PDA

View Full Version : Public Online Register For Contaminated Flights And Illness


carbis22
7th Aug 2008, 14:07
If you have suffered ill health as a result of flying, and or experienced a fume event, please help us compile this data in order that we can help fill the governments knowledge gap!!
PILOT/CREW AND PAX , you can use a username and identity protected.

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

Dream Buster
7th Aug 2008, 17:19
Carbis 22,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to log a sertious fume event flight on 31.12.02 out of BHX - GCI.

At last....

DB :cool:

wbble
8th Aug 2008, 11:39
I applaud the creators of this database. There is so much evidence out there clearly showing a huge health problem caused by contaminated cabin air, and I hope that as many people as possible who’ve experienced fumes or symptoms log their experiences. The airlines and authorities need to wake up and do something about it!

surreysue
8th Aug 2008, 20:27
Well done, at last!! I've been in 2 serious fume events in the last few months - let's hope everyone registers. Thank you for giving us this opportunity it's high time something was done to help us.

carbis22
9th Aug 2008, 09:29
The truth is on our side!!

carbis22
11th Aug 2008, 17:10
pacplyer;

thankyou for the words of encouragement! Not a question of having balls as you put it!
More a case of having justice and acknowledgement that people do actually get sick through flying and through NO fault of their own.
David versus goliath, I know however just because these events are rare and real unlucky and unjust does not mean they should be hushed aside!
Everyone workers and the travelling public are entitled to safe carrige, this clearly is not happening!
No matter what the minority, every person counts and should have rights.
Thankyou for trying..

WHBM
11th Aug 2008, 17:39
Are you a firm of lawyers touting for business ? And there's a number of notably low post count PPRuNers suddenly writing how marvellous you are.

carbis22
11th Aug 2008, 19:34
No not a law firm, am afraid to burst your bubble, just a mother that has had these poisons identified in her system post flight, that has three young children with these poisons also in their systems, ALONG with other children very sick!!
causing a huge manifest of severe health affects, the youngest living on inhalers where she can not breath properly, another trying to take her own life where she feels she is going crazy unable to deal with the neurological affects of a neurotoxin, that has been identified in biopsy.
My other child frequent collapse, falling from top to bottom of stairs backwards unconscious, her doctor diagnosing affects of tcp exposure, myself in hospital recieving steroid injection, tablets , oxygen not being able to breath properly, doctors diagnosing lung, liver and neurological damage just to name a few, carcinogenic substances absorbed by my whole family, along with many others onboard the same flight! My husand to sick to work as a self employed person does not have the comfort of medical expenses and sick pay paid.
Think that gives me the right to speak out for myself and take action where i see fit, does it not?

A note to the moderator's every single word I write is backed up by legal written documents by specialist doctors, pls for the good of our fellow sufferer's please do not delete this posting, fact of the matter is people can get sick and do, we are living proof of this! again may be minority but we should count?
In fact i invite you to view our medical data in private inorder to satisfy your legal requirements.

Dont bury your heads in the sand, demand clean air!! To late for us, but may not be to late for someone else!!!:ugh:

surreysue
11th Aug 2008, 20:14
WHBM - a firm of lawyers touting for business? What on earth are you on about? I'm cabin crew and I've been ill for months because of breathing contaminated air on a flight. I posted saying how marvellous they are because I've had a look at the website and I think it is marvellous - have you looked at it yet? At last someone is trying to do something about this outrageous situation and I admire them.

Mac the Knife
11th Aug 2008, 20:23
"...that has had these poisons identified in her system post flight,..."

What poisons exactly and how identified and by whom?

Answers on a postcard please.

:ok:

carbis22
11th Aug 2008, 20:37
As we no longer have fitness to fly, guess you will be the only one posting post cards!!:ugh:

Have invited moderators to view med data, are you a moderator?

We all are entitled to freedom of speech and as the old saying goes,
whats one person's passion is another person's poison!!:ugh:

frontlefthamster
11th Aug 2008, 20:40
In the climate which 'we' have created in Europe, nothing which can be scientifically proven to be harmful stands a chance any more.

There is a lot of anecdotal whingeing about contaminated cabin air. Without doubt, manufacturers and operators don't put clean fresh air at the top of their agenda. But there is also a huge volume of hyperbole over what amounts to smelly and unpleasant fumes.

There is NOT a scientific study which backs up some of the wilder claims. Yes, detection and measurement are difficult, or in some cases impossible, but I have a horrid feeling that this is a bandwagon that many wannabe sufferers (and the Lord knows we're good at producing those these days) can't wait to jump onto.

If there were hospital wards full of sick folk, something would change. There aren't, and it won't. The rest is just noise.

carbis22
11th Aug 2008, 20:54
I rest my case;;

IYHO the minority does not count?
And you are probably right about nothing ever changing,
the whinging and making noise's, can you be certain of those facts?

surreysue
11th Aug 2008, 21:10
I am a sufferer and believe me I don't "wannabe" one. Guess you have to experience it to understand it but please try to keep an open mind and don't dismiss us all as "whingers"...... "smelly and unpleasant fumes" have left me with damage to my nervous system.

frontlefthamster
11th Aug 2008, 21:41
Sue,

I am not unsympathetic. I deal, routinely, with the bereaved and crippled. I have seen suffering and don't like it.

However, I challenge you that:

You may have experienced fumes.

You may have been diagnosed with certain conditions affecting the nervous system.

But you have not been diagnosed as suffering damage to the nervous system as a consequence of contaminated cabin air.

Have you?

If you have, then your doctor has taken a step beyond competence.

You may be in an extremely unfortunate minority, but that you are in a minority is beyond doubt.

Carbis, the minority count in their own way. However, commercial air transport is just that: a commercial undertaking in pursuit of profit consequent upon satisfying market desires. The market is the majority.

carbis22
11th Aug 2008, 21:57
HOL
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldsctech/7/7we04.htm


(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldsctech/7/7we04.htm)SEE bOEING SUBMISSION:
SECTION 17 ON ABOVE WEBSITE

Boeing:
The Boeing 787 will have a no-bleed architecture for the outside air 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.

RadAlt
11th Aug 2008, 22:24
Carbis, you say you were diagnosed post-flight, and your kids suffer too (along with others). I take it this all came from exposure on this 1 flight? Was this a normal flight, or did something happen? Do you know any other passengers on this flight that suffer the same?
Could it be that your family actually suffer from an environmental contamination in your hometown?

carbis22
11th Aug 2008, 22:44
No we was very unfortunatley NOT alone, Illness began during the flight with people vomitting, headache and various other symptoms,
there was around 60 pax that we know of, probably more who are still suffering symptoms to date, post 18 mth. and yes we are in contact with each other,
All live in different parts of great britain including wales, enviromental factor ruled out on that point.

Food ruled out by EHA, full investigation denied to MP from CAA,
we asked them to write to all pax.
Hospitalisation after flight due breathing difficulties and other various symptoms. No fever's, infections or raised WBC found.
No Incubation period.

I only go by what our doctors have diagnosed,
I also find that this site for people to register their symptoms and cabin conditions may be a great help.
When one makes complaint to their service provider, denial that others have complained is expected and recieved,
complaints are quashed, If an individual traveller experienced the same fate they would not stand a chance!

That many people got on a plane healthy and was made sick, that is a fact!

surreysue
11th Aug 2008, 23:31
Actually according to Professor Malcolm Hooper who is a leading expert on Gulf War Syndrome and Chief Advisor to the Government's COTS committee on organophosphates 52% of Europeans are susceptible to these chemicals.......now if my maths is correct that is a majority!!

carbis22
11th Aug 2008, 23:42
our flight situation was around 7 hrs into a 10 hr flight, onsett anyway.

llondel
12th Aug 2008, 00:23
Basil:

neither do I care for the design of systems which use partial re-circulation of air in the cabin but that's how it is.

My understanding is that the air is recirculated in order to keep the moisture content up a bit, seeing as the outside air coming in is very dry.

wingman863
12th Aug 2008, 00:24
Have you thought about taking legal action?

carbis22
12th Aug 2008, 07:22
Carbis, the minority count in their own way. However, commercial air transport is just that: a commercial undertaking in pursuit of profit consequent upon satisfying market desires. The market is the majority.


I am certain the majority of the market, will not mind paying a few extra pound pence per head for safe, clean air! By way of filtration systems.
Hopefully when gvmnt have carried out there long awaited tests, they will make these systems mandatory? which will at least end the risk for future travellers.

Over the last few years fuel surcharges have crept up and up, people still pay them to get to where they want to go, they will do the same to help fly safe... IMHO

jshg
12th Aug 2008, 08:11
As I understood filtration (at the BALPA Contaminated Air Conference a few years ago), there is still no effective filter for bleed air. Filters can be fitted to the side of the ducts - better, but not 100% effective - but a 'barrier' filter across the duct will result in too great a pressure drop if it is to work properly.
There are other tricks to remove some large particles, but the best way is the much-maligned air recirculation system. Filters here are very effective in quickly taking out particles that have made it to the cabin. (Recirculation also provides more comfortable relative humidity, as mentioned above.)
It's no coincidence that the 787 will be bleedless - the only 100% effective solution apart from a complete redesign of air bleed systems, which is not practical.

frontlefthamster
12th Aug 2008, 09:48
Carbis,

I'm afraid that there is no sign that the majority of the market give two hoots about cabin air quality, or even know of the debate about it...

Traditional pressurisation systems will be with us for decades to come.

carbis22
12th Aug 2008, 10:18
FONT;;

Your very confident about sumizing what people may or may not think?
your also very confident about what you presume are written on people's medical data,

Why don't you register on toxic free airlines and email requesting some up to date scientific reference's on the issue, am certain they will be able to supply you with the top 50 refs, created by real specialist's and scientist's from all around the world.
I am certain you will find it most educating!

carbis22
12th Aug 2008, 14:55
FONTLEFTHAMSTER;;

I'm afraid that there is no sign that the majority of the market give two hoots about cabin air quality, or even know of the debate about it...

Traditional pressurisation systems will be with us for decades to come.


Just found new posting on www.toxicfreeairlines.com (http://www.toxicfreeairlines.com)

Baroness Trumpington, who supports the work of this website, asked in the House of Lords on 14th July 2008,
"Will the Government take urgent action to require internationally that all aircraft must be fitted with filters before being passed for service?"


I guess more people give a hoot than you think!!!

frontlefthamster
12th Aug 2008, 19:49
...and thus demonstrated her utter inability to comprehend how the relevant systems on aircraft work, or indeed, to phrase a meaningful question in the house.

I've read many of the papers on the topic, thanks, well before they were put on your website, and while they do indicate that a small minority of people may be predisposed to suffering the effects of some sorts of contaminant in the air supply (whether on an aircraft or not), they do not amount to a justification of the daft 'toxic airlines' strapline. I've also discussed the matter with some of the 'experts', without changing my conclusions.

As I said, I'm not lacking in sympathy, but I find it difficult to respect people who seek to pursue their goal by sensational media hype and who cannot perceive the true public reaction to their scare-mongering.

By the way, Carbis, use of the quote feature (the little speech box above the text window as you reply) would make your replies much more readable. As it is, you seem to be having quite an argument with yourself...

carbis22
12th Aug 2008, 20:00
sorry sir font!! its tricky when you are suffering from neurological damage, diagnosed by a specialist NOT a '' wannabe'' specialist ( phsychiatry i guess) due toxic inhalation and yes they wrote that!!

Am bound to make spelling error's its all part and parcel, do yourself a favour, try and educate yourself read the data available then pass comments.
you may then realise why I miss the small box to paste your ridiculous comments,

rattled you are, oh well!!

To all who matter, know harm in educating yourself and arming yourself with knowledge you may need it some day:ugh:

frontlefthamster
12th Aug 2008, 20:16
I've done myself that favour, and reached my conclusions. Though extremely dull, it answered all the questions that I (and my erstwhile employer) had.

Not rattled a bit - and why would I be? I have no vested interest whatsoever.

I do feel sorry for you, I suppose.

Isn't there a hint of Yossarian about this? On one hand, you make claims that you're suffering neurological damage and cannot manipulate the features on a website, on the other you want us to believe that your own finding (cabin air 'problems' = neurological damage) is valid...

carbis22
12th Aug 2008, 20:36
I am simply stating facts of occurences, you however do not seem to accept sue, myself, lady trumpington whom incidently got sick during a flight with many high profile fellow passenger's??

And Boeing themselfs, have you seen the TCP data and human health affects? Not the affects carried out on hens, unheated and unpressurized?

No need to feel sorry for mwa!
a healthy debate never killed or poisoned anyone....

I would love to hear your alternative explanations for the ill health in so many? However dull!

frontlefthamster
12th Aug 2008, 20:43
Carbis,

I have no alternative theory, nor did I suggest I had.

This may be a genuine thing... But it only affects a tiny minority.

That's a real shame for you, but it's a fact. Trying to blow it up into something it's not does no credit at all to those very few genuinely affected.

surreysue
12th Aug 2008, 20:51
Frontlefthamster - how do you know it's only "a small minority" ? Have you conducted any research? A huge amount of cabin crew I fly with have symptoms to a greater or lesser extent. Isn't that the point of this new website? They are trying to find out whether it's only a minority affected or whether the problem is bigger than was previously thought. Passengers couldn't report their illness to anyone before, they suffered in silence which has allowed people to claim that the problem is a tiny one. Time will tell, the truth will have to come out in the end.

frontlefthamster
12th Aug 2008, 21:05
Sue,

There's been enough 'debate' and 'reporting' of various sorts.

On one hand, you claim scientific validity for the papers you reference, on the other you seem to be relying upon an unverified public whinge-athon on a website as a measure of the scale of this supposed problem...

I say again, loud and clear, you have my sympathy and understanding. But you do not have evidence of any genuine public health problem, other than perhaps, on the smallest of scales.

I note that I'm the only one challenging a very forthright assertion by a few people that there's a major concern; I shall desist now to allow this thread to fall to the bottom of the page, where it belongs.

carbis22
12th Aug 2008, 21:06
Again, reverting back to earlier comments, every person counts!

Every person should be aware of the risk, as is plastered all over cigarette packs!

Not every person that smokes and drinks or both, will die of cancer, but there is a risk! and many do!

In this issue no one knows who will be at risk, untill its to late?
Then when they are at their weakest, should they have to fight the biggest battle of their life?

Not understanding the effects, due to it being swept under the table,
Not knowing what the future may hold health wise, especially for once healthy children!

Would you step on an aircraft if it were plastered in adverts stating flying seriously harms your health, or flying kills?
I think not,

Media and public awareness is the only route to the truth, and every single person, should be able to make that choice before it is to late!

whether it be worker's or pax? people still smoke, people will still fly.
That will be their OWN choice!

surreysue
12th Aug 2008, 21:13
HEAR!! HEAR"":ok:

AMEandPPL
12th Aug 2008, 21:38
Would you step on an aircraft if it were plastered in adverts stating flying seriously harms your health, or flying kills ?

The bold messages on all the millions of cigarette packets sold in this country every year say almost exactly that . . . . . . . but it doesn't seem to stop the addicts from buying or smoking them !

Maybe we are all more addicted than we care to admit to our foreign holidays, business travel, and family re-unions !

And don't we all tend to think : "yes, but it won't happen to me" ?

Dream Buster
13th Aug 2008, 07:53
AMEandPPL,

In the 1950's it was seriously thought by the Government , well Harrold Macmillan, that smoking was good for one.

In the last few years I hope you would agree that this has changed 180 degrees?

I can assure you that I know many flying 'addicts' who have changed their flying habits due to linking their ill health directly to flying, including me.

Nobody has ever asked the question that carbis22 is posing. If it isn't a problem, then there shouldn't be any future in the web site? And it will disappear due to lack of custom.

Of course it is down to individual choice and always will be, but to deny people the facts is neither clever nor honest.

The fact is that breathing heated oil fumes in a confined space can cause serious long term ill health for some people.

GM passengers and aircrew?

We all have to try and respect each others position and I sincerely hope you just keep flying; as if it's all OK....but at least you will know - if and when it goes wrong - for you.

DB :eek:

AMEandPPL
13th Aug 2008, 09:13
breathing heated oil fumes in a confined space can cause serious long term ill health for some people

That is SO true (as a brief, isolated, statement) , of course it is ! In reality, however, that is NOT the principal experience remembered post-flight by the vast majority of ordinary travellers. Much more frustrating and annoying for most are the queues at security and immigration, lost luggage, cramped seating and cardboard food.

A FEW incidents of contaminated cabin air have occurred over the years; but they have also occurred in trains, ships, cars, and even holiday villas (faulty boiler, build up of CO in Greek villa). Sad, but in a complex world these things happen.

It is, however, simply not fair or reasonable to tar the whole of the airline industry with the same brush.

Dream Buster
13th Aug 2008, 09:40
AMEandPPL,
Whilst you and I might know that breathing toxic fumes can be responsible for months and years of ill health; regrettably and officially it is not recognised due to commercial vested interests. Fact.

Logically why do the regulators insist on life jackets and life rafts being provided on airliners but with Government figures showing that a fume event happens in one in 2000 flights (which is obviously a very random, severe underestimate) with absolutely no protection required.....Please explain.

The whole of the industry happens to think that the problem is not a problem.

It's called total denial which is the only way they can deal with it really. The way that you seem to think it is not a serious problem for around 30% of the population (the minority?) confirms the success of their rapidly exposed position.

A bit of honesty would be much appreciated and I have found that people who have suffered mystery ill health for over 4 years (which started after a particular flight) are very interested to know how it may have come about.

Wouldn't you? Because at the moment, they don't want you to know.

DB :confused:

AMEandPPL
13th Aug 2008, 09:57
Logically why do the regulators insist on life jackets and life rafts being provided on airliners

I've often wondered just that as I listen to the safety brief on the LHR-MAN shuttle, or on one of VLM's F50's between LCY-MAN ! Be prepared for the ditching just north of Birmingham, ha ha !

Sorry to divert momentarily from the main subject of the thread.

Two types seem to have been implicated in this "problem" more than any others - and I just saw from the profile thay you fly one of those two. A perfectly good reason, in my view, to have rather more interest and concern than average.

anartificialhorizon
13th Aug 2008, 11:14
FAA looks at oxygen mask concerns

12 August 2008
Los Angeles Times

The Federal Aviation Administration is reviewing the reported failures of dozens of oxygen masks aboard an American Airlines flight that made an emergency landing last week at Los Angeles International Airport. FAA officials said Monday that they were looking into concerns that some masks for passengers did not deploy during the incident while others failed to provide oxygen. "We take reports like this very seriously," said Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman. "The FAA is working closely with American to determine what the problems are, why they happened, and to make sure the problems are fixed."

American Airlines Flight 31 had just taken off from LAX about 9 a.m. on Aug. 5 when the pilot reported smoke in the cabin. The Boeing 757, which was en route to Honolulu, immediately returned to LAX and made an emergency landing. Airport officials said 188 passengers and seven crew members were evacuated using the aircraft's emergency chutes - a rare occurrence. Eight people suffered minor injuries.

American Airlines blamed the incident on hot oil that leaked from a compressor for one of the plane's two jet engines. It produced a strong odour and some haze in the passenger cabin. Tim Wagner, an airline spokesman, said the problem turned out to be minor. Wagner said American was reviewing the emergency landing and whether the aircraft's oxygen masks worked properly. He said the masks are specifically designed to supply oxygen to passengers and crew members during the loss of cabin pressure at higher altitudes. "They are not meant to be used in a fire or smoke situation," Wagner said.

Federal officials say emergency oxygen masks are supposed to work whether they are automatically deployed during depressurization or manually activated by the flight crew, as was the case with Flight 31.
The FAA has been concerned for some time about oxygen mask failures aboard Boeing 757s and 737s -- aircraft that are popular with foreign and domestic airlines. In May 2007, the agency issued an air worthiness directive ordering carriers to inspect oxygen masks on those planes and correct any problems by 2012. The directive affects about 815 of the two types of jetliners that fly routes in the United States.

FAA officials issued the order after receiving information that oxygen generators had failed during in-flight depressurization. The agency blamed components that had fractured between the oxygen masks and the release pins that activate the flow of air.

During its review of the emergency landing, Wagner said American would consider the decision by the flight crew to evacuate passengers using the chutes. Questions have been raised in news reports about the necessity of activating the slides for what turned out to be a relatively minor problem. Wagner said that American flight attendants receive safety training and have the authority to activate the chutes if they think it is necessary. Gregor said the decision to deploy the slides did not violate FAA regulations.

Air traffic controllers at LAX were concerned that the American Airlines pilot did not notify the tower that emergency chutes were going to be deployed, said Michael Foote, a local representative of the National Air Traffic Controllers Assn. Foote said controllers are responsible for directing aircraft as they taxi to and from terminals. Advance notice from the American flight, he said, would have made it easier for controllers to handle the situation.

Frangible
13th Aug 2008, 12:38
I too have read many of the papers on so-called aerotoxic syndrome and the simple facts are these.

1. Combustion products of synthetic lubricating oils containing organophosphates can get into the cabin air, especially 146s and 757s.
2. A number of air and cabin crew, and a few pax, have been hit by neurological symptoms that vary from very mild to very severe.

However, 1 has never been proved to lead to 2. Some of the scientists involved in the research have hypotheses about what may lead from 1 to 2 but none of them claim a causal link, and that is the only basis on which action can be taken.

The campaigners, however, are asking us to have faith that they are right. Sorry, no can do. Giving one example after the other of 2 does not constitute scientific evidence. With all due respect, Carbis22 has produced no evidence or proof that the flight caused what happened. Sudden onsets of symptoms prove nothing, and cases of one cannot prove anything either, and they never have.

Research should continue that will prove, one day, whether or not there is a link between 1 and 2. Until those conclusions are reached, carry on gathering evidence and searching for answers but please stop asking people to take all this on faith.

Dream Buster
13th Aug 2008, 12:48
Frangible,

Could you please let everybody know exactly how one proves anything?

Many thanks.

DB :ok:

carbis22
13th Aug 2008, 13:26
Frangible,

Again am simply stating DOCTORS not mine, diagnoses and their expert clinical opinion of what caused the bodily damage!

Fact of the matter is lots of people got on that plane healthy and got of sick??

Fact of the matter is doctors have diagnosed TOXIC INHALATION/ CHEMICAL EXPOSURE causing lots of damage and ill health affects! From that flight!

Fact of the matter is TCP has been identified in cabins in low quantities during NORMAL WORKING CONDITIONS!

Fact of the matter is NO ONE UNTILL NOW HAS BOTHERED TO TRY AND CAPTURE THESE EVENTS DURING A FUME EVENT OR ABNORMAL WORKING CONDITIONS, Pilots that have had TCP identified in their blood samples have been ignored for years?? over a decade?

Fact of the matter is its impossible as a passenger to get any help or is there an appropriate organisation that represents the travelling public,
The HSE described this situation as ' being in a grey are of legislation'?

Fact of the matter is when whole crews are rushed of to hospital after a fume event, NO ONE TELLS THE PASSENGERS, OR INVESTIGATES TO FIND OUT IF THE PASSENGERS ARE OK?? WHY?

Fact of the matter is CHILDREN were covered in blisters, fingertips, face, legs, a seventy year old lady had a huge fester of blisters on her face,
on top of all the other health problems.

Did A cause B ? im not really sure........

This is not scaremongering, simple plain truth's that can be verified,
I wish to god someone had warned me of the risks, like many unselfish people are trying to do here, whats important is having the knowledge and being able to make YOUR OWN MIND UP, whether you wish to place yourself or your families into that enviroment!
Cause I sure would not have!:ugh:

AMEandPPL
13th Aug 2008, 13:35
In the 1950's it was seriously thought by the Government , well Harold Macmillan, that smoking was good for one.

In the last few years I hope you would agree that this has changed 180 degrees?

Yes, that's true - in those days were were almost encouraged to smoke - it was considered a real social grace ! And of course I agree on the 180 degree U-turn which has occurred since then. But you ask : "how was that proved ?"

The answer is research, and lots of it, and also patience, and lots of it ! The pioneer on the dangers of smoking was Sir Richard Doll, but in the early days his work, too, was ridiculed and pooh-poohed. It took a lot of time, and a lot of hard scientific work, for opinions to be changed as much as they have been by now.

carbis22
13th Aug 2008, 13:59
I agree,

the research in my opinion, is BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!

the more research the better especially for the Individual traveller!

Frangible
13th Aug 2008, 14:13
Sufficient evidence to show an incontrovertible causal link between 1 and 2 is what all would accept as proof. So far, it isn't there. That's why the research is going on. If the link were already a fact, then why all the research?

Did A cause B ? im not really sure........
My point precisely. Neither am I.

As for TCP, it has been proved to cause very serious health damage but only in doses hundreds of times greater than are possible in cabin air, e.g. from drinking it pure. What the scientists are looking at now is the possibility of very low doses of TCP combustion products and other OPs interacting with a hitherto unidentified genetic component in the body to produce these reactions.

They, however, are still working on it...

AMEandPPL
13th Aug 2008, 14:18
Any BALPA members who get "The Log" will see that organophosphates were mentioned humorously in one of the winning entries in the Caption Competition of the April / May issue. It appeared in the most recent ( June / July ) issue.

carbis22
13th Aug 2008, 14:28
Frangible,

im not really sure...

sorry was being sarcastic, in a nice way...

As said before I know what substances have been identified in my body, and wished I could post my medical data on this forum, only I would have to get the specialists permission for that, but have invited a moderator to view in private.

I still welcome as much research as possible for the sake of other's!

:ok:

CafeClub
13th Aug 2008, 15:02
Hi - I've been lurking on pprune for a fair few years now - and have never posted before because, well, while a frequent flier and all that... I'm not a pilot or in anyway involved in flying, other than hoping that the guys and gals that are know what they are doing.

But I can't sit by and watch someone get flamed for simply trying to draw attention to what they consider to be a major problem.

carbis22 is simply saying "this is what I think happened, and no-one seems to give a :mad:, so if you suspect the same let's get together and get someone looking at it."

i.e., let's GET SOME RESEARCH GOING.

That's all. IF thorough research provides the link then 'Voila!' if not, then, 'hmmmm'. But trying to get this addressed seriously isn't worth the flaming.

Jeez guys, carbis isn't saying it's YOUR fault.

Back to lurking...:O

Dream Buster
13th Aug 2008, 15:29
Extract from an article in "Airways" about the BAe 146, written by a US pilot.June 2008.

'The pneumatics worked fine, it was the air conditioning 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 controllers and "Set them to 12 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 flight attendants could not persuade them that all was well.'

These are the fumes that pilots and cabin crew are talking about.

They are not in low concentrations and the Government can not seem to identify the chemicals or concentrations.

If you regularly breath these fumes, you will become very sick and if you breath them repeatedly - you will develop chronic ill health.

If you stop breathing them, you may get 'better' - as I have luckily found out.

I know how I feel and exactly what caused it.

Many, many aircrew and passengers from all over the world have found this out to their cost and yet the majority still find it inconvenient to accept, which I can even understand! Why not try the fumes yourself?

It does what it says on the tin.

DB. :mad:

AMEandPPL
13th Aug 2008, 16:31
this is what I think happened . . . . . . . . . so if you suspect the same let's get together and get someone looking at it

In fairness it must be said that MANY people and organisations, throughout the aviation industry, ARE looking into these matters, and have been for many years. That includes some of the top people in Aviation Medicine circles, with many of whom I have discussed the subject. All are agreed that there probably IS a problem of some sort. Just can't quite elaborate yet on its precise nature or magnitude.

Unfortunately, a final solution still seems a very long way off.

frontlefthamster
13th Aug 2008, 17:25
are agreed that there probably IS a problem of some sort. Just can't quite elaborate yet on its precise nature or magnitude.

Unfortunately, a final solution still seems a very long way off.

Now, are we discussing cabin air or cold Boeing 777s??? :ooh:

AMEandPPL
13th Aug 2008, 18:10
Touche ! A splendid riposte !

carbis22
13th Aug 2008, 18:36
Font, sorry still have not figured out that blue box?

I note that I'm the only one challenging a very forthright assertion by a few people that there's a major concern; I shall desist now to allow this thread to fall to the bottom of the page, where it belongs.


Glad your back and thanks for the P/M> :ok:

Dream Buster
13th Aug 2008, 19:18
AMEandPPL,

It's a black and white situation. There is either a problem or there is not. Agreed?

If there IS a problem - it doesn't get much bigger? Agreed?

The airlines, Governments and manufacturers would quite like the interminable 'testing' to take another few years to be finally 100% understood. (as it might be quite inconvenient and awfully costly) Agreed?

What happened to 51% Balance of Probability?

A solution only seems a long way off, because that is what is wanted by certain vested interests; whilst the poor self loading freight and faithful aircrew are kept in the dark.

Well done BBC Panorama for finding TCP on 3 'normal' flights. Can you imagine how much TCP would be on an abnormal flight?

If you are an AME have you ever smelt oil fumes?

Did you realise that a rare fume event could be arranged ?

Do you think it might give you a valuable insight into a specialised subject and a sample of what some of your pilots frequently experience when they are at their work place?

Just a few questions to find out what you know...

Good luck and if you are not an AME (Aviation Medical Examiner), I apologise!

DB. :E

carbis22
13th Aug 2008, 19:44
would someone please explain what this private message i recieved from, frontlefthamster may mean?


Private Message: Toxic?http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif Yesterday, 20:44 frontlefthamster (http://www.pprune.org/forums/members/207985-frontlefthamster)

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 223


Toxic?
Please note that I've been kind enough, so far, not to draw a parallel between the predisposition to poor health and predisposition to being particularly active in a certain pilot's union. Must be something in the water, eh?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif

frontlefthamster
13th Aug 2008, 20:13
Carbis,

It meant that I was willing to share a private thought with you, in private.

A private query would have been tolerable; publicly posting a private message is not.

Your publication of it means you are not to be trusted and that you don't know the lengthy history of the topic under discussion, at least in one Big Airline.

I could follow this with comprehensive detail, but I don't intend to.

No longer a bientot, but now au revoir.

carbis22
13th Aug 2008, 22:35
To be truthful frontlefthamster,

I was slightly concerned over that PM? No offence meant,

I am assuming all want the same results and outcome in all of this?

Health and safety assured, at least on this issue?

I have said all I want to say, unless something new comes to light,

iT is a simple debate, and i will be leaving publicity to the press, not my field..

IMHO it will be resolved, sooner rather than later!
NHF

AMEandPPL
13th Aug 2008, 23:39
If you are an AME . . . . . . . . . . . . a valuable insight into a specialised subject and a sample of what some of your pilots frequently experience when they are at their work place ?

Yes, I am, indeed, an AME - have been for 23 years. Yes, the workplace and its hazards is a topic which crops up in conversation with MANY of my regular visitors, and especially on this subject. I am even a regular visitor to that workplace (not many can get onto the jump seat nowadays ! ). Which is why I have tried to join in and contribute to a sensible discussion in this thread hitherto.

I will be happy to return to the subject of the thread once I see that the present interpersonal bickering is over. This is quite intolerable amongst so-called professionals.

carbis22
14th Aug 2008, 07:10
AMEandPPL

The Panorama Programme, ' Something In The Air'

The last statement quoted by Jeremy Vine,

'' The government's early indication is they to have found TCP in the cabin''

or words to that affect, do you know anything about those preliminary tests?
The major tests are to start in october is that correct? Do you think they will be testing all 10 isomers including mono-ortho and di-ortho which are found in higher quantity AND toxicity, and will they be testing for vapours and particulates?

I am no scientist so a layman term would be best.

Also as I understand it these oils have never been tested by an independant firm, in house tests of the oil ,only on hens, unheated and unpressurised,

I can not understand how the government can truly measure these events? especially if one occurs half way over the atlantic? Are their going to be teams of scientists just flying around and around untill a fume event occurs?
Some of the more dangerous chemicals, i.e CO and TCP are odourless, well the TCP on its own would have a stale odour, i suspect the ill health affects in pax and or crews, would have to be witnessed before they test, would'nt they?

Dream Buster
14th Aug 2008, 07:54
AMEand PPL,

An insight into you experience of the subject will be most interesting, when you are ready. How do you feel about it being a B&W issue? And how exactly and as simply as possible, would you go about proving it one way or the other? :confused:

Carbis22,

I don't know if you are aware that a 'fume event' can be engineered on the ground very easily? That is what the Government has been advised for the past 18 months or so and yet they can't seem to bring themselves to tell the people who are exposed to the fumes of the exact chemicals and concentrations. Maybe it's inconvenient news?



I tend to agree with AMEand PPL that the subject is too important for personal digs; but equally when ones health, career and lives are wrecked - passions tend to run high. Why is this often overlooked by the unaffected?

Is there any other health issue where one is first injured and then systematically abused?

Surely the whole point of this register is to find out what is going on out there in the real world? I personally accept there is a big problem, as do many others.

Maybe it's worth new visitors to this thread returning to the first post to find out what it's all about?

It would be rather good now if we could move on a bit and see if other people use the register? I guess if they don't, we all have to accept that there is NOT a problem?

DB :ok:

surreysue
14th Aug 2008, 21:40
frontlefthamster,
I have to reply and let you know how much your insensitive comments have upset me. My life is a living hell through no fault of my own. I have had 12 years of ill health, the last 5 being particularly bad including 2 operations for cancer. I still have 7 different carcinogenic substances in me including high levels of benzene and hexane. I am cabin crew, these substances are present in fuel so my Dr has based his diagnosis on "probability."
Since discovering the cause of my illness I have been in contact with many other sufferers and I can honestly say I haven't met a single "wannabe" only an awful lot of "don'twannabes."
I will continue to do everything I can to raise awareness of this situation which includes making "noise" if I can help save others from the same fate. Believe me, this is one bandwagon I didn't choose to be on.
I work for a Big Airline and I am well aware of the history to which you refer and I daresay Carbis is too. Considering you claim to be so well briefed on the subject I am surprised you seem to have no understanding of the suffering involved.
There has been no causal link so far - but we all know why don't we? Vested interests of airlines and Governments have meant that no one has wanted to find the link. A not insignificant number of lives have been ruined and also cut short - all for the lack of bleed air filters.
I truly hope you never experience this first hand, frontlefthamster, but please be more respectful to those of us who have experienced it and really DO know what we are talking about.

Dream Buster
14th Aug 2008, 22:57
Surreysue,

I was wondering if any of the following official AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch) reports describe accurately the ill health that you suffered after a fume event?

and do passengers breathe the SAME air????

I apologise for the length of the list and the AAIB are not known for 'over stating' anything, so read between the lines.

DB :ouch:


Extracts from actual UK AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch) reports.

All of these official statements are from different actual flying incidents and give an idea of the effect of the fumes on the flight crews.


• 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.

lomapaseo
14th Aug 2008, 23:01
surreysue

I have to reply and let you know how much your insensitive comments have upset me. My life is a living hell through no fault of my own

You are obviously in the wrong forum.

This is an industry discussion forum not a support forum.

Let's keep emotions out of the discussions and opinions as it tends to stifle discussions lest one treads on an unknown soft spot.

I read these discussions for facts that are actionable. To assess facts from opinions I also need to read challenges as well. If this is not to be a free discussion with challenges then it's a waste of my time to even consider this subject worthy of a prioritization.

surreysue
14th Aug 2008, 23:14
And I am challenging an assertion made earlier that we are "wannabes."
Yes, I believe you are right that I am in the wrong forum, I had already come to that conclusion. I intend to go back to my cabin crew one where the comments are pleasant and respectful even when not agreeing with the author.
With the exception of Dream Buster, Carbis 22 and the delightful gentleman from Australia I have not found the company here to be enjoyable!

AMEandPPL
15th Aug 2008, 00:01
With the exception of Dream Buster and the delightful gentleman from Australia I have not found the company here to be enjoyable

This evening I decided that DB's suggestion this morning ( to re-read the whole thread from the beginning ) was a good idea, and I did just that. Having done so I decided I was slightly uncomfortable with the standard of science being promulgated. I was therefore considering the pros and cons of whether simply to withdraw from the debate gracefully.

Your remark has made my decision much easier. Thanks !

Dream Buster
15th Aug 2008, 09:40
AMEandPPL,

I wonder how aware you are of the 3 year gene research science coming to a conclusion in the US on this very subject. Yes or No?

This is the same science that proves olympic athletes have been deliberately enhancing their performance through substance abuse; car drivers are over the legal limit - so why not passengers and aircrew who have toxic substances in their bodies?

AMEandPPL are you still with us?

DB :confused:

carbis22
16th Aug 2008, 05:54
DB,

This blood test that people are having their blood stored for, am i correct that it not only identifies TCP, but also time of exposure?

Some people for whatever reason?? try to sabotage/ intimidate, provoke certain reactions, particuarly on this issue!

Surrey sue was stating that she has had cancer and severe ill health for many years, as a result flying, her chosen career!
What could be more scientific than that, she has been attacked on this thread with morans trying to say what she has or has not had written on her medical diagnoses, and this is not a sympathy forum??

This person is obviously trying to say to other's, hey! I have worked in the aviation industry for years and as a result she is sick,
She to has had toxins identified in her body and instead of keeping quiet and being frightened to speak out like so many are, she is brave and tackling the issue!

There is plenty of science already been covered on this issue, if a fellow co-worker can not warn her colleagues of her fate then their is something seriously wrong here guys!!:ugh:

pacplyer
17th Aug 2008, 05:04
carbis22,

I think I mispoke earlier, it was actually Alaska airlines that had a separate (hydro not engine oil) but similar issue not American. My apologies; click here:

USATODAY.com - Verdict expected soon on toxic air aboard jets (http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2002-05-09-cabin-air.htm)

This issue is as big as asbestos imho. If worn/defective bleed air seals become a contributor to crew and passenger ill health beyond the BAe146 and the MD80 series then the industry will have great trouble dealing with it.

On a parallel thread about a captains letter of fatigue and frustration, a certain L1011 poster contends that all fatigue issues are just a bad attitude by employees. Maybe he doesn't read newspapers is all I can think of. But it is possible that we are routinely exposed to toxins from many sources.

As usual, imho, the truth is often sometimes in the middle. Are we all free from these toxins on the freeway? No. I would think that the answer lies in the specific chemical signatures found in your body. They must be matched by chemists (hopefully you retained split samples) with the same molecules found in "Mobbie Dick Won" or "Skydrawl" or whatever (these are just fictitious examples of products that do not exist.)

The above is, as all my post are: Just my opinions only.

pac

carbis22
24th Aug 2008, 17:03
pac,

IMHO also this issue is as big as asbestos, the science quoted by individuals has already been completed and there is already enough evidence that this is the case.

The government are playing catch up and trying to look like NOT only the good guys but as if they are doing something about this FINALLY!!

They have been presented with much data for over a decade, they only act when their hands are forced otherwise the issue would be ignored still as it has been.

What now is important is educating GP'S and ER consultants to the pax/crews presenting with the symptoms, by taking a full medical history and acknowledging whether they have flown recently inorder to carry out full investigate tests, including the blood test almost complete which crews and pax are having their samples stored on ice for.

Then good education for flying crews and pax for them to identify their symptoms inorder to demand such tests.

Once this has been completed the true scale of this global cover up will be unvailed, this WILL happen and their will be many people with serious egg on their face's!

The EHA, HPA, AUC and CAA all know the effects of OP poisoning very well, BUT UNFORTUNATLEY, EHA only deals with food poisonings, HPA flu pandemics and the CAA,AUC apparently DO NOT deal with health concerns for the travelling public altogether??

There is a long road to travel still, the evidence is mounting and people are realising.
The truth will prevail!! IMHO.....

surreysue
26th Aug 2008, 09:58
Of the 62 published deaths of retired cabin crew in my airline over the last 2 years the average age for a man was 67.7 and for a female 56.9 against a UK national average of 75.9 and 80.6

That sounds to me like we are breathing in a lot more than unpleasant smells.

Does anyone have any similar stats for pilots or American flight attendants?

carbis22
26th Aug 2008, 21:21
surreysue,

be carefull one is not allowed to have their own opinions it would seem,
even though it has been backed up by scientific data,
I wish you well in your fight, and those responsible for the register.

pacplyer
27th Aug 2008, 03:54
Carbis 22, SurrySue, others,

Everyone is entitled to an opinion; it just should be stated as such if you don't know the causative link is beyond question. Since we are not trained in medicine, we put ourselves in somewhat a compromised position by being too dogmatic. Sue knows what she experienced, but others do not.

Allow me to elaborate on this for a minute.

Deaths by themselves or deaths not specifically attributed to chemical poisoning (or linked to it's probable aftermath) are not proof that the cabin air is killing people. Something definitely is, however, because the crews I used to fly with only had a life expectancy of 57 according to life insurance actuarial tables on the group.

But what is the curlprit? Oily Cabin Air? Jet Lag? Circadian rhythm disturbance? Eating and Sleeping disruption? Corporate and gov Stress? or a combination of all these things?

I will offer you another one I think is relevant: Radiation.

It is well known by those who study nuclear physics that "cosmic background" radiation is a reality for those who work at altitude. At sea level the seemingly porous air above you is equivalent to thirteen feet of concrete in protection against harmful leftover radiation that comes from remnants of "the big bang" (sorry, if you're a religious nut and don't have a science background, I can't help you.)

These are not theoretical concepts. They are accepted scientific facts. When you cross the United States at FL410, you receive the equivalent of a medical chest x-ray in "rads"; the unit used to describe absorption of radiation into damaged cell structure. Years of crossing oceans in the thirties are not going to save you I'm afraid.

This is not to discount the toxic chemical hazards of a molecule like TCP in huge volumes in the bloodstream via pulmonary ingestion.

What might be helpful is to compare the mortality rates and causes of flight crews on a non-bleed air model airliner: like the DC-6 or the lockheed Electra. You might have to jumpseat to Africa to get samples! Or take them from fire fighting crews who still fly old recips. The absence of high concentrations of engine oil particulates in their samples after flight might prove meaningful. Although cabin heat comes off the (hopefully not-leaking) exhaust manifolds in many cases, the fresh air supply is ram, not not bleed/ACM compressed, if I am not mistaken.

Another thing you need to consider to strengthen your argument, is to post a chemical signature molecule found in one of the victim's samples via gas spectrometer or better means, and compare them side by side with a molecular model of the suspected toxins (like TCP) so that a chemist can comment on the similarity of the likely remnants.

Why not post them here for all to see?

e.g. TCP:
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/e110_2.gif

Tricresyl phosphate (EHC 110, 1990) (http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc110.htm)

Also I found this chart when looking for gov mortality figures:

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/image/15068938

All things considered not a rosy picture. The moral of the story is that crews are like football players: they sacrifice their bodies for a few prime years: therefore it follows they should be paid a high rate during those prime years.

The above post here, is all just my opinion only.

pac

carbis22
27th Aug 2008, 12:22
Symptoms of TCP exposure;

*SYMPTOMS:
Symptoms of exposure to this compound include irritation of the skin and
eyes, flaccid paralysis without anesthesia, motor activity changes and muscle
weakness [043]. It may cause respiratory tract and mucous membrane irritation
[051]. It may also cause serious damage of the nervous and digestive systems
and muscular pain [036]. Other symptoms include gastrointestinal upset, dis-
comfort in distal portions of the arms and legs, soreness, aching, numbness,
headache, vertigo, loss of appetite, parethesias and decrease of strength in
the arms and legs [099]. It may cause vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain
[051,346]. It may also cause weakness of the distal muscles progressing to
foot drop, wrist drop, loss of plantar reflex and death from respiratory para-
lysis [301]. Exposure may also lead to tingling sensations of the hands and
feet and cramps. Cholinesterase inhibition has occured in animals [058].



*INHALATION:
IMMEDIATELY leave the contaminated area; take deep breaths of fresh air.
IMMEDIATELY call a physician and be prepared to transport the victim to a
hospital even if no symptoms (such as wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath,
or burning in the mouth, throat, or chest) develop.
Provide proper respiratory protection to rescuers entering an unknown
atmosphere. Whenever possible, Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)
should be used; if not available, use a level of protection greater than or
equal to that advised under Respirator Recommendation.

tykepilot
27th Aug 2008, 16:49
"Of the 62 published deaths of retired cabin crew in my airline over the last 2 years the average age for a man was 67.7 and for a female 56.9 against a UK national average of 75.9 and 80.6

That sounds to me like we are breathing in a lot more than unpleasant smells"

surreysue and carbis22

You have my profound sympathy, I have no personal experience of cabin fumes, but what you say may well be correct.

However, the above statistics prove nothing, and as a previous poster has indicated, the attempt to draw a conclusion from them is flawed.

Please do not read my post as personal abuse, I do not doubt your stories, and once again my sympathies, I hope things improve for you.

tyke

carbis22
27th Aug 2008, 22:23
TYKE,

Thankyou for the kind words of support, much appreciated!
I may have proved unpopular on another thread, and must admit my knowledge is very ltd to depresses, however will never hold in with anyone being bullied whatsoever..

I can assure everyone that sympathy is not being searched for on this issue, and what I feel more comfortable discussing due to knowledge and scientific data aquired.

I really do not give a damm what critics write or think, I and many others have lost to much already, have witnessed and experienced first hand how serious the effects can be, its not pretty.

If anyone can benefit from the info posted, then thats a good thing, to those that dont like it, dont read it...
you know from the title what its all about.

As for TCP there are 10 isomers and the di-otho and mono-ortho compounds are found in much higher ppms and are more neurotoxic, the australian senate did a full investigation into this matter and posted the results, aswell as posting seven figure sums paid out in backhanders, as quoted in HOL and questions asked by Lord Tyler.

For those documents watch www.welcomeaboardtoxicairlines.com (http://www.welcomeaboardtoxicairlines.com)

These facts have already been documented and published.

carbis22
27th Aug 2008, 22:34
FYI
http://ashsd.afacwa.org/?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=1396 (http://ashsd.afacwa.org/?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=1396)



very recently finalized medical protocol that was funded by the FAA and will help doctors to see this as a legitimate health issue for exposed pax and crew AND the info on how to get a blood sample to Clem Furlong.

For those that need help...

surreysue
28th Aug 2008, 11:44
People are fond of using the word "flawed" on here. Have you got any information to share with us Tyke that isn't flawed? Or indeed any information at all other than " I have no experience of cabin fumes"?

carbis22
28th Aug 2008, 18:21
surreysue,

Dont worry, people will catch up sooner or later, am a strong believer in everyone having and being able to voice their opinions, otherwise whats the point of these forums, sometimes certain reactions are a little unjust, but to be expected. we are all human and probably most industry workers volatile..... although they dont realise it.

I do not expect anyone whom has not experienced this first hand to be able to get their heads around it.
Its the ones that have been affected and having connected a with b that may find this helpful, if so great and good job done imo.

There is plenty of help out there and scientific tests available, they have even gone passed that point now and are developing a simple saliva test and MOST importantly a treatment, which future victims will benefit from!

eal401
28th Aug 2008, 21:40
Fact of the matter is lots of people got on that plane healthy and got of sick??
How many stayed sick? How many were just unwell because of a smell in the air? I can feel ill if I experience an unpleasant smell, but there is no lasting damage.

I still do not see any proven link between alleged contaminated air and illness in passengers.

I don't deny that incidents do occur with smells of oil entering the cabin and have caused a number of incidents, yet the evidence of long term impact is lacking.

Dream Buster
28th Aug 2008, 23:13
eal401,

If you don't look - it is lacking.

If you haven't / don't suffer - it is lacking.

I don't get common colds, but I know they exist.

There is so much proof - just let us know what might convince you and we can supply it!

A film 'Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines' has it all, but we can't make you watch it.

Try the trailer; just think along the lines of the evidence being extremely inconvenient for the aviation industry?

DB :ok:

www.welcomeaboardtoxicailrlines.com (http://www.welcomeaboardtoxicairlines.com)

BeechNut
29th Aug 2008, 03:38
OK, I can't help but chime in here as a scientist and chemist (at least until I changed careers and moved into IT). For many years I was responsible for workplace hazardous materials safety where I worked. I also have hundreds of hours flying as SLF on business all over the world, in addition to flying my own bird, and the only discomfort I have ever had was a good dose of Montezuma's Revenge in South America.

First of all, one has to establish a causal link. This has not been done in this case, with all due respect to the sufferers: just because certain "toxins" are found in the blood, and there was a flight with a fume, does not conclusively prove that those toxins are a result of that single incident; the truth is that all of us carry nasties in our bodies at low concentration. It's just a fact of life in an industrialized world, and oddly, in spite of it, our life expectancy keeps rising. Moreover, at low levels, these types of problems are stochastic in nature, in that only a small, perhaps hypersensitive percentage of people are affected: sort of like low-level radiation, below a threshold value, a percentage but not all the population will get sick, and above that value, everyone gets sick in direct proportion to the dose.

A good place to start getting info is the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet):

TCP MSDS (http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/t5161.htm)

I would like to allow myself an observation, though, as a chemist who supervized hazmat usage in an industrial setting. This will likely offend some folks. Yes, some things are truly irritating. Some things are dangerously toxic (hydrogen sulfide for example, is particularly nasty: it is really smelly but at higher and lethal concentrations it anesthetizes the nose... by then it's too late; lead, mercury and chromium exposure is very dangerous; asbestos is directly linked to asbestosis and lung cancer, etc).

But the vast majority of materials are at somewhat lower levels of toxicity. My own (admittedly anecdotal) observations are that laypeople develop a sort of anxiety reaction to certain chemical odours and fumes. For example, I as a chemist might walk into a room that is filled with, say, isopropyl alcohol fumes at safe levels. Smells strong, but I will instantly recognize the smell, and at that point though I may wrinkle my nose, but realize that there is no serious danger, even if I get a mild headache.

But put a group of laypeople in a room and release IPA fumes (at a safe but noticeable level), without warning, and a number of them will become physically ill, I suspect mainly from fear and anxiety of not knowing what the "toxic" fume is. An analogy would be a first-time passenger: on approach, he/she hears the thump of the landing gear going down and is startled, and scared, by this unusual noise and may become anxious; the experienced passenger knows it's just the landing gear, and does not have any anxiety.

It is clearly a highly controversial topic in science and medicine:

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome (http://www.aafp.org/afp/980901ap/magill.html)

MCS (http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec22/ch334/ch334c.html)

Symptomatology attributable to psychological exposure to a chemical incident (http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/61/6/506)

Some scientists believe that it those suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome are really hypersensitive to or reacting to unpleasant scents. Others believe that some have metabolisms that are not able to process the toxins as efficiently as others. But the point is that in both camps, it remains a "belief", and it is not yet proven. One thing that is clear though is that the mechanism of MCS is not antigen-based like in a normal allergy. For example in an allergy to nuts, antigens attack the allergen and thus provoke the allergic reaction which is a demonstrable physiological response. Chemical exposure does not result in a classical allergic reaction.

I admit I am skeptical, and I believe a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary for good science.

Sorry if this sounds harsh to those who suffer from MCS, and I have no doubt that it is a real form of suffering, but clearly the link to the alleged toxin is very difficult to prove.

Dream Buster
29th Aug 2008, 07:50
Beechnut,

I am an ex pilot, skeptical and logical. I sufffered from 'awful neurological symptoms' from 1989 - mid 2005 when I stopped flying, as my body and mind finally said stop!

I knew nothing about oil fumes until mid 2006.

I then compared my health to the data sheet for OP's and it was an exact match. Finding OP's in my fat 12 months after flying was enough proof for me. I am VERY skeptical and some things you just 'know'.

To be honest, it really doesn't trouble me if nobody else believes me as my health has now miraculously gone back to (more or less) how it was in 1989.

I do get bothered when I see other innocent people in the same state though and just happen to believe that young children especially, deserve the benefit of any doubt?

We all know the fixes and I guess if you came back in 15 years time many of them will be in place but this continual inability to work out that toxic chemicals in air are only 'irritants' is very irritating to those of us who know.

How do you prove anything? I am not religious but I know many people who believe some extraordinary things! I accept their beliefs but I don't think they can prove anything?

Can we accept that alcohol can be harmful, can be measured and that there are certain laws which protect society from its effects? Yes / No?

I felt inotoxicated from 1989 - 2006 but didn't know why. I rarely drank. Something was wrong, I know what. I don't tell lies either, why would I?

If you would kindly let us know what level of proof you need or how to 'prove it' we would be delighted to help you understand a problem that affects around 30% of people.

You must be in the 70% bracket, well done! But your wife, partner may have genes which predisposes them to aerotoxic poisoning.

The scientists are on to it and will prove it one day soon - but will the likes of you be converted? Possibly not, it really doesn't matter as there will always be a few doubters, that's healthy too.

Try and think of others and the effect of losing your health, job and credibility all at once.

Would anybody do that intentionally? Why?

DB. :confused:

dbee
29th Aug 2008, 08:07
You recirculate air in your home (1-4 air changes per hour), your car (4-5 air changes per hour) so please do not complain when a pressurised aircraft - even with recirculation- gives passengers 100+ air changes an hour. As a former Boeing 737 captain, the only time that an air conditioning pack is turned off in flight is if it is faulty. I am a suffer too, from long-term low level exposure; I have seen neurological reports which show that 'Executive function' is 18% . That is ONE reason why I am a former captain. dbee

Dream Buster
29th Aug 2008, 09:52
http://www.hazards.org/workandhealth/spincycle.htm (http://http://www.hazards.org/workandhealth/spincycle.htm)

'Doubt is their product' by Prof David Michaels sums it up rather well.

Summary copied below, as the link seems a bit dodgy.

DB :mad:

"Spin cycle

It happens almost every time. When a study is published linking a workplace chemical to serious disease, a scientist working for the industry disputes the findings. David Michaels, author of 'Doubt is their product', exposes industry’s dangerous tactics to protect its toxic favourites.

This strategy of “manufacturing scientific uncertainty” comes directly from the tobacco industry’s playbook. In fact, many of the same scientists who manufactured doubt for the cigarette companies are now performing that same task for a wide range of other industries.

How did we get here? In the 1950s, when scientists first showed that smokers had hugely increased risk of lung cancer, the cigarette companies ran a sophisticated public relations campaign to raise doubts about the increasingly definitive scientific evidence. The companies realised that if you could argue about the science, then you could avoid having to address solutions: how to help people stop smoking. But even when that didn’t work, Big Tobacco could always fall back on the argument that smoking was a choice – whatever the risk, smokers made the choice themselves, and that it was their right to do so.

That all changed in the 1980s and 1990s, when studies began to demonstrate that cigarette smoke killed not just smokers but their non-smoking spouses and workers employed in smoke-filled environments. Big Tobacco spent millions of dollars employing more and smarter scientists to argue that these studies were flawed.

The result was the creation of an industry of scientific consultants who specialise in “product defence,” and the recognition by corporate spin experts that manufacturing doubt works – do it well and you can stop government regulators, or at least slow them down for years.

In 1969 an executive at Brown & Williamson, a cigarette maker now owned by RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, unwisely committed to paper the perfect slogan for his industry’s disinformation campaign: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.” Big Tobacco has lost all respect and credibility, but the practices it perfected have proliferated. A growing trend that disingenuously demands proof over precaution in the realm of public health.


Product defence


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable. Whatever the story — workplace chemicals that cause cancer, diesel exhaust, global warming, sugar and obesity, secondhand smoke, plastics chemicals that may disrupt endocrine function — scientists in the “product defence industry” will manufacture uncertainty about it.

The “debate” over global warming is perhaps the most pernicious outgrowth of tobacco’s strategy. We can expect to see the scientists who last year claimed uncertainty about humans’ role in climate change now asserting that there is so much uncertainty about the public health impacts, or the technology required to reduce carbon emissions that we must undertake more research before setting new policy. I call it Denying Climate Change 2.0.

While much of the media has learned to be sceptical about manufactured uncertainty in the climate debate, less public attention is trained on the pervasive use of doubt-for-hire in other industries whose products threaten the health of workers and consumers.

In Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health I dissect industry’s campaigns to manufacture doubt about a series of important workplace hazards, including asbestos, benzene lead, aromatic amines (dyes and rubber chemicals that cause bladder cancer), beryllium, chromium 6, diacetyl (the artificial butter flavor component that has killed or damaged the lungs of dozens of workers – Hazards 101) and ergonomic hazards. I focus largely on the US, because this country dominates the worldwide standard-setting process. When our regulators allow manufactured uncertainty to weaken or delay protections, workers across the world suffer the repercussions.


Standard response


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I have had the opportunity to witness at close range the process of manufacturing scientific doubt. In the Clinton administration, I served as US Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health in the Department of Energy (DOE), the chief safety officer for the nation’s nuclear weapons facilities. I ran the process through which we issued a strong new rule to reduce exposure to beryllium, a metal vital in nuclear weapons and now used in consumer products like golf clubs.

Beryllium causes lung disease at extremely low exposure levels, and it causes lung cancer. After leaving the government, I was able to obtain a collection of secret documents which showed that the beryllium industry has run a 30 year campaign industry attacking any study that questioned the old, out-of-date OSHA standard.

Chromium 6 is another industrial chemical featured in Doubt is Their Product. For more than five decades, we have known chromium 6 is a powerful lung carcinogen. But in the US, it has never been regulated as cancer-causing. Secret minutes of the Chrome Coalition [1], the chromium employers’ trade association, reveal that when the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was finally considering a new workplace exposure standard, the chromium industry brought in some of the nation’s top product defense scientists, to design a sophisticated counter attack. The chromium manufacturers also sponsored an important study which showed that chromium 6 caused lung cancer at levels far below the OSHA standard in effect at the time [2], but those results were never revealed until I discovered them.




Deadly tactic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


These examples are not exceptional. I report on corporate efforts to manufacture uncertainty about asbestos, lead, vinyl chloride, diacetyl, and a host of other chemicals.

Doubt is their product is filled with never before published documents, like the never-published letter from the medical director of DuPont stating that 100 per cent of the men who made beta-naphthylamine (BNA) at one factory developed bladder cancer [3]. DuPont also produced other bladder carcinogens in that same factory; at least 450 workers at the plant developed work-related bladder cancer [4].

One of the chemicals closely related to BNA made at that plant was ortho-toluidine (OT). Through a series of DuPont letters, reports and papers, the book demonstrates that DuPont managers witnessed this development and growth of this tragic epidemic, yet refused to acknowledge that OT could also cause bladder cancer, shipping the chemical out without proper warnings. As a result, dozens of workers exposed to OT in a plant in Niagara Falls New York, USA, have developed bladder cancer.

For many years, DuPont and other manufacturers have disputed the link between OT and human bladder cancer. Earlier this year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluated OT and reached the same conclusion I did, too late for the Niagara Falls workers: OT is a human bladder carcinogen.

In researching this book, I uncovered a many documents like the DuPont bladder cancer ones. Some of these documents are shocking. To ensure they can be used by activists, public health practitioners and regulators, I have posted every reference in the book, with links to all of the “smoking guns,” at DefendingScience.org.

Doubt is their product powerfully demonstrates that conflicted science is not good science. If a scientist is paid by a polluter or a manufacturer of dangerous products, her or his judgment is inevitably clouded by that financial relationship; this is true even for scientists who have great integrity and who try to be honest. As a result, we cannot rely on the judgment of these scientists when considering how to best protect workers from toxic exposures. Activists, unions and scientists need to demand that our government agencies rely on independent studies conducted by independent scientists, not ones bought and paid for by the producers of the hazards.

The mission of health and safety activists, as well as public health and environmental agencies, is to reduce hazards before people get sick or the environment is irreparably damaged. We don’t need certainty to act. It is time to return to first principles: use the best science available, but do not demand certainty where it does not exist."

carbis22
29th Aug 2008, 11:39
OK, Mr Beechnut,

1 flight over 60 pax maybe more? fall ill during flight and still sick nearly two years on??
Majority of pax strong, well, healthy children with no pre flight medical history?? and no one being diagnosed pre flight with MCS.

I myself did not notice anything untoward on our flight, other than it being completley different to other flights taken ( air quality wise) as was probably to busy in the lavatory with gastro intestinal symptoms, strange reaction to non consumption of food??

My very young daughter however 30 seconds before she turned blue around the mouth and pure white in the face then violently vomitted, did complain of an odour.
Given that CO and TCP are odourless, smell has no meaning to me, only symptoms, health affects and diagnoses by specialist doctors, the fact that all those people together at approx 33,000 ft developed the same symptoms at around the same time is not a coincidence is it!
Its not like you can open the window ,or step outside for a breath of fresh air is it now??
And comments regarding people being anxious due to fumes??

The first time I was aware of a toxic insult being responsible for our symptoms, was my GP stating my lungs were not normal and referring us on to appropriate specialists who did diagnose chemical exposure from the flight ect,
Unless your suggesting that its in the specialits consultants heads?? and they are sensitive to fumes??

TCP data posted above.
NTP CHEMICAL REPOSITORY (RADIAN CORPORATION, AUGUST 29, 1991)
TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE

With regard to the alledged low levels, that to has been covered above, low levels in a NON AIRCRAFT SITUATION. not counting the level of mono-ortho and di-ortho isomers which were reported in the australian senate hearing at much higher concentrations and in higher toxicity.

QUOTE;

What is less well known is that there are other ortho containing isomers in TCP. Three mono-ortho ( MOCP)
isomers and two di-ortho (DOCP) isomers. These are not specified in mandated lists of hazardous chemicals, and may be the reason they are not disclosed on labels and MSDS.
All these compounds are neurotoxic in the same way as TOCP however they are known to be more neurotoxic, for instance the DOCP's are five times more toxic, and MOCP's 10 times more toxic than TOCP.

It was revealed in the Australian Senate Aviation Inquiry that DOCP's in TCP at a concentration of 6ppm and MOCP's where present at a concentration of 3070ppm.

I noticed that in your heavy metal exposure listings you also missed out Nickel and Beryllium?

Another quote from the above author;;

Another potential expsore to the cabin is exposure to engine components, such as seals or bearings,
that have worn down or have broken into respirable particulates containing toxic elements such as nickel, copper and beryllium entering the bleed air system. These substances are also carcinogenic particuarly to the lungs and nasal passage.

www.susanmichaelis.com (http://www.susanmichaelis.com/) for the Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual for further information.

carbis22
29th Aug 2008, 11:46
The absence of "acceptable" proof is not the proof of absence .

BeechNut
29th Aug 2008, 14:23
Carbis, while that is true, that does not mean that there is proof either. It means the jury is still out and the science isn't clear yet.

Keep in mind that I was our regulatory officer in a heavy industry, where exposure to fumes, dust, etc, was many, many times greater than in an aircraft. I have some awful horror stories: guys working with formaldehyde, for example, that were too proud to wear protective gear and a weak company too afraid to sack them. Seen it all: gas leaks, chemical spills (formaldehyde), oil spills, fires, and people just doing daily work in fumes that were enough to knock me off my feet.

I have no doubt your symptoms are very real, I just question the cause. A single exposure of oil fumes would not, IMHO, be other than a short-term issue.

Dream Buster has more the symptoms of *repeated* exposure to a toxin. That I am less skeptical about. However there are other things at play in air crew, such as screwed up circadian rhythms due to time zone changes, working weird hours, etc.

I am not saying I am right, just skeptical, that's all.

carbis22
29th Aug 2008, 15:12
Hi Beechnut,

I understand you seem to be quiet qualified to pass comment on this issue, although I have not logged all my symptoms, just some initial symptoms, not what is left.
I would need alot of pages to list a daily diary for all, and again you are not skeptical of me, you are skeptical of mine and other's specialist consultants.
Just for the record I too was diagnosed with nervous system damage, and neurological damage along with my husband and children.

I did not wish to go into to much med data due to people posting comments such as '' this is not a sympathy forum''.

What type of doctor are you?

BeechNut
29th Aug 2008, 15:35
I'm not a doctor, I am a chemist with experience in hazardous materials management, employee training, etc. My degree is in chemistry, not medicine, and I worked for 22 years in heavy industry. for 14 of those 22 years, I was our hazmat regulatory officer for chemicals, radioactive materials and environmental compliance. In addition to assessing and managing risks, I ensured that employees were well trained themselves to manage the risks in their daily tasks. I worked closely with the company physician and nurse in this job.

My anecdotal experience with laypeople and fumes is that when they don't know the nature of the fumes, their anxiety is significantly higher. Those who worked with the chemicals, and had been exposed to the MSDS and trained how to manage the risk, were nowhere near as bothered. I do however still think some employees took excessive risks especially with formaldehyde, which is a nasty, and a suspected carcinogen. Men in particular seemed reluctant to wear the protective gear. Not macho to do so, I guess.

I left heavy industry 4 years ago (pulp and paper & textiles) as it is in a downhill spiral here in Canada. Moved to IT. Fewer risks and doesn't smell as bad, and my office is now in my home where I can better manage the risks; I was almost overcome by fresh coffee fumes this morning and I had to consume all the evidence to survive! :)

carbis22
29th Aug 2008, 16:06
Is'nt formelahyde in kitchen cleaner ( mr muscle)?

I hope you feel better from your exposure's, truly!

also COPIND may be seen in exposed individuals either following SINGLE
or short term exposures, or long term low level repeat exposures which often have no apparent signs of exposure.

So long term low level exposure, no initial symptoms more to dreambuster's style.

Single exposure, can leave you with long term ill health effects and the muscinaric affects may be seen either way.

It is my hope and I prey that the symptoms will one day subside.
Enjoy canada, a very nice place to live!

Dream Buster
29th Aug 2008, 16:20
Beechnut,

This quote is from June 2008 "Airways", a US magazine and written by a former BAe 146 pilot about the aircraft.

The pneumatics worked fine, it was the air conditoning 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 12 o'clock and forget about them."

Well, if you did that you would fill the cabin with acrid smoke and not only burned your eyes, but smelled downright carcinogenic. Passengers would take on whiff and refuse to board. Weepy, red - eyed sniffling flight attendants could not persuade them that all was well.

Beechnut, whilst the authories would like you to believe that the air on board is 'better than at home......' Perhaps it is time to listen to the people who actually flew the aircraft day after day, who tell a very different, slightly inconvenient version?

Can you honestly say that such repeated exposures don't do some people serious harm?

By the way, this experiment can still be staged on the ground for any doubters who are willing to try it.....Any volunteers????


DB :E

PS. I always flew shorthaul, so no time zones to complicate matters plus i didn't know about the fumes until a year after I stopped flying. Nobody told me about the hazards of oil fumes and my brain was so spaced out, I wouldn't have understood it anyway...

QED.

BeechNut
29th Aug 2008, 16:58
Note that I did say I would be more concerned about *repeated* exposure, than a single exposure as SLF.

Sounds like the A/C system on the 146 was a nightmare. Flew many times on the 146 as SLF, can't say I remember much though, it's been a long time.

Was the source of the smoke ever isolated?

Dream Buster
29th Aug 2008, 17:14
Beechnut,

The source of the smoke was the APU bleed air, it was contaminated by oil which had presumably pooled and cooled overnight and then was burnt off in the morning. Regular strong exposures; "It does what it says on the tin" if you read the ill health effects on the MDS sheet, it's all there.

I don't know how else to explain it. Just think drugs and their effects.

Aircrew contamination is obviously totally invlountary....

Just to confirm that I do not put tricresyl phosphate on my corn flakes and finding it my fat convinced me that it had been partly responsible for my ill health.

Who cares apart from me? Nobody.

Try the fumes Beechnut! they reckon they cause 'irritation' - i'm still sorely irritated at how those in control manipulate facts - 3 years later.

Rant over.

DB :uhoh:

BeechNut
29th Aug 2008, 17:27
It IS possible to measure concentrations, and establish if the TLV or PEL are exceeded. TCP is not the issue but the TOCP isomer is, assuming TCP is the culprit in your case. If the TLV or PEL are exceeded, then remedial action is called for.

Dream Buster
29th Aug 2008, 17:41
BeechNut,

I couldn't agree more; it isn't difficult is it?

But the 'experts' charged with urgently finding the chemicals in the fumes can't seem to find any chemicals and are busy at 35,000' measuring the relatively clear air and finding.........air?

They must know by now what is in these fumes and the concentrations - maybe it's bad news and they don't want people to know?

Any thoughts? We are quite patient but when innocent children are suffering it is not so good.

DB :eek:

BeechNut
29th Aug 2008, 18:00
Well, as dumb as it may sound, there is this option for TCP:

"Personal Respirators (NIOSH Approved):
If the exposure limit is exceeded and engineering controls are not feasible, a half facepiece particulate respirator (NIOSH type N95 or better filters) may be worn for up to ten times the exposure limit or the maximum use concentration specified by the appropriate regulatory agency or respirator supplier, whichever is lowest.. A full-face piece particulate respirator (NIOSH type N100 filters) may be worn up to 50 times the exposure limit, or the maximum use concentration specified by the appropriate regulatory agency, or respirator supplier, whichever is lowest. If oil particles (e.g. lubricants, cutting fluids, glycerine, etc.) are present, use a NIOSH type R or P filter. For emergencies or instances where the exposure levels are not known, use a full-facepiece positive-pressure, air-supplied respirator. WARNING: Air-purifying respirators do not protect workers in oxygen-deficient atmospheres."

Would not be very practical on an aircraft though... especially for the pax; the crew could use them at start-up when the problem is present, but can you imagine the look on the faces of the SLF as they SL? On the other hand mgmt would be embarassed. These respirators aren't that expensive.

Get the union to back you up, put on the respirators as you fire up the APU (flight and cabin crew); the bad PR would no doubt prompt mgmt to take action. Quickly.

Funny you should mention the 146; I do remember my last flight on one, a lady got up in the back of the plane as we disembarked and yelled at the top of her lungs "what a sh!tty little airplane!"...

Well, the seat pitch WAS awful... DVT for sure on a long flight at that pitch...

carbis22
29th Aug 2008, 18:25
Beechnut,

I have pointed out the TCP, TOCP, MOCP,DOCP insomers and the quantities, now there could be an aircraft situation that the dosage/ quantity in a single exposure that would be higher than another low level repeated exposure have the same effects, or worse.

I to was a frequent traveller, and have been on many many flights like yourself, and am thankfull i do not work within this industry as have spoken with workers, that have cancer, brain tumors, lymphoma's and more... These did not occur untill some years after their noted exposures however, so you can understand the concern here, when my children and other peoples children whom innocently flew off to snow, sand, sea or mickey mouse for a good time got this instead.

Also their initial symptoms parallel ours?? so what is to be, remains to be seen with the future of all children aboard.
Its bad enough with the damage that has already occurred and daily health affects left?

The difference between adults choosing to work in their chosen careers, whether knowingly or unknowingly aware of the risks, is completley different to innocent children being placed into an environment by their unsuspecting parents that this hazard is indeed a hazard, due to corporate and industry cover up!!

surreysue
29th Aug 2008, 18:35
Well done Dream Buster for that brilliant post earlier about "doubt" - must buy that book :ok:

Thought you might be interested in the following extract from an e mail from the Head of Civil Aviation division Westminster:

On the question of filters, the designers / manufacturers would need to know precisely which substances had to be filtered out. The Government has research under way to find out what substances, in what concentrations, are present in cabin air normally and during fume events. The Government believes it is logical to do this work first. It is possible that, as a result of our research, aviation regulators around the world will require a particular design of filter but we cannot know that yet.

BeechNut
29th Aug 2008, 18:47
I think it's been postulated that many of the cancers that are alleged to be related to aircrew risks, are related more to cosmic radiation. However, again, cancer risks are stochastic, that is, statistical. Exposure to a carcinogen is not a guarantee that everyone will get cancer. It means that for a certain level of exposure, a statistically significant rate of exposed persons will develop a cancer from the exposure. Most exposure levels are based on two things, for high level exposures an absolute toxicity (e.g., breathing more than x ppm of gas y is fatal, etc.), and a time-weighted average concentration limit for low-level exposure (usually predicated on 8 hours exposure).

Short-term, low-level, non-repeated exposure is rarely an issue, IMHO.

carbis22
29th Aug 2008, 19:26
ok dont have to justify myself any more,

fact a bunch of aircrew sick with symptoms, but no reported nerve/ lung damage.

Fact a bunch of pax with lung damage/ neurological/ nervous system damage and more?

Fact another bunch of crew with the same damage??

You are not experienced to decifer bewteen the groups, but all will become apparent real soon.

It seems we now have been moved, when the going gets tough the tough are gone....................

GOOD LUCK TO ALL!

BeechNut
29th Aug 2008, 22:37
One thing that occurred to me from Dream Buster's post: you may be looking in the wrong place with TCP.

If the fumes are indeed caused by oil pooling, and being burned off in the morning at start-up, the issue will not be only the TCP, but the products of combustion of TCP. Moreover in that particular circumstance there will be incomplete combustion most likely. You will want to look at products of combustion. The MSDS says that phosphorous oxides may form. Beyond that like any hydrocarbon based combustion, there will be products of combustion and pyrolysis, along the lines of what you'd find with burning Jet A or diesel fuel: basically, soot.

There may be traces of TCP and its isomers left behind, but in very small concentrations. Complete combustion would normally give carbon dioxide and water. Incomplete combustion will yield carbon monoxide, particulates, nitrogen oxides, and a whole interesting array of polycyclic hydrocarbons, broken hydrocarbon chains, etc. Essentially what you'd find in soot and exhaust fumes.

To be honest in a jetliner with poor air recirculation, and knowing where some pax may come from, I tend to be more anxious about weird germs. I have a theory that every living bacterium and virus known and unknown to mankind has passed through Heathrow Airport...

Dream Buster
30th Aug 2008, 07:54
Beechnut,

Obviously there is a cocktail of various chemicals in the fumes but one look at TCP and its effects when in visible oil fumes should start to ring the alarm bells, where no 'safe' exposure level is published.

Having been trying to identify the chemicals for many months now; they can't seem to identify a single chemical plus they are in no hurry (obviously).

It is NOT safe, DON'T breathe ANY!

One often hears from Doctors, scientists that if evidence proves otherwise - they may change their minds one day....

The victims never say this. They know exactly what caused their illnesses.

It's called sitting on the fence or delaying admission. Many doctors should re read the hippocratic oath.

Beechnut, for all I know you may be one of those people who think the earth is flat. Well, I respect any views you have and we can never expect to convert everybody but surely a precautionary approach of 1) Fitting bleed air filters 2) Taking OP's out of the oil (generally banned in agriculture) 3) Promote B 787 'bleed air free' technology is better than endless testing and dithering.

What would you do if you got on an aircraft fit and well and got off seriously sick for over 18 months?

Going back to the original point of this post, it was to see if there is anybody out there with specific information to report.

Ask the question and provide evidence? For everybody's sake, including yours Beechnut. Take care!

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


DB :ok:

carbis22
30th Aug 2008, 08:41
Fantastic post dreambuster,

That was the original point of the post, www.toxicfreeairlines.com (http://www.toxicfreeairlines.com)

people need to log their events and symptoms, inorder to help make the simple changes needed for safe air whilst flying, for all people.

And if they inturn need help? www.aerotoxic.org (http://www.aerotoxic.org) I came across this site and the support is there for those that need it!!
It houses a great deal of information and guidance.

Dont bury your heads in the sand,'' it will never happen to me'' attitude!
It could anyday, dont be a statistic, demand clean air , you all work and travel in it, its your right! do it for yourselve's and your family's, maybe your future children!!:ugh:

surreysue
31st Aug 2008, 22:17
If we're wrong about contaminated air causing ill health then the worst that can happen is airlines will waste a bit of money fitting filters.

But if we're RIGHT then people will stop getting ill and dying.

Surely that is a case for "prevention over certainty"???

Dream Buster
1st Sep 2008, 07:43
Surreysue,

OP poisoning doesn't seem to kill you, it only half kills you.

Hence the "It's OK balanced commercial decision" of the authorities perception of it's effects.

If only the authorities understood the true hidden costs and then gave people a simple choice...

DB :ouch:

carbis22
1st Sep 2008, 09:05
We are on our travels again......

at least this trip will not half kill me!!:D

carbis22
1st Sep 2008, 09:53
DB,

As we are now in a section that encourages us to attack the brits, americans and the french....

Was you aware that the French are ahead of the game in this particular issue.

Nico manufacture's jet engine oil that does NOT contain TCP?? why are us brits and the americans so far far behind on this topic?
When Nico became aware of the dangers of TCO some 30 years ago, they immediatley removed the TCP.:ugh:

Our Gov have just sat there for years hmming and arrring or just flat plain denial!

AMEandPPL
1st Sep 2008, 15:41
a section that encourages us to attack the brits, americans and the french....

Funny, that's NOT actually what it says at the top of the page on MY screen.
OK, just came here for a look-see. Back to M&H now.

carbis22
1st Sep 2008, 20:43
Posted thread on rumours and news, was liked by some and not by others,
stated medical data is backed up,
we are moved to medical and health which in my imho is probably the most appropriate place as is a real medical and health issue.
we go on a further trip to the bottom of the page, ok fine ??

Am banned for standing up for a bullied pax, on ryan air thread??
now banned for printing actual sentances from one of my med reports in med and health forum??

This is a serious health issue, it is seriously debated and should be!
Is truth not acceptable in forums?
surely it must be better than all these so called pro's swearing and calling a well known pax all sort's of names........

AMEandPPL
1st Sep 2008, 23:33
Have just been told that Carbis22 has been banned from M&H. I may not agree with all her views, or how she puts them over, but I defend her right to do so. Her topic is about medical matters, and about aviation.
Significant posts by herself and myself have just been summarily deleted.
Let's start a move to get the M&H moderators removed / replaced !

Bad medicine
2nd Sep 2008, 00:11
Nope, wrong again AMEandPPL, Carbis22 has not been banned from M&H. Carbis22 has been banned only from the threads that were being inappropriately posted in. If the thread had continued debating important health information, and not attemting to spread the agenda to multiple other threads, it would have stayed and all would be happy.

AMEandPPL
2nd Sep 2008, 00:21
Carbis22 has not been banned from M&H

Oh ! Well, that's OK then, isn't it ?

ZZZzzzzzzzzz . . . . . . . . . . . . .

con-pilot
2nd Sep 2008, 00:40
Should this not be on 'Chemtrails'? :ugh:

AMEandCPL
2nd Sep 2008, 00:40
AMEandPPL,

Are you really an AME???? It seems your attention to detail only applies if it gets you your own way. When you are called on it by anyone, you throw a tantrum, or simply ignore any facts that don't fit with your hypothesis. Not very scientific at all.

Cheers,

ZEEBEE
2nd Sep 2008, 05:08
What would you do if you got on an aircraft fit and well and got off seriously sick for over 18 months?

Sorry to those of you who are not well, but the reality is that the quote simply happens SO RARELY that it doesn't show up on the causality radar, and even when it does, it is not necessarily the obvious.

There are far more probabilities to to your plight than a convenient scapegoat that does NOT affect the large majority of the flying population.

If you are one of the very very few who can't travel, then please stay at home and smell the flowers, but be careful, because there are some real toxins there too.

Dream Buster
2nd Sep 2008, 07:57
Zeebee,

Sorry to those of you who are not well, but the reality is that the quote simply happens SO RARELY that it doesn't show up on the causality radar, and even when it does, it is not necessarily the obvious.

The real situation is that many aircrew and passengers get sick but due to the intense cover up, lack of information, denial and 'You are the only one who got sick' type of replies from the airlines.

How do people know that they are the only one? The airline is never going to broadcast an appeal for fellow sufferers. Well, I wouldn't, if I were them.

Ask the question and around 30% of people should potentially chirp up after they have been in a full blown fume event and confess to serious ill health.

I guess you have to have had it, to understand the awful reality.

Give this register a chance; you never know what's going on out there - whilst a genuine health scandal is given so little importance?

DB :oh:

AMEandPPL
2nd Sep 2008, 09:13
Are you really an AME?

Yes

Not very scientific at all

Thanks, just trying my best

carbis22
2nd Sep 2008, 12:27
AMEandPPL,

Thankyou for your support, sorry about spelling and grammer, I do struggle with this now!
And how I place views, you have now experienced yourself how one is treated when showing support in this area??
After a while you do become quite defensive, not only are you stripped of health/ finance's ect, you then have to enter the biggest battle of ones life when you are at your weakest, to recieve not only justice, but trying to help the unfortunate furture victims.

I do not in anyway shape or form believe I hijacked any thread, saw under ours in related threads on MandH ' persistent dry cough' had a look, someone could not work out why their lungs were affected during flying??
for 7-8 yrs?? I simply posted ' or something in the air'.
Surreysue stated her lung conditions as a result of flying, I replied as you saw, quoting words from a lung specialist and his report on my health, which were strikingly similar symptoms as surreysue's.
As the thread was about coughs/lungs I only commented on that part of my body, not other areas that were also damaged.

Bad Medicine feels this was innapropriate, i disagree, but its their forum so thats that!
I never quoted toxic air on the ryan air thread, and have learnt alot from that, however i and other's were sworn at and not so nice comments made, which seems to be more acceptable than someone simply posting their med data in a medical/health section, relating to their lungs under a thread started with the title '' persistent dry cough'' most bizzare!!

Bad Medicine, it also seems that my post count is faulty, i was up in the late fifties now seem to be stuck on 21 everywhere, would someone mind checking this at all?

Zeebee,

This thread was started for www.toxicfreeairlines.com (http://www.toxicfreeairlines.com)
Inorder that pilots/crews/pax can post their flight experiences, associated with ill health, and eventually a better picture will emerge on the statistics.
As for staying home and smelling the flowers?? Many other's and I were very nearly '' pushing up the daisie's '' let alone smelling them.
I have no intention of stepping on an airplane again, unless I can guarentee carrige on a 787, and then would still have doubts , over other health issues associated with flying that I have become aware of!
Thats another issue and another thread.....

I will state again for all my critic's, you are NOT doubting mwa! You are doubting medical professional's/scientist's that have diagnosed these conditions and posted their findings!
If their was no merrit in their findings the Australian/ US/UK gov's would be wasting an awful lot of tax payer's money on '' better late than never'' research.
Prevention is better than cure, stop wasting time and fit the filters.....:ugh:

ZEEBEE
2nd Sep 2008, 15:23
The real situation is that many aircrew and passengers get sick but due to the intense cover up, lack of information, denial and 'You are the only one who got sick' type of replies from the airlines.

Sorry, but I do move in the Aviation circles and don't know of ANYONE who has succumbed, so I have to question the 30% and since I have no axe to grind, there is no question of a cover up.

To be frank, I would even raise an eyebrow at 0.3% as that would constitute about 100 people that I know who fly regularly who would have to have SOME indication of effects.
But, nope, NOT ONE.

The symptoms that Carbis has described have been replicated in every scenario from anxiety attacks to allergy reactions and it's a long bow to claim that one airline flight was the cause of it all.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to renew my subscription to the skeptics society.

carbis22
2nd Sep 2008, 15:51
Zeebee,

I dont do anxiety or allergies,
If as soon as my med data posts, and symptoms were to be left in tact, instead of removed immediatley?? after i have posted them, you would not seem so ignorant or presumptious on my medical condition...

As for the rest, it would be yet again a very tall order for 60 or so pax to all be allergic/ mcs/ or anxiety to cause such conditions,
and out of all those families what answer do you think we all recieved??

NO OTHER REPORTS OF ILL HEALTH FROM YOUR FLIGHT??

In a situation where lots of people are in contact with each other, comparing letters and notes, we can safely say they are LYING!!!

Dream Buster
2nd Sep 2008, 16:35
Zeebee,

Have you seen Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines (www.welcomeaboardtoxicairlines.com (http://www.welcomeaboardtoxicairlines.com)) it's a recently made 90 minute documentary packed with people all saying the same thing (even opposition people) that bleed air, when it goes wrong, is NOT good for SOME people.

How many? Nobody knows yet, but the experts say 30% - you say 0.3% - where young kids are getting zapped any% is totally wrong and avoidable....

I am personally delighted that you and your mates do not suffer but please spare a thought for those of your customers with the genes that predisposes them to serious ill health after breathing heated oil fumes laced with neurotoxins.

I was thinking today of going into a book makers and putting a bet on 'Aerotoxic Syndrome being understood by 2010', like me you probably don't bet? But I strangely, would put a quite a lot on it generally coming out by 2010. If the odds were 10,000 : 1, I would definitely risk a grand. Maybe I know too much?

What odds would you give zeebee? I guess if you fly and don't suffer you would think your way; we do understand. It's OK.

Are there any pilot / bookmakers out there?


DB :E

surreysue
2nd Sep 2008, 18:25
I agree with you Dream Buster I think the tide is beginning to turn. I received a letter yesterday from the DfT which included the sentence,"the Dept for Transport has discussed filtration with a major filter manufacturer...". That is the 1st time I've heard anything other than denials from them which makes me wonder what they found in the 2 functionality test flights ( one of which had a fume event on it.)

surreysue
2nd Sep 2008, 18:35
ZEEBEE I don't know which airline you fly for but I'm very envious. I receive almost daily e mails from colleagues in my airline asking for advice about all the health problems they are suffering from. A lot of them have been suffering in silence, thinking it was "just them" until they came across the info I have posted at work. Are you absolutely sure no one has any symptoms - or have they just not told you about them?

carbis22
2nd Sep 2008, 21:41
or...

have they not identified the link??

Judging by the '' persistent dry cough'' thread, professionals experiencing lung/ cough symptoms for 7-8 yrs aggravated by flying, kinda paints a picture....

as with many other's with no explanation for their mystery illness/ symptoms.

Dream Buster
2nd Sep 2008, 22:03
Some 81% of pilots surveyed by union Balpa said fatigue had affected them.

The BBC heard from 32 pilots who said they had flown while unfit. Some blamed the situation on the intensity of work and managers ignoring their concerns.
Here's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6236810.stm)the full report. 25th June 2007, when times were easier?


One of the main and most reported symptoms of organo phosphate poisoning is.......................................................... ............................................chronic fatigue.

QED.

DB :zzz:

ZEEBEE
3rd Sep 2008, 06:04
Nope sorry, not convinced.

Your case is undermined somewhat by the almost total lack of subscription to this thread other than the "ring of three" syncophants who bravely keep it going despite the scientific and logical refutation by people who do know about these issues, not to mention the complete disinterest of the many professional pilots who frequent these fora.

As for the documentary, I can gather together any number of people who will swear that their problems (mostly self induced) are caused by other factors;

Pick one of any of the following

Global Warming
Global cooling
Cosmic rays
Aliens
Religion
Atheists
Racism
Artificial additives
Rock music

I'll leave it there shall I ?

Solid Rust Twotter
3rd Sep 2008, 07:41
Perhaps the "Ring of Three" should try peanut butter lined tinfoil hats. Very effective against this type of thing I hear.

Of course these folks may have more information for you:-

Chemtrails, an Introduction (http://educate-yourself.org/ct/)

Chemtrails Data Page (http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html)

AEROSOL OPERATION CRIMES & COVER-UP (http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm)

Dream Buster
3rd Sep 2008, 09:01
zeebee,

Any aircrew or even passenger who has the problem is in a very well understood financial mess and the best thing he or she can do with a 'not officilally accepted illness' is play the system, keep a low profile, not put his head above the parapet etc. What would you do zeebee?

I know many, many people in this position who have the same dilemma, along with 'medical confidentiality' and of course 'employee confidentiality' it's not too hard to understand how the vested interests keep it all in check.

It has very little to do with medicine, honesty and integrity.

Your own lack of knowledge of what is really going on is a prime example.

Just stick your head back in the sand and then the problem might go away?

Look, I think it's best if we agree to differ, don't you? I do respect your position and actually quite envy you.

I do want to try and leave this planet in better shape than when I arrived - for my kids sake.

Some chance!

Let's call it a draw but just give me your odds on it being proved one day?

DB :(

carbis22
3rd Sep 2008, 17:52
ok zeebeeeeee,

The power of three!! are it seems the only ones that have and tried to post real scientific/medical data, submissions from boeing and the HOL inq,
With the current censorship thats going on, it may all not make sense..

To a so called pro!!

I dont envy you, rather pity you.
we are on here for a cause, what are you on here for??

So far the skeptics have not provided any proof/evidence that this is not the case??

go for it, am all eyes...... where is your proof this is not the case?

carbis22
3rd Sep 2008, 18:00
REFERENCES

[1] Kayser, C. "General Features of the Problems of Aviation Toxicology," "Aviation Toxicology: An Introduction to the Subject and a Handbook of Data," Committee on Aviation Toxicology, Aero Medical Association. The Blakiston Company, NY, 1953, p. 1

[2] SAE "Aerospace Information Report (AIR) 1539: Environmental Control System Contamination," 1997 (Originally issued 1981), Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA

[3] Robins, C.S., "737 Air Conditioning Engine Bleed Air Contamination," Boeing Company report prepared for United Airlines, 1968

[4] Montgomery, M.R, Wier, G.T.; Zieve, F.J., and Anders, M.W., "Human Intoxication Following Inhalation Exposure to Synthetic Jet Lubricating Oil," Clin. Toxicol., 11(4), 1977, pp. 423-426


[5] NRC, "The Airliner Cabin Environment and The Health of Passengers and Crew," US National Research Council, ISBN 0-309-08289-7, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002, pp. 110-121

[6] Bobb, A.J. and Still, K.R., "Known Harmful Effects of Constituents of Jet Oil Smoke," TOXDET-03-04, Naval Health Research Center Detachment (Toxicology), Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 2003

[7] Burdon, J and Glanville, AR (2005) "Lung injury following hydrocarbon inhalation in BAe146 aircraft" In: Proceedings of the BALPA Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality International Aero Industry Conference. Imperial College London, 20-21 Apr 2005, ed. C. Winder, University of New South Wales, Sydney, pp.53-58

[8] Hanhela, P.J., Kibby, J., DeNola, G., and Mazurek, W, "Organophosphate and Amine Contamination of Cockpit Air In the Hawk, F-111, and Hercules C-130 Aircraft," DSTO-RR-0303, 2005, Australian Government Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

[9] Harper, A., "A Survey of Health Effects In Aircrew Exposed To Airborne Contaminants," J. Occup. Health & Safety, Austr & New Zealand, Vol. 21(5), 2005, pp. 433-439

[10] Singh, B (2005) "In-Flight Smoke and Fumes," "Proceedings of the BALPA Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality International Aero Industry Conference," Imperial College London, 20-21 Apr. 2005, C. Winder, Ed., University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2005, pp.92-99

[11] Somers, M., "Aircrew Exposed To Fumes On the BAe146: An Assessment of Symptoms," J. Occup. Health & Safety, Austr & New Zealand, Vol. 21(5), 2005, pp. 440-449

[12] Michaelis, S. "A Survey Of Health Symptoms In BALPA Boeing 757 Pilots," J. Occup. Health and Safety, Austr. & New Zealand, 19(3), 2003, pp. 253-61

[13] CAA, "Flight Operations Department Communication (FODCOM) 21/2002" UK Civil Aviation Authority Safety Regulation Group, Aviation House, Gatwick, West Sussex, England, 2002

[14] Cox, L. and Michaelis, S., "A Survey Of Health Symptoms In BAe 146 Aircrew," J. Occup. Health & Safety, Austr. & New Zealand, Vol. 18(4), 2002, pp. 305-312

[15] Coxon, L., "Neuropsychological Assessment Of a Group Of BAe 146 Aircraft Crewmembers Exposed To Jet Engine Oil Emissions," J. Occup. Health & Safety, Austr. & New Zealand, Vol. 18(4), 2002, pp. 313-319


[16] CAA, "Flight Operations Department Communication (FODCOM) 14/2001" UK Civil Aviation Authority, Safety Regulation Group, Aviation House, Gatwick, West Sussex, England, 2001

[17] SHK, "Report RL 2001:41e "Accident Investigation Into Incident Onboard Aircraft SE-DRE During Flight Between Stockholm and Malmo M County, Sweden," Statens Haverikommission Board of Accident Investigation, Stockholm, Sweden, 2001

[18] CAA, "Flight Operations Department Communication (FODCOM) 17/2000" UK Civil Aviation Authority, Safety Regulation Group, Aviation House, Gatwick, West Sussex, England, 2000

[19] PCA, "Technical Report on Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality In the BAe146 Aircraft," Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senate Printing Unit, Canberra, Australia, 2000, pp.115-128

[20] van Netten, C., "Air Quality and Health Effects Associated With the Operation Of BAe146-200 Aircraft" Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg., 13(10), 1998, pp. 733-739

[21] NIOSH, "Health Hazard Evaluation Report: HETA 90-226-2281," US National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, Cincinnati, OH, 1993

[22] Kelso, A.G., Charlesworth, J.M., and McVea, G.G., "Contamination Of Environmental Control Systems In Hercules Aircraft: MRL-R-1116, AR-005-230," Australian Government Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 1988

[23] Crane, C.R., Sanders, D.C., Endecott, B.R., et al, "Inhalation Toxicology: III. Evaluation of Thermal Degradation of Products From Aircraft and Automobile Engine Oils, Aircraft Hydraulic Fluid, and Mineral Oil," Aviation Medicine Report FAA AM-83-12, Civil Aeromedical Institute, US Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City, OK, 1983

[24] Rayman, R.B. and McNaughton, G.B., "Smoke/Fumes In The Cockpit" Aviat. Space Environ. Med., 54(8), 1983, pp. 738-740

[25] van Netten, C. and Leung, V., "Hydraulic Fluids and Jet Engine Oil: Pyrolysis and Aircraft Air Quality," Archives of Environmental Health, Vol 56(2), 2001, pp. 181-186

[26] van Netten, C. and Leung, V., "Comparison of the Constituents of Two Jet Engine Oil Lubricating Oils and Their Volatile Pyrolytic Degradation Products," Appl. Occup. and Environ. Hyg., 15(3), (2000a), pp. 277-283

[27] van Netten, C. "Analysis of two jet engine lubricating oils and a hydraulic fluid: their pyrolytic breakdown products and their implications on aircraft air quality" In: Air Quality and Comfort in Airliner Cabins, ASTP STP 1393, ed., N.L. Nagda, American Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA 2000b, pp. 61-75

[33] ACARM, "Chapter 12: Frequency of Events and Underreporting" "Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual," Michaelis, S., ed. ISBN 9780955567209, London, England, 2007, pp. 211-248

[34] Ballough, J., "Smoke In The Cockpit" Presentation at the US Europe International Aviation Safety Conference by the US Federal Aviation Administration Director of Flight Standards Service, Washington, DC, 2006

[35] FAA "Flight Standards Information Bulletin For Airworthiness (FSAW) 06-05A: Guidance For Smoke/Fumes In the Cockpit/Cabin," Order 8300.10. US Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 2006

[37] UK House of Lords Select Committee, Science and Technology, Fifth Report "Air Travel and Health," London, England, 15 Nov. 2000

[39] Fox, R "Air Quality Testing Aboard Ansett Airlines BAe146 Aircraft: Final Report" Allied Signal Aerospace report prepared for Ansett Airlines, No. 2I-9910, Phoenix, AZ, 1997

[40] PCA, "Senate Hansard," Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Presented by Senator K. O'Brien, 20 Sept 2007, 10:22am, p.15

[41] ACARM "Appendix 10: Air Monitoring Research Summary" "Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual," Michaelis, S., ed. ISBN 9780955567209, London, England, 2007, pp. 760

[42] Mackerer, C.R., Barth, M.L., Krueger, A.J.; et al "Comparison of Neurotoxic Effects and Potential Risks From Oral Administration or Ingestion of Tricresyl Phosphate and Jet Engine Oil Containing Tricresyl Phosphate," J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, 56A, 1999, pp. 293-328

[43] Henschler, D., "Tricresyl Phosphate Poisoning: Experimental Clarification of Problems of Etiology and Pathogenesis," Klinische Wochenschrift, 36(14), 1958, pp. 663-674

[44] Morgan, J.P. and Penovich, P. "Jamaica Ginger Paralysis: Forty-Seven Year Follow Up" Arch. of Neurol., 35(8), 1978, pp. 530-532

[45] Craig, P.H. and Barth, M.L. "Evaluation of the Hazards of Industrial Exposure To Tricresyl Phosphate: A Review and Interpretation of the Literature," J Toxicol. Environ. Health B Critical Reviews, 2(4), 1999, pp. 281-300

[46] Weiner, M.L. and Jortner, B.S. "Organophosphate-Induced Neurotoxicity of Triarylphosphates," Neurotoxicol., 20(4), 1999, pp. 653-73

[47] Daughtrey, W., Biles, R., Jortner, B., et al, "Subchronic Delayed Neurotoxicity Evaluation of Jet Engine Lubricants Containing Phosphorus Additives," Fundamental Applied Toxicol, 32, 1996, pp. 244-249

[48] Abou-Donia, M.B., "Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity," Archives Environ. Health, Vol. 58(8), 2003, pp. 484-497

[49] Jamal, G.A., Hansen, G., Julu, P.O.O. "Low Level Exposures To Organophosphorus Esters May Cause Neurotoxicity," Toxicol., 181-182, 2002, pp. 23-33

[63] Bull, K. and Yeomans, H. "Outside Air Treatment Solutions For Aircraft," Technical paper produced by Pall Aerospace (Issue 1), Pall Europe Ltd, 2007

Michaelis, S. and Loraine, T., "Aircraft Cabin Air Filtration and Related Technologies: Requirements, Present Practice, and Prospects," Air Quality in Airplane Cabins and Similar Enclosed Spaces, The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Vol.4(H), Hocking, M.B., Ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2005, pp. 261-283

ASHRAE, "Standard 161-2007: Air Quality Within Commercial Aircraft: BSR/ASHRAE Standard 161P," American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 2008.

AMEandPPL
3rd Sep 2008, 22:43
it also seems that my post count is faulty. I was up in the late fifties, now seem to be stuck on 21

So, it looks like Mad Beddison wasn't able to "fix it" for you ! Why not see if Jimmy Saville can help !

unless I can guarantee carriage on a B787; and then would still have doubts, over other health issues associated with flying of which I have become aware

Go on then, tell us ! Would do no harm to widen this debate a little by now, especially as we have been banished out of M&H !

surreysue
3rd Sep 2008, 22:56
Hello AME - you too,huh? I've been banned from Rumours and News too - don't know why, I've never even posted on there!
You were right about the asthma by the way - hospital findings differed from GP ones, they are testing for allergies but think it is "occupational asthma".

AMEandPPL
3rd Sep 2008, 23:32
they are testing for allergies, but think it is "occupational asthma"

Yes, a pretty common diagnosis, and can be associated with umpteen different types of chemicals, from all sorts of industries. That evokes many memories of past times in my career ! Until I specialised in aviation, I had quite a number of advisory occupational medicine posts, including rubber/plastics, electrical insulations, paints and varnishes, isocyanates, etc etc.

The good news is that it can usually be controlled well, and gets no worse once the causation is apparent and exposure is stopped.

Sorry to hear you have been banned from anywhere, but not surprised !
Most of the mods on here (and M&H in particular) seem to be power crazy ! Can't help it, they're foreigners ! ! LOL ! !

AMEandPPL
3rd Sep 2008, 23:44
it also seems that my post count is faulty

So, apparently, is Surreysue's ! After re-reading those last couple of posts I checked her profile, and the list of previous posts - it totalled 23. But her post total shown above here to the left is 7.

Yet these tartars dare to complain about the things we ordinary members say ! Grrrrrr !

Dream Buster
4th Sep 2008, 08:33
AME PPL,

Doctor, doctor i've got a problem - can you help me?

I haven't been banned anywhere yet.

Was it something I didn't say?

Do you recommend anti depressants, which some doctors prescribe for aerotoxic sufferers?

or just healthy honest discussion and a dose of fresh air?

Byeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

DB :{

surreysue
4th Sep 2008, 11:23
"peanut butter lined tin hats"

Can someone explain this to me please cos I just don't get it?? :confused:

AMEandPPL
4th Sep 2008, 12:14
Can someone explain this to me please cos I just don't get it ?

Thank goodness for that ! Neither do I.

PS - Surreysue your post count is STILL 7, even after your latest one !

carbis22
4th Sep 2008, 12:38
Well according to zee bee, aliens could be responsible for our illnesses??

and the other one '' peanut butter tin hats'' is trying to suggest we are aliens!!

Guess those two have been exposed to, too much cosmic radiation........:D

carbis22
4th Sep 2008, 12:48
I guess another fellow passenger of mine who is only 28 yrs old,
Lying in a hospital bad, in the high dependancy unit,
has also been visited by our green friends overnight, cause it sure was not ''green'' on that flight!!

and im down to 20 now:confused: help im melting, oh no thats the wizard of oz..

carbis22
4th Sep 2008, 21:33
Ok silly season over,

what is your opinion on carbon monoxide in aeroplanes?

AMEandPPL
4th Sep 2008, 23:58
what is your opinion on carbon monoxide in aeroplanes?

Answer to that is easy - I'd be HORRIFIED ! Carbon monoxide ( CO ) is deadly poisonous, period.

What's perhaps less easy to fathom out is how this pertains to aviation in general, and this thread in particular. CO is generally associated with exhaust gases, and is of danger to people being transported only if leaks allow gases into the "cabin" area. It is also mostly associated with internal combustion engines, where the combustion of the fuel is much less than 100% efficient, ie all our cars, or, indeed, my Cessna 172 !
Detectors are available, for dashboard mounting, which warn by changing colour if CO is present - a jolly good idea.

To the best of my knowledge the combustion of fuel in large jet engines is much more efficient, so the exhaust gases are nearly all just CO2 and water. But the likelihood of jet engine exhaust gases entering the cabin are, for all practical purposes, nil. So what's this all about ?

Maybe the suggestion is ( or the question is) that CO may be present in the cabin along with other nasties such as OP's in these alleged fume events ? If so, and if it were proven, then that would be very serious and hazardous indeed. Interesting to hear more.

AMEandCPL
5th Sep 2008, 01:19
AMEandPPL is absolutely correct that turbine engines produce very little CO as the combustion is far more efficient. Also remember that the average NON-smoker, living in an industrialised society has 2.5-3% of their haemoglobin taken up with CO all the time. The average moderate smoker has upwards of 10% of their haemoglobin taken up with CO all of the time. So a test for CO after flying would have to show a statistically significant excess to these figures to be of any diagnostic value.

From Wikipedia:
0.5 to 5 ppm - average background level in homes;
5 to 15 ppm - levels near properly adjusted gas stoves in homes;
100-200 ppm - Mexico City central area from autos etc;
5,000 ppm - chimney of a home wood fire;
7,000 ppm - undiluted warm car exhaust - without catalytic converter;
30,000 ppm - undiluted cigarette smoke. Cheers

carbis22
6th Sep 2008, 06:46
Yes you phrased the q a little more appropriatley, does CO enter the cabin during a fume event along with TCPs and maybe other nasties?

One also has to take into account oxygen levels in the cabin, given that we have approx 25% less oxygen in a cabin than say in an office building, that would surely have more impact on the human body and its ability to fight of such contaminents.

I also read somewhere that the toxicity of carbon monoxide is 50% more toxic at 8000ft than at sea level.

ZEEBEE
6th Sep 2008, 09:32
I guess another fellow passenger of mine who is only 28 yrs old,
Lying in a hospital bad, in the high dependancy unit,
has also been visited by our green friends overnight, cause it sure was not ''green'' on that flight!!

Am truly sorry to hear that....but, it IS atypical and could have been ANYTHING ie food etc.

May I suggest you read Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark" for some serious discussion re psychosomatic illnesses and their reality to their sufferers.

Also, if you read the PPrune conditions, you will note that posts on Jetblast forum do NOT increment your post count. (Is that important ??)

AMEandPPL
6th Sep 2008, 10:27
you will note that posts on Jetblast forum do NOT increment your post count

A most pertinent observation ! One I had not spotted hitherto ! Thanks ! My count won't change much now either, then, as I don't really feel welcome in M&H any more !

Now giving a little more consideration to the CO / o2 matter.

carbis22
6th Sep 2008, 16:32
Zeebee, thanks for the info on the posts, no not important, however started this thread on rumours and news, it was moved to medical and health, and very quickly evicted to jet blast, and just wondered why post count had gone dramatically backwards.

You know what, I wish to god this illness was as you suggest, i really do as would at least be able to treat the condition,
however again you suggest my MD's are also suffering from this condition, given they test and diagnose.

It is common for heavy weight chemical co's to try and label the people they poison with such conditions, they even tried in the states to have the word chemical removed out of the condition '' MCS multi chemical sensitivity''.

However I am still bewildered and astonished how the only people to present opposition to the cause of our conditions are of such weak nature, meaning '' Its in your head'' '' you have not been diagnosed with this have you'' and no one has posted any evidence whatsoever that this is NOT the case??

I also can not understand how you can state that someone lying in the HDU is in their head? or how one can produce symptoms of chemical pnuemonia and pulmonery odeama as a result of that?
And how one can present such toxins in their blood samples?
Or how one can be diagnosed with peritheral nerve damage, or nerulogical damage, or liver damage, so on...

Is it possible the power of the mind, creeps upwards into gene damage?

Moreover how can you explain that mass amounts of people experiencing the same symptoms, having NO knowledge that chemicals are even involved initially, and no initial contact to compare, are all suffering with a '' in the head scenario'' with many already reporting for medical evaluations with the same symptoms?? before contact is made, individually? mmnnn..

I dont think even houdini could fatham that one, I am afraid sir you are mistaken on this one, And you have a case of '' wrong diagnoses''
I am also afraid to say that this condition is for real, and the sooner people except this fact, and do something about it, practical wise the better. Its to late for us, may NOT be to late for others, help them not us.

AMEandPPL
6th Sep 2008, 18:38
Yes, you phrased the question a little more appropriately, does CO enter the cabin during a fume event along with TCPs and maybe other nasties ?

Have just watched through "that" Panorama programme again, and it appears (stated by one of the Professors interviewed) that the answer to this question is "yes". Oil was shown being heated, giving off fumes, and it was stated that the fumes would contain, inter alia, CO.

Having said that, just look back at the figures quoted from Wikipedia by my learned colleague, and look at the amounts of CO which smokers routinely deliberately inhale INTO THEIR OWN LUNGS ! On the face of it they appear to come to no (immediate) harm by doing so.

My scientific logic therefore says that levels of CO in cabin air would have to be vastly greater to be of significant (or longer lasting) harm to most people. Not saying that couldn't happen, of course. CO is so very dangerous precisely because it is invisible and odourless.

surreysue
6th Sep 2008, 22:36
I have never smoked because I don't want toxins in my body so I was angry when I discovered about the whole contaminated air thing.

When my company wrote to my MP making much of the fact that no odours were reported on my last flight (at least 10 of the crew were affected). I began to think along the lines of CO.

It would explain why, in my airline, more people seem to get ill than the 30% or so of " susceptible" people.

It would also explain why we only seem to get ill on the very long range flights. Probably very small quantities coming in but over a period of 13 or 14 hours enough to do harm.

Didn't know CO was more toxic at 8000 ft thanks for that Carbis :D

surreysue
6th Sep 2008, 23:31
Totally agree with you Carbis, I wish it was all in my head - it might give me more control over it.

Zeebee - what about all the other threads on pprune complaining about persistent coughs (for 8 years!), peripheral nerve damage, abnormal ECGs etc - is it all in their heads too?
The sheep dip farmers were proved right - eventually.

The Gulf War soldiers were proved right - eventually.

So will we be - eventually. Some things you just KNOW.

Don't any American Flight Attendants ever come on this forum? I know there's loads with aerotoxic syndrome .......we could do with some support here.

If any of the doubters could come up with a reason for our ill health that is anywhere near as convincing or well researched as the contaminated air explanation I'd be willing to listen.........

AMEandPPL
6th Sep 2008, 23:53
This is interesting :
http://www.safelincs.co.uk/html/coinfo.htm

and, even more interesting, the same company in Lincolnshire sell (see their web-site) battery powered CO detectors. The safe limit quoted in the link above is 50 ppm, and they apparently sell detectors with sensitivities as low as 30 ppm. Not expensive either !

Who will be the first to take one of these things on a (maybe long haul ?) flight, and report if CO above 50 ppm is detected ?

PS - my sympathies yet again to Carbis22. I see that Mad Beddison has been doing the usual to your contribution in "Peripheral Neuropathy" in the M&H forum. I know exactly how you must feel.

AMEandPPL
7th Sep 2008, 00:04
This is the detector I mentioned just above . . . . . .
http://www.safelincs.co.uk/product.php?xProd=116&xSec=42&fdb=true

BUT . . . . . . . just looked again, and maybe NOT such a good idea to take on a flight, at least not unannounced ! ! These do not just quietly give you a readout of the CO level, they set off an ear-piercing 85dB alarm ! This would not make you popular in a packed B747 !

OK, back to the drawing board . . . . . . .:). . . . maybe an electronics wizard could advise how to get the warning, but silence the loud bit !

Dream Buster
7th Sep 2008, 08:33
AMEPPL,

By now, you are probably begining to work out why airlines do not have any sort of a CO detection system or OP detection system on board.

After an alarm has gone off, what exactly are passengers meant to do next - apart from turn it off?

"Excuse me, sorry to disturb everybody but my alarm is indicating dangerous levels....."

Isn't it ironic that you have a visual CO detector in your Cessna, as I used to have in my light aircraft in the 1980's. One can't just 'open a window' in the confined space of an airliner.

Ignorance is truly bliss?

And that's the way the airlines want it. I can well understand their rational but believe that like most scandals, their staff and customers aren't that stupid (despite being poisoned) and will work out the cause of their 'mysterious' ill health - very soon....

DB :rolleyes:

AMEandPPL
7th Sep 2008, 15:51
Here are all you folk here fighting as hard as you can to IMPROVE the quality of air we breathe on commercial air transport, yet just look at what has just appeared on the CC forum :


I heard from a usually reliable source that the A380 has ashtrays installed in the seat armrests. Can anyone advise whether this is true? I haven't had the pleasure of travelling on the Whale myself. I do hope it's true - so that Air France can raise two fingers to the health freaks when they bring their 380s into service

I don't mind being called a health freak ! Anyone else ?

AMEandPPL
7th Sep 2008, 17:47
started this thread on rumours and news, it was moved to medical and health, and very quickly evicted to jet blast

Yes, even though it's directly MEDICAL, and directly involved with AVIATION SAFETY.

And yet . . . . .. . have you seen the latest on M&H ? For three days now, the most puerile rubbish on TATTOOS !

Has there been any moderator intervention, to keep the thread relevant, medical, and aviation related ?? . . . . . . . . NONE ! !

AMEandPPL
7th Sep 2008, 17:52
Going back to the topic of CO . . . . . . . . I was shopping in B & Q this afternoon (getting my weekly fix ! ) and came across CO detectors for use in homes, cars, etc. Definitely no alarms, and non-noisy ! Could easily be in a pocket or handbag in flight. Cheap too . . . . . £7 for 2.

Packaging does not state ppm sensitivity . . . . . I'll try to get this from the manufacturers ( who, by the way, are in the UK :) ).

carbis22
7th Sep 2008, 17:57
“But we didn’t exceed government standards for exposure.” “Safe” levels of exposure are a compromise between an industry’s commercial needs and consumer protection and do not guarantee that an injury cannot occur. These standards generally become stricter with every passing decade, and incidents of reported chemical injury are what cause them to change.
Furthermore, safe levels are routinely set to protect a healthy male worker. But some people are more susceptible than others. Women, for instance, tend to be more sensitive than men, and different bodies react differently to toxins.23 Variations in sensitivity are even observable in rats. Also, there may be no safe level at which a person can inhale a particular substance.
The MSDS typically will state that if a person shows signs of illness, you must remove him or her from the area immediately. This suggests that it is generally recognized that some people will become ill even when they are working under the recommended safe-exposure guidelines.
“This amount was far too small to damage anyone’s health.” Chronic exposure to low levels of some toxic chemicals can be even worse than a single acute exposure, because brain damage is cumulative over time.
“Just smelling the chemical could not have caused this.” Actually, inhalation and skin contact are often more effective routes of entry for a poison than swallowing. When something is swallowed, it is partly neutralized by stomach acids. The body then attempts to detoxify it through the liver, kidneys, and other organs. But inhalation and skin contact allow a substance to enter the bloodstream directly, without any filtering. For example, doctors now use skin patches to administer morphine and birth control.24 And sniffing glue (solvents) can produce an instantaneous high and cause immediate and permanent brain damage.
“A neurologist found nothing wrong.” Few neurologists have training in toxicology, and they rarely recognize the symptoms of neurotoxicity. A patient who suggests his or her symptoms were caused by a chemical exposure may encounter a brick wall of denial, bordering on hostility.
Some neurologists won’t pay attention unless a patient’s symptoms are extreme: For example, the patient cannot tell what day it is or walk in a straight line. Even then the neurologist may misdiagnose the patient as normal, even if neuropsychological testing shows serious functional deficits. Still, a neurologist’s exam may help rule out non-toxicological causes of a neurological illness or document certain physical signs, such as seizures or gait disturbances.
“Chronic pain is not a symptom of brain or nerve damage.” The term “chronic pain” may seem vague, outside the realm of most doctors, and potentially confusing to a jury. But chronic pain can certainly be a symptom of brain damage and toxic exposure.
Damage to the brain and nerves can disrupt the nerve signals themselves or the way the brain interprets those signals.25 Resulting sensations can be tingling, burning, or debilitating pain, which one of my chronic pain patients described as “like a thousand razor blades.” Chronic pain can be a terrible ordeal and may require strong painkillers whose side effects could cause more damage.
“It is ludicrous to believe that neurotoxic chemicals can cause such disparate symptoms as insomnia, chronic fatigue, and gastrointestinal problems.” On the contrary, the brain and nervous system control all bodily functions. The autonomic nervous system controls the involuntary part of bodily processes, including digestion, blood circulation, and the “fight or flight” response.

Dream Buster
7th Sep 2008, 19:25
AMEPPL,

As a wise aviation doctor :8 , what do you recommend people do next - after the CO alarm has gone off?

Read the B&Q instructions????? :eek:

Seriously though.... :oh:?

DB :{

carbis22
7th Sep 2008, 20:33
DB, I actually disagree with you on this one, ameppl has a very good point!

If pax and crew were to carry these hand held detectors onboard, if it were to go of, the incident will have to be logged!
It will not help the people in that particular flight, but will add pressure for the filters to be fitted more urgently, even if they simply start with filters for CO.
It would seem from the data written one usually accompies the other, voc monitors are available but not certain if a hand held compact one is?
will research.

The CO is the very first important step IMO, and will also benefit traveller's, holiday makers when they reach their destination whilst staying in their holiday homes, villas, apts, hotels, it could save lives.
I think this should be an essential travel tool.

When enough have beeped and enough pax and crew have reported, it will help, IMO.:D

Dream Buster
7th Sep 2008, 21:49
Carbis22,

Sorry, I momentarilly forgot about the whole point of this thread. It's the memory.....:ugh:

DB :ok:

AMEandPPL
8th Sep 2008, 09:01
Oh dear, another one who won't (perhaps can't ?) actually read what is there . . . . . . . . .
what do you recommend people do next - after the CO alarm has gone off? Read the B&Q instructions?

Perhaps you did not notice :
maybe NOT such a good idea to take on a flight, at least not unannounced !

The suggestion :

1. Have CO indicator of some sort in pocket or handbag. Silent, no alarms, no panics. Preferably with a ppm readout.
2. IF a raised level were spotted (and a worthwhile level at that - no point in making a fuss about 53 when H&S max is 50) then politely and discretely ask CC to inform Captain when convenient.
3. Follow up from there - the evidence noted at the time.
4. Have a lot of patience - I suspect significant levels might show up in no more than approx 1 in 1000 flights ! Can you afford the tickets to do this ?
5. Much better to convince 1000 friends to do the same when they go on holiday. By persuading them politely and gently - not ranting at them.

Still hoping to find out more about these B&Q patches / meters.

AMEandPPL
8th Sep 2008, 09:11
It will not help the people in that particular flight

Not necessarily true. If the Captain's attention was drawn to the fact that the CO level in the passenger cabin was, say, 300-400 ppm, my guess is that most would divert and land ASAP. Even if there was actually nothing to see or smell in the cabin. Any professional pilots care to comment on that one ?

Dream Buster
8th Sep 2008, 09:31
AMEPPL,

Thank you for those instructions.:ouch:

Personally I don't fly any more, so perhaps you would care to pass them on to the people who regulate it - if you feel strongly enough about the health and wellbeing of aircrew and passengers in a confined space?

I have already tried; but I am only a 'ranting' ex professional pilot. If I had known about this subject when I was actually flying, I would have stopped flying immediately, as it would have explained a good part of my ill health from the past 17 years or so. To me anyway.

I am sure you are aware of the likely repercussions on ones career of diverting and landing in the manner you suggest - because some passengers CO alarm had gone off?

We would welcome others, maybe those with a vast amount of aviation medical expertise and a conscience, to take up the challenge?

It seems odd to me that it was felt prudent and cost effective to fit Second World War fighters with CO detectors in 1942/3 but not passenger airliners in 2008.....

Where is the logic behind that fact?

DB :8

AMEandPPL
8th Sep 2008, 09:49
if you feel strongly enough about the health and wellbeing of aircrew and passengers in a confined space?

Of course ! Don't we all . . . . . . . . ? That includes the flight crew too, and self-preservation interest motivates every single one of us. I am astounded at your doubts about diverting - repercussions or not.

Are you REALLY saying that if you, as commander, found out that the atmosphere you were breathing contained an invisible, odourless, but deadly gas, that you would just continue to destination ? Have I read your post wrong ? I do hope so.

Dream Buster
8th Sep 2008, 10:36
AMEPPL,

I would divert, land, get off, take the train home and quit flying.

Sorry for any ambiguity.

DB :ooh:

surreysue
8th Sep 2008, 17:50
When I started to suspect a few weeks ago that I had CO poisoning I asked a cabn crew friend of mine to take my CO detector on a long range flight. I thought it would be easier for cabin crew than a passenger to convince the captain, it would get reported to the CAA and if the alarm went off in the galley they could pretend it was the oven timer thereby avoiding mass panic!
Unfortunately the Purser on that flight wouldn't let him use it. I will try and find another volunteer and report back. If and when I get myself fit to fly again I intend to have it with me on every trip.

AMEandPPL
9th Sep 2008, 11:27
Here is something for those who are interested to have a look at :
http://www.metrix-electronics.com/Data/Stix670.pdf

I have e-mailed the manufacturers to ask (a) the cost, and (b) if the "beeper" which is mentioned can be silenced or switched off. Once they reply I'll pass this on. I've already decided that I will probably buy one anyway, if only for my own peace of mind while travelling on holiday !

Dream Buster
9th Sep 2008, 13:20
AMEPPL,

The following refers to the period 1941/2?

An extract from "Fly for your life" a true story of Battle of Britain fighter ace Wing commander Robert Stanford Tuck D.S.O D.F.C and two bars by Larry Forrester. Tuck was renowned for his good luck. Tuck’s luck.

"They were having a little teething trouble with the Hawker Typhoons; Carbon monoxide fumes were coming back from the stub exhausts into the cockpit, sometimes in sufficient quantities to nauseate the pilots. The boffins came and tinkered with the exhausts and said they thought they had reduced the amount of fumes. To make sure, they fitted in the cockpit of one machine a little box which could measure the exact percentage of carbon monoxide in the air inside the cabin. They asked for a number of test flights: Prosser Hanks did most, Tuck did a few. There seemed to be a definite improvement.
One day towards the end of the test programme, he was walking out to the test Typhoon with his parachute over his shoulder when an airman stuck his head out of the window and called “Telephone, Sir!” At that moment the ground crew finished their starting drill and the Typhoon’s huge Napier Sabre engine exploded into life: if she wasn’t taken off quickly she would overheat. He signalled that he couldn’t take the call and continued out to the aircraft, but the airman came running after him and bawled through cupped hands: “It’s the Station Commander, Sir. Say’s its very important!”
He groaned, dumped his chute and started back. At the door of the dispersal hut stood one of his best pilots, a young Argentinian named Dack. This boy had flown one or two of the tests. “Dacky, you take her. You know the drill.” The kid nodded, grabbed his gear and hurried out as Tuck lifted the phone.
Group Captain Mac Donald wanted to discuss arrangements for night flying during the coming week. It was important, but it could have waited an hour or so. They talked for perhaps ten minutes, then Tuck went out and sat in one of the cane chairs, smoking and looking out over the fields.
Out of the hazy blue he saw a Typhoon diving. It didn’t pull out. It disappeared behind some trees about a mile on the other side and raised a tremendous cone of flame and smoke.
He rode out with the crash trucks. A big, smoking crater and a field littered with scraps of metal. Twelve feet down in the brown earth: the remains of the big engine. Of the pilot: only little red lumps, half a shoe, scraps of clothing, part of a watch strap.
A check with control proved it could only be Dack. There had been no enemy activity all day, so he hadn’t been shot down. The cause of his death might always be a mystery, because there wasn’t enough left of his machine to give the technical experts a clue.
But the Aviation Medical people solved it. They found a piece of Dack’s liver and analysed the contents: enough carbon monoxide to kill an elephant.
Probably something had gone wrong with the Boffins little box. Instead of trapping the fumes it must have pumped out enough to make the pilot pass out."

Good luck with your monitor. The MAX/DATA HOLD function should be very handy....If only it could be wired up to the FDR, we might start to get somewhere.

Ignorance IS truly bliss.

DB :E

Dream Buster
9th Sep 2008, 15:11
Basil,

You are absolutely right. These aircraft were piston engined Typhoons with a suspected CO problem; the boffins were trying to get to the bottom of it. The detecting devices were clearly not fitted to every squardon aircraft.

I think the point we are trying to make is that they had the technology in 1941/2 and were prepared to use it to solve a problem.

There is so much evidence, positive as well as negative (not fitting CO, TCP detectors) in the airline saga and so much denial.

Where's the choice for the self loading freight or anybody?

DB :confused:

AMEandPPL
9th Sep 2008, 23:18
Any professional pilots care to comment on that one ?

Must admit I'm very disappointed there are no responses to that.

Considering it's PPruNe, are there any "professional pilots" around here ?

carbis22
10th Sep 2008, 09:26
I can understand that this chosen profession is a dream job for most, and there is a significant amount of under reporting still continuing, as I think DB was trying to say earlier that professional's are discouraged in some cases from writing MOR's, or plenty of MOR's go missing and do not turn up.
What I can NOT understand is from around the late ' 80's this issue has been heavily campaigned about, enough scientific data has been brought forward, long before now, for the authorities to take action, and they have not?
What use is sending up a group of industry biased individuals to monitor just 100 flights?
Why has health affects NOT been systemically collected and investigated, why have pilots/crews NOT been made to give blood samples immediatley after flight and tested for cholinesterases and CO levels? or even urine samples which may show metabolites of OP's?
Surely this would be a more accurate health investigation, athletes have to give blood samples as do other industry workers have to give urine samples when working with such substances.
This has NOT been done, as the industry does NOT want this, as they do not want simple CO and VOC detectors in the airplanes.
The substances without doubt are there, they are in the jet oils ect, you all know CO is there and whatever else, so why would'nt you want to know if they are in you???

AMEandPPL
10th Sep 2008, 09:51
it is very unlikely that a significant sustained level of CO would occur in the cabin

It was also thought to be "very unlikely" that a Boeing 777 would lose power from BOTH engines on short finals . . . . . . . . but . . . . . . .

The likely things in life are easy to assess and deal with. It's the "unlikely" occurrences that present the biggest challenges. This thread is the living proof of that.

No more info yet on cost of meter, but I'm still pretty sure I'll buy one.

Dream Buster
10th Sep 2008, 10:23
Basil,

I'd be very unlikely to land asap on the say so of a passenger.
As I have said before it is very unlikely that a significant sustained level of CO would occur in the cabin of a conventionally pressurised modern jet transport.

You are right, at the time - 3 years ago when I knew nothing about the subject, almost certainly not as one diversion etc would hardly make a big difference after 16 years flying.

But with wonderful benefit of hindsight and now understanding (without a shadow of a doubt) that the fumes (not CO but TCP) in the aircraft I'd been flying for all that time had 'maybe' caused 17 years of serious ill health - no question. Get out asap. Begin the long recovery, which I am still continuing to enjoy.....

It really isn't worth the (known) risk.

I talked to an ex cabin crew last night from the infamous 'whisper jet' who has suffered from failing memory, loss of concentration, word finding difficulties and joint pain for the past 10 years. She is only just begining to realise that many other of her colleagues had similar problems but have still not made any link.

It could obviously be 'something else', but an odd coincidence when people from all over the world are independently reporting much the same thing?

It would be helpful if everybody had exactly the same problems, but as we are all obviously different and by definition, have had different exposures, it gets reported in a random fashion and is not surprisingly misdiagnosed and mistreated. I do accept that it does not affect everybody, only around 30%.

The question is: why hasn't anybody worked it out yet?

It couldn't be to do with lack of communication, inability to work it out (see the above symptoms) and it being incredibly inconvenient - if it were ever to be proved - one day?

'Aerotoxic' is still a non word to most, Why?

DB :mad:

carbis22
10th Sep 2008, 18:51
basil,

You would not be diverting the plane asap on the word of a passenger would you?
You would obviously look at the CO or VOC detector yourself and make an informed judgement presumably on the readings shown present? would'nt you? and be diverting on the basis of that equiptment!
Surely these relatively inexpensive devices should be present in every cabin and cock pit, should'nt they?:ugh:

AMEandPPL
11th Sep 2008, 23:00
Nothing new on this thread for well over 24 hours ? It's in danger of falling off the bottom of page 2, so here is a reviver !

CO meter now ordered, will report on when it arrives and how we get on with using it. At present we only have two commercial flights planned between now and Christmas, so the experiment will only be a very little one ! Obviously I can also take it with me in the Cessna 172 which, having a piston engine, is probably more at risk of CO than most jets !

Asked for quotes from four companies. Interestingly one declined to quote when they learned that I intended to take it on aircraft unannounced ! The others did not ask the intended purpose !

Dream Buster
12th Sep 2008, 08:43
AMEPPL,

Congratulations on your purchase. Perhaps you could PM (Private Message) me with the exact model (or broadcast) as I would appreciate your reasoning? :confused:

Well, it's a start and I guess it's a positive step forward when we have a CAA AME testing the air on a Public Transport airliner for possibly lethal carbon monoxide fumes. :cool:

Many AME's := still seem to be convinced that their customers are making up the serious neurological brain damage that results from breathing heated oil fumes - whilst now there does seem to be a definite trickle of experts who are prepared to look at the evidence - it's better than that though, some are now prepared to go testing......

Isn't that how all 'mysteries' are solved - eventually. By the very people who are directly affected?

I can't wait.

Well done Doctor! You are a credit to your profession.

DB :D

carbis22
13th Sep 2008, 04:40
Hi AMEPPL,

So happy you have decided to take the first steps to aid safe travel and holidaying...

good on you, I personally can not fly anymore, nor would want to, but will advise all I know of your find.

keep up the good work. :D

AMEandPPL
13th Sep 2008, 17:03
Thanks for the encouragement, but I'm not really expecting any major breakthroughs in the foreseeable future. As I have said before, the VAST majority of commercial flights worldwide are 100% safe and uneventful. It's true to say that if the meter in my shirt pocket DID show a significant level of CO at any time, the main beneficiary from any intervention on my part would (hopefully) be ME ! ! ! (well, and Mrs AMEandPPL as well ! ).

Nor will next flights even be on "high risk" aircraft type. For a few days' relaxation in Cornwall we are travelling Manchester - Newquay. These are operated by Air South West using Dash-8's (any ASW pilots read this ? ? ). So not even the slightly greater susceptibility of 146's or 757's !

Will report on return. Happy landings everyone !

Dream Buster
13th Sep 2008, 18:52
AMEPPL,

If only you knew what I knew.
Perhaps you could PM me and we can take it further in private?

DB :E

AMEandPPL
14th Sep 2008, 01:28
On here would be preferable. I would be suspicious about the veracity of anything which could ONLY be revealed by PM. And then there is also the worry that PM's don't always stay as private as intended.

It's just too important a subject to everyone for there to be any messing about or compromises at all.

Dream Buster
14th Sep 2008, 09:43
AMEPPL,

Despite your recent conversion you still seem to believe that you will be 'OK' if you avoid flying on certain public transport aircraft.

I guess your next step is to understand that ANY bleed air powered pressurised aircraft (including turbo props) is capable of converting the hot pressurised air into a toxic cocktail of air for ALL on board, when the flawed system goes wrong.

Please take a look at this Dash 8 AAIB incident report (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Bombardier%20DHC-8-400,%20G-JECE%2004-07.pdf)for an idea of how bad it can get.

Maybe it's important here to think of how other people manage these so called innocuous 'Fume events' and not just think of your own and Mrs AMEPPL's necks?

I would take your CO monitor if I were you.

The next questions are:

If you were to suffer a fume event (which Govt figures tell us happen in 1 in 2000 flights) What sort of protection would you as a passenger / customer expect? (The crew are reasonably OK by the way with their personal oxygen supplies.)



You might also like to ask if the AAIB recommendations were ever actioned?

You are right of course, this is much better out in the public domain.

I hope you and Mrs AMEPPL have a safe 'fume free' flight on a Dash 8.


DB :O

carbis22
14th Sep 2008, 12:26
Im sorry am not excited at all, however if everyone starts of small, its at least a small start.

I am not able to fly, medical cert stating due to unsafe air in the cabin, so not a task I can carry out, hopefully the people that I know will.
It really needs to be conducted on long haul aswell...

One of my favourite places in the UK is Cabis Bay, nothing wrong with cornwall think its lovely down there, hope you enjoy!! and Mrs PPL.

I also hope you do have safe flights, and non contaminated air events occurring. At least you have the heads up on the symptoms ect, that others do not have, and walk of the plane putting their symptoms down to this, that, and the other...

The other day I heard of two people, coming of the plane, with symptoms of pnuemonia, one of them has had all the tests for pnuemonia, which have all come back clear, this is four weeks after the flight and symptoms unchanged, the GP is ordering further tests, this is more common than one would think!
Once people do start having the knowledge, and have been educated, and do start identifying the link, there will be trouble.
This will happen, and the public court of opinion will eventually fix this problem.

AMEPPL, Maybe you could challenge all your colleagues and friends to do the same as you?

AMEandPPL
14th Sep 2008, 13:52
Much doubt has been expressed on this thread in recent days about whether the flight crew would actually take any notice of passenger concerns, notably, of course, my plan to have a CO meter in my jacket pocket. So it was interesting a short while ago to see a link in the R&N forum to the "RTE News" and an article which contained the following :


As the plane was due to take off some passengers became concerned about a smell on board and the crew aborted the take-off .

AMEandPPL
14th Sep 2008, 14:06
AMEandPPL - Maybe you could challenge all your colleagues and friends to do the same as you ?

I might not necessarily "challenge" anyone - confrontation is generally not helpful in solving any problem, least of all this one.

However, as might be realised, this topic comes up in conversation very frequently when at least three or four professional aircrew are visiting my premises every day ! Many will, I am sure, be interested to hear of the existence of these very small and convenient-sized meters at such minimal cost. Some (not all, of course) might consider having one of their own, just to sit in the bottom of the flight bag, in the hope that it never goes off at all . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . but then, IF IT DID go off . . . . . . . . .! !

Dream Buster
14th Sep 2008, 22:24
AMEPPL,

Whilst agreeing confrontation is regrettable and unpleasant - in the B&W debate on whether fumes can lead to serious ill health it has become a confrontation beteween the sufferers and the perpetrators - both can not be right.

Whose side do you favour the victims or the abusers?

Benefit of the doubt or fingers crossed that it's all OK?

As a partially recovered victim, I personally don't give a damn. But I do care passionately for my fellow victims, as any genuine human being or doctor should.

As you thought the Dash 8 was 'safe' I can assure you that there is a lot more that you haven't even begun to understand yet.

It must be quite unsettling to discover what you have done in the past few days?

Keep taking the money doctor, with no confrontation? Some of us just want the truth...asap.

DB :ugh:

AMEandPPL
15th Sep 2008, 08:46
Thanks for that. It seems that :

Whilst agreeing confrontation is regrettable and unpleasant

you are quite happy deliberately to create yet more by continuing :

Keep taking the money doctor . . . . . Some of us just want the truth

Sorry, but I can do without offensive insults like that . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Very best wishes to all of you in your very worthwhile campaign.

. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . I'll see myself out.

surreysue
15th Sep 2008, 21:15
Thank you for your support, hope you and Mrs AMEandPPL have a good holiday. PLEASE let us know how you get on with the CO detector.........

carbis22
22nd Sep 2008, 22:09
Please come back and let us know the results of your CO tests, we will also post ours as and when reported.

And please do encourage all you know, as previously stated to do the same, it is an important issue for all..

There will be some more data coming real soon!!

AMEandPPL
22nd Oct 2008, 12:44
This appears to be more aimed at increasing awareness of CO dangers in the home, but hey ho, it's another small step in the right direction !
Carbon monoxide campaign launch - Health - AOL News (http://news.aol.co.uk/health-news/carbon-monoxide-campaign-launch/article/20081021191009200533607)

Have so far taken meter on two flights (out and return). Nothing ! No CO reading registered at all, which, of course, is good. No problem in hand luggage at Security, which was the other thing I was a bit uncertain about. Watch this space.