Cabin Air Contamination

[ukdean]

Researchers are to travel on passenger and cargo flights to see if cabin air contamination is making travellers and pilots ill. News coming out of BBC News24, Sounds as if the Uk goverment is going to do something at last. Wonder if they will check the flybe whisper jet !!!!!!

[London legend]

FYI - it's not about catching viruses - it's about contaminated bleed air - neurotoxins.

This from the BBC website:

Researchers are to travel on passenger and cargo flights to see if cabin air contamination is making travellers and pilots ill.

It follows complaints from pilots and campaigners that pollutants from aircraft engines are reaching cabins.

The research carried out by Cranfield University is being paid for by the UK government.

It says there is a duty under recent legislation to protect the health of airline passengers.

On most aircraft, pressurised air is pumped from the engines, before the combustion process, into the cabin. This is known as "bleed air" and, because it passes through the engine, the concern is that it is picking up substances such as engine oil.

Civil Aviation Authority records suggest what are called "fume events" are reported on one in 2,000 flights. But the problem is the event can be fleeting and difficult to trace.

[Finn47]

Here´s the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7423399.stm

[bArt2]

A friend of mine used to fly the Avro, apparently got regularly in contact with contaminated bleedair. His longs are damaged permanently and he lost his medical license, so he is no longer a pilot. The company refuses to assume responsability saying he has to prove that it comes from flying for them.

Greetings, Bart

[VAFFPAX]

Must be all those reports from those 146 flights...

Although the air in the larger cabins is apparently cleaner than expected.

S.

[JW411]

Well, I flew the 146 for nearly 20 years and they would have got absolutely nowhere if they had flown with me.

I never had a single problem and I am still in the rudest of health.

The trouble with youngsters nowadays is that they have been inoculated against everything that is known to man when they were children such that they don't have an immune system left that is worth a damn.

It has got to the stage that one decent fart passed discretely on the good old London omnibus would put at least 40 passengers in hospital!

[VAFFPAX]

JW411 - I'd agree with you on the immune system thing... kids are so isolated these days it's frightening. But whether that's to blame for the foul air, I don't know.

Haven't been in a 146 in years. The closest I've gotten to one was at NWI with a 146 parked a bit away from the Q400 I was boarding to BHD.

S.

[Flapping_Madly]

According to the BBC news report it is only Rolls Royce engines. I've watched it three times today and it was quite clearly stated as he stood in front of a slowly spinning fan.

Simple. Ban RR engines. Done.:ugh:

[autobrake3]

Six previous colleagues of mine have all lost medicals for good following many years of flying 146's powered by Avco Lycoming engines. It is a very real problem.

[preduk]

Spoke to an insturctor about this today, he was saying that a guy he knew that flew the 146 lost his medical when he was 51 due to the fumes, after medical treatment he has only recently been allowed to fly.

However, my CFI has been flying 146's for a long time and doesn't have any problems (yet anyway, touch wood!)

[overthewing]

If there's a genetic component, it's likely that some of the population will be susceptible to the contaminent, and some won't. A non-susceptible person might fly for decades with no ill-effects, while a genetically vulnerable person might be affected within minutes. Ever watch someone with a peanut allergy swell up because of a brief exposure?

The fact that any one of us hasn't suffered symptoms doesn't mean there isn't a problem - for other people.

[PAXboy]

There may be only SOME a/c that do this and that may be due to some small aspect of their maintenance history. They might only leak fumes once every 10/100/1000 sectors. Some a/c might only do this under certain conditions of temperature etc. etc.

These are some of the reasons why this problem has been so difficult to track down. At a guess, the tests need to be conducted on all the airframes for three months. Yes it will cost money but that is life. Life costs and lives have already been severely damaged.

[slam525i]

JW411, VAFFPAX,

I'm a microbiologist (and a PPL, hence my lurking here) and I have to disagree. Inoculating children (and adults!) stimulates their immune system into producing antibodies and memory cells so that they will be faster-responding when they are actually exposed to the microbe.

The common belief that vaccinating children weakens their immune system compared to having them exposed to the disease naturally is wrong. Vaccination exposes the child to the disease without causing disease. If they then encounter the real disease, they are better able to fight it off and in a way it acts as a booster shot and strengthens them even more.

As for our kids being too isolated now days, there is a valid theory that says we are so clean now, some people develop allergies just because they weren't exposed to the dirty things when their immune system were young. But it hasn't been proven and I wouldn't recommend rolling your kid in a pile of mud.

PLEASE, VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN!

[bArt2]

The fact that any one of us hasn't suffered symptoms doesn't mean there isn't a problem - for other people

The company my friend was flying used the argument, you got sick but the people you flew with didn't, so it can not be caused by the aircraft :bored:

He was not even flying this aircraft for a very long time, I guess not more than 5 years or so, at the time he lost his license he was about 29 years old.


Bart

[the rim]

yes its a big problem not only in the cabin of 146 but ALL aircraft but also with engineers and mobil jet oil 2.... Australian aircraft engineers unions n the pilots union have funded research in resepct to this also with the pilots asso in england hope to hear more

[slip and turn]

bArt2, I imagine the Cranfield University study will provide some good evidence for your friend to hang his hat upon. Most 'first world' (for want of a better word) airlines owe a much greater duty of care to their employees than they do to their passengers, especially if UK style or Australian style compulsory Workers Compensation / Employers Liability insurance applies (as it would if your friend was contractually based in UK / Oz. It is a while since I got involved in the legalities of it vis-a-vis aircrew, but I imagine Europe is much the same by now.

Simply put, not only must the airline avoid negligence, but it is directly liable by statute for providing a safe system of work and safe tools to work with amongst other things, irrespective of whether it was manufactured/designed/maintained/used wrong by others.

There are many initially hard to nail down industrial injuries littering the history of Workers Compensation cover e.g. vibration white finger (not admitted until early 80s), problems with asbestos of various kinds (very slowly admitted in 80s and 90s to the point that now it is accepted that ALL asbestos is a problem), Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI), not admitted fully nuntil the early 90s, excessive noise damage leading to pernmanent tinnitus and cumulative permanent deafness (very poorly controlled or understood even today, even in aviation). Various skin diseases linked to dermatitis in construction and automotive industry (can you imagine having to have a leg or foot amputated due to working too long in wet boots/clothing soaked in cement juice? - yes its a real risk).

Tell your friend to keep his claim open. If he is worried about incurring legal costs, He may even be able to fight it some way without a lawyer by simply hitting the airline with every last scrap of evidence and research.

It is damned obvious that cabins are sometimes contaminated with polutants introduced via bleed air. Taking the UK as an example, it was move obvious to most of us with the geriatric jets that formed the backbone of the charter market. With the advent of the big LoCos, and their newer kit, the symptoms are generally much less often seen in the last 5 years or so.

But evenso, I was very recently in a newish 737 NG and was first treated to an overwarm cabin for 10 minutes after pushback and start up, then as we taxied out, it improved, and then, because we were queueing in low viz right up another NG's jetpipe we received their not very well combusted idling blast air/exhaust courtesy of our bleed from the 80% bypass or whatever.

The Cranfield survey needs to take queueing behind dirty exhausts into account as well as analysing individual types for rogue self-pollutants.

But slowly slowly catchee monkey ... unlike JW411 I have no doubt in my mind that there has been a problem, one that still persists in particular types and in particular situations, and that it will be accepted and paid for by the industry, and that meantime things will continue to change for the better.

[ppppilot]

Those are very good news. I remember when I was young, flying the Fairchild metro, my collar finished every night black of carbon. I read the FCOM and it said that a filter called Tampax :rolleyes: was installed to clean the bleed air. I am sure that the filter was never replaced or cleaned. It doesn’t have happened to me in larger airplanes. At least not so visible. The study should be the first step in the good direction of regulating periodic checks of the cabin air quality. :ok:

[RED WINGS]

JW411 I don't think it matters how good your immune system is if your being poisoned! But I'm not a doctor!



I am concerned that something is going on and hope it doesn't become the "new" Absbestos. In my career I have come across several colleagues who have had incidents of this nature with varying symptoms and lengths of illness. My concern is as soon as OP poisoning is mentioned it seems the powers that be, are all to quick to brush the matter under the carpet so to speak (Fortunately ot all). I see it as a positive step but think due to the rapid coming and going of the "fumes," a carbon monoxide detector style device needs to be fitted to a large range/fleet of aircraft and be monitored by a "black box." Although I am led to believe that these devices are very expensive which is why there is some reluctance to fit them. Lets not forget these events are not limited to 146/757 but there do appear to be worse offenders related to engine models on various aircraft too.



Finally if there isn't a problem how come I read that the Australian government successfully sued BAe over these events! And why is Boeing moving away from the use of cabin bleed air?

[the rim]

not using bleed air saves on fuel ...and is also cleaner,but the fuel savings are the main reason,again i will say that its all down the line of people who will be effected by mobil jet oil 2 pilots, flt att.maintenance people and pax's, if you some more info just google mobil jet oil 2 and see what comes up it's as bad as agent orange was in the 60/70's...the can of mj2 used to read like a chemical nightmare only now mobil has changed it to tone it down a little

[Mister Geezer]

I suspect the press are under the impression that contaminated air incidents occur a lot more regularly than they really do nowadays. If they wanted researchers to feel the effects then they are a few years too late, since the number of occurrences will be a lot less than in the past. I suspect that operators who fly affected types are more proactive rather than reactive when dealing with this issue.

The comment on banning RR engines I thought is a bit harsh. Interesting to note that you rarely see MORs about contaminated air incidents on RR powered B744s yet there seems to be a problem on RR powered B757s. I was chatting to a KLM Cityhopper driver in the bar downroute the other night and he said that the Fokker 100 (and I guess the 70 as well) has had a history of smelly air and that is of course powered by RR Tays. I never had heard of that type being affected and I travel on a F100 on a regular basis to get to and from work and I have never had any problems personally as a pax.

On the whole, these incidents will occur from time to time but they are probably sporadic in nature when compared to a few years ago.

[slip and turn]

..On the whole, these incidents will occur from time to time but they are probably sporadic in nature when compared to a few years ago...It's not sporadic if tomorrow you queue up someone else's jet pipe for the Cat III hold for half an hour on the first sector of the day same as you did yesterday. You do that again tomorrow and you just know what you are gonna get up your nostrils, and if you are flying 146/757 then by now you just know more than the rest of us :\

[wbble]

As has already been mentioned, it’s a question of individual genetic makeup. As I understand it in simple terms, if you have a lower level of the enzyme Paraoxonase (PON1), you’re less able to detoxify organophosphates, so they build up to a level which start to make problems in the nervous system. JW411 – it has nothing to do with youngsters being inoculated!

This DfT-commisioned Cranfield research is flawed, and is unlikely to come to any meaningful conclusions, much as previous government studies. Many independent studies of sick crew have already clearly shown OPs in their blood and neurological damage, but these have been ignored by the DfT. Why do we need these fancy air sampling machines, when it has already been shown that these toxins get into the cabin, and people are getting sick? :ugh:

[Sprogster]

Interestingly, the 787 does not have a bleedair pressurisation system and is being promoted by Boeing as the first civilian airliner not to have one. Does Boeing know something we don't?

[maabaa]

I believe (i trust pprune cranky members to correct me if I'm wrong :E) the first jet liner ever -Comet- didn't use bleed air. The next ones started to, for economical considerations (current bleed air system seems to be cheaper).

I think the 787 will go back to the first system not because it's cheaper, but probably because they kind of feel the wind turning, the problem will be mediatised more, and whatever the real occurences of fumes event, once the crowds of passengers will hear about it, you know how it goes, mass hysteria, act offended, nag and finally ask for change. It's just a matter of time prolly and Boeing prefears to change it now.
I foresee a lot of busy courts and suits when this comes out.

[the rim]

without going too tech here mobil jet 2 when burnt shows phosphoresce in the dark ...years ago when ANSETT was a major carrier in AUSSIE [we wont go there]their 146's were used as cargo on the red eye and they were very oily smell on their return so a black light was used to show what was on the inside and the whole cabin was illuminated ...ie covered in a oil mist,this is what people are breathing in.... the investeragition must go on....i know that several samples were taken on different carries and different a/c type then sent to the US as part of this invest. all showed positive for oil presence......hope we will get some answers at some stage as people are dying of something and it could very well be this...??????

[Storminnorm]

Sprogster, you may be right about the 787 not using bleed-air into
the cabin, and the Comet didn't use it directly either.
I seem to recall that the glorious DC 8 also only used engine bleed
air to drive cabin turbo-compressors and to heat externally sourced
air for the pressurization. May be wrong though, but I never ever
smelt oil in the DC 8.:)

[Frangible]

We could all guess or we could simply read what Boeing has to say on the matter. BBC also guessed wrong on this too in their Panorama show.

Here is a link to Aero magazine where the 787's no-bleed system is fully explained. It is for reasons of energy efficiency and saving on weight and maintenance costs only. There is no mention of keeping the air cleaner.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_07/AERO_Q407_article2.pdf

[Dream Buster]

Many former BAe 146 pilots have been asking the DfT to test the visible oil fumes from the APU on the ground for both chemical content and concentration - even a video film of the fumes would confirm the awful effect.

They won't do it as it would provide a quick answer to how poiosnonous the fumes actually are - they prefer to do it 'in flight', as this air is known to be reasonably unlikely to provide a fume event and will allow the truth to be disguised for as long as possible.

They don't want to find the answer; they prefer to ignore the pilots recommendations but one day they will be asked to account for the deadly slow progress and deliberate mistakes made.

It's called 'PLANNED PROCRASTINATION' - how do they get away with it?

It stinks.

DB :ugh:

[Serenity]

question, i am aware that the problems have been reported on the 146, have there been any reports on the updated RJ series?
is it excatley the same systems or did they get modified with the uprated engines?

[Croqueteer]

:{JW411 I was a sceptic like you, however 6weeks ago I had a sudden and total kidney failure due "Good Pastures Syndrome". The consultant looking after me asked if I had been in contact with oil or solvents. He also said although it was a rare disease (1000000 against) it probobaly was genetic but waiting for a trigger. I last flew the 146 4 years ago after 17 years on it, before that the Viscount which of course was not bleed air. I think I'll pass my info to Cranfield. Anyone know of an NPPL on dialysis? I don't think it is a prob.

[modelcuirstudios]

Wait! When I'm breathing the jet fumes after combustion isnt that bad oil safer? people dont seem to moan here about sitting outside the airport pub :)

[Dream Buster]

I've just found an article from AIRWAYS, it's about the BAe 146 and this is what the writer thought of the air conditioning.

'The pneumatics worked fine, it was the air conditioning system that gave rookie first officers nightmares. The Brits told us when we power the airplane up in the morning, just take the cockpit and cabin temperature controllers and "set them to twelve o'clock and forget about them". Well, if you did that you would fill the cabin with acrid smoke that not only burned your eyes, but smelled downright carcinogenic. Passengers would take one whiff and refuse to board. Weepy, red-eyed sniffling cabin attendants could not persuade them that all was well.'

Perhaps all was not well and repeated involuntary exposures to these visible fumes is now known to be the cause of serious ill health in many aircrew.

Hence the DfT's enthusiasm for checking the air at altitude and not the visible smoke on the ground.

It's mad when the answer is under their noses - ON THE GROUND, CHAPS!

If I were a DfT tester, I would demand danger money and a full BA (not British Airways)

DB :ok: :ugh:

[Mister Geezer]

It's not sporadic if tomorrow you queue up someone else's jet pipe for the Cat III hold for half an hour on the first sector of the day same as you did yesterday. You do that again tomorrow and you just know what you are gonna get up your nostrils, and if you are flying 146/757 then by now you just know more than the rest of us

Slip and turn... I don't see what your point is with that post... sorry!

[411A]

Ban Rollers?
Ok then, about a quarter (perhaps more) of jet airliners now flying could be parked in the desert.
L1011's never had a problem...and they have a cabin air change once every three minutes, or so.
757's? Likely no problem there, either.

Avro 146's? Oh yes, many folks have complained, so there is definitely a problem with these.

Now, someone mentioned DC-8's.
Yes, they used turbocompressors, as did the 'ole B707.
Not a problem, except....IF (on B707's so equipped) turbocompressors were switched OFF and direct engine bleed air used for pressurisation, it most definitely got, ahhh....smelly.
NOT good.
Worse than all three on the FD smoking Havana's.:}

[slip and turn]

@Mister Geezer...you didn't see the point of my last post?

Well the grammar was not the best, and I could concede that in the last quoted sentence I mixed two problems, one inherent to queueing up someone else's jetpipe and one seemingly inherent to type. Both examples infer everyday occurrence, not sporadicity.

Can we agree that much?

[wbble]

Daily Telegraph about the flawed Cranfield research
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/2053699/Government-cabin-air-tests-'flawed'.html

[FlyboyUK]

I think there's some confusion from posters on here.

This thread is to do with contaminated air from engine oil getting into the bleed air system supplying the air conditioning packs, whether this be from the engines or the APU. The oil contains a nasty substance called TCP which is thought to be causing the health problems in crews. The three main aircraft that have had the most problems with this are the 146, 757 and Embraer145.

Sitting behind another aircraft at the hold breathing in the exhaust fumes from burnt fuel is a separate issue.

[Gaspasser]

I think we should get things into perspective. Lets look at the facts.
1. The cabin air quality issue has been around since the late 1990's
2. All turbine oils use TCP in their formulations and have done since the first five centistoke oils came on the market back in the late 1960's, over 40 years ago. Can you try and imagine the number of flights hours accumulated on these oils in that time.
3. The oils do contain an organophosphate in the form of tri-cresyl phosphate (TCP) which is included in the lubricant formulation to provide anti-wear properties.
4. TCP is not a single chemical substance but a mixture of three isomers (ortho, para and meta), one of which, the ortho (TOCP), is a neurotoxin.
5. The concentration of the ortho isomer is less than 0.1% of the total amount of TCP in the oil and is barely detectable.
6. The problem appears to be confined to the BAe 146 and B757 and then only if a seal problem occurs which allows hot oil into the bleed air.

[tocamak]

The Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE), which represents 500,000 air workers over this issue

How do they justify this claim? Do you have to sign up to join this executive body?

[Dream Buster]

"The Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE), established in 2006, is the leading organization representing air crew (pilots, cabin crew and engineers), that deals specifically with contaminated air issues and cabin air quality. We represent over 20 organizations, almost half a million aviation workers around the world.

GCAQE members have been actively involved in working with crews, global experts, scientists, doctors and the aviation industry for many years on this subject, including being members of several international committees such as the FAA OHCRA project, ITF, SAE and ASHRAE committees.

Unions include:Teamsters CANADA, CUPE, AFA, T&G, AIPA, SNPC, SNPL, IPA, APFA and others.

For further: http://www.gcaqe.org/

DB :ok:

[wbble]

The “facts” that Gaspasser posted look like they were from a government (e.g. COT) report or similar. To try and bring some balance, here are some other facts:

1. As early as 1977, a C130 navigator became incapacitated, and further investigation into breathing heated oil fumes was called for.
2. and 3. Agreed
4. and 5. As well as TOCP, oil also contains MOCP and DOCP (mono and di-) which are more toxic and are present in much greater quantities, so any estimation of the toxicity of the oil would have been hugely underestimated.
6. Due to the “wet” nature of their design, no seal can be 100% effective, so there is always going to be some, even if a little, background level of toxins. Some seal designs are better than others and some operators’ maintenance procedures are better than others, so yes, some types or airlines feature more.

Unfortunately the COT studies deal in misinformation and doubt, so any real headway in seeking answers is never forthcoming.

[shortfinals]

Flight did something on the stuff the Beeb and the Telegraph reported, but didn't appear that impressed with the proposed tests:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/02/224334/toxic-cabin-air-tests-results-to-be-correlated-to-flight.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/29/224335/toxic-air-testing-systems.html

Comment here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/30/224372/comment-no-argument-cranfield-challenge-is-toxic.html

Shortie

[Dream Buster]

Boeing are proud of their new Boeing 787 and their primary PR reason is that the 'no bleed air achitecture' (sounds like the design of a Church) is so much more efficient in saving fuel - sounds great doesn't it? to any non flier.

The real reason can be found in Boeing's submission to The House of Lords (who one MUST NOT *** to) from 2007 which is copied here exactly from their official Memorandum to their non flying and easily misled Lordships :8:

"The Boeing 787 will have a no bleed architecture for the outside supply to the cabin. This architecture eliminates the risk of engine oil decomposition products from being introduced in the cabin supply air in the rare event of a failed engine compressor seal. In addition, this architecture improves fuel efficiency, thus reducing fuel burn and associated engine emissions"

Some honesty, please! :E :ugh:

DO NOT PASS THIS INFORMATION ON!:oh: IT IS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD - YET!:=

DB :ok:

[stagn8]

This thread reminds me that when I worked for Pan Am in the early 80's that the cabin crew used to complain about cabin air quality and would train each other up to check how many 'pax' systems were on when they went to the flight deck (tea, coffee or are you awake) - this was the time of the ozone scares. These were allegedly shut down to save fuel. I wonder how many airlines are reducing air conditioning today to save fuel ?? (cough, gasp, splutter)....

[shortfinals]

Stagn - it may remind you nostalgically of the issue of how many air con packs you selected on during the night, or what proportion of bleed/recirculated air you used, but cabin air contamination is not about that. It's about the air being poisoned with neurotoxins composed of complex organophosphates from heated oil additives when the oil seals leak. It may only have happened on a small proportion of flights, but many people's lives have been changed forever by such incidents, and they don't even know why.

[pacplyer]

Was a pilot briefly on the Bae-146-100 with ALF-502 and 503 engines. Fun, fun airplane. Experienced guys running the ground school informed us that on the first flight of the day it was quite possible after the APU was fired up and the packs turned on before boarding to get a bad smell like vomit in the cabin. This was "Pack Oil" the instructor said, and it had leaked into the bleed air system overnight.

One aircraft that hasn't been mentioned as case law for cabin air contamination is the MD-80 series. A few years ago flight attendants for American or Delta (can't remember) won a huge lawsuit in the U.S. over the leaked memo from MD that admitted that they had placed a skydraul overflow drain upwind of the pack intake, and in this memo advised that they would not be involved in moving it. Very damning evidence. Court ruled that the drain be moved since flight attendants and passengers sometimes witnessed a mist layer visible in the cabin and became ill. It was reported in the papers, unfortunately only the plaintiff flight attendants got damages and the judge issued a gag order on the amount and other terms of the settlement.

Always seemed like something was eating my rubber shoe soles after preflight. Very toxic Skydraul all over the ramp! I remember feeling like crap frequently when I rode in the back of those MD80's. Might explain why I only have 80% of my lung efficiency left! :bored:

[Beaver man]

When I first started working on the 146, I was told by a very experienced engineer that when starting the apu after a night-stop that it should be allowed to run for a good 20 minutes before selecting bleed air. So that any oil that had accumulated overnight would be burnt off. I also know for a fact that after deicing has been carried out some pilots will run apu bleed air on the first sector!! Then snag the a/c for fumes!!!

[Dream Buster]

The AEROTOXIC ASSOCIATION celebrates its FIRST ANNIVERSARY today! 18th June 2008.

www.aerotoxic.org

Click on the cake for a surprise....you know you ought to know!

Due to popular demand, we have decided to make the whole site FREE to all.

Forum and health survey still protected by 'membership'.

New feature includes: A petition to the UK Prime Minister to be signed by anybody concerned that bleed air is NOT filtered.

Thanks to everybody for your continued support and encouragement over this vital issue - for all.

DB :E :ok:

[pacplyer]

Beaver Man,

Yes, Glycol fumes from de-icing fluid dripping into the bleed air intakes are now disclosed to crews as being extremely toxic; glad you mentioned it. U.S. airline legal depts are disclosing that to employees sometimes to avoid labor suits.

The 727 was real bad about coming back from the northeast in winter; even a day later, the fumes from the apu bleed into the packs would give us the most excruciating headaches (intake was in the wheel well for christsakes, how the helll did the contract de-icer shoot it into there? Guess they were removing ice and snow from the wheel well in way too thorough a fashion.) It was awful. Made you hate the job and take your vacation in winter to avoid that nastiness.

Running the 146 on apu bleed the whole flight was possible IIRC. But wouldn't that restrict the altitude permitted? It did on our airplanes, IIRC. And that put you down into turboprop traffic which slowed you way down and vectored you all over the place adding 30 minutes sometimes to flight time. I have trouble believing this claim. I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying they did it just to write it up and cause a mtc hardship? Why would anybody poison themselves intentionally? Now I'm not sure you understand what was happening there. It was common when I flew the 146 to start the APU on approach and switch packs to apu bleed in the air to 1. get extra power for go-around with engine bleeds off if you needed it (heavy, mountains) 2. have it up and running for a quick engine shutdown to save fuel.

Cheers, :8

pac - out

[db16]

ALL jet aircraft are prone to this problem; until very recently ALL jet oils, civil and military, have OPs as an anti wear additive.

Some individuals seem to be immune, and other ones can be permanently effected by a single exposure. May I draw you attention to Susan Michaelis' "Contaminated Air Reference Manual"

Just my .005 penny worth!! I may well be an effected one

db16

[thapr2]

DB 16

Which recently introduced oil does not contain organophosphates of some nature???