Toxic cabin air is more poisonous than reckoned [Archive]

flaphandlemover

19th Apr 2009, 11:05

I just recently came across a very interesting report.

A friend of mine showed it to me. It was link to a previously aired report on a german channel.
Unfortunately i can't remember the link, but it was shocking...
There was a BA Cpt and a british FA intervied... SHOCKING!!!!! These two couldn't control their body... they where shaking.
The team took samples on many different airplanes and had them analyzed...
The most poluted ac was a Condor 757-300 followed by a BAE 146 ..
It was put down to a specific engine OIL and of course leaky engine seals...

Maybe someone can help with a link...

Denti

19th Apr 2009, 11:42

There is quite a bit of information including links to the reports you talk about in a previous installment of David Learmont's Blog (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2009/02/the-toxic-subject-that-wont-di.html). Additionally there is Home - Aerotoxic Association - Support for Aerotoxic Syndrome Sufferers (http://www.aerotoxic.org) where you can find a lot of reports and scientific papers about that subject as well as information for those that are subject to air poisoning.

Carjockey

19th Apr 2009, 14:22

Scary stuff...

Made me wonder if the exhaust fumes produced by two stroke engines (petrol/oil mixture) contain TCP's?

Apologies for bending the topic slightly but I have a good reason for asking, can anyone enlighten me?

wiggy

19th Apr 2009, 14:48

I'm going to get flamed for this but....

Yes, ask the farming community, Organo-phosphates are very nasty. The individual reports are "shocking", and make great fodder for the media. The Aerotoxic campaign is getting very good at grabbing the headlines...but until somebody produces overwhelming epidemiological (?sp.) evidence I'm filing this in the same folder as the various Cosmic Radiation and Flying scares.....sorry of that opinion offends.

Carjockey

19th Apr 2009, 15:12

No offence taken, thanks for your input, I'll do a bit of digging into that...

Dream Buster

19th Apr 2009, 15:46

WDR Plus Minus: 24/3/09
Gift in der flugzeugcabine - Meldepflicht verletzt/
DasErste.de - Plusminus - Luftfahrt (24.03.2009) (http://www.daserste.de/plusminus/beitrag_dyn~uid,5px0asdzsb4ycd0a~cm.asp)
DasErste - Plusminus: Gift in der Flugzeugkabine - Meldepflicht verletzt? (http://mediathek.daserste.de/daserste/servlet/content/1931866?pageId=487910&moduleId=432744&categoryId=&goto=1&show) =
English
Obligation to report disregarded
DasErste - Plusminus: Aviation - Obligation to report disregarded (English) (http://mediathek.daserste.de/daserste/servlet/content/1951932?pageId=487872&moduleId=432744&categoryId=&goto=1&show) =

Another German station; Late night chat program: 25/3/09
Übel über den Wolken - Videos - TV total (http://tvtotal.prosieben.de/tvtotal/videos/player/index.html?contentId=38080&initialTab=related)

German TV
WDR -9/3/09
Flugverkehr: Ungefilterte Kabinenluft - markt - WDR Fernsehen (http://www.wdr.de/tv/markt/sendungsbeitraege/2009/0309/05_kabinenluft.jsp)

Wiggy,

but until somebody produces overwhelming epidemiological (?sp.) evidence I'm filing this in the same folder as the various Cosmic Radiation and Flying scares.....sorry of that opinion offends.

Doesn't the fact that nobody has done such an obvious, long overdue survey indicate that they know exactly what they will eventually find?

How about:

1) 26 out of 26 pilots had highly abnormal blood results in 2006 - ask BALPA, they know ALL about it. :eek:

2) Why are pilots discouraged from donating blood? :mad:

3) When the "History of the world" is finally written - Aerotoxic Syndrome will definitely be in the index. No question. :{

DB :ok:

wiggy

19th Apr 2009, 16:14

DB

"Doesn't the fact that nobody has done such an obvious, long overdue survey indicate that they know exactly what they will eventually find?"

Not to me it doesn't, I'm not convinced it's "obvious", any more so than the supposed link between flying and cancer is "obvious".

"Why are pilots discouraged from donating blood?"

Are they? First I've heard of it, nobody discouraged me from donating blood the last time I did it so where has your info come from?

"26 out of 26 pilots had highly abnormal blood results in 2006 - ask BALPA, they know ALL about it".

Without knowing the context that's a meaningless comment...I know dozens if not hundreds of pilots who fly or have flown the 757 or the 146 who haven't got abnormal anything. As for "BALPA knowing ALL about it" well, yes, they do have an opinion on the Aerotoxic campaign, but possibly not the same one as you.

jmig29

19th Apr 2009, 19:09

Dream Buster

19th Apr 2009, 19:36

"We wish to bring to the urgent attention of Government, Aviation Regulators and the Airline and Aerospace industry the following conclusions, distilled from the conference. (Contaminated Air Protection Conference 20th and 21st April 2005)

There is a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew).

The work place in which these illnesses are being induced is the aircraft cabin environment.

This, we conclude, is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications.

Further, we are concerned the passengers may also be suffering from similar symptoms to those exhibited by the flight crew.

We urgently call upon Government, Industry and Regulators to work in partnership with the cabin environment medical and analyst specialists and representatives from flight crew uniuons to analyse, quantify and remedy the cabin air qulaity problems that we have IDENTIFIED EXIST".

Wiggy,

The above was written when I was still flying a BAe 146, had been very sick for 16 years and didn't have a clue why?

It will be the 4th anniversary of the conference tomorrow and I can assure you the toxic fumes are still the same, people are still sick (and often don't know why?), the Government still claim not to know what is in the fumes.

Please look at all the evidence before you dismiss this serious issue, which has already been worked out by most people - with predictable results, depending on which side of the argument you happen to be.

Both sides can not be right.

Oil fumes do - exactly what it says on the tin....

YouTube - Pilot Union Boss Blows Whistle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwxzHMekb4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaerotoxic%2Eorg%2Farticles%2F2008112 0%5F1&feature=player_embedded)

Unhappy Anniversary - BALPA.

Long live the Independent Pilots Association! Looking after ALL its members.

DB :\

nicolai

19th Apr 2009, 19:59

Made me wonder if the exhaust fumes produced by two stroke engines (petrol/oil mixture) contain TCP's?

That's a good question. I have always considered fresh motor engine oils to be "mostly harmless". A grovel round the Googleweb found me the Material Safety Data Sheets for Mobil and Shell's 2-stroke oils, as some examples. I can't say I went and found the MSDS for every 2-stroke oil out there. For some examples, Shell's data is here (http://www.epc.shell.com/hierarchy.asp?catalogueId=2&hierarchyId=222).

All the 2-stroke oils I found MSDS for claimed they were of low toxicity and particularly didn't mention TCP, phosphates, or neurotoxicity like the MSDS for some jet turbine oils. So I reckon they're fairly safe from the ingredients point of view.

As mentioned in some of the MSDS, combustion products from the engine are a different matter: Engine exhaust gases, especially from 2-stroke engines, may contain carbon monoxide, fine particulate soot, a veritable galaxy of interesting aromatic (and non-aromatic) hydrocarbons of varying toxicity, etc, etc. Used engine oil also is contaminated with a lot of such things. Motor fuel (especially petrol) has all sorts of things you don't want to get in you, like benzene, MBTE, etc. So I wouldn't hold my face in front of a 2-stroke exhaust any more than a 4-stroke or a jet turbine exhaust, but I don't think the 2-stroke is being deliberately loaded up with any neurotoxins.

HarryMann

19th Apr 2009, 23:56

But there are some very fancy high-performance (read racing, but marketed for fast road use) 2-stroke oils out there... you know they're fancy when they cost about 5 times the normal ones!

Carjockey

20th Apr 2009, 02:39

nicolai

Appreciate the info, thanks. The key thing here appears to be that we are talking about fumes from combusted oils, the properties of which are totally different from the fumes from the same oils in a non-combusted state.

Incidentally I asked the question because we live in a city where there are thousands of 2-stroke motorcycles on the road, the fumes from these beasts are pretty horrendous sometimes so it is a matter of concern to us.

Dream Buster

20th Apr 2009, 07:03

TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE (http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/t5161.htm)

TCP damages human central nervous systems.

No exposure limits set.

When you breathe it - you risk becoming very sick with nervous system damage.

It does exactly what is says on the oil tin.

Ask BALPA - they have known all about it since 2005. I found out to my cost a year later - in 2006.

I thought everyone knew by now....

Which bit don't people understand? www.aerotoxic.org (http://www.aerotoxic.org) for further.

DB :ok:

nicolai

20th Apr 2009, 09:49

carjockey: The key thing here appears to be that we are talking about fumes from combusted oils, the properties of which are totally different from the fumes from the same oils in a non-combusted state.
Indeed they are! My understanding of the entire oil-contaminated-cabin-air issue so far is that crews report problems after engine bleed air is contaminated by (unburnt) oil, from leaking HP compressor seals and similar. Is anyone complaining about ending up breathing turbine combustion products on a regular basis? Bleed air shouldn't have any combustion products (from the turbine combustion chamber) unless your turbine has some serious problems... "SMOKE/FUMES" covers a lot of things, in this case not a combustion product.
TCP has a flashpoint of 410C (thanks for the reminder of the MSDS for TCP above) so it's going to burn as soon as it reaches the turbine combustion chamber - what comes out the turbine exhaust is not going to be TCP, it's going to be TCP combustion products. How nice they are is good question, but separate from TCP toxicity - this MSDS (http://www.emsdiasum.com/microscopy/technical/msds/22150.pdf) reckons "carbon oxides (CO, CO2)" which are relatively not so bad.
As to high-performance 2-stroke oils having different ingredients, I couldn't find any information showing expected significant toxicity from even the most elite racing motorcycle oils and no mention of TCP or neurotoxicity from any of them. I'd welcome pointers to any MSDS showing this in any two-stroke land engine oil.

flipster

20th Apr 2009, 10:59

Most bleed air is taken from the compressor stages - this air is not 'burnt' as such but it is damn hot (not sure how hot exactly but I'm sure someone will tell us).
Does anyone know how this would effect the levels of TCP and its by-products? Furthermore, different engines with different oils, bleed air 'tappings' and lubrication systems could all influence the concentration of the nasty chemicals. Has any research been done along these lines?

flipster

spannerless

20th Apr 2009, 12:39

Old stuff indeed (Jmig) I have fond memories myself of flying in the Tristar on holiday and whilst wearing a blue suit in the Timmy's.

Thing is the MOD were too tight to pay for the full filtration systems in the timmy's, after all what does a rufty tufty grunt need with clear air!

Result particularly if flying to the South Atlantic 2 x 8 1/2 legs was evrybody on board ended up with what was nicknamed as South Atlantic flu. This normally knocked everyone out for 3 or 4 days in the first week, less if you were lucky!

It wasn't just germs causing this syndrome either!

:bored:

torquewrench

20th Apr 2009, 20:28

Made me wonder if the exhaust fumes produced by two stroke engines (petrol/oil mixture) contain TCP's? I'm not sure about two-strokes, but in modern motor oils designed for four-stroke engines in vehicles with emissions controls, TCP is no longer likely to be part of the anti-wear additive package.

The culprit is the phosphate from combusted tricresyl phosphate, which will poison the substrate of the catalytic converter.

This is also the reason for the removal from automotive motor oils of the (frankly excellent) anti-wear additive ZDDP, zinc dialkyl dithiophosphate. Not catalyst safe. Especially not with today's physically small catalysts which have relatively little margin of degradation of function. Palladium and platinum are quite expensive.

Jet engine oils don't have the design constraint of a catalytic converter on the back end (imagine!). And given the very high acquisition and replacement costs of aeroturbines, it's reasonable that lubrication engineers would strive to reduce wear by all available means.

Regrettably, although the choice of TCP as an additive made sense from a purely mechanical perspective, it may not have been for the best from a health perspective, as is now becoming clear from the medical research.

rmm

21st Apr 2009, 09:41

Flightdino

21st Apr 2009, 10:00

Have a look at the Aerotoxic website. They have collected reports from international media concerning this issue:

TV News and Documentaries Archive - Aerotoxic Association - Support for Aerotoxic Syndrome Sufferers (http://aerotoxic.org/articles/20081027_1)

ACW367

22nd Apr 2009, 22:39

You may also wish to look at the large amount of research the DfT has already undertaken for at least 18 months, before reading some the more sensationalist non-scientific websites mentioned above.

Department for Transport - Cabin air quality frequently asked questions (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/hci/faq)

Department for Transport - Minutes of the Aviation Health Working Group meeting held on 14 January 2008 (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/hci/ahwg/aviationminutes?page=2#a1002)

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/hci/cabinairsamplingstudy.pdf

Croqueteer

24th Apr 2009, 14:47

:ooh: Interesting. I flew the 146 for 17years finishing five years ago. I didn't have any probs at the time, but a year ago my kidneys suddenly failed due to a highly unsual condition "Good Pastures Syndrome" where my own immune system attacked my kidneys, shutting them down then going on to my lungs. The lungs mended themselves, but the kidneys permanently lost. The renal consultant could not provide a reason, but did ask me if I had been in contact with oil. Any suggestions or ideas?

cwatters

24th Apr 2009, 15:13

Google found..

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2007/06/21/0704820104.DC1/04820Appendix3.pdf

Page 38

8.4Good pastures syndrome

Good pastures syndrome is an autoimmune disease of lung and kidney.Viral and streptococcal infections and exposure to hydrocarbon fumes have been suggested as possible causes. The host factor might be immune response genes.
Source: OMIM Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=OMIM&dopt=Detailed&tmpl=dispomimTemplate&list_uids=233450)

The link is also worth a quick look for the type of exposure mentioned can be quite brief.

See also..

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

Captain-Crunch

25th Apr 2009, 01:15

Interesting.

Might explain the wide variance of susceptibility to cabin air sickness.

A healthy individual with good genes and no previous infection might declare that the whole Toxic Cabin Air issue is hogwash. He might not believe the tale of crew members that are completely disabled by exposure to TCP and other additives.

Couple this with the low airflow exchange through the pressure vessel since smoking was banned, and since surplus bleed air was seen as money by airlines and manufactures.... and you have all the ingredients for sickness.

I never heard this happening to people on the old gen aircraft: the B-732, the B-722 and the B-742. The individual eyeball sockets ensured everybody got a faceful of bleed air on the ground (gasper) or in the air (packs). Even if compressor seals were leaking, the rate of full cabin air replacement was higher (no reliance on recir fans for cooling).

I hated certain aspects of the airbus and later gen a/c. I hated "Econ Flow". Even wiith that off and everything wide open (a310) as a fat guy, I still couldn't get cooled off. The airflow was pathetic and no good in the tropics. Skinny copilots shivered and complained since I had to compensate by running the temp way down. So on preflight, while he was doing the walkaround, I started shutting off all crossover and vents on his side to give me more psi.

It makes sense that this wasn't a problem on the old iron with their "packs-a-plenty". Correlation: My pool guy used to be an artist at getting rid of cloudy water without using expensive chemicals. "The solution to pollution is dilution" he used to say to me with a sinister grin. Of course, I was the one who had to pay the water bill.... bastard...

I wonder if that applied to cabin-air as well? More airflow = less TCP exposure?

Crunch - out

Dream Buster

30th Apr 2009, 20:19

Here are the latest 'twin' victims of contaminated cabin air - all in their minds?

Seattle Video | News Video | TV Video | KING 5 News | KING5.com (http://www.king5.com/video/?z=y&nvid=356379)

DB :ugh: :ugh:

muduckace

30th Apr 2009, 21:14

What is unique to this issue is the recycling of air. Most are under the false perception that this is healthy. It is when your concern is stale air or avioding spreading illness.

In the case of toxins introduced into the cabin an aircraft thet recycles more air has the same if a larger impact. The air at altitude is cold so a large volume of air straight out of the engine is introduced into fresh air and then directly into the cabin to provide a comfortable environment.

korrol

1st May 2009, 07:37

The honeymooners who became the first British victims of swine flu were passengers on a nine-hour Thomson 767 (flight 578) from Cancun to Birmingham on Tuesday, April 21.
It seems they picked up the disease though not from the air conditioning but from five male passengers who were already ill and who sitting immediately behind and alongside them. Apparently they considered asking for permission to move seats - but decided "not to make a fuss".

What are passengers' rights in these circumstances? Would they have been allowed to move seats? ...And, as all the cabin air is recirculated, were all the passengers - and crew - potentially at risk?

Dream Buster

1st May 2009, 07:47

Korrol,

With respect, swine flu H1N1 is a seperate, different issue?

Plus I don't know the answer, except that solutions are similarly inconvenient and impossible to apply to normal operations....

DB :ok:

korrol

1st May 2009, 07:56

The reason I raised H1N1 here is because muduckace had raised the issue of infection in the previous post - but I agree with you it's probably best discussed elsewhere - although I don't know whether there's a thread which deals with this issue. Anyway my apologies to you and to the administrators if I have wrongly-posted here

virginbluepilot

1st May 2009, 11:48

Just sit on the E jet and eat your lunch next to the toilet thats toxic air!, enough to make you gag on your own vomit!:ok:

Basil

1st May 2009, 11:54

I get a running nose, congestion, sneezing, loss of sense of smell and 'taste' which I believe to be due to contaminated air.
Since I only fly on a handful of occasions per year and the symptoms appear in the spring I suspect that the contaminant is rape pollen.
Never had any problems with industry, ships engine rooms, gunfire residues, aeroplanes but have had trouble with atmospheric pollution as stated and in HK with northerly wind. :ok:

Blacksheep

5th May 2009, 13:56

A quote from a certain aircraft manufacturer's discussion document...

(Insert name of airframe builder here)... has been examining events in which human senses detect a condition inside the pressurized area of an airplane that may result in a conclusion that there is a potentially dangerous ignition source or atmospheric contamination present that needs immediate corrective action. I think the lawyers mean that crew or passengers have smelled smoke or fumes. :rolleyes:

Basil - I share your symptoms, especially on long haul to & fro the Far East, but I've always put it down to lack of humidity. Humidity levels in aircraft cabins at high altitude are well below 40% despite the use of re-circulated air and our noses aren't designed to operate at such low humidity levels.

"So, fit humidifiers" one may say, but back in the 70s when Boeing put humidifiers in the B747, the resultant condensation on the fuselage skins (at -50 degrees or so) caused heavy "rainfall" in the cabins and the humidifiers had to be de-activated.

AerocatS2A

7th May 2009, 13:24

When we used to buy Mobil Jet 2 in the nineties it came with a small white label on each 44 gallon drum that listed all of the ingredients. The last line always concerned me

ingredients partially unknown
To be fair, it's probably just that the oil is a naturally occurring liquid and it is not possible to know exactly what traces may be in it no matter how refined it is.

I'm well aware of cabin air quality issues and have smelt oil in the bleed air on a number of occasions. Personally I'm not physically affected by it but I know that some individuals are. Part of the problems is that it affects people in different ways. While one pilot may claim to smell it but have no ill effects (me), the other may have a constricted throat, head ache, and possibly nausea. This makes it difficult to quantify the effects, and when one individual is particularly susceptible, it can appear as though it is a problem with the person rather than their work environment.

Sparky01

8th May 2009, 13:42

In Feb 2001 an accident happend from hydraulic fluid on the floor of the aircraft cockpit reacting with a foot and mouth disinfectant splashed onto the pilot. The mixture of the two produced organo phospahtes just as with bleed air and a faulty seal. The pilot was incapacitated in flight, which on a BN Islander, single pilot flying a BA scheduled service is significant. Radar tapes show the plane descend from 2000' to 200. The pilot was grounded for many years, assessed as disabled and still has significant health problems. The effects on the pilots health were no doubt magnified because management chose to check and test fly the aircraft after he landed rather than take the pilot to hospital immeadiatly.

That organo phosphates cause ill health doesnt need further studies. It doesnt need further studies that TCP in oil can get into cabin air by a variety of ways, especialy through faulty bleed air seals.

That airlines will destroy evidence, falsify evidence, commit purjury conduct court cases "unreasonably" and fail to report an accident to AAIB is controversial. It happens though - Air New Zealand and Loganair. As for the regulators AAIB refer to CAA who refer to HSE who refer to AAIB.

The following relates:
House of Commons - Transport - Written Evidence (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtran/809/809we40.htm)

Dream Buster

8th May 2009, 17:06

Quote:

"Aircraft crew members and passengers made ill and disabled by unsafe fume prone aircraft need to be acknowledged, treated and compensated. Crew should not be allowed to be used as expendable items and be blamed for their illnesses then cast aside when too ill only to be replaced by new crew to join the poisoning cycle.

The BAe 146, the most dangerous fume prone aircraft, should be grounded internationally.

This would put the aircraft manufacturers and airlines on notice by applying a language they understand that of economics.

The BAe 146 aircraft, to paraphrase Nader, is an aircraft that is unsafe at any height.

The evidence suggests that it is only a matter of time before a major accident occurs from fume exposure.

Of course there is an alternative scenario that a major accident has already occured as a result of fumes but blame has been placed somewhere else.

The most likely place to lay blame for airlines and regulators is the pilot in the event of his/her cognitive failure that leads to a crash and loss of life."

The full report can be read here (http://www.aerotoxic.org/categories/20081027#latest).

DB :uhoh: