medical reaction to the fumes? They should be fuming and have the answer well within the hour.
When the people who know the answers are continually ignored - it gets out eventually, always.
The sooner the better!
DB:ugh:

[Hirsutesme]

Dreambuster, where is the evidence that demonstrates/proves that "30% of people who over time develop a serious medical reaction to the fumes"?

Does that mean a third of all retired pilots are suffering from symptoms of cabin air fumes?

[Dream Buster]

Dr Sarah Myhill has been treating OP affected sheep farmers ever since they have had their problem with sheep dip chemicals, the very same family of chemicals found in jet engine oil.
She is quoted as saying "We know that roughly a third of the population are slow detoxifiers of organophosphates and my view is that it is roughly a third of all farmers (Pilots, Cabin Crew, Passengers, Politicians, Royalty etc) who have been exposed to OP's who have been affected physically in one way or another".
For more information visit drmyhill.co.uk (http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/)
Toxic Problems - Organophosphates Symptoms and Treatment.
We are only trying to help people understand what MAY be causing their mystery ill health symptoms.
I hope nobody has a problem with trying to find the answers?
DB:ok:

[remoak]

Dream Buster - well, as it happens I have been flying the 146 for the last ten years or so. Unfortunately, I have a slightly different tale to tell. My experience is that normally, you only get fumes on APU start if the APU is worn, the ducts are covered in oil, or whoever set the temp controllers screwed up by trying to get the packs to warm up too quickly on a cold day. The 146 I currently fly has yet to produce any visible fumes at all, over the last six months at any rate. More to the point, you need to distinguish between the risks of exposure to the short-lived event that you mention, and long-term exposure to smaller, but longer lived, fume concentrations that occur during flight. Yes, if you deliberately select an old APU and then deliberately misuse the controls, you could induce fumes... but to suggest that this is a normal scenario is somewhat disingenuous, to say the least. And resting your case on a single "expert" is hardly convincing...

[Airbourne-Adamski]

When I was at flybe I had a inciddent once where after 1 sector the cabin crew including myself became ill, felt sick and dizzy at the same time we complaines of strange smells in the cabin.

Crewing were informed and subsequently all our crew on that flight were told to report to hospital asap.
There we were tested for co2 posioning and found to have a high level than normal, but nothing dangerous.

I know of other crew suffering the same problems

[JW411]

Well, I have said it before so I will say it again; run your packs in full cold for a good two minutes before turning the heat up. It worked for me for 19 years.

I think to link one expert's opinion to sheep farmers to the Royal family and then to one third of the population is highly unlikely to stand up to rigorous inspection.

I really do think that we should concentrate on finding out why it is that a few of us really do react badly to fumes.

It seems to me that such cases are about as rare as peanut allergies but just as important to those that really do suffer.

[pilotpantsdown]

Remoak
Clearly you are one of the disbelievers. Let me set you straight.
.
First, the evidence for 30% of individuals is not at all based on one opinion. In fact, a survey was done of all known current and past 146 pilots and it was found that about 1/3 of these had symptoms consistent with exposure to contaminated air. Think about this - this is utterly outrageous that so many people have apparantly been poisoned (let's call a spade a spade) with a potent neurotoxin.
.
Secondly, one of the problems with contaminated air is that it cannot always be detected by crew noses. And remember, there is no requirement for a sense of small for a medical. The problem in a nutshell is that the cabin air supply system is fundamentally flawed on health grounds (see my earlier post). At the least the problem should be minimised NOW with the fitment of filters. Except that would be tantamount to the industry admitting a problem exists, wouldn't it?
.
It's easy for AOPIS to urge us to enter "contamination" (which is defined as...? anybody...?) in the tech log, but then it isn't their careers or livelihoods that are on the line.
.
Correct, its not their career on the line. Its yours. And without your health, you have no career in aviation or anywhere else. Put bluntly, you seem to imlply that by raising the point, you might get sacked. OK, suppose that did happen. So what? Would you want to work for an airline that treated its staff in this way?
.
Also, one of our responsibilities as pilots is to put safety first. If an aircraft is unairworthy, we are the ones that have to stick our necks out and say so. Thats what pax expect, and what I would hope you would have the courage to expect of yourself.
.
Thirdly, I personally feel its a bit mean to say AOPIS suffer from a lack of focus. No-one's perfect but why not give credit where its due for the massive contribution these individuals have made to try and protect those within the industry - thats you, me and all our pax.
.
If you are going to fight the good fight, do it properly.
.
So, it appears you don't agree with what being done at present. I agree that its not yet got the results we need, so any suggestions you can offer would I am sure be carefully studied by the movers and shakers. What do you suggest would be more effective?
.
JW411.
No, no and no again. Sorry to be so blunt but this is important. It is NOT up to individuals to see how they react to toxic exposure that would be totally avoidable if only the industry did what was required. It is up to the industry to provide clean air - I think there would be very little benefit in determining why only some people find contaminated air so hugely toxic. Are you saying pax should also get tested to see if they are suitable to be passengers? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.
.
PP

[JW411]

pilotspantsdown:

"A survey was done of all known current and past 146 pilots and it was found that about one third of these had symptoms..."

I have been trying to be objective and also sympathetic to genuine sufferers so far on this forum but you are not helping your cause by talking absolute b*llocks.

I was never asked to join in a survey nor was anyone that I know of among my fellow pilots. Mind you, we have only been flying 146s for 20 years and have a tiny fleet of 19 aircraft so what the hell would we know about it?

Perhaps you can let us into the secret of who exactly was involved in this survey and then they can come round to my home and start with me. How come we got left out in the first place?

[pilotpantsdown]

JW411
Do you think your post was written in a spirit of respect? I suggest to you that it is not.
.
Why not leave out inflammatory language such as b*llocks and concentrate on the problem, which is incredibly serious and needs solving? Your emotional outburst makes me suspect that perhaps like a previous poster you are possibly suffering from contamination yourself. Yes really, this comment is absolutely not offered in an attempt to annoy you. Its not at all unlikely that you could be suffering from exposure to contaminated air (even if you are unaware of it) if you have 20 years on type.
.
(Anyone who's on a high risk type such as the 146 and has been told by their partner/family that they are or have become irritable/emotional/ratty etc might like to ask themselves if years of exposure to contaminated air might just be a reason for their condition)
.
From memory about 300 pilots were contacted. That's a fair sample. I cannot comment on why you and your colleagues were left out. I'm pretty sure of the number but I concede that my memory may not be entirely accurate, so please, GCAQE, I believe you will know who did this survey and some of the details. Please comment on this.
.
Finally, thank you for posting the idea to run packs cold for 2 mins as a way of minimising fume exposure. Does anyone else do this and if so do you also find it works?
.
PP

[remoak]

pilotpantsdown - no, not a disbeliever in the problem - there clearly is one - but very much a disbeliever in generalisations, speculation, paranoia, poor advice, incorrect technical analysis, and bad science. That seems to sum up AOPIS pretty well. Aerotoxic is far more balanced and sensible. Sadly, many see those fighting the good fight on fumes to be nothing more than cynical ambulance-chasers in search of a payout. Some of the people arguing against the 146 and other targeted types do little to dispel that view. The fact is that very few experts support the cause, and there is little money to conduct the massive amount of research needed. Maybe there will be as time goes by, but ridiculous assertions by AOPIS that "we are winning" merely make those leading the fight look like fools (which they aren't). Affected pilots need professional guidance, not hysterical ranting. Must be the Aussie way...

[pilotpantsdown]

Remoak,
All accepted, and thank you for your reply. Sorry that I incorrectly had you down as a disbeliever.

Any suggestions you may have for how to advance this cause towards a solution would be great to hear.

PP

[two green one prayer]

I have a friend in government who is looking at this. If you pm me I would be glad to pass on any messages with anonymnity (sp?) both ways. He like you has a pension to protect but is an honest man and would like to get to the bottom of this.

[pilotpantsdown]

2G1P
.
I would be happy to receive your pm. However, not much can get done if perfect anonymity is permanently to be maintained. If your friend is to achieve anything in this area, he/she will have to stand up and be counted at some point. With this in mind, why not suggest that your friend contacts the Aerotoxic Association if he/she wants to get involved? The AA has a lot of information and resources at its disposal and I imagine it would be delighted to help your friend get better informed.
.
PP

[Dream Buster]

JW411
The Balpa conference of April 2005 was quite a step forward for the subject.
For those unaware, 17 medical and industry experts from all over the world got together for 2 days to present their evidence.
The work is all contained in a 300 page book, but here are the conclusions:
London 21st April 2005.
The undersigned were present at the international Aero Industry Conference on Contaminated Air Protection Air Safety & Cabin Air Quality, held in London 20 - 21st April 2005.
We wish to bring to the URGENT attention of Government, Aviation Regulators and the Airline and Aerospace industry the following conclusions, distilled from the conference.
There IS a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew).
The workplace in which these illnesses are being induced IS the aircraft cabin environment.
This, we conclude IS resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications.
Further, we are concerned the PASSENGERS may also be suffering from similar symptoms to those exhibited by flight crew.
We URGENTLY call upon Government, Industry and Regulators to work in partnership with cabin environmental medical and analyst sopecialists and representatives from flight crew unions to analyse, quantify and remedy the cabin air quality problems that WE HAVE IDENTIFIED EXIST.
Exactly which part of the above is so difficult to understand?
QED.
DB:D

[cwatters]

Are the HSE doing any research? According to wiki...

The HSE focuses regulation of health and safety in the following sectors of industry:

Agriculture
Air transport
.

[remoak]

Dream Buster We URGENTLY call upon Government, Industry and Regulators to work in partnership with cabin environmental medical and analyst sopecialists and representatives from flight crew unions to analyse, quantify and remedy the cabin air quality problems that WE HAVE IDENTIFIED EXIST. Trouble is, the Government, Industry and Regulators remain unconvinced...

[Dream Buster]

Remoak,
The Government are unconvinced it is true, but only because of the financial impact it would have on the aviation industry. Agreed?
Once they find out that passengers are being poisoned, they will be forced to face inconvenient facts.
I suggest you read the Balpa conference paper again to remind yourself of the scientists findings.
Tobacco, asbsetos, sheep farmers, jet engine oil - it's a repeat and it makes most reasonable people sick!
Do you bet by any chance?
I don't normally, but I certainly would on this one. It's a no brainer.
DB:eek:

[lomapaseo]

Dream Buster.

You can't eliminate the risk all you can do is to minimize to a practical extent. Some of the ideas of dicking arround with oils in the short term of your career span will likely decrease the reliability of the engine causing more Inflight shutdowns than you would care to experience. Yes there are problematic installations that frankly stink so crutching along with hit or miss maintenance seems like a reasonable degree of correction vs the percieved risk.

The government does not decide in-servce risk levels based on cost, it adresses them mostly on a prioritized basis of need. However, in this problem area very little hard statistical risk data is agreed.

[Dream Buster]

Iomapaseo,
Most people would agree that the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) are a neutral, fair, dry, unemotional group of professionals who are not prone to exaggeration or over excitement - thank goodness.
I apologise in advance for the length of this post (you did ask for extensive evidence did you not?). It is a random summary of some of the actual UK AAIB reports from the past few years and may give the reader an idea of the effect of the fumes on the flight crews.
The big question being..................
What about the passengers?
The passengers do not have the benefit of oxyygen during a fume event.
The passengers are not made fully aware of the toxic chemicals that they have been exposed to.
The passengers will amost certainly not link any serious subsequent ill health symptoms with the exposure.
• The pilot in command, following the onset of these fumes, had difficulty in concentrating on the operation of the aircraft, and suffered from a loss of situational awareness.
• …the crew had difficulty explaining the urgency of the situation (Aircraft diverted to Paris due to fumes and a smell of oil in the flight deck) to air traffic control.
• During the first flight the purser experienced an unpleasant feeling of fainting. She told the other two cabin crew members about this and they stated they had experienced something similar. They did not recognise any special odour.
• During the subsequent flight one of the cabin attendants who was placed in the forward part of the cabin experienced an odd pressure in the head, nasal itching and ear pain. The other two colleagues in the cabin also felt discomfort and the feeling of “moon walk” while working.
• The third flight the same day was flown by the Commander. During the flight, which took place at a cruising altitude of FL 280, all three members of the cabin crew experienced similar discomfort as during the preceding two flights but more pronounced. During the first portion of the flight the pilots did not notice anything abnormal but shortly before they were to leave cruising altitude the Commander began to feel a mild dizziness.
During the approach into Malmo/Sturup airport when the aircraft was descending through FL 150 the Co Pilot suddenly became nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. Then, after an estimated period of ten seconds, the Commander also became very nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. After a few seconds of breathing in the oxygen mask the Co Pilot felt better and thereafter had no difficulty in performing his duties. However the Commander felt markedly dizzy and groggy for a couple of minutes.
He had difficulty with physiological motor response, simultaneity and in focussing. Finally he handed over control to the Co Pilot. After having breathed oxygen for a few minutes even the Captain began to feel better and landing on Runway 27 without problems.
This incident was caused by the pilots becoming temporarily affected by probably polluted cabin air.
• All four cabin crew members reported feeling nauseous following passenger disembarkation, but they did not realise that they all had been similarly affected during the descent until the matter was discussed between themselves after landing. In addition to nausea, they reported feeling light headed and hot, but neither the flight crew nor passengers reportedly suffered any ill effects. The aircraft was reported to have had a history of such events and, despite satisfactory ground tests after this incident, similar symptoms were reported two days later by a different cabin crew when working in the forward galley.
• During the climb, the Senior Cabin Attendant (SCA) entered the flight deck to report that two passengers towards the left rear of the cabin had informed that they had noticed an oily/petrol like smell. In addition, a cabin crew member of a Company BAe 146 positioning crew had also reported a similar smell.
He (First Officer) sat in his seat but began to feel progressively worse, although his work load was low. He felt ‘light headed’ and had difficulty concentrating. He was aware of a tingling feeling in his finger tips and his arms started shaking.
At about this time the Commander also began to feel nauseous and asked the First Officer how he felt. The First Officer replied that he “felt dreadful” and the Commander looked at him and saw his face was white and that his pupils appeared dilated.
When she (SCA) arrived, the First Officer was on 100% oxygen, his seat was well back from the aircraft controls and his hands were seen to be trembling.
The Commander was feeling progressively worse. He felt light headed and recalled considering three aspects: landing, declaring an emergency and putting on his oxygen mask. However he felt able to cope only with one decision and continued his approach.
…the Commander seemed to have ‘double vision’ and had difficulty in judging height.
The Commander noted afterwards that it was all he could do just to land the aircraft as by now he felt very light headed and tired.
He (First Officer) did not consider that being on oxygen had made him feel better only after he had left the aircraft. However, he still felt as if he was in a daze.
• The crew noticed an “oily metallic” smell on the flight deck during an outbound flight from London Heathrow to Copenhagen. The same smell was noticed on the return flight. Towards the end of the flight, on approach to Heathrow, the crew missed numerous ATC calls, which prompted the controller to ask “if everything was all right”. In addition the Commander did not reduce aircraft speed to configure the aircraft for landing until reminded by the controller when the aircraft was at 3.7 nm DME (Distance Measuring Equipment). It was only after landing that the crew considered a possible link between the smell and their performance. When the smell was first detected, the crew had discussed the use of oxygen masks, but had concluded that there were no side effects to justify their use.
Subsequently, neither crewmember experienced any further symptoms or adverse effects.
• After parking on stand, both flight crewmembers experienced headaches and eye irritation.
• .….the Commander found it very difficult to concentrate on completing the fuel check and R/T tasks. He reported that his throat was dry, that his eyes felt irritated, that he had a headache and was generally aware that all was not well. The SCA reported that she also had a ‘very dry throat and eyes’ and the other crewmembers also had headaches.
• The Commander stated that, following the incident, he developed blisters inside his mouth, around his left inner cheek, on the roof of his mouth and left lower rear gum. He also had a tight chest, sore throat and suffered from coughing. The source of fumes was subsequently traced to No 3 engine, which was replaced on the following day.
• ……when fumes entered the flight deck and reportedly caused ‘dizziness and irritation to eyes’
However the problem recurred on 22 February 2001 when an oily smell was reported to have persisted on the flight deck for the duration of the flight, causing nose, and increasing throat irritation in both pilots.
• In addition to headaches, both pilots suffered from irritation to their mouths and nasal passages. An oily film was subsequently wiped off the flight deck CRT displays and passed to the operating Company’s engineering department for analysis.
• Both flight crew were left with a metallic taste in the mouth; the Commander also experienced a tingling sensation on his lips and a sore throat for several days. The First Officer was left with minor eye irritation.
• During the climb the Commander noticed a metallic taste coupled with an increasingly strong smell. The commander began to feel light headed and “un-coordinated”. The effects were still evident after landing with some reported errors of judgement and garbled speech.
• During the turnaround, the Commander alighted the aircraft in order to breathe fresh air but, after a short time, he suffered a head ache, itchy eyes, nausea and a bad taste in his mouth. The same crew then prepared the aircraft for return sector but, when engines number 3 and 4 were started, the Commander and the cabin staff felt increasingly unwell and as a result, the flight was cancelled. The aircraft was inspected in accordance with Service Bulletin ISB 21 – 150 but this did not reveal any oil contamination. However, following an air test it was found that engine No 4 and the APU were both the source of the fumes.
• The fumes reportedly affected two cabin staff and several passengers.
• The cabin manager felt overwhelmed by these fumes, and was on the verge of passing out, when her colleagues became aware of the situation and administered oxygen to her. After 10 minutes, the cabin manager recovered but was unable to resume her normal duties. Subsequent blood tests revealed that she had been exposed to higher than normal levels of carbon monoxide. (CO).
• The crew began to feel nauseous and so donned their oxygen masks, declared a PAN and returned to Heathrow where an uneventful landing was made.
• Then he started to feel dizzy and so donned his oxygen mask.
• The co pilot was limited in his capability of acting during the approach and landing due to the effects of fumes.
The medical examination of the co pilot after the flight showed that during the flight toxic exposure took place.
The medical examination of the Commander after flight did not show any results.
• They described it as a ‘burnt’ or ‘exhaust’ smell, but it was not accompanied by any visible smoke. Soon after, both crew members began to experience symptoms of tunnel vision, loss of balance and loss of feeling in the hands and lower arms. They immediately donned their oxygen masks, breathing 100% oxygen, which improved their condition noticeably.

[cwatters]

Interesting that Carbon Monoxide was found in one case. The symptoms from other incidents sound similar to CO poisioning. Detectors for CO are the size of credit cards, are readily available and a $10 card lasts 18 months. Perhaps should be standard equipment?

http://www.avshop.com/product/ITEM6864/414

[neil armstrong]

The biggest problem is that pilots joining an airline are not warned about the problem.
Our B757 have a big problem with fumes ,i was involved with a test fight for fumes ,we had a fumes event during this flight!
The results should have taken a couple of weeks but its already 3 monhs ago.
the goverment and CAA are spineless and dont want to look into the problem ,they have set up the COT who dont want to listen to people who believe fumes are a problem!

Neil

[remoak]

Dream Buster

The Government are unconvinced it is true, but only because of the financial impact it would have on the aviation industry. Agreed?

No, not agreed. Why should the government care what the impact is on the aviation industry? They certainly didn't care about the farmers in recent years, a much bigger industry and one with more impact on the economy. There are many other industries that have been badly treated by the government in recent times, so why is aviation special?

More to the point, why do you assume that governments are innately dishonest and self-serving? It is a typical viewpoint of the extreme conspiracists and other fringe groups who specialise in sensationalism at the expense of hard facts.

Could it actually be that the science is not compelling? Maybe the government is actually saying "we appreciate that there may be a problem, but until you PROVE it we can't act". One three hundred page book and a small amount of research is not the same thing as proof. It is a good start, and it may lay the foundation for better research to come, but it isn't enough in itself. Governments don't act because very small pressure groups, using very small samples, say they should. You have to make your case.

The problem with the summary of events that you detail above is that you don't actually KNOW what caused them. You are making a reasonable inference, but it isn't the same thing as proof. Case in point: many years ago, while doing a domestic flight, some of the crew and pax on a flight I was on felt dizzy and faint, similar symptoms to the one you describe. To cut a long story short, the cause was traced to a can of industrial solvent that had leaked in the hold - the fumes were leaking through the floor joins into the cabin. The can should never have been there, ot course, but the point is that the symptoms were nearly identical to the ones you describe - but had nothing to do with engines or oil.

If you want to fight this fight, you need to avoid the woolly thinking and hasty conclusions that have been the hallmarks of this issue. You have to differentiate between short-term exposure and it's effects (which is what you post above is all about), and long-term effects from years of exposure to less obvious contamination. They are two different issues, and yet the advocates of cabin air action constantly confuse the two and treat them as the same thing.

And finally... many years ago I was positioning on an ATP (another problem aircraft from the fumes viewpoint) when the cabin filled with oily blue smoke. An intercompressor turbine labyrinth seal had let go in one of the engines and filled the cabin with pyrolised oil smoke. We landed 20 mins later, with smoke still visible in the cabin. And yet... nobody reported feeling ill or impaired in any way. Not the pax, and not the crew. And they were all looked at by paramedics after we landed... so go figure. Maybe the issue isn't as cut and dried as you think.

[ciderman]

I have to say that I have never been asked for my opinion about this in 20 years on the aeroplane and never been surveyed. I do know that it was started in Australia in the early 90's and carried on by a disgruntled Flybe Captain. None of the colleagues that I have spoken to (TNT, DAT, Titan, and others) have ever had a problem. That's a lot of hours on the little jet all over the world in all conditions. Don't try and blame your hangovers on the only aeroplane I know who's systems have never, ever, killed anybody. Think about it, and compare the record to 737 rudders, 747 fuel pumps, 767 reversers, Airbus fins, MD entertainment systems and centre engine failures and god knows how many 320 crashes due to software glitches. Yes they've crashed but system failure was not the cause.http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/icons//icon8.gif

Maybe we've all been lucky in our 30000 hours all told!!

[JW411]

pilotspantsdown:

Do you ever read what I actually say? On every post that I have made on this subject I have said that it would be very interesting to investigate why it is that some few 146 pilots suffer while the rest of us have no problems.

Why do you have difficulty with this? I personally know of two or three pilots in 20 years of operating the 146 who have had a problem. One of them had to move to another aircraft (A300) and he has been fine ever since.

I am simply trying to get the problem into perspective whilst you, and some of your mates, are trotting out completely spurious figures (which are rather dubious) to "support" your argument that one third of us is suffering from this problem. You have even suggested that I am suffering from 146 fumes simply because I referred to some of your logic as "b*llocks".

Let us just look at some of your statistics:

"A survey of all known current and past 146 pilots"

When I query this statement and point out that my company have flown 19 146s for 20 years and that none of us were ever asked, you respond with:

"From memory about 300 pilots were contacted. That's a fair sample. I cannot comment on why you or your colleagues were left out".

So, suddenly "every known 146 pilot" becomes invalid. I would think that we alone have gone through that number of pilots over 20 years.

Perhaps you could tell us all exactly which companies were quizzed and which companies responded?

"I concede that my memory might not be entirely acurate".

You have absolutely removed all doubt of that already.

I have no intention of posting again on this subject. I have great sympathy with those who really do have a problem but their cause is not being helped by people such as you who pluck so-called statistics out of the atmosphere which simply do not stand up to inspection.

[Dream Buster]

Remoak,
I think we are all agreed that anybody with a bit of mishandling can fill an aeroplane with fumes relatively easily from the APU on the ground?
The question is, where do the fumes originate from? Would it be a fair assumption to agree that they come from the oil within the APU? It can't be the fuel after all. Still agreed?
Now if you look at the oil tin contents it advises you (or used to) that there are dangerous toxic chemicals which are deliberately put into the oil to make the APU last longer and act as a fire retardent. Still agreed?
If you now breathe these fumes (with experience everybody works out ways to reduce the fumes) but one is still left with APU's of different age and condition and of course flying with other pilots, who might not handle the controls in the approved manner.
I have witnessed a cabin and cockpit full of fumes on many, many occasions in 16 years of flying. Not deliberate obviously, it's just another fact.
So these are my concerns and the fact that nobody knows officially what those fumes are made from makes me wonder whether they want to find the answer?
If you know, please tell me. Because I think the fumes may have been responsible for altering my health over time.
Written English is not my strong point, but hopefully people can maybe at least begin to understand how many people have suffered over the years.
Why don't they at least test the theory? To have Doctors telling injured pilots that it may be due to "ingesting de icing fluid" - in the middle of summer is just XXXXXXXX sorry, i've run out of words.....insulting?

[remoak]

Dream Buster

You are missing the point on many levels.

Nobody is suggesting that an APU cannot produce fumes (mainly when mishandled).

Nobody is suggesting that engine oil does not contain nasty substances, or that these substances are bad for you.

Where the problems start, is when you make the leap from oil containing nasty substances to people breathing them and getting sick, because, as you say yourself, nobody knows what the fumes actually consist of.

Even you are not sure on what might have caused your health problems, because, as you say yourself, after all the research, the fumes you have breathed "may" have caused your health problems. So you really don't know what has caused your health to deteriorate - but you have chosen fumes as the most likely culprit. You may well be right, and as I have already said, I have no issue with the fact that many pilots are experiencing health issues, and that those health issues "may" be related to oil, APUs and OPs.

My point - and this is the one you seem to have missed - is that it is up to YOU and the various lobby groups to prove it. Or at least provide enough evidence to get a major investigation underway.

The COT don't support you. You would say "well of course they don't, they are protecting the airlines", but you are unable to explain WHY they would want to support the airlines, or what possible motive they could have to suppress the "truth". According to the various groups fighting this battle, the installation of filters would fix it forever, or the use of different oils would have the same effect. If that is true, a government edict to fix the problem would have a small economic effect on the airlines and manufacturers - so what possible reason could they have to withold such an edict? Certainly not from the fear of putting airlines out of business - so why?

The Australian government didn't support such action either - they too found the evidence less than compelling.

Just for the sake of bringing some balance to this - do you live in a house that contains any MDF or particleboard, plywood, adhesives, paints, PVC windows or vinyl floors? If so, read this:

Chemicals like urea formaldehyde, a possible carcinogen and known sensitizer, are given off by particleboard and MDF (medium density fibreboard) used for trim, countertops, shelving and cabinetry. Hardwood plywoods are also glued together with urea formaldehyde resins. Many adhesives and paints contain solvents (vapours) such as xylene and toluene, while vinyl floors and PVC windows give off vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen.
It takes a new home about 15 years to fully off-gas these pollutants.
"You are more likely to get sick from pollution in your home and office than from pollution in the air outside," says Nolan, who knows first-hand about environmental sensitivities. She and daughter Allison, now 12, developed multiple chemical sensitivities and suffered for years before discovering the problem. Nolan and husband Norm Leeming had built a series of new homes, moving into each successively and the buildup of urea formaldehyde affected them.
"We got sicker and sicker and sicker," Nolan recalls. She couldn't eat many foods or use soaps, shampoos and cosmetics. She had difficulty breathing, couldn't think straight and had to give up her work. "I lost 30 pounds. My daughter couldn't go to school."
Now, after making all the connections, they live in a 17-year-old house that has finished off-gassing, with hardwood and ceramic floors. They eat organic and Allison goes to a school that accommodates her needs.
"It's wonderful," Nolan said. "We both have our lives back."
Leeming now builds healthy homes.
The good news is that there are many green options available to replace the poisonous ones and you don't have to go too far to get them. Home Depot, for example, now carries Columbia Forest Products, which offer completely formaldehyde-free plywood, 2-by-4s, 2-by-6s and so on.
Now please tell me how many of those products are banned in the UK (or Australia), and then ask yourself why. It is the same problem - chemical sensitisation - as affected pilots seem to be suffering. Now answer me this - is it the APUs that are affecting pilots, or their kitchen worktops?

(Quote from http://www.canadiansforproperlybuilthomes.com/html/letters/amatterofhealth.html)

[AOPIS]

Remoak,
You may like to make out your an expert in this field but why don't you tell us who you are and what papers you have published. Or maybe tell us what expertise you actually have.
You say COT (UK COT Committee) don't agree with the hundreds of crews and politicians who are critical of COT and you believe everything the CAA, COT and industry tell you, but why don't you ask yourself one simple question?
Apart from AOPIS, why does the GCAQE (450,000 crews represented) and ITF (1.5 million aviation workers) disagree with you? Might it be that your mistaken and the GPWS warning you hear in the background is real?
Check it out:
http://www.itfglobal.org/press-area/index.cfm/pressdetail/1638
Toxicity investigation ‘a wasted opportunity’ :ok:
If your an expert tell us what papers you have published? :)
Philip Lyng
www.aopis.org

[remoak]

Mr Lyng

Your little rant goes some way towards explaining your lack of success.

Please point out anywhere in my posts where I have claimed to be an expert on anything (other than flying the 146 of course). Besides, you don't need to be an expert to see the obvious flaws in the AOPIS argument. So what papers have YOU published?

You also make the foolish error of assuming that I do not believe that pilots have suffered illness - I have already confirmed that I do believe this to be the case. I am therefore unsure why you think the members of the organisations you mention might disagree with me.

The only point of difference between us is that I am not so quick to jump to conclusions as AOPIS clearly is.

Case in point:

Vehicle interiors contain a cocktail of chemical compounds that off-gas and leach from trim panels, carpeting, seating, electronics and other parts into the air and dust that passengers breathe. Since our 2005 report, we have witnessed increasing public concern about these chemicals and their potential to cause human health effects.

While many chemicals used in cars pose risks, halogenated organic chemicals—such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs)—cause some of the greatest concern. Many of them are toxic, persist in the environment, bioaccumulate, and have been associated with serious health effects throughout their life cycle. When used in vehicles, they pose risks to workers who manufacture vehicle components, as well as people sitting inside their cars. Halogenated organics can also be extremely hazardous at the end of vehicle life. The majority of plastics in
vehicles end up as auto shredder residue (ASR), which is often incinerated or used as a feedstock in blast furnaces for the production of steel. When burned in this way, plastics that contain halogenated organics can create dangerous chemicals, such as dioxin—a likely carcinogen as well as a reproductive and developmental toxicant. Because of the dangers associated with halogenated substances during all stages of their life cycle, our evaluation now includes three topics specifically relating to halogens: “Reduction of BFRs”, “Reduction of PVC” and “Improvement in Cabin Air Quality.” While we believe that the entire set of halogenated organic chemicals should be avoided in automotive applications, these three topics represent first steps that automakers can take to phase them out of their products.

I N C R E A S I N G C O N C E R N A B O U T C H E M I C A L A D D I T I V E s

Brominated Flame Retardants

BFRs, most notably poly-brominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), are a group of halogenated organic chemicals that pose risk to vehicle occupants and the environment. PBDEs are added in large amounts to many interior vehicle components, including seating, trim panels and wiring, in order to impart fire resistance. They persist in the environment and levels of these chemicals in the food chain and in human bodies are rising rapidly. Studies have found that PBDEs may cause liver, thyroid and developmental toxicity, among other health problems. In a recent report, the Ecology Center found that
vehicle interiors are a significant source of PBDE exposure for many Americans. The study found that levels of PBDEs in vehicle dust are more than five times higher than levels detected in homes and offices. More
troubling, the study findings suggest that UV rays and heat may cause deca-BDE—the predominant PBDE used in autos today—to breakdown inside cars into more problematic and more toxic compounds, such aspenta-BDE and octa-BDE, which have been banned by government health agencies and the auto industry due to their toxicity.

Non-halogenated alternatives to deca-BDE exist, as well as alternative materials that are inherently more resistant to flames than conventional petroleum-based polymers. Some companies have begun to phase-in
these alternatives in their products, including Dell, Apple, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Ikea, Samsung Electronics, Sony and others. Because of the risks associated with deca-BDE exposure, the high concentrations of deca-BDE found in vehicles, and because industries have begun to demonstrate the feasibility of replacing it with alternatives, we find it reasonable to expect the auto industry to restrict their use of these chemicals as well. For these reasons, we have added BFRs, with particular focus on deca-BDE, as a topic in our evaluation. The detailed grading criteria for this topic can be found in Appendix B.

Polyvinyl Chloride and Interior Cabin Air Quality

Another halogenated substance, PVC, is also of concern in automobile interiors. PVC is a plastic commonly used in many vehicle components, including seats, arm rests, dashboards, trim panels, wiring and sealing. It
contains large amounts of the halogenated vinyl chloride monomer, which is a likely carcinogen, and creates dioxin when heated during production or burned in disposal. In addition to vinyl chloride, PVC also contains
plasticizers called phthalates. These chemicals off-gas from PVC and are deposited on dust particles and windshields, where they cause fogging. When inhaled or ingested by vehicle passengers, phthalates can lead
to a number of health problems, including damage to the liver and testes, reproductive effects, and possibly cancer.

http://www.ecocenter.org/sustainableplastics/AutoPlastics_full06.pdf

Hmmm... so is it the 146 APU... or is it the pilots new car? Do you know? Can you prove it? Guess not... :rolleyes:

Can you see a pattern emerging here?

[JW411]

That would explain my rude state of health - I have never seen the need to buy a new car - ever.

Therefore, all my cars have been already been de-toxified!

[pilotpantsdown]

JW411
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Allow me to answer some of your points:
Do you ever read what I actually say? On every post that I have made on this subject I have said that it would be very interesting to investigate why it is that some few 146 pilots suffer while the rest of us have no problems. Why do you have difficulty with this?
Yes I agree with you that it would be 'interesting'. Perhaps I should have said that last time. My difficulty with this approach is because knowing the reason, if it could be found will still not stop people getting poisoned. The urgent thing is to stop crews and passengers from being poisoned. The cause of the problem needs fixing. Surely you agree with that?
I personally know of two or three pilots in 20 years of operating the 146 who have had a problem. One of them had to move to another aircraft (A300) and he has been fine ever since.
So you have only heard of 2-3 others suffering from the problem in 20 years. So what? I had not heard of any others at all until after my health was wrecked while on the 146. Since then I have come to know of well over a dozen 146 pilots who have been similarly afflicted. Plus plenty of others on Boeing and other fleets. Our ignorance as to the extent of the problem does not make one bit of difference to the numbers affected by it.
I am simply trying to get the problem into perspective whilst you, and some of your mates, are trotting out completely spurious figures (which are rather dubious) to "support" your argument that one third of us is suffering from this problem.
A phrase such as ‘I am simply trying to get the problem into perspective’ is fairly non-specific. If you want to talk numbers, Dr Sarah Mackenzie Ross of UCL estimated almost 200,000 passengers in one single year were subjected to contaminated air containing potent neurotoxins. Supposing only a tiny proportion such as 1% of this number was injured. That’s almost 2,000 individuals PER YEAR. And the real figure may be far, far higher.
.
My figures are not ‘spurious’.
.
For your information, I have discovered the survey I mentioned is detailed in the Contaminated Air Reference Manual, chapter 6, page 139:
.
Extract from Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual – page 139
“Initial analysis of the survey data shows that of 359 past and present UK based known BAe 146 qualified pilots, 242 were contacted and responded to the survey request in the form of telephone or written responses to a 2 year survey looking at exposure history to contaminated air and any effects experienced.
.
138 (57%) pilots of the 242 respondents reported adverse effects ranging from short through to long term effects (1 deceased). Of these 82 (34%) reported short term adverse effects only, while 61 (25%) advised medium to long term symptoms, most likely in addition to short term symptoms. 207 (86%) pilots advised that they had been exposed to contaminated air on the BAe 146 with only 8% advising they had not been to such air. 18 pilots (7.4%) advised that they had had their medical certificates withdrawn by the CAA or had taken early retirement with a range of health effects and exposure background. Several other pilots reported having to take between several months to a year off work to recover from adverse effects.
The data presented clearly identifies serious trends that support previous studies and shows a full scale epidemiological survey is urgently required of all crews who flew the BAe 146 as pilots or cabin crew.”
.
By Captain Susan Michaelis. Editor.
Now available from: http://www.susanmichaelis.com/
.
This was an informal survey with absolutely no help from the CAA. So it’s not surprising that some, perhaps many, were left out. I would be very surprised if anyone was left out deliberately. The point is that the sample may be small but the ratios it reveals should be broadly accurate.
.
Let us just look at some of your statistics:
"A survey of all known current and past 146 pilots"
When I query this statement and point out that my company have flown 19 146s for 20 years and that none of us were ever asked, you respond with:
"From memory about 300 pilots were contacted. That's a fair sample. I cannot comment on why you or your colleagues were left out".
So, suddenly "every known 146 pilot" becomes invalid.
‘All known’ means exactly that. I never claimed it was ‘all 146 pilots’ So there is nothing invalid about what I wrote.
Perhaps you could tell us all exactly which companies were quizzed and which companies responded?
You’ve made another incorrect assumption there. Individuals were contacted, not companies. I did not personally do the survey so I cannot comment on which individuals were contacted or why.
.
How can you be so sure in assuming that none of your colleagues whom you know was ever asked? People who were asked are hardly likely to tell you about it if their own health was suffering. Those who are suffering but still at work tend to keep very quiet about it as they fear for their position, until things become so bad they have to stop. Those who suffer to the extent that they cannot fly any longer find that their names typically drop off company rosters and are usually forgotten. Companies are hardly likely to shout about the numbers of long-term sick crews as my guess is that they have a pretty shrewd idea whats going on and why. So altogether, crews remain largely ignorant of the problem.
I have great sympathy with those who really do have a problem but their cause is not being helped by people such as you who pluck so-called statistics out of the atmosphere which simply do not stand up to inspection.
At no stage have I ‘plucked statistics out of the atmosphere’ as my response demonstrates. And your ‘inspection’ seems to me to be little more than a rant punctuated by flawed assumptions. Surely if something is unclear, you would seek to clarify first, rather than assuming that your interpretation is faultless? Is this how you would work a problem in flight?
You have even suggested that I am suffering from 146 fumes simply because I referred to some of your logic as "b*llocks".
Actually, as I made clear, it was your tone that lead me to this suggestion, which is redolent of irritation and anger. Your reply seemed to be more of a reaction than a measured, considered response. The tone of your most recent reply merely adds to my suspicion that you are one poisoned pilot. I repeat, with almost 20 years on type it is almost certain that you have had a fair dose of contaminated air toxins.

[Dream Buster]

Remoak,
Like you, I was an expert BAe 146 pilot. I started to fly them in 1989 and by 1998 my memory was shot to pieces and my speech not worthy of an airline captain.
I could not imagine learning a new aircraft type, so I stayed with the 146 and changed bases.
I didn't know anything about fumes in those days ,but I felt so ill I thought I had early dementia or cjd. Stupidly I just kept going.
By 2001 I was in real trouble but kept quiet.
I had a bad fume event in 2002.
By 2004 I was ready to quit, so I did. I walked off a particularly challenging flight and drove home to my 400 year old house (with wooden work surfaces in the kithchen - what are you on?).
In 2005 I again had a fume event and quit, completely xxxxxxxered.
I was grounded due to chronic stress in February 2006.
In April 2006 my blood / fat was tested and it was full of abnormal amounts of chemicals, as was 27 other pilots blood / fat.
My sample had Tri cresyl phosphate (TCP) - or engine oil - in it.
I was a big sceptic too until my cognitive ability was measured, along with the other 27 pilots and guess what? We all were around 10% below the poulation average.
Now that for me is quite a powerful amount of evidence.
All we are asking for now is for a much bigger survey to urgently look into this serious problem and for some brave scientist to risk their reputation by measuring what is in those oil fumes, because if the fumes contain TCP I would like to know exactly how they got into me and my mates and stayed there a year after I stopped flying.
For every day that the fumes are not now tested, makes me realise how twisted and political this whole business is!
Please prove me wrong.
Once again, I am so pleased you are not affected but maybe just for once, think of your colleagues who know, with absolute certainty, the cause of their awful ill health.
Can you please also explain why now I feel, more or less, how I did back in 1989?
Take care - in that air! It ain't good for SOME people. That's a fact.
DB :ok:

[remoak]

Dream Buster

As I have said - many times now - I have no issue with pilots having serious problems that are most likely (but not 100%, empirically provable) due to cabin air in the 146 or similar types. I don't doubt that they are ill, and I am perfectly prepared to accept that their problems stem from cabin air, although there appears to be little hard evidence to support that claim, other than the TCP measurement made in some individuals - which could have other sources (see below). That is one of the problems - proving that the chemicals came from engine oil and not some other source.

However, my point (which nobody seems to get - maybe I am affected by fumes after all!) is that it is no good becoming myopically focused on cabin air as being the only possible cause of the problem in every pilot that has reported "symptoms". As I have highlighted above, people who are prone to chemical sensitivity can become afflicted by similar symptoms that stem from a variety of other sources. For you, it might be cabin fumes, for others it might be their new worktop or shiny car. Maybe, for you, it is actually some other external factor that you haven't identified which is causing the problem - something in your home environment perhaps? Do you live in the countryside? Have you ever been exposed to other sources of TCP? It isn't as clear-cut and obvious as some would have you believe - or as some very much want to believe.

By the way, TCP isn't engine oil. Engine oil is simply one of a variety of substances that contain TCP - for example:

Tricresyl phosphate is used as a plasticizer in nitrocellulose and acrylate lacquers and varnishes and in polyvinyl chloride, a flame retardant in plastics and rubbers, as a gasoline additive as a lead scavenger for tetra-ethyl lead, in hydraulic fluids, as a heat exchange medium, for waterproofing of materials, as a solvent for extractions, a solvent for nitrocellulose and other polymers, and an intermediate in organic synthesis. It is also used as an AW additive and EP additive in lubricants, and as a hydraulic fluid. As a gasoline additive, it also helps preventing engine misfires.

Have you been exposed to any of those? Surely you have been around PVC, flame-retardant furniture and petrol?

Nobody has managed to tell my why COT or the Aussie government would deliberately ignore compelling science. What reason is there, given my points made in previous posts? I suggest that the science is not as compelling as some would have you believe - or as some would very much want to believe.

If you or the scientists working on this can establish causal links and clear evidence, across a wide sample, of damage done by cabin air, then I say more power to your arm and you have done us all a great service. I would personally support that work (and have in fact already done so).

However, until that day comes, the cause is not served by muddled thinking and sensationalist conspiracy theories, or the sort of foolish advice proposed by AOPIS. The AOPIS approach is redolent of a union campaign (not surprising considering it's origins). That approach will never work.

If you read through these posts, you will see that I have never denied the problem. I have only questioned the methods by which some seek to solve it.

[Dream Buster]

Remoak,
Thanks for 'almost' agreeing. I know in law 'the balance of probability' is all that is required.
I would be fascinated to know just how one proves anything 100% - especially when there is so much money at stake and lets face it, certain people would prefer NOT to prove it, well not yet anyway?
Roll on the B. 787......................................................... .........Bleed air free, can't think why? What caused them to chuck away 40 years worth of technology?
What has truly bothered me is the evidence I have witnessed of other innocent people who have randomly come forward, their families have seen them turn into 'zombies' in 3 years; mild, God fearing gentle pilots turn on their wives; responsible, professional airmen independently give up their dream careers - not because they don't like flying but because they don't feel safe any more; passengers on fume event flights have their lives wrecked for years afterwards and all you ask us to do is to prove that the toxic oil fumes we breathed were NOT responsible.
An urgent independent public enquiry is required here because many people are trying to tell society all is not well and history will not record the apparent indifference very well, when it is indeed proved conclusively that breathing heated engine oil fumes cooks SOME peoples brains.
To not even test or look for that 100% proof is, I hope you will agree, criminal?
I'm OK now - i'm out but I remain deeply concerned for those who can't get out.
Take care, in that air. A sceptic almost 99% agrees it is bad for you.
Whatever happened to the principle of precaution?
DB :ok:

[cwatters]

Remoak - We get your point. The first thing any decent survey would do is to set up controls. Check 146 pilots and a similar number of non 146 pilots and a similar number of people from other occupations. Run the stats and look for a correlation.

[Right Engine]

Personal Testimony.

I'm a 757/767 pilot for BA. RR 535-E4 engines. On a number of occasions I have smelt the fumes.
On most of those occasions I have found my cognitive functions degraded. I liken the effect to the way one can sometimes make a journey (to work for instance) and one can't remember it. As though I was functioning without long term memory....Thankfully it passes within 12 hours.

The footdragging on this issue by all concerned is quite saddening. A lot of pilots on my fleet avoid the aircraft. As a junior pilot I therefore get a disproportionate amount of 'exposure'.

No doubt the key personel involved are fans of the film "Thankyou for Smoking"

[Dream Buster]

Right Engine,
You appear to have the early signs of being affected as many other people before you have found out. It might appear to only last 12 hours but I think most sufferers would agree that it very slowly creeps up on you and soon lasts longer.
I have found that if you were to have a bad exposure or event one day, your body will take a big hit and your recovery will last a lot longer than a day.
I have found in other pilots that once they have had a bad exposure, their natural defences seem to weaken rapidly and even a small exposure in the future will affect them very badly.
I met a guy the other day who could barely talk and was in no way fit enough to fly; he had his exposure in 2004 and just battled on getting sicker and sicker. Poor fellow. No more flying for him. Join the club.
The worst part is that you know you may be on the way to being permanently brain damaged one day. Bit of a trap really.
I really think that people have to be honest with themselves here, if you think you are losing it, you are, it's not your imagination - do something to stop it, before it's too late.
There is help and advice available out there, now.
DB :(

[pilotpantsdown]

Dream Buster,
.
Absolutely spot-on. I have been informed by an specialist in OPs that with every exposure, the individual's sensitivity to the toxin increases. The consequence of this is that the effect of each subsequent exposure becomes ever more serious, plus, the individual's sensitivity threshold falls.
.
If someone told me they were getting exposed on a regular basis and especially if they knew they were symptomatic, however mildly, my advice would be to get off that fleet and onto another type - and soon, before it was too late. Start the process now, this week.
.
Changing fleets as a response to encountering this problem would of course represent a major career upset and might well not agree with that individual's existing career plans. But remember, if you lose your health to this problem, you have no future career. Its that serious. One point not emphasised enough in my opinion is that for highly sensitised individuals, once they have reached a particular symptom threshold, a full recovery from this problem seems fairly unlikely. Put bluntly, staying on a frequently exposing type is total career suicide for some people.
.
I personally know three BA 757 pilots who are no longer flying on ill health grounds. All believe their problems stem from exposure to toxic cabin air. I dearly wish I had had this advice for myself. I would have wanted it put very bluntly indeed because otherwise the inertia of hoping it would turn out okay would probably have prevailed (it didn't turn out okay).
.
A second piece of advice I would offer is to join the IPA immediately, and of course the Aerotoxic Association. Anecdotal evidence (plus the experience of those known to me) suggests that 'the other one' has a poor track record of helping those who have encountered this problem when they most need assistance. I believe this problem also extends to loss of licence protection.
.
How do you read, Right Engine?
.
PP

[A Very Civil Pilot]

I found the following in todays Sunday Telegraph, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nbook128.xml) an article regarding noxious air in flight, by Christopher Booker:

Last week, however, thanks to the publicity given to this issue by the pilots – who in June launched the Aerotoxic Association (www.aerotoxic.com) to carry on their campaign, with the backing of 110 MPs and peers – crews of one airline, Flybe, have at last refused to continue operating the BA146.

Similar from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7053925.stm)

Some cabin crew are so alarmed that they are boycotting the 146.
One flight attendant said: "I will not get back on the 146 again. I'm angry that my health has been put at risk."
The view is echoed by one of the company's pilots who said that if he was asked to fly the 146 he would say "go take a walk".

Is this refusal to fly true, or is it a bit of journalistic licence?

[JobsaGoodun]

I guess it depends on who you believe. Flybe's PR guy was on Stephen Nolan's Ulster radio show last week and said quite categorically that no Flybe pilot had refused to fly any of the Flybe fleet.

It certainly wouldn't do any good for Flybe to attempt to cover up the problem (if indeed it is proved that there is one) and they don't strike me as the sort of carrier who would do such a thing anyway.

I would say this was 'journo licence' at best - how many times have we seen this sort of exaggeration from the press before?

[saman]

So, challenges with the 146 that don't want to go away.

Still, cheer up, there are some SAS liveried Q400s looking for new homes!

A quick lick with Exeter's finest paint brush and no-one will ever guess...

Oh dear, oh dear...

[cwatters]

I wonder what airline insurance companies make of this issue? I mean workplace exposure to asbestos turned out to be a disaster for the insurance industry once the link was proved. I guess they have two choices - a) sponsor their own research and if there is a problem encourage airlines to eliminate it or b) deny a problem exists, ignore it and hope nobody is able to prove it.

Edit: Looks like the DfT are taking a lead...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/story/0,,2173858,00.html

"A DfT spokesman said preparations were under way for aircraft cabin tests as a priority."

[cwatters]

http://angrytoxicologist.com/?p=68
By AngryToxicologist | June 20, 2007
First the air traffic controllers were passing out, now it’s the pilots. Pilots are again making a row about toxic exposures in the cockpit (the article calls them fumes which they are not – see PS). Reading the article, I wasn’t exactly convinced…

>Michaelis, who is currently at the University of New South Wales, Australia,
>carried out a survey of 250 pilots and found that 85% had detected
>contaminated air – which smells like “dirty socks” – while flying. Of these,
>57% reported symptoms of ill health relating to the incident, and 8% had to
>be retired on health grounds.

Um, did anyone check for dirty socks? I was about to go on my merry way until I read that

>Compressed air is routinely drawn off engines and supplied to aircraft
>cabins. If the seal inside the engine is not secure, engine oil can leak into
>the cabin…

That means lubricants like tri-cresyl-o-phosphate, a nasty neurotoxicant, among others. This starts to sound credible. I dug up a study in the Journal of Occupational Safety and Health that found that 88% of those reporting symptoms were doing so after a visible or [smellable? olfactible? –anyone?] leak of fluid. The study is pretty weak as it is mostly self reporting (you can get it free here). A strength of the claims is that many of the symptoms are what you would expect after an exposure to some of these neurotoxicicants.
The UK gov’t is getting to the heart of the matter by installing air-monitors in the cabins to see what’s really there. I’ll reserve judgment until then but it seems plausible to me. In some ways it’s a perception creates reality situation. If pilots feel dizzy after they smell lubricant or hydraulic fluid, I don’t care if it’s toxicological or in their heads, I don’t want that person landing my plane. It seems that getting better air would be job #1.
Whose bright idea was it to siphon off air out of the engine for the cabin?

[remoak]

I don’t care if it’s toxicological or in their heads, I don’t want that person landing my plane.

If it's in their heads, I DEFINITELY don't them landing my plane! :}

[No_Speed_Restriction]

Do these ill-health occurances stretch to the RJ85 as well?

[FlyboyUK]

No Speed

Try the 146/RJ 757 & ERJ145(from personal experience) as having the most frequent occurrences according to Balpa. But it's possible on all types where bleed air is taken from the engines for air conditioning.

[Dream Buster]

No speed restriction,
Here is a Swiss AAIB report (http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/u1884_e.pdf) on a RJ100 which confimrs that RJ's are not immune from fumes.
Here are some extracts:
Behaviour of crew when confronted with smell and fumes in the cockpit
According to the statement by the commander of LX 1103, he realised the serious incapacitation of the co pilot due to the smell and fumes. A flight attendant was called into the cockpit to verify if smell and fumes were also perceptible in the cabin. The flight attendant replied in the negative, but at the same time pointed out that he too noticed the smell and fumes in the cockpit.
In view of the adverse effect on the co pilot it would have been appropriate for the commander to don the oxygen mask as well. This is supported by the fact that the copliots condition worsened right away again, when he tried to breathe without the mask.
The medical examination of the co pilot the next day indicated a distinct adverse effect on the vocal chords and bronchial tubes as a result of a toxic exposure.
It is striking that the crew which reported the incident on 18th April 2005 likewise did not don their oxygen masks. As an explanation the crew stated in their report: " ....and the situation was not dramatic we decided to continue the approach and set the priority on a stable approach and safe landing. Therefore no emergency was declared and the oxygen masks were not used".
When one considers the effects of smell and fumes/smoke in a cockpit, this behaviour is incomprehensible in both cases, not least because the airlines corresponding procedures in the OM A do not allow any discretion. They state that the crew must always expect the worst case scenario and consequently must don their oxygen masks in all cases.
The necessity of this basic procedural rule is also underlined by the fact that the Emergency checklist regarding "SMOKE. FUMES OR FIRE ON FLIGHT DECK/PASSENGER CABIN/ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT BAY / ANIMAL BAY" prescribes the donning of oxygen masks as the first item that has to be performed by heart.
The fact that in the case of LX 1103 and the preceding flight on 18th April 2005 this checklist was not implemented is understandable in view of the history of the flight and the current flight phase. However, implementation of the first item on the check list, ie donning oxygen masks, would have been appropriate in each case.
Conclusions:
3.1.1 Technical aspects:
Smell and fumes in the cockpit occurred during operation of HB-IXN before the serious incident.
The aircraft was released for flight operations several times, even though the defect had not been rectified.
3.1.2 Crew
The co pilot was limited in his capability of acting during the approach and landing due to the effects of fumes.
The commander did not don his oxygen mask.
The medical examination of the co pilot after the flight showed that during the toxic exposure took place.
The medical examination of the commander after the flight did not show any results.
3.2 Cause
The serious incident is attributable to the fact that on approach to Zurich Airport the cockpit filled with fumes which caused a toxic effect, leading to a limited capability of acting of the co pilot.
These fumes were caused by an oil leak as a result of a bearing damage in engine # 1. The indicators for impending bearing damage were not correctly interpreted before the incident.
This incident is interesting for a variety of reasons:
If #'s 1 or 2 engine seals go, the flight deck gets it.
if #'s 3 or 4 the cabin gets it.
Co pilot incapacitated. Showed toxic poisoning the next day.
Commander OK, no toxic effects.
Fumes had been present for some 3 days before the incident...
Both the BAe 146 / RJ series have had no end of fume events over the years.
The effects are NOT short lived either, many people have lost their health and now passengers are begining to report similar ill health symptoms.
Officially, extensive ill health is NOT caused by these fumes. But when is society going to admit it?
DB :(

[remoak]

Officially, extensive ill health is NOT caused by these fumes. But when is society going to admit it?

When there is PROOF. The real sort.

I'd love to know how you worked out that pax are now showing symptoms... how could you possibly know what they have been exposed to or what compounds they are sensitive to...

[cwatters]

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA411032&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Title : Known Harmful Effects of Constituents of Jet Oil Smoke

Abstract : The construction of cabin pressurization systems of certain commercial aircraft allows pyrolyzed jet oil to leak into the cabin air, often producing visible smoke. The principal toxic constituents of this smoke are tricresyl phosphate, carbon monoxide, and N-phenyl-L-naphthylamine. Long-term neurological effects alleged by airline workers could be due to tricresyl phosphate and/or carbon monoxide exposure.

[Dream Buster]

Remoak,
Passengers are starting to report identical symptoms to aircrew.
I was talking to a passenger yesterday who has been frequent flying on an infamous 4 engine jet and he was just curious as to whether his symptoms of tingling pins and needles in hands & feet, nausea, scratchy eyes, sneezing fits and tired lethargy might be linked to his flying as the two have been totally coincidental. As it happens, he has swapped to another carrier with a different fleet and feels better!
I'm only passing on exactly what he said.
He's going for a blood / fat tests today to try and find out what's going on? I'll keep you posted.......
I reminded him to gently educate his GP as he wouldn't be expected to know about any mysterious ill health linked to flying; despite it being common in aircrew.
Don't shoot the messenger!
DB :ok:

[blow.n.gasket]

Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity

MOHAMED B. ABOU-DONIA
Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, North Carolina, USA


ABSTRACT.

Organophosphorus compounds are potent neurotoxic chemicals that are widely used in medicine, industry, and agriculture. The neurotoxicity of these chemicals has been
documented in accidental human poisoning, epidemiological studies, and animal models.
Organophosphorus compounds have 3 distinct neurotoxic actions. The primary action is the irreversible inhibition of acetylcholinesterase, resulting in the accumulation of acetylcholine and subsequent overstimulation of the nicotinic and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, resulting in cholinergic effects. Another action of some of these compounds, arising from single or repeated exposure, is a delayed onset of ataxia, accompanied by a Wallerian-type degeneration of the axon and myelin in the most distal portion of the longest tracts in both the central and peripheral nervous systems, and is known as organophosphorus ester-induced delayed neurotoxicity (OPIDN). In addition, since the introduction and extensive use of synthetic organophosphorus compounds in agriculture and industry half a century ago, many studies have reported long-term, persistent, chronic neurotoxicity symptoms in individuals as a result of acute exposure to high doses that cause acute cholinergic toxicity, or from long-term, low-level, subclinical doses of these chemicals. The author attempts to define the neuronal disorder that results from organophosphorus ester-induced chronic neurotoxicity
(OPICN), which leads to long-term neurological and neurobehavioral deficits. Although the mechanisms of this neurodegenerative disorder have yet to be established, the sparse available data suggest that large toxic doses of organophosphorus compounds cause acute necrotic neuronal cell death in the brain, whereas sublethal or subclinical doses produce apoptotic neuronal cell death and involve oxidative stress.


KEY POINTS.

Industry only look at the first 2 not OPICN e.g House of Lords, CAA 2004 CAQ paper etc..


AVIATION CONNECTION.

Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity (OPICN)
Various epidemiological studies have demonstrated that individuals exposed to a single large toxic dose, or to small subclinical doses, of organophosphorus compounds have developed a chronic neurotoxicity that persists for years after exposure and is distinct from both cholinergic and OPIDN effects. This disorder has been variously referred to in the literature by many differing terms but the review of the literature indicated that these studies describe a nervous system disorder induced by organophosphorus compounds which involves neuronal degeneration and subsequent neurological, neurobehavioral, and neuropsychological consequences.

Characteristics of OPICN.
OPICN is produced by exposure to large, acutely toxic­or small subclinical­doses of organophosphorus compounds. Clinical signs, which continue for a prolonged time ranging from weeks to years after exposure, consist of neurological and neurobehavioral abnormalities. Damage is present in both the PNS and CNS, with greater involvement of the latter. Within the brain, neuropathological lesions are seen in various regions, including the cortex, hippocampal formation, and cerebellum. The lesions are characterized by neuronal cell death resulting from early necrosis or delayed apoptosis. Neurological and neurobehavioral alterations are exacerbated by concurrent exposure to stress or to other chemicals that cause neuronal cell death or oxidative stress. Because CNS injury predominates, improvement is slow and complete recovery is unlikely.

Neurological and neurobehavioral alterations.
Although the symptoms of OPICN are a consequence of damage to both the PNS and CNS, they are related primarily to CNS injury and resultant neurological and neurobehavioral abnormalities. Studies on the effects of exposure to organophosphorus compounds over the past half century have shown that chronic neurological and neurobehavioral symptoms include headache, drowsiness, dizziness, anxiety, apathy, mental confusion, restlessness, labile emotions, anorexia, insomnia, lethargy, fatigue, inability to concentrate, memory deficits, depression, irritability, confusion, generalized weakness and tremors.Respiratory, circulatory, and skin problems may be present as well in cases of chronic toxicity.It should be noted that not every patient exhibits all of these symptoms.

SAME AS FOUND IN SICK CREWS.

Furthermore, 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.




CONCLUSION.

Herein we have described the long-term, persistent neurodegenerative disorder induced by exposure to organophosphorus compounds. We define this effect as organophosphorus ester-induced chronic neurotoxicity, or OPICN. Numerous cases documenting this disorder have been reported since the extensive use of these chemicals in industry and agriculture began more than 50 yr ago. Although largely characterized by chronic neurobehavioral alterations, OPICN involves other molecular, neurochemical, neurophysiological, neuropathological, neuropsychological, and neurological changes.
The term “neurotoxicity” encompasses all of these, and adequately describes this neurodegenerative disorder.

[old-timer]

That looks a pretty conclusive report, scary reading !

[Seat62K]

Just seen an item in "Private Eye" which claims "inquiries are currently under way into five incidents involving Flybe aircraft flying in and out of Belfast airport in recent weeks, three of which involved crews being taken to hospital" ("Eye" 26 Oct-8 Nov). The implication of the article is that all these involved toxic fumes in the cabin. Is there anyone who can throw light on the problem, if it exists? Thanks.

[Hirsutesme]

Inquiries by who? There are none going on in flybe. There are two alleged belfast incidents, both well publiscised on Pprune.

[Dream Buster]

http://wbztv.com/local/local_story_309115400.html
So here is a crew that have had their (maybe) first fume event.
Some of the five crew may be exposed to lesser fume events in the future and then they will begin to feel extremely ill.
Many aircrew have been down this route before them; it's just sad to think that their careers may well be over within a couple of years.
Most people never seem to work out the cause.
DB :(

[remoak]

You see, this is why the fumes movement lacks credibility in the eyes of may.

Some of the five crew may be exposed to lesser fume events in the future and then they will begin to feel extremely ill.

How do you know? They might, but equally, they might not. Unless you know exactly what is going on with them physiologically, such sweeping statements are nothing more than uninformed speculation. It really doesn't help your cause, and makes you appear sensationalist.

[Dream Buster]

Remoak,
I am now in posession of many other professional pilots testimonies as to how they lost their health and flying jobs.
There is definitely a pattern developing here, based on people like you and me describing their losses. I would be more than happy to provide you with the evidence to confirm this but in the meantime just accept that a serious fume event is usually the start of much worse to come.
The Doctors can explain it, why can't you accept it?
I wish you well with your flying and hope you never have an event!
For some of us a fume event is seriously bad news.
DB :ugh:

[gatbusdriver]

I have a friend who has lost his medical due to such events.

BA 757 F/O

BA and BALPA have chosen not to take up his (and many others) case. Yet the blood tests proove that he isn't just suffering from depression (which was the companies diagnosis).

I also had a fumes incident on the 757 (only been on it 5 months now), a quick question to anyone sensible out there ( I guess that excludes remoak), would the traces of toxins still be in my blood/system now? As I am considering going for a blood test.

[Dream Buster]

Gatbustdriver,
Please get in touch with the Aerotoxic Association at www.aerotoxic.org (http://www.aerotoxic.org/) and we can advise you on the options.
DB :ok:

[cwatters]

Is there somewhere pilots go to get a specialist blood test? I wonder if a regular test that a doctor would do would look for the right stuff? What would/should a blood test look for? I'm no expert but Google suggests regular monitoring of "plasma cholinesterase activity" is the thing or perhaps to look for "Phosphorylated acetylcholinesterase" . See Organophosphates on this page..


http://books.google.com/books?id=bhP4XLBEHtcC&pg=PA670&lpg=PA670&dq=organophosphates+persist+in+the+bloodstream&source=web&ots=Qz9kCAtfU2&sig=G-qMdtNFT_ApcYIpsOqzgSkvhrs

"For monitoring of occupational exposure regular measurement of plasma cholinesterase activity should be carried out; a reduction of the pre-employment level by 30% indicates excessive exposure and the worker should be removed from exposure pending recovery of levels.

Phosphorylated acetylcholinesterase is relatively stable which means that the features of poisoning may persist longer than the presence of the orgaonophosphate in the blood stream."

Interestingly the article also suggests a treatment to be started within 4 hours of exposure. All assumes organophosphates are the problem.

[Dream Buster]

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2007/11/11/queasy-jets-98487-20092231/
An open public enquiry is now essential, reasonable and long overdue.
DB :ok:

[OltonPete]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7094216.stm

They were really going to town on local radio with interviews with
one of the passengers and the journo from the previous event.

It was a 145 I believe not a 146.

Pete

[cwatters]

The Mirror article refers to a report by Dr Sarah Mackenzie Ross. Her report to parliament appears to be this one...

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/stathMackenzieRoss.pdf

[Dream Buster]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pilots-want-royal-commission-on-fumes/2007/11/17/1194767021819.html
AUSTRALIAN pilots are demanding a royal commission after research revealed the harmful genetic impact of breathing in toxic fumes on aircraft.
There are fears for the long-term health of passengers who may have been exposed to the chemical-laced fumes on commercial flights without knowing it.
Because of a design flaw in modern jet aircraft, unfiltered air is pumped directly from the engines into the cabin. If there is an oil leak, the air becomes laced with chemicals including tricresyl phosphate (TCP), which attacks the nervous system and can cause brain damage.
The chairman of an earlier Senate inquiry into toxic fumes, former senator John Woodley, said: "We need a royal commission. The risk to the flying public and to aircrew is such that I can no longer keep staying silent in the face of such an obvious cover-up of a serious health and safety issue.
"It has to be a royal commission. We cannot have faith in a government inquiry because it will come up with the same result as all the others around the world - a whitewash."
Australian and International Pilots Association general manager Peter Somerville agreed.
"Because there is all this new information and such a reluctance to solve the problem co-operatively, the only way we will get resolution is to have a royal commission," he said.
Professor Clement Furlong, from the University of Washington in Seattle, said results from blood and gene tests had shown that exposure to TCP adversely affected a person's genes.

[old,not bold]

http://www.uk-airport-news.info (http://www.uk-airport-news.info/)

Pilot publishes plane fumes book and documentary
In a new book a plane crashes at Newcastle Airport after pilots breath in toxic chemicals and pass out at the controls. The author of the book, a former pilot, feels it is only a matter of time before it happens in real life.
Former pilot Tristan Loraine, 45, retired through ill health last year after repeated exposure to air contaminated by jet engine oil severely affected his ability to fly. He was given a £200,000 pay-out and used a large amount of the cash to publish a book called Toxic Airlines and film a documentary - Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines - set at Newcastle Airport.
Mr Loraine, from Horsham, West Sussex, who flew in and out of Newcastle regularly during his career, claims he suffered varying degrees of contamination on at least 75 percent of the Boeing 757 flights he piloted. He says he even once had to carry out an emergency landing at the airport because the fumes were so overpowering.
He said: 'I flew as an airline pilot from the age of 17 before retiring last December as a result of exposure to contaminated air during my career. I started writing the book when I was sick, to tell the world this story. Twelve doctors have said I am ill from contaminated exposure . . . if I am not safe to fly how can they say there is not a problem?'
'I was given £200,000 from my airline and immediately used it to set up the film production company to tell the world what is going on. The documentary will have a limited release at the cinema and has received some fantastic reviews.
Mr Loraine wants the airlines to fit filters on their planes. He said: 'There is no detection system on the planes, yet some of these chemicals are odourless so there should be a warning. Most homes have smoke or carbon monoxide alarms. Crew and passengers are being exposed to this every time they fly and are not told anything. There are young children being exposed to these toxic chemicals.'
'People in the aviation industry have known about this for 40 years and have just been covering up. The British Government knows about this but they are just protecting the aviation authority's interests. I know people who tell me they are not well but they have got to pay bills so they just carry on flying.'

[idol detent]

Good for him.

It's about time this issue was taken seriously by the airlines and regulatory authorities rather than deny, deny, deny....

I suppose Gulf War Syndrome or Lack of Moral Fibre were a pure state of mind too, rather than something physical or neurological.

People are being poisoned. It's long overdue that the regulatory powers mandated the use of filters. I believe the 787 has a completely different way of generating cabin air - anyone know how it works? I wonder why there was a change from Boeing?

At the moment we are suffering from the Erin Brockovich syndrome.

id

[cwatters]

No excuse for not having CO detectors. Some fire departments give away free credit card size detectors that fit in a wallet. $10 each on the web.

[pilotpantsdown]

I agree.

Its extraordinary that PPLs commonly add a CO detector to their complement of instruments, while as far as I am aware, there is absolutely NO fume detection equipment as standard of any kind on an airliner carrying hundreds in the back.

PP

[luvly jubbly]

Just found this on the net...........................


Pilot Publishes Plane Fumes Book & Documentary
10.12.07

In a new book a plane crashes at Newcastle Airport after pilots breath in toxic chemicals and pass out at the controls. The author of the book, a former pilot, feels it is only a matter of time before it happens in real life.

Former pilot Tristan Loraine, 45, retired through ill health last year after repeated exposure to air contaminated by jet engine oil severely affected his ability to fly. He was given a £200,000 pay-out and used a large amount of the cash to publish a book called Toxic Airlines and film a documentary - Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines - set at Newcastle Airport.

Mr Loraine, from Horsham, West Sussex, who flew in and out of Newcastle regularly during his career, claims he suffered varying degrees of contamination on at least 75 percent of the Boeing 757 flights he piloted. He says he even once had to carry out an emergency landing at the airport because the fumes were so overpowering.

He said: 'I flew as an airline pilot from the age of 17 before retiring last December as a result of exposure to contaminated air during my career. I started writing the book when I was sick, to tell the world this story. Twelve doctors have said I am ill from contaminated exposure . . . if I am not safe to fly how can they say there is not a problem?'

'I was given £200,000 from my airline and immediately used it to set up the film production company to tell the world what is going on. The documentary will have a limited release at the cinema and has received some fantastic reviews.

Mr Loraine wants the airlines to fit filters on their planes. He said: 'There is no detection system on the planes, yet some of these chemicals are odourless so there should be a warning. Most homes have smoke or carbon monoxide alarms. Crew and passengers are being exposed to this every time they fly and are not told anything. There are young children being exposed to these toxic chemicals.'

'People in the aviation industry have known about this for 40 years and have just been covering up. The British Government knows about this but they are just protecting the aviation authority's interests. I know people who tell me they are not well but they have got to pay bills so they just carry on flying.'

LJ

[luvly jubbly]

Looks like the House Of Lords are onto it already:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/121/12102.htm#a9

LJ

[Southernboy]

Beware there's a lot of Sir Humphreyness around this issue. See www.aerotoxic.org

ALL a/c feed the aircon system via engine bleed air, so it's possible on any type.

[Southernboy]

What's going on here? For the 2nd time a post of mine is denied until a moderator has "seen" it. It then never appears, no dodgy language, nada!?

This is a 3rd try, though not addressing the subject. Why please?

[sandbank]

The Daily Telegraph travel section has an interesting piece today on the effects of engine gas contamination in commercial aircraft cabin air systems . It's on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/759562/Is-cabin-air-making-us-sick.html

In the frame are British Aerospace 146, the Boeing 757, the Airbus A319 and the Embraer 145 -though I can think of a couple of other aircraft where there's a distinct whiff of my granny's old paraffin stove. However the real menace is said to be toxic additives to engine lubricant.

..So if anyone has suffered nausea and headaches on the flight deck then the BBC's Panorama on March 3 might be worth watching.

[swiss_swiss]

with ref to the above mentioned article can someone explain to me how fuel and hydraulic fluid is able to enter the air system?

[WhatsThatNoise]

"Air is drawn out of the compression section of the engine and cooled. It then enters the cabin, where it mixes with recirculated air that has passed through filters designed to remove bacteria and viruses. These “recirculated air” filters do not remove any fumes or vapours from the engine. So if engine oil or hydraulic fuel leaks, because of poorly designed or faulty seals, or even over-filled tanks, toxic chemicals can contaminate the air supply. "

On page one!

[Oldlae]

I don't know how fuel or hydraulic fluid can enter the air supplied to the cabin. The usual culprit is engine oil from the No 1 bearing at the front of the compressor on a typical gas turbine. The No 1 bearing has to be well sealed as it is operating in a vacuum thus any oil leaks would result in contaminating the cabin air supply after being drawn through the compressor. I would suggest that the seals mainly leak through wear and tear.

[wbble]

Re how hydraulic fluid can contaminate the air, I believe on the MD-80 series the hydraulic drain is forward of the APU intake, so the fluid can get sucked into the APU

[Rightbase]

I'm not an expert, but surely this problem is associated with the engine type rather than the aircraft type. So which engines are to be avoided?

I'm still not an expert, but surely it is a sealing problem in the engine - so whose oil seals are to blame?

And in one case I know of, the first exposure was unpleasant, but the second triggered an allergic reaction. End of career - since a third exposure could be fatal.

And serious thoughts about that pilot ever travelling as a long haul passenger.

[preduk]

I believe this website: http://www.welcomeaboardtoxicairlines.com/ looks at the same problems.

[Jumbodriver74]

And what about de-icing fluids:eek::eek::eek: ?

[flyingman-of-kent]

I posted on an article about the same subject that was reported on in the Daily Mail on the 8th February 2008, but the thread was moved to SLF. Shame because this report was specifically about a pilot who had been retired on health grounds due, he suspected, to toxins in the planes air supply.

The thread is here - http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=312701

Definitely worth reading the Daily Mail and Telegraph article - and I shall watch the Panorama program as well.

What is of course annoying here is that the whole thing is being covered up by the airlines and governments! Proof by covert testing and numerous reportings of toxic air are just being swept under the carpet by the CAA and the UK gov for starters!!

[Lowkoon]

The biggest culprit is the oil used to lube the aircycle machines. Ask your friendly mobil rep about the benefits of consuming it.

[Gear up Shut up]

Nowadays don’t most ACMs use air bearings and therefore offer little likelihood of contamination?

The person who is involved welcomeaboardtoxicairlines.com refers to a colleague that has suffered immeasurable damage. This colleague is rumoured to be his wife and they tried something very similar in Australia. After a recent article written in the Mail I note he used a fictitious crash to support his argument, which I hardly feel is credible journalism.

Could it therefore be assumed that there is actually an element of scare mongering and hysteria surrounding this? Appreciated that we are looking at machines that will have componentry failure, so there is a risk – but is it as prevalent as reported?

[Sheery Robinson]

I am new to PPRune but as a PPL holder I thought you would like to know that the film made by a BA Captain 'Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines' which I saw in Derry last November is to be screened in UK cinemas starting in London on 9 March.

See http://www.welcomeaboardtoxicairlines.com for details.

The film is first class, I learnt alot from it.

Sheery

[gyro4]

This little video should probably justify some salary increase for another health issue that we face in this job as airline crews.

http://www.king5.com/video/featured-index.html?nvid=221600

[RAT 5]

Not wishing to divert the topic, but it is related to our helath. Radiation. I read some reports in mid-90's conducted by German & Italian pilot unions. They had massive amounts of data that there was a serious risk which needed attention. Evidently the Germans had taken experts into the cockpits and their meters went off the clock at CRZ levels. Meters that were set for ground based workers' exposure levels. Somewhere there is a big carpet under which all that was swept. It was muted that LH might shield the cockpits, but if the pax found out there would be an uprising. This, and the latest fumes issue; the response afforded by CAA's and goverments is drisery. It's too costly & inconvenient, so lets forget about it. The mega bucks spent on other less important but higher profile ground based issues is a joke. Often a complete waste of tax-payers' money, but a good vote winner.

Cynical? Damned right!

[TwoDeadDogs]

Hi there
Our experience, in the former national airline of Ireland,when we had 146s, was fumes in the cockpit and cabin, CCMs complaining of nausea, occasional vomiting and severe headaches of CCMs.Culprits included excess APU oil fiiling (easy to do in a 146) leading to fumes from spilt oil in the APU bay getting drawn into the airconditioning ducts and then into the cabin.Sometimes, the main engines were to blame.Deicing fluid entering the airducts also contributed....The trick of running the packs until they were hot, before flight, sometimes worked but sometimes it just made things worse.It was routine to board, start the APU, run the packs at full blast and open all the doors and sliding cockpit windows before the crews boarded, on a suspect aircraft...incidentally, the APUs were always oily.I've never seen a "dry" one.We also had to clean out all the big air ducts thoroughly during checks.
regards
TDD

[HarryMann]

Seems to me that once again with a serious environmental problem, Exxon Mobil are being 'less than forthright' or as they say in the House 'somewhat lacking in verisimilitude' - their testing methods seem to bear no relation whatsoever to humans breathing heated oil (hens drinking it cold, I ask you)...

But lets face it, what the heck is air from inside a piece of hot rotating machinery lubricated with synthetic oils doing being fed to humans anyway - these are oils that I wear nitrile gloves when handling as a matter of course!

Of course seals aren't going to be perfect, even when new, let alone gauranteed perfect for 10 ~ 20,000 hours.

Are we to expect aircrew to initiate an emergency descent to circa 10,000 ft when an air quality 'event' is detected at cruise altitude, to provide breathable quality air to 100's of passengers, with 30%* at immediate risk?

* I also find it interesting that the experts say that 'about' 30% of the population are much more sensitive to TCPs and PANs, due to genetics....
I remember reading that much the same was the case with BSE (and JCD); only 27% of the population had the chromosomal make-up that allowed the disease to rapidly progress.
Seems that nature's diversity has given the human race a rather amazing safety valve... or shall we call it 'an early warning system' ?

Will we heed that warning now or continue in selfish denial requiring Royal Commisions, extreme consumer pressure and in the meantime untold more harm to be done before facing up to an obvious truth ....

cabin air direct from gas turbines is rotten to the core :ugh:

[srobarts]

This program tonight on BBC1 South might be of interest to those following this thread. BBC1 South is also available on Sky for those outside the region.

Inside Out

Friday 29 February
7:30pm - 7:57pm
BBC1 South

Joe Crowley is on the trail of the dodgy TV dealers and the poisonous fumes that could damage our health when we hop on a plane. Plus, a pilot who is forced to retire gives us a stark warning.

[wbble]

It's good that there have been several newspaper articles recently and items on TV like this one, as the public have a right to know the truth.

Someone likened breathing bleed air to smoking. It's bad for you, and some people can smoke their whole lives with no ill effects, while others can get struck down with lung cancer or other nasty diseases after only a relatively small time. It's the same with bleed air - it's just a question of who is susceptible to it, and how much exposure they need for problems to start manifesting themselves.

[mason]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/feb/26/theairlineindustry.uknews

[Perrin]

The next time or first time you jocks go into a hanger with A/C on heavy maint ask to see a removed outflow valve before its been cleaned. They are better now that the smoking in the good old days is over but its still not a pretty thing to see.

Keep them up safe guys
Peter:(

[Jonty]

Its running on BBC news as well.

[AOPIS]

The Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE) www.gcaqe.org (http://www.gcaqe.org), has just issued this PR in the UK.


AIR PASSENGERS AND CREW AT RISK FROM ‘CONTAMINATED AIR’

Call for a ‘Public Inquiry’ into the ongoing exposure of passengers and crews to contaminated air on UK transport aircraft backed by major opposition parties.

Thousands of air passengers are put at risk each year from toxic fumes leaking into aircraft cabins, according to a leading organization representing over 500,000 aviation workers globally in 3 continents.

The Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE), formed in 2006, is calling for a full public inquiry into the ongoing ‘Contaminated Air’ issue on UK aircraft, in light of substantial evidence that numerous chemicals such as tricresyl phosphate and tributyl phosphate, present in oils and lubricants, leak daily into cabin air supplies. Chemicals known to have immuno- and neuro- toxic effects.

British Ministers say that 1 in 2000 flights could be affected by so-called 'fume events'. GCAQE believes these events are occurring far more frequently, on a daily basis and have done so for over three decades.

An Australian Senator recently revealed a secret 1993 agreement between British Aerospace and two now-defunct Australian airlines relating to ‘obnoxious oil and other (the “cabin environment problem”) fumes affecting the passenger cabins of some or all of the aircraft.’

Commenting, Co-Chairman of the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive and former airline pilot, Captain Tristan Loraine, said:

"International airlines continue to preside over a global scandal. Not only are they supplying the travelling public with unfiltered engine air to breathe, known for decades to sometimes become contaminated with toxic chemicals. They don't tell the public there is a risk of exposure or when they have been exposed. This has to be a breach of their human rights."

"No UK aircraft has any form of detection system fitted to warn when the air is contaminated. Each year thousands of contaminated air events go unreported."

"The Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Transport are both experts at ‘spin’ but have negligently failed to protect the travelling public. There is overwhelming evidence to show that exposure to contaminated cabin air is causing unacceptable risks to health and flight safety and the precautionary principle should be applied. Solutions to resolve this problem exist and they know it."

"After decades of dissembling only a full public inquiry can get to the facts and protect airline passengers and crew alike."

GCAQE has secured the support of all the main opposition political parties in its call for a public inquiry:
Conservative Party Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Teresa Villiers MP. For media interviews contact: 0207 2195178 or 07623 945389
Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Norman Baker MP. For media interviews contact: 0207 2192864
Green Party Principal Speaker for England and Wales, Dr. Caroline Lucas MEP. For media interviews contact: 0207 5610282

Tristan Loraine & Judith Murawski
GCAQE Co-Chairs ENDS


Notes to Editors:

1. GCAQE comprises some 20 organisations in 3 continents and represents around 500,000 airline pilots, crew and engineers.
2. All commercial jet aircraft supply breathing air for passengers and crews taken directly from the engines and supplied unfiltered to the passenger cabin. This air, known as ‘bleed air’ is known to become contaminated with hazardous chemicals present in synthetic jet engine oils and hydraulic fluids. These chemicals include the organophosphates 'tricresyl phosphate' and 'tributyl phosphate'.
3. British Transport Minister, Lord Bassam of Brighton, recognised that 1 in 2000 flights report 'fume events' in exchanges with Liberal Democrat Peer, Lord Tyler, on 18th October 2007, HL Hansard column 786 –
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/71018-0001.htm
4. Captain Tristan Loraine served as an airline pilot between 1986 and 2006. He sits on international committees where these matters are discussed. He is also the author of the novel ‘Toxic Airlines’ and recently produced the feature length documentary ‘Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines’ now showing in selected UK cinemas.
5. GCAQE researcher, former pilot and PhD student, Susan Michaelis recently published the 844 page ‘Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual’ documenting the history of the hazards associated with synthetic jet engine oils and hydraulic fluids leaking into aircraft cabin air supplies. Copies are available from selected public libraries or from www.susanmichaelis.com.
6. The history of the hazards associated with synthetic jet engine oils and hydraulic fluids leaking into aircraft cabin air supplies have been a concern since the 1950's. Appropriate research, called for in 1977 following the documented incapacitation of a crew member, has never been undertaken.
7. An EDM currently exists in relation to this matters: EDM 1017 - CONTAMINATED AIR ON COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT - 22.02.2008

For more detailed information on the specific reasons for calling for a ‘Public Inquiry’, please refer to the ‘latest news’ section on our website at:

www.gcaqe.org. (http://www.gcaqe.org)

[Frangible]

Why pull up the Observer piece two years later? Not even the Observer would call that news.

[Chris Scott]

It seems outrageous that detection systems have not been mandated on all public transport aircraft, assuming that suitable technology is available.

However, how can any air conditioning system be totally immune from the probability of finite quantities of lubricant contaminating the supplied air? This cannot be a problem unique to airborne systems supplied by jet-engine compressor bleed-air. The types of lubricants, of course, are another matter, but I would wager that offices and hotels throughout the world must also be susceptible to comparable pollution mechanisms - not to mention trains and buses.

[pistongone]

Does anyone have any info on the source, or indeed validity of this news brief from Teletext?

Aeroplane air quality slammed
Thousands of air passengers are being put at risk by toxic engine fumes leaking into aeroplane cabins, says the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive.

It is calling for a public inquiry into the issue of "contaminated air" on UK aircraft.

The group says there is substantial evidence that numerous chemicals known to damage the immune and nervous system leak into cabin air supplies every day.

Who are the "Global Cabin Air Quality Executive? Who sits on such an executive?
And why are UK aircraft seemingly singled out for this complaint?
I must say its the first i've heard on this subject!
PG.

[rubik101]

pistongone, try doing a search of this site next time you are prompted to open a thread. It's been ongoing for months, maybe years!

[asuweb]

http://www.gcaqe.org/

[Magplug]

See the website here created by a colleague who suffered (http://www.welcomeaboardtoxicairlines.com/)

[HXdave]

this is the BBC news website link.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7315842.stm

[pistongone]

OK i should have searched first, appologies. I just found their site. However, why are UK aircraft singled out in this news brief?

[Drink Up Thee Cider]

Professional (ex?) pilots campaigning on fumes is one thing but including:

Green Party Principal Speaker for England and Wales, Dr. Caroline Lucas MEP. For media interviews contact: 0207 5610282

in your press release shows an appalling lack of judgement. She is the very worst example of an aviation-hating alfalfa-knitting eco-loon and would have us closed down as quickly as you can say 'cabin air quality'. Is it possible that the GCAQE can't see the wood for the trees and will sign up even people who despise us just to garner support for their cause? And since when were the Greens a 'main opposition party' anyway?!

[merlinxx]

Agree, this type of concern needs to be kept as much as possible, within the industry. Just imagine in a DC8F with a ramp OAT of 45c for 4hrs with the no external aircon unit with acft systems running. Leave acft sit under wing.

FYI LGW based or bear living folks, 'Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines' is playing on the 31st at the Capitol in Horsham @ 1430 & eve prog, one day only.

[beamender99]

FYI LGW based or bear living folks, 'Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines' is playing on the 31st at the Capitol in Horsham @ 1430 & eve prog, one day only.

I went to the 1430 showing. A good 93min film.
The main guy in the film plus two others were there to discuss and answer questions.
Well done the Aussies for pushing for answers.

Watch out for coverage on BBC.

I now have a DVD copy of the film.

Further showing London Independant Film Festival 14-19 April

and in EDI at Cameo Picturehouse ( 0131 228 2800 on 21 April

http://www.welcomeaboardtoxicairlines.com/

[Seat62K]

A question for the experts: Are we talking here about the cabin fumes one frequently experiences on engine start up and which clears within a few minutes?
(I apologise if this has been addressed elsewhere but I have not read all the contributions to this thread!)

[FlyboyUK]

Seat 62K

No. Its fumes caused by oil getting through leaking engine seals into the bleed air system. This alows the vapours to get into the air conditioning and is often refered to as a "sweaty socks" smell.

There is an ingredient added to aircraft engine oil called TCP, and its pretty nasty stuff (it's been used in chemical weapons!). Its is thought that this is the stuff that is casuing the health problems.

[A2QFI]

I understand that the problem is fumes from the burnt engine oil, getting into the engine bleed air and thus into the aircraft pressurisation system. For some reason the lubricating oil contains organophosphates and these are a major risk to health. See link re problem with this chemical and the health of vets who have to supervise the dipping of sheep with a 'dip' which also contains organophosphates. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/572960.stm

[Oldlae]

A2QFI.
See my post #130 on page 7, burnt oil can only come from the rear of the engine, cabin air is normally taken from the compressor at the front of the engine, I wouldn't argue that the leaking oil isn't hot however.

[Dream Buster]

Seat 62K,

Oil fumes are known to occur in two seperate and different situations:

1) Oil fumes are frequently noticed on main engine or APU start - the 146 often fills with visible oil fumes after a cold APU start, for example. These are often referred to as 'normal'.

2) Oil fumes also occur after an engine oil seal malfunction in flight; these are clearly 'abnormal'.

However oil fumes are oil fumes - whatever causes them and means that many 'normal' exposures can be experienced by aircrew and passengers alike.

If only the Department of Transport would be kind enough to tell people exactly what is in these visible oil fumes, they might then begin to realise that breathing multiple 'normal' doses of oil fumes causes serious ill health - for some people who have the genetic make up to be vulnerable to such extremely toxic chemicals.

DB :ok:

[neil armstrong]

The seal doesn't have to fail!
On the RR RB211-535c engines there are a lot of problems with big power changes, t/o to climb power ,climb to cruise ,cruise to idle!
Its a known problem what keeps happening but that is ignored by my company and the CAA ,they just don't care!

Neil

[HotDog]

Back to TCs then?

[chris weston]

To be "fair" the oil additive tri cresyl phosphate (TCP) has never actually been used as a nerve gas itself - its "LD50" (ie the lethal dose required to kill 50% of a defined population sample in a defined time) is way too low for military use, but its close chemical cousins most definitely have been and its close proximity to them chemically makes it a substance to avoid at all costs.

The following links may be of interest, the better to inform us about just how nasty chemically organo phosphate esters actually are.

http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/handle/1947/3349

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricresylphosphate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_agent


For the record and in brief summary, there are two basic types of nerve gas; the G Series and the V Series.

The Gs were discovered and developed in Germany in the 30s and the Vs in England in the 50s. Both were accidental discoveries "found" in the pursuit of developing new and more effective insecticides.

The Vs are generally more toxic than the Gs.

Both function by interfering with nerve impulse transmission by blocking the action of the enzyme acteyl choline esterase at the nerve synapses or junctions.

Because of this systemic attack on the nervous system exposure to them can produce a bewildering variety of symptoms.

As ever I suspect that preventing oil contamination of bleed or any other kind of air being used in cabins will revolve around cost/benefit analysis but in my view the contamination has to stop. I further suspect that this will only happen after a few very expensive lawsuits.

Think asbestos.

[lomapaseo]

A2QFI.
See my post #130 on page 7, burnt oil can only come from the rear of the engine, cabin air is normally taken from the compressor at the front of the engine, I wouldn't argue that the leaking oil isn't hot however.


The oil system is pretty damn complex in an engine and the oil gets so hot that it is necessary to cool it in what is known as a fuel-oil cooler. In addition the bearing compartments depend on localize pressurization (buffered air) to assist keeping the oil inside. This pressure has to come from the high pressured areas of the engine which are operating at temperatures high enough to fry an egg (try putting some turbine oil in a fry pan and see what happens). Now add some wear and tear to the engine oil seals and some of the fumes start leaking outside the bearing compartments as the engine changes speeds. Look at the bottom of a nacelle someday and you may notice what looks like a little pipe blowing smoke as you taxi arround. That's connected to the oil system. There is liittle you can do to seal an engine oil system from breathing oil.

The question is how much gets to the passengers and what is really too much. Zero is not practical.

[Seat62K]

Thank you for the answers to my earlier question. (For some reason I'd thought that maybe the fumes on start up were aviation fuel and not engine oil.) Does anyone know if there are practical measures one can take if fumes are smelt (I gather, though, that some are odourless) such as holding a wet handkerchief to one's nose?

[Seat62K]

Thanks for the clarification!

[chris weston]

Many thanks to FG and Iomp; informative and useful posts.

I appreciate that a reduction of TCPs et al contamination to zero is indeed impracticable for all the reasons given.

The solution to the problem in the here and now is, in part, going to involve TCP dose calculations and risk assessments to run in parallel with the search for engineering improvements

Such dose calcs bring in several factors; toxicity, concentration and time to name but three.

I doubt that there is (i) that much precise data to hand and (ii) an exact alogrithm to run it on and it's dangerous to make a sweeping statement as I'm sure I did at the end of my last post.

We perhaps need to exert firm pressure to collect better data.

But .......intuition/common sense says that SLF like me are going to be at a generally lower statistical level of risk than all types of crew and that was the point I was trying to make previously - badly!

CW

[sammie71]

anyone know about air contamination event last yr on xla120, lgw-sfb , 1st feb 07?? 40 plus pax reported illness including children and to date?
could this be exposure to tcp????

[BYALPHAINDIA]

Sick???

Sick of what, Being in economy class, Sick of get what you pay for?

To be honest I don't have much belief in these claims of pax getting sick,

It's the usual 'media' hype that generates all these claims, Yes they may be the odd and that's a very odd flight that does get the odd smell of the Aircraft, But hey it's a working machine and machines do smell.

As an example in all the years of BY/TOM I have only ever heard of one such incident of pax feeling poorly, A flight inbound to BHX about 11 years ago on a 757.

I don't disagree that pax can't get poorly/sick, But when you weigh up all the potential compo cliams I'm not surprised.:*

If there is a chance of fumes/smell in the Aircraft it's usually in the cockpit.

I don't implaud to be rude, I just think it's all in the mind:hmm:

Regards.;)

[indamiddle]

f/a s from ansett a/l australia back in the 90s used medical certificates so that they
couldn't be rostered for the 146 due fumes causing illness.
guess the techies had no choice.
this topic has been around a long time

[N1 Vibes]

62k and All,

one thing to consider in all of this, is the performance of the human nose. When trying to detect these odours/fumes one is susceptible to de-sensitization, i.e. the olfactory sensing system slowly 'get's used to' the smell. Like when you splash on your Brut 33 aftershavein the morning, and 5 minutes later you can't smell it, but women are fainting at your feet all day.

We have noticed this a lot when investigating events of oil smell. Crew will return to base and en-route radio in a report of oil smell, then on arrival perhaps 30 mins later, we open the a/c door and get knocked over by the fumes, but the crew by this time are desensitized due to continuous exposure and they say that the smell has almost gone!

My two-penneth,

N1 Vibes

[cwatters]

Google found..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/759562/Is-cabin-air-making-us-sick.html

17. Posted by SAMANTHA SABATINO on February 29, 2008 01:12 PM
XLA120 1ST FEBRUARY 2007, LGW-SFB.( orlando florida).
Many passengers became unwell on this flight and many are reporting symptoms still to date. This is a serious issue which can result in serious health affects, people must report such incidents to the appropriate authorities including the AVIATION HEALTH UNIT at the CAA, take advice first from the organisations listed.If i knew then what i know now there is no way i would have ever placed my children into that enviroment!
Its a disgusting disgrace that money is more important than health, daily my family are cruelly reminded of this fact!! Its about time media has the backbone to stand up to this money orientated industry! customer health and comfort comes second to profit!so well done to all who are responsible for this article. s.sabatino

[cwatters]

Google also found this in it's cache...

http://tinyurl.com/4ahnuc

Flight Smoke or Fume Event – London Gatwick to Orlando – 1 February 2007

If you have travelled on a flight, on the above route, on 1 February 2007, and you and your family have suffered illness and/or contractual complaints, be advised that you are not alone. If you are unsure as to the nature of such a Smoke or Fume Event, and believe that you may have been affected, then you should read the following press release from HolidayTravelWatch which will provide further information on the nature of this issue –


It continues but the link provided doesn't appear to work.

[sammie71]

firstly i would like to point out to the person with the sarcastic remarks,
many of these people were NOT in economy class!!! there was a mix of both classes of passenger's with clear seperation between.
Secondly you do not end up in hospital on steroids and oxygen not being able to breath properly when its all in the mind!!
you obviously need to do more research on the issue before posting such ignorant comments.......
and finally there has been alot of media coverage AFTER the incident and when you qualify as a specialist doctor please do let us know???

[jetstream7]

sammie71 are you Samantha Sabatino?

Just curious, as...

If so, you'll already know a fair bit about what you refer to as you were a passenger on the flight.

There's the article in The Sun too, as well as the contribution to the discussion thread in the Daily Telegraph

Plus your written evidence contribution to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology : Air Travel & Health

[sammie71]

just curious to know whether any pilots or crew may have been affected during this flight? for no other reason than curiosity?

[A and C]

I think we should look for some hard evidence in this case if the air was contaminated did the crew suffer any effects of this and has the aircraft had any tech log entrys for low engine or air cycle unit low oil or leaks?

I have no doublt that some of these people are genuine in the in thinking that they have sufferd from air contamination but at the moment we are a little short on hard evidence that the aircraft was the sorce on the health problems.

If the CAA is investigating the inccident then I have no doubt they would have taken a look the tech log and talked to the crew.

They will also investigate other sorces of this health problem such as something that a pax might have taken onto the aircraft, cargo (if any) or another sorce like food contamination.

The thing that I am always amazed by is that someone always accuses a company of putting profit before safety (the Ann Robinson syndrome!) when the fact of the matter is that this aircraft has flown for years with no problems. Yes the aircraft may have developed a problem when in flight but this is hardly a company policy of profit before safety and it is very hard to predict mechanical breakdown.

In short if it an't broke how can they fix it?

[lexoncd]

sammie71 are you Samantha Sabatino?

Just curious, as...

If so, you'll already know a fair bit about what you refer to as you were a passenger on the flight.

There's the article in The Sun too, as well as the contribution to the discussion thread in the Daily Telegraph

Plus your written evidence contribution to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology : Air Travel & Health


Same question posed on, Cabin Crew and Medical......

I guess cruiseships when they have Norwalk virus outbreak onboard have similar symptoms. Always possible that if there isn't a specific technical issue that this is a possibility from being in a confined environment be that train, plane, ship, office or hospital.....

[Southernboy]

"I think we should look for some hard evidence in this case..." A&C

This is a tricky one. The vested interests always say "there's no evidence..etc" and it is difficult to prove, esp if you rely on hard controlled trial scientific standards.

The same was true for BSE & the "no evidence" get out was used to great effect by the government.

There is a huge amount of anecdotal and other evidence around and several hundred aircrew (cabin & FD) have no doubt they've been affected. As a result, the Aerotoxic Assn (there's loads more info on their website) has been formed to address the issue. This is a big problem, with some types being constant offenders & a/c age seemingly an influence.

Proving it isn't so easy, especially when those responsible for oil emissions into cabin air, are staring huge issues in the face if they do so.

As a retired pilot I'm now only exposed when I fly as a passenger but I know one or two ordinary members of the public who've experienced the classic symptoms after flying but they had no idea what they were linked to. My guess is that there's thousands out there who simply don't realise what they've ingested.

[Southernboy]

N1 Vibes point is spot on. Also it is important to realise that not everyone is affected by breathing this contaminated air.

It is pretty clear now that some are very susceptible others not. So caution is required when listening to those who say "I flew this type for X number of years without problem" they were probably saved by their genes.

Also none of this is necessary. There's a French company making oil without OPs/TCPs, it's used by the UK military among others.......funny old thing that.

[cwatters]

sammie71 - with so many sick (40?) I expected to find a website set up by those effected but I was unable to. Is there one?

If the flight was into Orlando would there be an NTSB investigation? Couldn't see one in the database..

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

[cwatters]

BBC have just announced that next weeks Panorama documentary (Monday 21st) will be on the subject of fumes. The home page is here but no details yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/default.stm

[Southernboy]

Cwatters: "I expected to find a website set up by those effected but I was unable to. Is there one?"

Try www.aerotoxic.org should give you a start.

[beamender99]

Try www.aerotoxic.org (http://www.aerotoxic.org/) should give you a start.

which has a request to support an early day motion in the commons.


http://www.welcomeaboardtoxicairlines.com/

Click to buy will show the reviews of this 93minute film.
I saw the film and afterwards met the author and others who appeared in the film.
The subject is certainly more than a little worrying.

Further showings of the film.

Monday 21 April 2008 - 7pm
Cameo Picturehouse - Edinburgh
Cameo Picturehouse - Edinburgh (http://www.picturehouses.co.uk/cinema_home_date.aspx?venueId=edbg)
BOX OFFICE: 38 Home Street, Edinburgh, EH3 9LZ
Tel: 0131 228 2800
Friday 25th April 2008 - 7:30pm
Fenny Compton Village Hall - Warwickshire
FREE ENTRY

[cwatters]

Thanks Southernboy, I knew about the Aerotoxic site, I was sort of expecting to find one specific to the flight Sammie71 was on.

[carbis22]

I have read numerous posts and threads that span back years on contaminated air issues.
What I can not understand is if fellow pilots, crews and engineer's have been made very sick through contaminated air, and they have been brave enough to speak out in hope of a full independant investigation and change.
Why do you all shout them down? being that we are in that same metal tube. Surely we should all welcome a safe working enviroment? And know for sure the facts.
And that this should be our right? and that we should really push for change in the fear of '' what if ''

what if im next?

[carbis22]

BBC PANORAMA details posted on home page today, the programme is on monday 21st ....

[carbis22]

BBC PANORAMA PROGRAMME TONIGHT BBC1 8.30.

HEARS FROM

PILOTS/CREWS
PASSENGER'S

AND MUCH MORE!!!

you all work in the industry do something about it!!!!!

[antic81]

Lets see how Panorama go ahead and cock this one up, I have very little faith in them!

Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

Ant

[mid_life_pilot]

Lets see how Panorama go ahead and cock this one up, I have very little faith in them!

Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

Ant


Here here!

I'll go a little further and say that either blame George Bush, the Iraq War, or climate change will take the blame somewhere along the line because they seem to be the cause of everything other ill in the world accordingly to the mainstream media.

I'll give it a chance though...

[MarcJF]

I can't believe this nonsense. Pilot just quoted as "we can't remember if we have clearance to land, so we throw our hands up in the air, check the runway is clear and land anyway" What utter tosh, even as a low hours PPL if i couldn't remember, i'd ask ATC. Can't believe that chap was ever a professional pilot.

[mackey]

Hands up who flies the 757 or the 146!!:uhoh:
M.

[PeePeerune]

Hands up who flies the 757 or the 146!!
M.


I cant remember!!!!!!!!!!!.........and my hands are all tingley!!!!!!!!!!!

[autofeather]

I would suggest that all current pilots who have loss of licence insurance also make contact with Balpa Financial Services and ask them what the position would be if they were to loose their medical through confirmed Organic Phosphate Poisoning.

The current situation, as has been demonstrated these last 18 months, is that the insurers will not make the full payment when the medical is pulled, they will make the monthly payment and they justify this by saying they are not sure of the long term medical effects of the problem. Even when the individuals concerned have written medical reports, from specialists, stating that the symptoms are unlikely to improve. On this medical evidence their medicals were pulled by the CAA.

I am aware of several pilots who are currently in this position, lost their livelihoods and have not been paid out in the manner one would expect for a long term loss of licence. Balpa’s response is similar to what one would expect. Rug, sweep problem gone.

The individuals concerned are having fights with the insurers to get what, in my view, is rightfully theirs with very little (could even say no) support from Balpa. Mind you the insurance is through a Balpa subsidiary!

Its scandalous. I make no wonder pilots keep flying with symptoms of OP poisioning.

You have been warned…

[doubledolphins]

A few thoughts about the program: If in doubt ask! (Or had they forgotten that as well.): That nice lady does not want answers, she wants money:What was that 747? did it realy have all four donks on two pylons? or have I got too many 757 hours? Finally. Julian, good to see you looking so well these days. Though you don't look like you can still get into the same pair of trousers you could twenty years ago any more! Cabin air is fattening! :ok:

[Bealzebub]

That 747 with the strange engines resides at Dunsfold. It can often be seen in the background during tapings of the TV show Top Gear. I believe it was a manipulated conconction that was created for the film Casino Royale. It was unfortunate that a serious issue was presented with this sort of back drop. I kept wondering why Panorama chose to present a programme with a fictious stage managed prop in the background. It didn't really send the right message ?

[doubledolphins]

Yes it is. If you have been trained properly and operate to a high standard this sort of thing should be second nature when the going gets tough for what ever reason. The "Pilot" claimed they had time to discuss if they had been cleared. They saw that the runway was clear so decided to land any way. (Obviously safe in the knowledge that a prompt instruction from the tower to go around would be forthcomming if required.) If they were that concious of what was going on their failure to seek confirmation is tantamount to neglect.

[Flintstone]

Well when you can't remember to land, your brain is full of noxious poisons and you can't switch your attention easily asking ATC if cleared to land is confirmed isn't easy


Yes it is. If you have been trained properly and operate to a high standard this sort of thing should be second nature when the going gets tough for what ever reason.



Are you sure about that? Are you saying that a pilot who has been gassed, whose motor and cognitive functions have been scrambled by a cocktail of poisons should be able to reason, disseminate and function without fault? You might want to reconsider that statement unless you've had first hand experience of such a situation.

I spoke to a pilot who suffered this. Out of our whole conversation seven words spoken without emotion or exaggeration remain in my memory, "I thought we were going to die". This from an ex-fast jet pilot who had undergone all that entailed including hypoxia exposure, centrifuge training, .......the works.

[Nigel_the_Normal]

There is definately something in all this fumes business.

Tristan is walking talking proof.

[Southernboy]

Nigel is right I fear. methinks its one of these BSE type issues. "There's no proof etc" and then it turns out there was a problem all along.

We know that many other issues are identified by the sufferers and denied or ignored by the authorities. As my GP once said to me, "You know your body better than anyone else." Julian Soddy made the point well. Felt ill, went back when better, felt ill again. He is far from the only one with a similar story.

An engineer told me (I'm not one so..) that oil seals are "wet" seals. This is born out by the small traces found on every flight that Panorama tested. Others have done the same, with the same result, on many types of a/c.

So, a wet seal fits there doesn't it? Now we're only arguing about the quantity & what is acceptable. no doubt older, less well maintained a/c as well as the known offenders, means you could be on the one that's regularly putting out just a bit more.

Why also do we use Exxon Mobile oil that's full of poisons? There's a French oil that has none? As used on many military a/c including the UKs....wonder why?

[Southernboy]

Sorry just noticed that you seem to be saying that Insurers are recognising that LOL can be due to Organophosphate poisoning?

notwithstanding the other problems you refer to, I understood that the CAA were refusing to make a link between all these pilots with similar symptoms or recognise that something like Aerotoxic Syndrome exists.

I know a couple of guys who've lost licences after being diagnosed as suffering from stress related issues, or chronic fatigue syndrome but as J Soddy said in the program, it was the aeroplane that turned out to be the linking factor, which subsequent blood tests confirmed.

It's a trick one for sure & asking the insurers before you're affected sounds like good advice to me.

[Nigel_the_Normal]

Southernboy, Tristan is undoubtedly correct.

It does cause madness as he regularly demonstrates, but in all seriousness he will be proved right eventually.

[autofeather]

Sorry just noticed that you seem to be saying that Insurers are recognising that LOL can be due to Organophosphate poisoning?


The guys I know when visiting the Doctor where eventually following blood test results OP poisioning was confirmed were instantly grounded by the CAA pending further investigations.

Those investigations confirmed they were suffering from OP poisioning, the effects of which the CAA then decided to suspend the medical.

The LOL insurers are paying temporary benefits only for the reasons I stated.

Of course those individuals cannot really prove where they got the posioning, what they are suffering can be clealry confirmed, believe me it is not good.

Again, no one seems to want to recognise the problem and Balpa, for sure, have not been supportive of those who have sadly lost their living from flying.

[cwatters]

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/379687.html
Published: April 18th, 2008
Alaska Airlines flight evacuated

SEATAC, WASH. -- An Alaska Airlines 737-400 was evacuated Thursday at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport after hazy smoke appeared in the cockpit shortly after landing, officials said.

No major injuries were reported and the source of the smoke remained under investigation, said Mike Fergus, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman, and Paul McElroy, an airline spokesman.

The crew of Flight 529 from Los Angeles reported a potential landing gear problem 23 minutes before landing, but all appeared normal until "a light gray haze ... not thick smoke" appeared on the flight deck five minutes after touchdown and shortly after the plane cleared the runway, Fergus said. At that point, at 9:17 a.m., the pilot ordered that evacuation chutes be deployed on the taxiway, he said.

Two passengers reported minor injuries, such as twisted ankles, and the co-pilot was given "very precautionary medical attention" for smoke inhalation, McElroy said.

"It was a fast evacuation, as emergency evacuations always are, but it was very orderly," he said.

The plane carried 103 passengers and a crew of five.

The episode began when electronic indicators on the flight deck failed to verify that the nose landing gear had lowered and locked into place properly while the plane was over the Seattle area and 5 to 10 miles from the airport, McElroy said.

Fergus said the pilot reported the potential problem at 8:49 a.m., but everything appeared OK on a fly-by past the airport control tower and the plane was cleared to land.

The source of the smoke could not be immediately determined, nor could investigators who initially examined the aircraft say whether there was any connection between the smoke and the landing gear. The plane was towed to a repair hangar for further examination.

McElroy said he could not immediately determine the age of the plane or whether it had experienced previous smoke problems.

[FireLight]

It is to be hoped that in the near future the authorities will clearly identify the source of the problem and corrective measures so they can minimize the likelihood of future incidents.

A couple questions.
* Is there a significant premium paid for OP free oils?
* Is the oil usage per flight great enough that the premium will make that much of a difference in operating costs?
I know that this could be a difficult question as the economics of running an airline are getting a bit more gloomy, at least in the near term, but flight crew's health should be a prime consideration.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that there is a cure and/or effective treatment for the illness yet, and it will be harder to come by if there isn't a direct "smoking gun" so to speak. Nevertheless, it is still difficult to see flight crew losing their livelihood over events they had no control over, regardless of the ultimate cause.

*****************

Modified 747 @ Dunsfold is here (re: dd and bb) http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0297.shtml

[Southernboy]

Nigel & autofeather thanks for that info. I know a man who'll be interested to learn about it.

What will be interesting re the US incident above is what it's classified as. It is clear that airlines quote statistics on fume events that are clearly only the tip of the iceberg.

[carbis22]

DOUBLE DOLPHINS;;;;

that nice lady dont want answers??? and julian's trouser's size has gone up???

seems you need to get a life or you will be the next teletubbie???
people get sick , the main reason pilots and crews whom have been affected dont come forward is because what??? i dont know let me think now??? they get paid off within the industry ooops.....
that nice lady and julian had the courage to speak out!! what does everyone else do??? give them credit where credit is due.

[Oldlae]

Synthetic oils have been used in aircraft turbine engines for over 40 years, engine manufacturers approve certain oils which can be used in their engines, the operator makes the choice. If it is TCP which is causing the problem there may not be any alternatives. I would have thought that if enough MOR's in the UK are raised concerning possible fumes in the cockpit the CAA would have to carry out a proper investigation. The obvious solution is for cabin air to be sourced externally and not from the engine compressor.

[HarryMann]

I appreciate that a reduction of TCPs et al contamination to zero is indeed impracticable for all the reasons given.

If TCPs weren't found in the oils used, then of course it would be reduced to zero !!

What the majority of sane, thinking people seem to want, is some logical course of action being taken to completely remove TCPs and reduce other OPs should cabin-air contamination occur, as well as steps to reduce aerosol contamination generally.

e.g. working up design considerations, trials and guidelines for at least a first-line of defence filtration system.... are the CAA for instance, seriously not looking at the basic necessities for removing this headache from their Inbox? Are they political automatons or human beings working there now - they certainly used to take safety issues seriously, whosoever or however they were brought to their attention, ...

To do nothing, to instigate no corrective actions, is surely tantamount to reckless endangerment now that this problem has been recognised as being more serious than hitherto thought (of course it was always known there was a degree of contamination, by simple reasoning, now we have other factors, many more a/c and pax at risk, and synthetic oils, as well as some engines and apu's that have become 'notorious' in this respect).

Dare I say it... there's no smoke without fire!

[PAXboy]

BealzebubI kept wondering why Panorama chose to present a programme with a fictitious stage managed prop in the background. It didn't really send the right message?I agree that to those taking an interest in A/c it was anomalous but my guess to it being used were, i) It was cheap, being at an airfield already used by the BBC with all camera equipment available on site. ii) It could not be identified with any airline.

However, what irritated me about the prog was that it wasted lots of time with sweeping shots of said a/c - which were repeated several times - and spent no money on some simple animated graphics that would have demonstrated how the problem occurs. Further, when talking about the 787 and Boeing's claim that it would not have this problem - there was no explanation as to how the system had been designed - and if they had learnt from current problems. All they did was show a computer generated promotional film that would have been free of cost.

Another point they should have clarified is the one explained in this thread about the difference between start-up fumes and fumes blown back during push. I think that some folks will now smell exhaust fumes and think that it is TCP fumes. The samples taken and analysed were good.

So, I thought the prog tackled a serious subject and succeeded in raising the profile of the problem but, for many, I think that it would not have explained the problem. In other words, a typical modern TV documentary. Had they been allowed to spend a bit more money - or better used the amount they had - they might have fully explained the problem. However, I think the reporter was good (not Jeremy Vine who is just the figurehead and not involved).

[ankh]

Some ozone to go with your flight, sir? (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13761-some-ozone-to-go-with-your-flight-sir.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_dn13761)
New Scientist (subscription), UK - Apr 23, 2008
[[[ a report showing illegally high ozone levels on some US flights suggests that all aircraft should be fitted with ozone converters

[Joetom]

BBC1 at 0035 today.......Panorama on this item.....ie now......

[neil armstrong]

A very good article in Flight international about fumes!

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/06/223448/toxic-fumes-in-airliner-cabins-ignored-by-authorities.html


Neil

[wbble]

... and this reader has put the whole situation in a nutshell

http://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2008/05/06/223476/comment-dont-wait-to-take-action-over-toxic-cabin.html

[Dream Buster]

Here is a report from the latest CHIRP.

Does this sound familiar to anyone or perhaps it would be easier to ask if anybody hasn't experienced these symptoms?

I’ve been an Airline Pilot for several years, and from quite early on found I was often feeling fatigued, and I assumed it was due to the unusual work schedule that I wasn’t used to before. As time went on, I found that my levels of fatigue were increasing, and was beginning to feel my short-term memory was getting worse, it was getting more difficult to concentrate, and generally I was really not enjoying the job anymore. It wasn’t until about a year before I stopped flying, that I began to realise this was probably not normal, and a few months later began to experience neurological problems including tremors, muscle twitches, speech problems, light-headedness and worsening fatigue and cognitive problems. I had heard that bleed air could get contaminated by engine oil that contains TCP, an organophosphate and neurotoxin, and I suspected that breathing day-to-day background levels was causing my health problems. I had an opportunity to change aircraft types, and I hoped after the change to the new type, my problems would disappear. As it happens they worsened, to the point I had to stop flying due to concerns for my health, and the safety of the aircraft. As I investigated the issue, my suspicions were reinforced as I found there were many more people who had had similar experiences, and that the airlines and CAA are aware of the concerns of aircrew on this issue, but do not want to acknowledge the problem, and have only carried out half-hearted and endless research that never manages to come to any conclusions. I keep hearing about people who have become sick after flying and are suffering long-term health problems, and I believe there are many other pilots, cabin crew and passengers that have been similarly affected, some of them possibly not knowing why, as this problem is still not widely known or acknowledged. I also believe there are aircrew who have some of these symptoms, and are still flying, presumably due to financial pressures, and because they don’t want to lose their livelihood.



This is a serious problem for flight safety, and it’s time for the Airlines and authorities to tackle it head-on. Fume detectors and bleed air filters could be fitted, and I believe there is a jet engine oil available that doesn’t contain toxic organophosphates. Safety (and people’s health) first.



If you need help it's available at www.aerotoxic.org (http://www.aerotoxic.org) If you don't - lucky you, just hang on in there!


:ok: :ugh: DB

[boredcounter]

Who is responsible for H&S at work?

A laymans question.


Bored

[cwatters]

Well the stock answer is that it's everyones responsibility.

Typically whos responsible for enforcement depend which country you work in. I suspect that's part of the problem. Who's juristiction is it?

[wbble]

Some letters in this week's Flight International magazine about the excellent article "Toxic fumes in airliner cabins ignored by authorities". If you haven't already read it, there is a link to it in post #221


Time industry faced up to the facts

Many thanks for your timely and excellent article on contaminated air in airliners (Flight International 6 – 12th May).

What is concerning me more than anything else is the industry’s stance of saying “there is no evidence” when what it really means is that it does not wish to look up to or face up to the evidence.

I have numerous independent testimonies from aircrew and passengers from all over the world, all describing how they were fully healthy before a flight (or several flights in the case of aircrew) and then, after being exposed to a fume event, reported serious “mysterious” long term ill health symptoms.

All were subjected to misdiagnosis and mistreatment from unintentionally ignorant medical staff.

All had sudden awareness of the likely cause of symptoms – ie. Past fume(s) exposure – and all were angry at the inability of the various “authorities” to understand the simple process and putting industry before health.

John Hoyte Chairman Aerotoxic Association, London, UK.


Toxic Cabins – a change for the good

David Learmount is right to highlight “the widespread prevalence of denial” of the evidence that contaminated air can lead to aerotoxic poisoning. (Flight International 6 – 12 May)

However it is encouraging to see that even the most entrenched critics of the theory are now acknowledging it’s validity.

As a medically grounded former BAe 146 pilot who could well have been affected, I well remember raising the problem with an expert aviation journalist at the Farnborough Air show two years ago and being abruptly dismissed as someone who was talking complete nonsense. That journalist was none other than David Learmount – quite a conversion, but one that is most welcome.

Bob Millichap, Pullborough, Sussex, UK


Congratulations

I have just read your article “Toxic Shocker” (Flight International 6 – 12 May). You have done it again. It is simply outstanding. I thought I had followed this issue fairly closely, but it turns out I have done nothing of the sort. This is an eye opener of the first order on par with your Concorde articles.

Erik Reed Mohn, Oslo, Norway

[Dream Buster]

Lord Tyler asked a question in the house on 21st May 2008 about contaminated air - the responses are unbelievable, which planet are they on?

Perhaps they should read (and understand) Flight Internationals views or maybe they are better informed - somehow?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-05-21a.1461.3&s=speaker%3A10612#g1461.4

Now, if some Lord could experience a full blown fume event and be seriously sick for over 12 months.......

KBO

DB:ugh: