Toxic Cabin Air/Aerotoxic Syndrome

[blind pew]

At some time I read a boeing publicity article that the 787 air conditioning was reverting to prior bleed era because of contamination. Imho this was changed because someone realised that the majority of Boeing's production uses bleed air and the costs of 're engineering would be prohibitive.
After a lot of investigation at Kings, Harley Street and Stoke Podges under the top liver specialist,Rodger Williams, I was put in the military hospital at RAF Halton. After a fortnight I was discharged- my wife told me afterwards that I had been given a week to live which is why I was put into Halton.
I was flying the Trident at the time, maintenance as well as management was lousy and fume incidents were common place. Except for lung problems (grew up east of london during the smog years) I had good health until I suddenly experienced gastro and liver problems.
My flight manager- nicknamed the corporal by the bomber boys- tried to sack me saying that I obviously wasn't suited to flying due to my nervous disposition.
I slowly recovered helped by only flying a week a month.
Ten years later I had a recurrence of the symptoms but more extreme. I was flying the DC10 for SR. Amongst my small group of foreign first officers around a quarter had neurological problems. I also had a friend with WardAir on the DC10 who died after a crossing having had a stress ECG complete with a crash team a few weeks before. I had a similar investigation.
Whilst I am sure that my 70s health problems were caused by a neurotoxin associated with the air con the DC10 incidents could have been larium although that would not have explained the WardAir death.

I contacted all parties who dealt with me in the 70s wrt obtaining my Tox reports to no avail.

I lost my license 22 years ago and since I stopped flying jets some of my symptoms have improved.

As to the corporals' nervous pilot...I've gone on to teaching mountain flying, winching and acrobatics and at 67 I'm climbing mountains and "jumping off".paragliding.

I had contact with an aircraft engineer whose company supplied the turbine lubricants as well skydrol and he said he had no knowledge about organophosphate poisoning. This I can believe as the industry has a long history of manipulation but Until recently I would guess that a lot of this cover up was pure ignorance and incompetence until BALPA suddenly changed tack.
The global implications are immense as are the pesticides, GM engineering and spent uranium munitions and we ignore them.

[RAT 5]

Is this one of those 'inconvenient truths'? Is this smoke without fire, or no smoke at all? Is the cost of acknowledging the problem so prohibitive that it stands no chance? Eternal denial? We still do not know the real long term truth of solar radiation. There is not enough scientific historical data. The problem might be if either are ignored so that scientific data is never collected over a long enough period. It is shelved because the solution is too expensive. It becomes a risk/cost consideration.
Remember the poo-pooing (rubbishing) when health issues from leaded car fuel was first mentioned. The petrol industry thought it was a daft notion; until it was medically confirmed. Same with DVT and cattle class pax. Same with salt quantity & other additives in fast foods and children' health. Same now happening with sugar in everything. One could argue that these latter issues were solved because the costs were reasonable.

[Mac the Knife]

"We still do not know the real long term truth of solar radiation. There is not enough scientific historical data. "

I'd be intrigued to hear your explanation of that statement, having a scientific background and a son who is a physicist.

There IS quite a lot that we don't understand about our sun (like why the solar corona is so hot), but there is also quite a lot that we DO understand. The biological effects of solar UV are reasonably well understood now and there is a fairly good historical record of solar activity from a variety of sources going back a fairly long way.

We know that the Sun is a middle-aged G-type main-sequence star that has not changed dramatically for around 4 billion years and is likely to remain fairly stable for another 5 billion, though there will be periods of increased or decreased solar activity (see Maunder minima, etc.).

Global warming is an undeniable fact and we are at least reasonably sure that some of this is anthropogenic and that we can make it worse.

No, we don't know "..the real long term truth of solar radiation.." because we don't know enough about small-scale solar dynamics.

Trying to equate this with a highly variable and selective "syndrome" with protean and mainly anecdotal manifestations for which the evidence base is several orders of magnitude smaller is, I submit, unreasonable to say the least.

[Nemrytter]

I think he means "the truth about long-term exposure to solar radiation", i.e: cosmic ray exposure in high altitude aircraft. This was done to death earlier in the discussion, guess this chap missed that bit.

[aox]

The inquest of Richard Westgate has opened in Salisbury.

(BBC South Today TV)

Result:

Toxic air fear pilot Richard Westgate died of overdose, coroner rules - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-39591492)

A British Airways co-pilot who feared contaminated cockpit air was poisoning him died from an unintentional overdose of sedatives, a coroner ruled.

Dr Fox earlier ruled that "exposure to organophosphate in the course of his employment as a commercial pilot" was "not a proper issue to be examined by this inquest".

Speaking after the verdict, Mr Westgate's mother, Judith, said: "Medical experts have said organophosphate cannot be ruled out in causing his condition, so the questions remain.

"We know there are more sick passengers and crew, and we hope today will encourage the millions who fly to ask questions to ensure something is done to make sure others don't suffer like our son."

[Basil]

I flew aeroplanes, mil & civ, for forty years. No one I know has had problems with toxic cabin air (well apart from a chemical carboy in a freighter breaking). Ciggies, yes; killed one or two. One particular aircraft type seems to have a convincingly bad record.
My GUESS is that a very few people are genetically predisposed to hypersensitivity to any number of foods and environments. The World of the majority is not going to stop for the few - sorry.

[B787DASH900]

This thread was started 7 years ago when the High Court of Australia ruled in 2010 that inhaling heated Mobil Jet Oil II was harmful to the lungs. This was several years after the AAIB agreed flight safety was being compromised from contaminated air exposures and recommended to EASA and the FAA that contaminated air detection systems be fitted to all turbine/jet powered aircraft - something that has yet to occur.

This week I see there is a significant paper published in a World Health Organisation journal entitled: 'Aerotoxic Syndrome: A new occupational disease'

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/341533/5_OriginalResearch_AerotoxicSyndrom_ENG.pdf

The authors are probably the most informed on this issue you could ask for.

One is former Australian pilot Dr Susan Michaelis who not only holds a PhD on the issue but also trained as an air accident investigator at Cranfield and her MSc published last year 'Implementation Of The Requirements For The Provision Of Clean Air In Crew And Passenger Compartments Using The Aircraft Bleed Air System' confirmed that engine seals leak oil as a function of design, not only during seal failures. This explains why the neurotoxic organophosphate tricresyl phosphate has been found on the majority of air samples and interior swab samples taken from the internal surfaces of jet aircraft. This means crews and passengers are exposed on every flight to some degree - this may explain the higher cancer rates and ill health seen in crews confirmed by Harvard and others.

The next author is Order of Australia winner, Dr Jonathan Burdon OA, past President of the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand.

The final author is Professor Vyvyan Howard. A professor in Bioimaging and a medically-qualified toxico-pathologist and the current leader of the Nano Systems Research Group.

I think the paper finally shows this issue has to be taken seriously as does the issue.

So what can be done to keep aviation safe, profitable and resolve this issue?

I understand the solutions to this problem will finally be presented at the industry supported 2017 Aircraft Cabin Air Conference in London on 19/20 September. The event is supported by Pall Aerospace, the GCAQE, Air Canada pilots, Both Australian pilot unions, APFA - the largest flight attendant union in the world, Virgin Atlantic pilots and others.

The solution to this problem I am told from a Flight Ops director I respect and trust, is a modern version of the military spec activated carbon filtration system DHL introduced to their B757 aircraft nearly 10 years ago with huge success.

The new version of this Pall designed filter, according to my source, has already been flight tested on an Airbus A320 aircraft at Spirit in the last month and filters the air coming off the packs with minimal flow rate change - it also comes with warning sensors I am told which will please the AAIB and others.

This will finally resolve an issue first reported by crews in the 1950s and will in one move mitigate a health and flight safety issue that should be addressed.

Some crews report they have flown for years with no health effects - others have lost their careers but ultimately these filters will protect the weakest link - the unborn child, the passengers who pay our wages as crew.

It’s a no-brainer - fit the filters which work and make aviation safer - everyone wins.



For one I will be at the conference in London as this will be big news - well done to all those unions who have championed this issue for so many years, especially the Australians.

[tonytales]

At least two of the first generation jets did not use engine bleed air in the cabin. The B.707 and DC-8 utilized turbo-compressors to supply cabin air. Engine bleed air of course powered them but they took in ambient air, compressed it and fed it to the environmental air conditioning system. I do not remember ever having any contaminated cabin air reports from those aircraft.
I believe the B787 uses independent compressors (electrically driven?) to supply air for the cabin which in turn should eliminate any contamination. Seems like the way to go as turbo engine oils are a witches brew of truly nasty stuff. Bad enough on the techies hands when maintaining the engine; a lot worse inhaling it after it has been super-heated.

[b1lanc]

After reading the last two posts, came across this interesting USAToday article from 2002. Seems Alaska Airlines was involved with a significant number of fume events, with the two AC types. I can imagine what the verdict was. Some further research dates events as far back as 1974 for 8 airlines in the US. BALPA research on 93 757 crews also reported 1600 fume events. I think the pull quote is "Mysteries are cheaper than fixes".

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2002-05-09-cabin-air.htm

[Ian W]

Perhaps people should be careful what they wish for. EASA could easily (make up) regulate a life time safe exposure limit after which flight even as a passenger on bleed air pressurized turbojets was severely constrained. It happens in other industries.

Long term the only solution is electric pumped pressurization, it would make the engines run more efficiently too.

[lomapaseo]

Long term the only solution is electric pumped pressurization, it would make the engines run more efficiently too.

a quibble if I may

It would be a result rather than a solution to fume events.

In the end there would still be alleged fume events and human maladies searching for a linked cause

[Basil]

Perhaps people should be careful what they wish for. EASA could easily (make up) regulate a life time safe exposure limit after which flight even as a passenger on bleed air pressurized turbojets was severely constrained. It happens in other industries.

Long term the only solution is electric pumped pressurization, it would make the engines run more efficiently too.
Allegations would then be made of oil leaks from motor-driven compressor bearings.
Re efficiency, you are still using engine power to drive electric or hydraulic compressors with the attendant electrical, mechanical and thermodynamic losses.

[Ian W]

I think it is simpler to isolate oil in the air from a compressor especially one where a more benign lubricant could be used compared to the use of 7th stage air from within an engine lubricated using a 'total loss' oil system.

[tonytales]

Another thing to be considered is the temperature of engine bleed air versus the output of a motor-driven cabin air compressor. Engine bleed air is hot to say the least and can decompose engine oils as well as vaporize it. The compression ratio of a motor-driven cabin compressor is far lower, hence output temps would be too and I would think its ability to break down the oil. Agreed, I do not want to breath undecomposed oil either..
APU bleed air and main engine bleed air can also decompose deicing glycol as I have seen where an APU was used to run the air conditioning during deicing and ingested deicing fluid. We had a return to the gate with a lot of nauseated pax.

[tdracer]

Ian
What current turbine engine uses a 'total loss' oil system? Because the ones I'm familiar with are quite the opposite, with extremely low oil consumption rates when healthy (and any lube system can loose oil when it's damaged).
Turbine engines typically consume far more oil when operating at low power/idle - the lube systems use pressure differentials to keep the oil where it's supposed to be and that doesn't work as well with low power and low pressure differentials. That means that an aircraft taxing around an airport typically consumes more oil than it will during cruise.


If anyone was really interested in the subject, the absolute first thing they'd do is start sampling the air around large airports - lots of aircraft operating engines at low power and consuming lots of oil.
That so far no one has tells me everything I need to know.

[Basil]

Tricky stuff. It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.
AFAIK, the only legacy I have, at the age of 75, from noisy, oily ships engine rooms and noisy, oily aircraft is tinnitus.
I know y'all thought I was a 'know it all' 30yo but I'm really a 'know FA' old barsteward :)

[Ian W]

As far as I am aware no-one has run a control measure of outside air all the measurements have been made with a degree of 'confirmation bias' so measures are taken within the cabin as the 'only source' of oily fumes could be from the compressor. And of course swabbing the seats will find traces of the oil contaminants in any aircraft that has taxied up behind another.

Just walking around an apron or down the jetway, smelling the kerosene and other fumes, it becomes obvious that there are a multitude of unmeasured sources. Including, sitting in the departure queue ingesting exhaust from the aircraft ahead and 'conditioning' the cabin air with that. Doesn't matter how good your seals are in that case.

[FAStoat]

Having suffered from this myself, some years back,and still have the odd migraines,2 people,Susan Michaelis( a Medic) and Tristan Loraine(Ex BA) formed an Aerotoxic Association with John Hoyte in the chair,with whom I used to fly!They started the ball rolling a full decade ago with little or no results as the Officialdom stated the Historical Data Base was not sufficient to enable the" Authority"to make a prognosis of any long term health problems!!That is exactly what the Lords and Masters of said Authority said to my Wife down at the Beehive Gatwick,when they removed my licence medical-Luckily just before I was due to retire.Meanwhile a LOT of my old mates have succumbed to a number of cancer related or brain related terminal health problems.
Maybe,at last, something may happem.

[FAStoat]

Oh Yes!!!A Senior moment,but what I meant to add was the French Air Force have experimented with a Vegetable Based Oil that does not have the Carthegens in it,and have obtained reasonable results for Engine Life.These chemicals ,particularly in MobilJet 2,have the capacity to prolong engine life.In BAe years ago on the HS125,we used MobilJet2 to try to prolong the Solar APU which used to have a life of 2/3rds of 5/8ths FA,but failed and the Garret APU was then used and lasted a much longer time,as a result of which MobilJet 2 was used for both the Vipers(Total Loss Oil System) and the Garret 731,with minimal affect on Pax and Cabin.However the more modern Engines seem to churn out a far greater amount of Carsonagenic fumes from Organophosphates.I have not seen any comments with actual Airlines trying a vegetable based engine oil,so maybe no one else except the Fench have done so??

[DaveReidUK]

I rather think that's missing the point.

The aim is to stop oil residues contaminating the cabin air at all, not to substitute a more benign regime that emulates a flying chip shop.

[Dream Buster]

This industry supported conference is an essential two-day event, providing excellent networking opportunities for those seeking to understand the historical aspects of contaminated air, the flight safety implications, the latest scientific and medical evidence investigating the contaminated air debate and the solutions available to airlines and aircraft operators.

This important international conference mapping the business, regulatory and technical solutions to cabin air contamination, will be the most in-depth conference ever held on this topic.

September 19/20 2017

https://www.aircraftcabinair.com/

[DaveReidUK]

OEMs conspicuous by their absence from the programme. Now there's a surprise.

[artee]

https://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/08/dont-hold-your-breath

"A recent study (http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/341533/5_OriginalResearch_AerotoxicSyndrom_ENG.pdf) from the University of Stirling and the University of Ulster reveals the scale of the problem..."

[Basil]

https://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/08/dont-hold-your-breath

"A recent study (http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/341533/5_OriginalResearch_AerotoxicSyndrom_ENG.pdf) from the University of Stirling and the University of Ulster reveals the scale of the problem..."
I notice their study is based on the BAe 146 which was alleged to have a particularly conspicuous problem with bleed air contamination.

[Permafrost_ATPL]

The problem nowadays is that there are so many publications that you can pretty much publish ANYTHING. If you don't believe me, a skeptic blogger recently published a complete bogus paper (http://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/movies/a27457/scientific-journals-publish-bogus-star-wars-paper/), in THREE different journals, based on midichlorians - yes, the ones from The Force in Star Wars. He even authored them as Dr. Lucas McGeorge and Dr Annette Kin :D

The publication quoted in the Economist appeared in PUBLIC HEALTH PANORAMA. So, how do we know how that journal ranks in the scientific world? A good place to start is ranking sites such as EIGENfactor (http://eigenfactor.org/projects/journalRank/rankings.php?bsearch=PUBLIC+HEALTH+PANORAMA&searchby=journal&orderby=eigenfactor) or SJR (http://www.scimagojr.com/). So how does it rank? Well... It doesn't. Searching for that name returns no result.

So why hasn't this study been published in a reputable journal? Well I'm not an expert in this particular field, but even a cursory look at the paper reveals serious problems. For example what they describe as "Study A" is based on 14% of BAE146 pilots having filled in a health questionnaire (no randomisation, not control group, etc). For those who reported long term health effects, the paper provide a list of ailments and their occurrences. It pretty much reads "ailment A: 1 case; ailment B: 1 case; ailment C: 1 case" etc. So what you have a long list of different health effects that has been clumped together to form a hypothesised "syndrome". I could go on, but you get the idea.

I also looked at the publication list of the author's first paper and the pattern of publishing in very minor journals is clear.

I am not a manager, engine manufacturer employee, etc. I am your average line pilot. With a decent scientific background. Does journal ranking mean everything? No. Does the very poor quality of the study, IMHO, mean that no crew or passenger has ever been affected by fumes? No. But if you're going to worry the paying public and air crews, please back it up with sound scientific data.

[Big Bad D]

OEMs conspicuous by their absence from the programme. Now there's a surprise.

If airframe and engine OEMs were key in the programme there would be even faster criticism and no doubt accusation of this welcome event being some form of cover-up. Do you seriously believe airframe and engine manufacturers will not be present and interested?

[Nemrytter]

Permafrost_ATPL makes a very good point, even a cursory glance at this study throws up a lot of potential problems.
Public health panorama is an OK journal but is quite low-ranking. It's not one where I'd expect to see ground breaking research - you'd send that somewhere better. If you see ground breaking research in a journal like this then it should set alarm bells ringing. It's also worth pointing out that pretty much the same research (at least, it contains the same studies without any changes) has been published before. Maybe I miss something, but I don't see anything new in this 'new' paper.

The studies also seem to be expecting a result and then going out to prove it. As Permafrost_ATPL says, there's absolutely no control studies done, no monitoring of other groups. Avoiding that bias is one of the first things you are taught as a scientist. The entire paper is based around positive selection bias, as a researcher it really makes me cringe to see stuff like that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: This type of pseudo-scientific study undermines the actual evidence for health problems associated with cabin air. It's easy to dismiss other evidence when you also see this type of rubbish being published.
What we need is proper science, proper evidence and an in-depth study to understand both the prevalence of fume events and the effect that these have upon crew. What we have is a bunch of people who appear to come up with the conclusion first and then seek evidence to justify it. This is the worst kind of bad science.

[CurtainTwitcher]

In a seminal, instant classic article John P. A. Ioannidis shows Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124).

He essentially argues that the only valid findings are of meta-analysis where multiple reproducible studies are used as the basis of a larger study of these studies.

Even Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, says: up to half of all research may be false (http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf):

...
The case against science is straightforward: much of the
scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects,
invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts
of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has
taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put
it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical
Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put
their reputational weight behind an investigation into
these questionable research practices. The apparent
endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their
quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often
sculpt data to fi t their preferred theory of the world. Or they
retrofit hypotheses to fi t their data. Journal editors deserve
their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst
behaviours
...

There is a crisis in science, particularly the lack of reproducibility.

[its easy]

What are people's thought on the fact we are starting engine's on push back, so going into the fumes, where oil vapours could be, then turning on the packs to gulp it all in? I notice the acrid stink, to the point it bites my throat.sometimes after a week I wonder if it's fatigue that makes my aching limbs or something else

[lomapaseo]

I notice the acrid stink, to the point it bites my throat.sometimes after a week I wonder if it's fatigue that makes my aching limbs or something else

This observation is common throughout the many pages of this thread.

Also equally common in everybody's lives

Association does not equal causation.

We await hard statistical validated scientific data to discuss this kind of subjective observation further.

[Dream Buster]

Latest on toxic cabin air from BALPA August 2017:

A new path in NHS care for pilots affected by fume events | BALPA (http://blog.balpa.org/Blog/August-2017-(1)/A-new-path-in-NHS-care-for-pilots-affected-by-fume#.WZ1nmxvtZCY.facebook)

From BALPA April 2005:

Proceedings of the BALPA Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality International Aero Industry Conference. Held at Imperial College, London (2005) - Aerotoxic Association (http://aerotoxic.org/information/proceedings-balpa-air-safety-cabin-air-quality-international-aero-industry-conference-held-imperial-college-london/)

Toxic cabin air is either:

A risk or

Not a risk...

:ugh:

Guardian article from 19th August 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/aug/19/sick-crew-toxic-air-planes-frequent-flyers-ill

[back to Boeing]

Knowledge does move on in 12 years

[Nemrytter]

There is a crisis in science, particularly the lack of reproducibility.I think that's a bit too extreme, some parts of science are suffering from a reproducibility crisis but it's by no means all-pervasive and - in most cases - is a problem in the 'soft' science subjects.
From BALPA April 2005:...Aerotoxic AssociationThat sounds like an unbiased and reuptable source.:}
I really wish you could start quoting reputable, evidence based sources rather than sources whose reports are based on anecdotes. It'd do your credibility the world of good.

[oilyturbineguy]

I rather think that's missing the point.

The aim is to stop oil residues contaminating the cabin air at all, not to substitute a more benign regime that emulates a flying chip shop.


Bare in mind, its not just exposure to cabin air, its also through skin contacts for ground engineers. I have worked in aviation since 1970, mostly mucking about with turbines. Made a lot of contact with MobilJetII, Shell Aero500 and Exxon 2380. Eventually health and safety got on the scene and I started to wear protection, gloves and barrier creams. Guess what? retired now I suffer from a neurological disease affecting my feet, legs and awful headaches. Although diagnosed they wont make the connections to my aviation background.

[Dream Buster]

https://davidlearmount.com/

Don't shoot the messenger.

[its easy]

This observation is common throughout the many pages of this thread.

Also equally common in everybody's lives

Association does not equal causation.

We await hard statistical validated scientific data to discuss this kind of subjective observation further.



I appreciate correlation isn't causation - I have a degree in physiology and over 10 years experience in pharma before I became a pilot nearly 10 years ago, so understand clinical evidence.

I maintain a log of the events . I am just looking for others experience of such and the idea we draw in the exhaust gases from start up, with associated oil leakage from further down the engine, into the bleed air system as we turn on the packs .

A less glib response would be more appropriate.

[Ian W]

In your log do you include the time spent taxiing behind other aircraft and ingesting their exhaust?
Or even when doing external checks when aircraft are held on the ramp?

[Lyneham Lad]

Surprised no one has mentioned EasyJet's move regarding toxic cabin air.

EasyJet to filter toxic air in cabins (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/easyjet-to-filter-toxic-air-in-cabins-6qzrf6sjx?shareToken=399e3dd0d57fc35cf3e909b6bfb5e1d3)

Snip from the article:-
EasyJet is to fit filters to stop toxic fumes entering its passenger cabins and cockpits in a move seen as the industry’s first acknowledgment of “aerotoxic syndrome”.

The condition, long denied by airlines, is feared to be responsible for several deaths of pilots and crew and hundreds of incidents where pilots have fallen ill, sometimes at the controls. Frequent flyers and young children could also be affected, it is claimed.

EasyJet told The Sunday Times that “health concerns” had led it to work with a commercial supplier, Pall Aerospace, to “develop and design a new cabin air filtration system” for testing on the company’s aircraft next year.

[beamender99]

Pall are the obvious company for the job.
They produced aircraft cabin filters for dealing with tobacco smoke decades ago.
With their vast experience of making all sorts of aircraft and medical filters it is an easy choice

[silverstrata]

I have no idea if toxic air is real. But after 30 years of niggling medical problems (stomach and headache) they all mysteriously disappeared after I stopped flying for a number of years. But how am I to prove a correlation?

[ShotOne]

Many posts hinge on the proof of causal link. All this really demonstrates is that proving a causal link to legal standard for anything is hard. There was a similar rearguard action over agricultural organophosphates in 70's and early 80's relating to near-identical medical issues. Whatever the debate on causality we KNOW aero-engine oil contains OP's. Pushback is where I often experience oily smells. Would it not make sense to delay switching on packs until moving forwards?

[wiggy]

Would it not make sense to delay switching on packs until moving forwards?

I'm not sure I understand the logic of that..stationary or not you are still going to end up breathing air that has come from the Engine Bleed system.

[ShotOne]

The issue is that even with a perfectly designed and maintained bleed system you'll get a (un)healthy whiff of start-up smoke if the packs are on during/immediately after start-up

[wiggy]

Ok..FWIW on the the types I'm most familiar with the packs aren't running during the start process, they are off before start and go on after all engines are running.

[ShotOne]

Yes, wiggy; which is often while the aircraft is still pushing backwards

[wiggy]

Given packs are off for engine start I'm still not sure what the aircraft's movement has to do with it...what would you suggest at airports where the tug does a push and then a pull, and engines are started when you are moving forward or have already moved forward to a release point?

Are you simply saying leave the packs off for a specified time after engines are running, presumably in the hope of burning off any oil, residue or similar that gets into the engine bleed system during engine start?

[snooky]

I think that the primary cause of aerotoxic syndrome is not to do with fumes from outside, but burnt oil that gets into the air conditioning giving the "sweaty sock" smell familiar to many who have operated the types notorious for it.
Having flown such a type for over twenty years and experienced the smell briefly on very many occasions and had "fume events" a few times I now have many of the symptoms described in aerotoxic syndrome.
The symptoms are often the same as those experienced by farming organophosphate exposure, which is unsurprising as the oils contain the same chemicals.
The problem is that all this is very difficult to scientifically prove, though I do remember some measurements being taken many years ago in affected aircraft which must have proved the presence of fumes but which nothing was ever heard of.

[Nemrytter]

though I do remember some measurements being taken many years ago in affected aircraft which must have proved the presence of fumes but which nothing was ever heard of.There have been numerous studies, none of which (to my knowledge) have seen any meaningful quantities of toxic substances in the cabin air, even during what crews described as fume events.
This report is interesting, for example (https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/5305/1/AircraftCabinAirSamplingStudyPart1FinalReport%2020110420.pdf ). The downside is the lack of any control study, which makes the results interesting, but not particularly robust. The conclusion is particularly interesting:
Therefore, with respect to the conditions of flight that were experienced during this study, there was no evidence for target pollutants occurring in the cabin air at levels exceeding available health and safety standards and guidelines.

A much more widespread investigation (including controls, airport samples, and home samples) is needed in order to draw meaningful conclusions, though.

[the_stranger]

In 2014 a Dutch research team (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiU-OrJvrPWAhVLWBoKHfRpA6MQFgg-MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rijksoverheid.nl%2Fbinaries%2Frijksove rheid%2Fdocumenten%2Frapporten%2F2014%2F09%2F15%2Frivm-voortgangsrapportage-voorjaar-2014-tcp-s-in-cabinelucht-van-vliegtuigen%2Frivm-voortgangsrapportage-voorjaar-2014-tcp-s-in-cabinelucht-van-vliegtuigen.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG2KSma4yPxvA30ws8tqmzyR2aN3w) also looked at TC(o)P at flight and during fume events.

The link is in Dutch, but the conclusion was both they did not find any significant concentration of TC(o)P, but could not conclude the symptoms were not a result of the few particles that were found.

[ManaAdaSystem]

On the 737, the smell/fumes happen mostly during the first start of the day.
I wonder if it is because of some oil or other contaminants collecting somewhere inside the engine during night stop? They get burned off during start —> smell/fumes?
I find that switching the packs off before start, and keeping them off for a few minutes after engine start, will pretty much eliminate this problem.

[Dream Buster]

Sunday Times article about an easyjet fume event flight.

Note that oil fume events are now called 'smell events'...or 'odor events' in the US.

EasyJet in forced landing as ?smell event? overcomes co?pilot - Aerotoxic Association (http://aerotoxic.org/news/easyjet-forced-landing-smell-event-overcomes-co%E2%80%91pilot/)

[ManaAdaSystem]

There are other contaminants that can enter the aircondition system.
Hydraulic and deice fluids to mention two.

[Basil]

Could this be a bit like 'nut allergy'?
Perhaps a vanishingly small percentage of people are allergic to tiny amounts of contamination which have no effect on anyone else.
Or maybe their illness was engendered by something unrelated to aircraft air.

No comment re BAe146.

[greenlightfinal]

Have you ever owned a Citroen 2CV or a VW Beetle? How about those sheet metal boxes around the hot bits of the aircooled cylinders and exhaust connections? Yeah, they are a cheap solution to providing heated air to the cabin. Any chance of an exhaust gasket leak, or fumes from seeping oil heated at n degrees on the cylinder head actually being sucked into the cabin. "Slim to none, let's go with it. Otherwise, geez, you're talking a real costly solution."
Bypass air straight to the cabin? What were they/we thinking?

[Basil]

It isn't bypass air; it's bleed air from an compressor stage which supplies an appropriate pressure.
I agree with the risk you mention but there's no such possibility with compressor bleed air. On the ground you can get some re-ingestion of your own and others exhaust gas but airport workers breath that all the time.
The theoretical source of in-flight contamination is a leaking oil seal on the forward fan/compressor bearing.

[ShotOne]

"airport workers breathe that all the time..." Yes. Including flight crew.

[KenV]

This aircraft situation is nowhere equivalent to the Citroen/Beatle situation. The aircraft uses bleed air bled from the compression section of the engine. Unlike the air in the automobiles you cited, the aircraft air is nowhere exposed to exhaust air nor engine components exposed to combustion. In piston powered aircraft (and even some turbo prop aircraft) cabin air is supplied by an engine driven compressor. On 787 the compressor is driven by an electric motor. Those compressors are functionally no different than the compression section of a turbine engine and no more nor less safe.

[ShotOne]

I agree it's not the same as Citroen/Beetle analogy. But it's not at all true to say bleed air carries the same risk as air from an electric compressor. Even a minor oil leak from a bearing (or anywhere) upstream of the bleed will result in contamination

[tdracer]

Actually, it is very much the same. The design of most turbine engines means that there is generally only one bearing where an oil leak can result in oil into the compressor air upstream of the bleed off take - which is also the case with most electric compressors.
I'm now retired so I no longer see the daily 21.3 reports, but before I retired there was at least one "fume" event on a 787, reportedly due to an issue with the electric air compressor..

[no-hoper]

The 787 compressors are equipped with air bearings.
Not a single drop of oil in the entire air condition.

[tdracer]

That was the original design intent - but they couldn't make it work. It uses the same oil as the engine.

[lomapaseo]

What's the maximum air temperature if the bearings leak oil in this compressor?

[tdracer]

That I don't know - I never actually worked the 787 but I do recall reading that they had to abandon the air bearings. But as I noted previously, there's been at least one reported "fume" event on the 787 related to an air cycle machine fault. So it's reasonable to assume it get's hot enough that if there is oil present in can cause a problem.

[no-hoper]

Oil lubrication for an ACM?Yes,on B737 Classic and Dash-8...

[Dream Buster]

Hi All,

Here is part 1 of ‘Poison in the cockpit’ from 2010 & part 2 from 2013

Part 1: https://zembla.bnnvara.nl/nieuws/gif-in-de-cockpit

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QfhtaXr2Bs

Part 3 will be tomorrow on 8th November 2017

Part 4 will be on 15th November 2017

Poisoning Cover up - finally exposed...:ok:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PW84yS7l-Q Dutch TV 8.11.17

Next programme on 15th November 2017...

[Dream Buster]

Uitzending gemist | ZEMBLA, Gif in de cockpit: De belangen op Nederland 3 (http://www.uitzendinggemist.net/aflevering/413873/Zembla.html)

:ok:

[Jimmy Hoffa Rocks]

You tube video removed, why? Not much discussion on this from the airline pilot community ? Another inconvenient truth or....
Is there a cover up? This issues needs to be studied further for hard facts as the fumes affect us, and there´s not enough facts available.
Shouldn't we ask our airlines, manufacturers, unions, authorities to do a serious hard fact study, as it appears it has been kept quiet. Not to alarm, to find solutions

Airline Workers Warn of 'Toxic Fume Events' on Planes From Bleed Air | Fortune (http://fortune.com/2017/08/09/dangerous-cabin-fumes-planes/)

[Chris2303]

But it's not a problem - after all the German BFU refuse to investigate any and all fume events.

[lomapaseo]

This issues needs to be studied further for hard facts as the fumes affect us, and there´s not enough facts available.

Are you proposing that it gets studied until the hard facts support a specific conclusion that there is enough facts?

Please provide an endpoint as we know that people of all walks of life get sick everyday from unknown causes.

[The Range]

The problem is not the "fume events that happen an estimated 2.6 times a day".
The problem is the non-fume events that happen more frequently and don't smell but you
breath along the years.

[GrandPrix]

I’ve been exposed. Caused an OJI issue for two months. If every time an event occurred and an immediate landing ensued, this problem would go away quickly. We (myself included) are our own worst enemy.

[bafanguy]

FYI...recent event:

“One flight attendant with extreme breathing issues (editorial note: supposedly the flight attendant the flight crew referred to as showing symptoms of a heart attack) was taken to a hospital, a high level of carbon monoxide was found in the blood samples taken by the hospital. “


https://aviationvoice.com/5-flight-attendants-poisoned-during-the-delta-boeing-763-flight-201802081147/

[Dream Buster]

BALPA Flight Safety Spotlight - Flight Safety Spotlight February 2018 (http://balpa.newsweaver.com/flightsafetyupdate/17qwbrff7maq03pb47p91l?email=true)

How DO BALPA members continue to let their 'union' get away with not communicating to them a known cause of human ill health?

Read the evidence BALPA published in 2005, after their Contaminated Air Conference in London:

BALPA?s Flight Safety in the Spotlight ? (http://www.aerotoxic.org/balpas-flight-safety-in-the-spotlight/)

[Nemrytter]

Because it's not a "known issue", it's a suspected issue.
Research into what's going on is needed, not name-calling and howling.

[misd-agin]

bafanguy

From the article - “. 5 other flight attendants showed symptoms of dizziness, headaches and diarrhea.”

“Poisoned”. But after 90 minutes on the ground the flight departed with the five rapidly unpoisoned f/a’s. An hour is a standard divert ground interrupt. Ninety minutes, in Greenland, is quick work.

[John Sawyer]

“Poisoned”. But after 90 minutes on the ground the flight departed with the five rapidly unpoisoned f/a’s. An hour is a standard divert ground interrupt. Ninety minutes, in Greenland, is quick work.

I recall reading "Air Clues"years ago that exposure to synthetic oil fumes could cause nausea and suicdal tendencies. We found that fumes entered the air conditioning system via worn and incompletly pressurised labyrinth seals,so avoided prolonged peiods of idling,by icreasing revs by 200 or so.

[Dream Buster]

Nemrytter - ill health caused by exposure to toxic fumes is a known issue from the 1950's to present and publicly documented.

If you do not accept any of this known evidence - what exact missing evidence would it take to make you doubt your personal suspicions.

A gas chamber?

[Nemrytter]

This is exactly the problem you present: Anyone who suggests that evidence is needed is accused of having "personal suspicions" and then presented with some hysterical comment about gas chambers. Such comments help no-one.

I have no horse in this race, no benefit on either side, no profit to make. I'm a scientist by profession and that means that I know what proper evidence is. I've not seen any of that presented thus far, only suspicions and suppositions.

If the problem is as significant as you suggest then it should be relatively easy to gather evidence to support this (financial investment aside). You need medical reports and air quality samples from a large number of flights. You do not need vague reports and "is believed" style statements.
Let's assume that 'toxic air' is definitely a thing. How will you force airlines to take it seriously? Forum posts and hysteria? Or cold, hard, facts?

[Dream Buster]

Here is some of the early evidence from 1955 with overwhelming evidence ever since - but only for those scientists who can read.

https://www.aerotoxic.org/pdfs/reddall-1955-elimination-of-engine1.pdf

Easyjet wisely changed their engine oil in 2017 to Nyco, a safer formulation and deciding to fit 'bleed air' filters & poison detectors in 2018 is the absolute evidence, but only due to criminal proceedings in a Paris criminal Court.

Get informed and read about the 'Precautionary principle' and don't get hysterical over a past legal win in a public High Court. Turner v's East West airlines. (2010).

East West Airlines Ltd v Turner [2010] Australian High Court Judgement (http://www.aerotoxic.org/east-west-airlines-ltd-v-turner-2010-australian-high-court-judgement/)

:ugh:

[vapilot2004]

I understand Airbus operated a flying laboratory that studied cabin air quality starting in 2012. The results were kept secret.

Get informed and read about the 'Precautionary principle'

This is what is behind many US farming and food processing chemicals and techniques being banned in the UK and the EU. As long as manufacturers, regulators, and the airlines can "sow the seeds of doubt" into the debate, progress towards a solution will remain mired in the political muck.

Proof of the stalemate is easily illustrated by the fact that despite scientific findings of central nervous system damage by organophosphates, the industry remains unchanged. Even the mere suggestion by a regulating authority or industry representative that aircraft cabin air is potentially dangerous across the fleet would wreak havoc and is the most likely explanation for why TCP/TOCP oils remain in use, despite their proven toxicity.

The elimination of TEL (tetra ethyl lead) as a motor gasoline additive was a long time coming, despite knowledge of the substance's toxicity in humans since the inception of its use. It wasn't until over a half century later that something was done.

It has been nearly three decades since the WHO had this to say about regulation and the differing physical responses to the toxins:

Because of considerable variation among individuals in sensitivity to TOCP, it is not possible to establish a safe level of exposure" and "TOCP are therefore considered major hazards to human health"

[dazarland]

I'm writing a dissertation on this very topic at the moment and while there is evidence of toxic fumes present, and cases of illness due to exposure i think that it is a minor issue for passengers but maybe more of a concern for flight crew and cabin crew due to the frequency and exposure time leading to an increased probability of experiencing a "fume event".

[sb_sfo]

Dazarland,
As part of your research, might I suggest you inhale a snootful of hot organophosphates and tell us if it feels minor?

[dazarland]

sb sfo,
Maybe I should have said the risks are minimal rather than it is a minor issue, for this I apologise because it is a major issue when it happens, and I'm sure a "snootful of hot organophosphate" would not feel minor.
But an average passenger, lets say, taking 2 return flights of around 2-3 hours each year then yes I believe the "risk" will be low and as suggested in my post, the more frequently an individual flies then the risk of exposure to fumes that may or may not contain hazardous levels of tricresyl phosphate will also increase. I am not saying that toxic fumes are not present and serious fume events do not take place, or that when they occur they are not serious but I do believe that for the average passenger they are rare.

[Dream Buster]

Dazarland,

We all drive but few people suffer fatal accidents - equally we all fly and officially there is 'No positive evidence' of ANY injuries caused by toxic air exposure.

But the actual evidence is such that countless people's testimonies report injuries after exposure.

An example of a US passenger from 2000:

http://aerotoxic.org/pdfs/RMontmayeur-testimony.pdf

As as pilot of 16 years flying the BAe 146 - it nearly killed me.

You need to do some research and find out why the airlines are now urgently putting in the known solutions.

Plus there is an article in this month's Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) Journal on toxic cabin air by aviation journalist David Learmount.

Please get informed of the evidence, not what you think is happening on the precautionary principle.

A cover up of the actual data is far more likely.

If anyone can publish the RAeS article here, i'm sure it would be most interesting to read.

There either is a problem or there isn't?

[Zaphod Beblebrox]

This is real! I am sitting at gate T12 in KATL with very sick A319. Maintenance says that the APU was overserviced. They have to do a “burn out” procedure. It is a terrible smell that makes you dizzy. We deplaned and are waiting on a new airplane as that one will be out of service for a while.

[Rated De]

What is staggering is that the airlines themselves will be sitting on data.

A well structured study could easily show a statistically significant correlation between the health impact of continued exposure to toxic air by looking at sickness rates in the flying crew population and the broader population. There is research into the likely presence of carcinogens and the diagnosis rates for flight and cabin crew. If this rate is statistically different to the rate in the broader population then it is possible to establish a prima facie link between the repeated exposure to the air and illness (cancers in particular)

What is suprising is that a union as a 'welfare' or health and safety investigation do not launch a structured plaintiff driven case to discover this data (held by airlines).

Given a balance of probability standard is a lower threshold, it is likely any well constructed law suit would never get to the court steps...

[Dream Buster]

This recent law suit from the US demonstrates the cover up between the guilty parties - it was also a nearly new B.737.

http://aerotoxic.org/pdfs/court-papers-escobedo-v-Boeing.pdf

No evidence = Huge cover up.

:mad:

[Nemrytter]

Sigh, trying to put scientific principles to people who have already come to a conclusion is utterly, utterly, pointless. I expected better from aviation professionals.

[Dream Buster]

Nemrytter - exactly which evidence would convince you that human exposure to toxic oil fumes in a confined space causes ill health?

Please do tell us - exactly.

:ugh:

[Dream Buster]

This is not a reply - just some more evidence from hysterical professional pilots.

https://www.alliedpilots.org/Committees/Aeromedical/Contaminated-Cabin-Air?VideoId=d49bd0ba1f17ebc75c

:ok:

[Dream Buster]

https://gcaqe.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=371bdf1d91bf2a48f1ad456f6&id=c8310a690d&e=36d80b470c

[snooky]

Interesting article from 1955!

https://www.aerotoxic.org/pdfs/reddall-1955-elimination-of-engine1.pdf

[Dream Buster]

Accident: Spirit A319 at Boston on Jul 17th 2015, fumes on board, captain died 50 days later (http://avherald.com/h?article=4b6eb830)

[BewareOfTheSharklets]

Accident: Spirit A319 at Boston on Jul 17th 2015, fumes on board, captain died 50 days later.

The video there is well worth watching.

[Reluctant Bus Driver]

Allied Pilots Association: FAA Makes Right Call on Toxic Fumes

FORT WORTH, Texas (April 6, 2018) – The Allied Pilots Association (APA) applauded the Federal Aviation Administration’s issuance of a Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) regarding “Procedures for Addressing Odors, Smoke and/or Fumes in Flight,” citing the serious health and safety threat posed by toxic air in the cockpit and cabin of an airliner.

“We applaud the FAA for taking this significant step to mitigate the risk air crews and passengers face from toxic fumes,” said Captain Dan Carey, APA’s president. “A toxic fume event can result in immediate incapacitation and have a long-term adverse impact, and it can affect everyone on board.”

Academic research indicates that approximately 20,000 toxic fume events have occurred during the past 10 years — an average of five each day. A toxic fume event occurs when the air inside the aircraft becomes contaminated from engine bleed air.

The FAA’s recently released SAFO recommends that air carriers “review their company’s odor, smoke and/or fumes procedures to ensure they address benign odor events as well as toxic odor, smoke and/or fumes, in an expeditious manner to limit exposure of passengers and crews.”

APA has developed and submitted detailed recommendations to American Airlines concerning procedures for ensuring that crewmembers are properly trained and aware of the threat posed by toxic cockpit and cabin air. APA is now awaiting the company’s response.

“Given the seriousness of this threat, we are hopeful that the company responds promptly to our recommendations and moves forward in accordance with the FAA’s SAFO,” Carey said.

Founded in 1963, the Allied Pilots Association — the largest independent pilots union in the United States — is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. APA represents the 15,000 pilots of American Airlines, including several hundred pilots on full-time military leave of absence serving in the armed forces. The union’s website is AlliedPilots.org. American Airlines is the world’s largest passenger airline.

[IFixPlanes]

Is there any link to the "Academic research" that indicates approximately 20,000 toxic fume events?

[Nemrytter]

Probably the same "research" that the avherald quotes.:ugh:

For those who have a genuine interest in understanding fume events from a scientific perspective, this speech by Richard Feynmann (http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm) is well worth keeping in mind when reading much of the academic literature.
There's huge amounts of, as Trump would put it, "fake science" surrounding fume events. To have any hope of convincing aircraft manufacturers and operators that something needs to be done this fake science needs to be put back in its box and real science take the lead. I'm sure that Dream Buster won't like me saying this, but that's life. Profit-making companies aren't going to be convinced by a bunch of papers that have a worse level of scientific understanding than a 1st year undergraduate, we'll have to do far, far, better than that.

[RetiredBA/BY]

A good friend, a 757/767 captain lost his licence some years ago with a definite diagnosis , by the CAA docs. of OP poisoning. I also lost my licence sometime before that, when I, too, was a 75/76 captain and had been flying a RR powered 75 which was using a little more oil than usual in the left engine, the bleed from which feeds the pack used for the flight deck air conditioning. My problem, neurological , was identified but the source / cause of my slightly abnormal eeg, in the left temporal lobe was not ? OP, who knows, but I have my suspicion.

Now long retired I fly large model aircraft powered by gas turbine engines, into the fuel for which, I use JetA1, is mixed turbine oil at 5% and is burned as total loss. The exhaust has a distinctive odour. After OP awareness I have always handled the oils with great care and avoid exhaust fumes during ground running.

However, I was recently made aware of a turbine oil called Turbonycoil 600 which does NOT contain TCP, is approved for very many full-size engines by all three of the big manufacturers for a wide range of engines including the RB211, and is , I am told, the ONLY turbine oil used by the US Navy.

So why is this oil not being used more extensively in civil aviation, removing the OP problem at a stroke?

[zerograv]

I'm sorry to learn about your Medical condition.

What's the price of "Turbonycoil 600" vs Oil with TCP ?

Although "approved" by the big three manufacturers, Oil with TCP might allow a few hundreds more cycles than "Turbonycoil 600", which translates into big maintenance savings.

Money will always be driving force behind choosing between options. :suspect: (not the health and safety of crewmembers)

[Zaphod Beblebrox]

I had a toxic air incident on an a 320 a month ago. Luckily it happened at the gate prior to departure. My flight attendants had had it happen before and were familiar with the smell. We ask the passengers to deplane, called maintenance and the aircraft was taken out of service.

Maintenance found the APU oil level greatly over-serviced and oil lying in the duct-work leading from the APU air plenum. There is a duct "dry out" procedure in the maintenance manual. It's a lengthy procedure. Run the APU and air-conditioning at high temp. The aircraft was out of service overnight. There was no push-back from the company.

[Nemrytter]

To be honest Turbonycoil 600 doesn't seem all that great either!
Safety sheet here (https://lubricants.petro-canada.com/Api/sitecore/LubesApi/DownloadResource?docID=TN600&type=MSDS&lang=en-US).
If the link doesn't work, google "Turbonycoil 600 msds".

[BRE]

What about high end, fully synthetic car engine oils?

According to this
https://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=752940

just mineral oils, no additives, which I find almost suspicious. By the way, the English version (2013) is even less detailed than this 2017 German version.

[Raffles S.A.]

I fly a 727 and just recently we were deiced at Munchen (Munich). No problem during the flight but when we landed at base and started the APU, fumes came into the plane and made everyone's eyes burn.

Second point, there are still some airlines that insist on spraying the cabin during taxi when departing from certain countries. Surely the pesticide must have an effect on frequent travelers and crew.

[Dream Buster]

Anyone interested in Nyco oil should watch this 2007 film about toxic cabin air and find out...

Documentaries (http://www.aerotoxic.org/documentaries/)

= No evidence. :ugh::mad::eek:

[core_dump]

Can anyone explain why the only evidence presented is hosted by that nut job site aerotoxic?

[tdracer]

Can anyone explain why the only evidence presented is hosted by that nut job site aerotoxic?

Surely that's a rhetorical question (and don't call me Shirley :})
I find it telling that no one is taking me up on the suggestion to go start sampling air in and around airports - lots of aircraft, burning lots of Jet A and oil (most jet engines use far more oil at/near idle since they depend on pressure differential to keep the oil where it belongs) in a confined space. Unless there is an oil leak or similar mechanical failure, the bleed air at 35k is almost certainly is less contaminated...

[misd-agin]

tdracer - I saw a study that researched 'toxic' cabin air. Your hunch, or knowledge based leading question, is correct. Outside the airplane is much worse than the interior samples. The ramps and jet bridges had higher amounts than the cabin. You'd think rampers would be dropping like flies.

[Flapping_Madly]

Forgive me if I have missed this point if already covered. It was a quick read.
I have a question as a lowly SLF.
Some time ago I read that it is advisable to aim the fresh air vent to blow straight down your face so that all breaths are of clean filtered germ free air rather than regular cabin air full of nasties, and the air flowing down your face keeps cabin air away.
The article also said that the on board filters are extremely efficient and getting air direct from the nozzle is best.
But: is it not the case that this freshly filtered air may be clean of germs etc but is still a mixture of fresh and bleed air? So the theory won't hold up.
I hope you can understand that. Not one of my best. Thanks.

[tdracer]

But: is it not the case that this freshly filtered air may be clean of germs etc but is still a mixture of fresh and bleed air? So the theory won't hold up.
I hope you can understand that. Not one of my best. Thanks.
Most modern aircraft ECS systems use a ~50/50 split of 'fresh' air from the engine bleeds and 'recycled' air. That air is mixed before it gets to your overhead vent, so in that sense it's all the same. The recycled air is run through a HEPA filter, which is extremely effective at filtering out germs/viruses and similar particulate contaminates - but would be ineffective for gaseous contaminates. Your technique of trying to breath only air from the overhead vent would help prevent you from catching a cold from the person sitting next you. But if the engine bleed air is somehow contaminated it wouldn't help significantly.

[Nemrytter]

I find it telling that no one is taking me up on the suggestion to go start sampling air in and around airportsSome of my colleagues, being scientists rather than activists, have done just that. Their results are similar to those mentioned by misd-agin: The ramp is not a pleasant place to be in terms of chemicals in the air.
One thing that surprised me from the study (not yet published, but under review now) was that smoke from aircraft tires was a strong contributor to local pollution and contained a whole array of nasty substances.

[aox]

One thing that surprised me from the study (not yet published, but under review now) was that smoke from aircraft tires was a strong contributor to local pollution and contained a whole array of nasty substances.

A significant proportion of particulates due to road use comes from tyres and brakes, but it's fairly hard to find much detailed information about it, especially in the current vogue of blaming everything on diesel cars.

Heading possibly more off-topic, there are predictions though that the proportion could eventually reach 90%, as well as assertions that as electric cars are heavier, they may cause more of these.

[Niallo]

Fume events, with adverse effects on crew and passengers, are gaining more attention.
I am wondering:
When they notice the fume event, can the flight crew identify the faulty engine?
Can they shut off the bleed air from that engine, or if not, are they permitted to shut that engine down?
Can either engine on its own maintain cabin pressure?
Is it their decision whether to land as soon as possible?
Niallo

[jolihokistix]

Handkerchiefs over noses? I think I would have felt sick too, seeing that smoke.
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20180521_19/

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/upld/thumbnails/en/news/20180521_19_500367_L.jpg8 passengers on ANA aircraft fall sick after smoke fills cabin

Today 04:03 pm JST
1 Comment (https://japantoday.com/category/national/8-passengers-on-ana-aircraft-fall-sick-after-smoke-fills-cabin#comments)


CHIBAOver 100 passengers on an All Nippon Airways Co flight bound for Hong Kong were evacuated from the plane at Narita airport and eight of them fell sick Monday after smoke filled the cabin, officials of the airline and the airport said.

The trouble occurred at around 9:45 a.m. on a Boeing 767 aircraft with around 140 passengers and crew on board shortly before the plane's takeoff, they said.

According to the airline known as ANA, oil from the aircraft's auxiliary power unit was sucked into the cabin through the air conditioner ducts after it had vaporized.

While the cause of the leak has still not been determined, no fire occurred, ANA said.

[Dream Buster]

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/9-investigates/new-legislation-would-make-flying-safer-for-passengers-crew/803838010

American Airline pilots now have a checklist for odors....

Dirty Sock = OIL + neurotoxic

Worth making a memory item?

:ugh: :yuk: :ok:

[Dream Buster]

Every 10 years the BBC updates it's licence fee payers with a recorded (not live, as not allowed) history lesson of whether 'so-called' Aerotoxic Syndrome (1999) exists or not?

Y/N?

The next hour long RADIO programme has been scheduled for 0100 on the World service on 1st January 2019 - as most Europeans are in bed, drunk from New Year celebrations, but it is due to be replayed later in the day.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?filter=programmes&q=aerotoxic

For the record, here is the last BBC Panorama programme from 21st April 2008 about this cause of mass serious ill health caused by 'bleed air' in jet airliners and how a group of passengers (including children) were Aerotoxic Poisoned on 1st February 2007...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dsDznr4z5w

It will be most interesting to learn from the BBC exactly how the legal case of the passengers they reported ten years ago finally ended?

Happy New Year to all & many congratulations to Easyjet & Pall Aerospace for seeing the opportunity to be FIRST & make masses of money out of installing the new filters & poison detector available solutions in 2019...

Don't forget to set your alarm!! :ok:

[DaveReidUK]

Don't forget to set your alarm!!

Or stay in bed and listen at your leisure: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w172w0q34d6cs2y

[Dream Buster]

Latest BBC radio programme from 0100 1st January 2019
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172w0q34d6cs2y

Any journalists wishing to know more evidence go to: BBC latest history failure on so-called Aerotoxicity 1st January 2019 (http://www.aerotoxic.org/bbc-latest-history-failure-on-so-called-aerotoxicity-1st-january-2019/)

[Dream Buster]

Rogwk - could you contact me please & I'll fill you in.Thanks. [email protected] :ok:

[tdracer]

Dream Buster
Since you're very obviously on a crusade on this subject, would you mind addressing the points raised in posts 352 and 356?

Or are you ignoring that because it doesn't fit the narrative?

[snooky]

The points made in those posts are irrelevant to this discussion, which concerns the effects of inhalation of toxins within aircraft due to bleed air containing the toxins being used to supply the cabin. Pollution outside the aircraft whilst maybe worthy of separate discussion is not relevant here.

[tdracer]

Last time I checked, people - including aircrew - breath around airports. Aircraft ECS systems use engine bleed air when they are on the ground and near airports. Aircraft exhaust on the ground includes significant amounts of engine lube oil (most turbine engines consume far more oil at/near idle then they do at power due to the way the lube systems work). If there is a problem with the air around airports, people - like pilots - who spend a lot of time at airports would be at risk.
If aerotoxicity is in fact an issue, how can you categorically state the issue isn't due to the air at the airport if no one is checking?

[Gnadenburg]

Does anyone have information on environmental system contamination in Airbus aircraft after an engine compressor wash using Lufthansa cyclean techniques? The fumes are the dirty sox / oil type fumes in many cases and are giving crew headaches, disorientation, flushes, facial tingling and cognitive confusion.

tdracer

Without doubt, the air around airports isn't going to be great. However, in the case of Airbus, they claim their ECS producers air quality on the tarmac due filtering at very high levels ( see Fastrack magazine references ). Oil and other contaminants pumped straight off the engine into the mixing unit is longer lasting in my experience.

[snooky]

i’m merely stating that this thread is about toxic cabin air. External contamination is a subject worthy of discussion but should not divert the thread from it’s subject, this being toxic air [b]in the cabin.

[tdracer]

And I'm simply point out that if the air being sucked in from outside is contaminated, then the air inside will be similarly contaminated. Any meaningful analysis needs to look at the entire system. If the ECS system can't filter out contamination coming from the engine internals, then it won't be able to filter out similar contamination coming from outside the aircraft.

Look, a fume event caused by an engine oil leak is bad news for the people who are breathing the fumes. No argument. But such events are rare (especially since the most common culprit engine/aircraft are disappearing from service). Before I retired, I checked the incoming 21.3 reports at Boeing for fume events for about six months. There were a number of fume events, but only three were somehow related to the ECS system - most were galley events with the odd electrical smoke event. Of the three, one was an improper engine water wash, one was reported as an actual engine oil leak, and one was an air-cycle machine failure on a 787 (you know, the one aircraft that doesn't use engine bleed air). So fume events due to engine faults are pretty uncommon. (BTW Gnadenburg, while it certainly smells unpleasant, the stuff they use for an engine water wash is pretty benign - many use just plain water. If there is anything particularly toxic, it came from the 'dirt' that was washed off the blades, not from the cleaning solutions. If the wash is done properly the bleeds are blocked such that nothing gets into the bleed system, but sometimes mistakes are made).
What is often claimed is that 'normal' engine bleed air is a hazard - but there is little data to support that. If the infinitesimally small amounts of engine oil that finds its way into the engine bleed system from a healthy engine is a hazard, then the far higher concentrations that get sucked into the aircraft at and around the airport would constitute a hazard.

[snooky]

Having flown types which are notorious for fumes for over 20 years and now suffering from the effects, my view is that it’s the small cumilative effects that are the main problem. Many on here will be familiar “sweaty socks” odour, often shortly after the start of descent. Evidence of such is obtainable, but little effort seems to have been expended over obtaining it.
This is not to say that toxins do not come in other ways, but in my view having experienced it daily for many years the relatively small leaks are the biggest problem.

[snooky]

Interesting video giving advice to cabin crew from their union.
https://www.change.org/p/stop-contaminated-cabin-air-in-aircraft/u/23889043?cs_tk=Anxsmd1Xu8p-EPkNQ1wAAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvKZCepO3Qzb2LoDx8bLFJPc%3D&utm_campaign=bf9a81210fbd4daabc6094f479d1fdba&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs

[Dream Buster]

2019 Aircraft Cabin Air Conference 17/18 September 2019

The issue of contaminated air has been discussed on this forum for over a decade so I wanted to bring to your attention that the flight safety issues of contaminated air on aircraft will be discussed at the 2019 Aircraft Cabin Air Conference on 17/18 September in London. The conference will also look at the regulatory and legal aspects of this issue, the health implications and the solutions available to aircraft operators.

The 2019 Aircraft Cabin Air Conference is supported by over 30 crew unions globally and is an industry supported event sponsored by Pall Aerospace and BASF to name a few (companies offering solutions to the problem).

I attended the 2017 conference and I found the conference really helped increase my understanding of the issue.

More details at:

https://www.aircraftcabinair.com/

[Dream Buster]

https://www.aerotoxic.org/pilots-cabin-crew-launch-court-battle-ban-toxic-air-flights-daily-mail-28-3-19/

https://unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2019/march/pilots-and-cabin-crew-launch-court-action-against-airlines-in-toxic-air-dispute/

[Dream Buster]

Latest High Court action in London:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6898583/amp/British-Airways-pilot-died-inhaling-toxic-engine-fumes-centre-High-Court-case.html

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/08/ba-pilot-died-inhaling-toxic-cabin-air-9133942/?ito=article.amp.share.bottom.facebook&fbclid=IwAR2FUu6WwxE4g0Uv0LiPxwWs0PyBzR36IM8mnAi-vJGr49gNH5TJAFULpXM

[Dream Buster]

Accident: British Airways A320 near Tenerife on Jun 23rd 2019, fumes in cockpit and cabin (http://avherald.com/h?article=4c9a5bc4&opt=0)
Incident: British Airways A321 near London on Jun 23rd 2019, fumes in the cockpit (http://avherald.com/h?article=4c99bc26&opt=0)
Accident: British Airways A320 near Frankfurt on Jun 18th 2019, fumes injure passengers and cabin crew (http://avherald.com/h?article=4c95e89d&opt=0)
Incident: British Airways A321 at Sofia on Jun 15th 2019, fumes in cockpit (http://avherald.com/h?article=4c93ddeb&opt=0)
Accident: British Airways A321 near Copenhagen on Jun 8th 2019, fumes on board (http://avherald.com/h?article=4c90084d&opt=0)

[Dream Buster]

Radio: https://www.rts.ch/play/radio/on-en-parle/audio/air-toxique-dans-les-avions-les-risques-pour-les-passagers?id=10511478

TV: https://www.rts.ch/play/tv/mise-au-point/video/le-syndrome-aerotoxique?id=10544273

BBC still banned from mentioning the A word....

[Dream Buster]

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/9-investigates/9-investigates-toxic-fumes-on-planes-and-a-new-push-for-safety-changes/970961923?fbclid=IwAR0XbsKzUnFnqo4RD95jZEwrfxw-4b9BpwdteVa3nN6rvx4PCIVvqQA7w7s

and from 2017:

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/9-investigates/today-at-5-toxic-air-onboard-passenger-jets/498575431?fbclid=IwAR2Hd2nYbd2CwcV7iYWiXdzrgUeObj4vo08jpavz2 QPe_ss6xHg9wIu2Tvk

and from April 2019:

https://garamendi.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-garamendi-and-sen-blumenthal-introduce-bill-protect-airline-passengers-and

How DO they get away with it?

[Dream Buster]

'Everybody Flies' film announced https://filmindustry.network/documentary-everybody-flies-to-premiere-at-raindance-film-festival/37565?fbclid=IwAR3ANwnhPo6j1My2e3bl_3j05OBbyMMgTgBvFArO3gFt6 nD0-UGxPP_iG3Y

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/267x188/download_2__3019219044890de3b0789ffd0df68515e7451291.jpg

[snooky]

The problem does at last appear to be getting more mainstream coverage at last
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50074402

[cwatters]

"New Caledonia’s Aircalin returns brand new but “smelly” A330-900 to Airbus for thorough inspection"

https
://www.aviation24.be/airlines/aircalin/new-caledonias-aircalin-returns-brand-new-but-smelly-a330-900-to-airbus-for-thorough-inspection/amp/ (https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/aircalin/new-caledonias-aircalin-returns-brand-new-but-smelly-a330-900-to-airbus-for-thorough-inspection/amp/)

[DaveReidUK]

The article implies that TAP never got to the bottom of the similar problems it also encountered with its A330neos earlier this year.

Does anyone have an update on that ?

[reverserunlocked]

British Airways Airbus A320-200, registration G-EUYM performing flight BA-633 from Athens (Greece) to London Heathrow,EN (UK), was on final approach to Heathrow's runway 27R about 4nm before touchdown when the captain donned his oxygen mask and declared Mayday, Mayday advising he was going to continue the approach. The aircraft touched down safely on runway 27R about 2 minutes later.

On Jan 4th 2020 The Aviation Herald received information that on final approach the first officer passed out, the captain smelled the odour of old socks, immediately donned his oxygen mask, declared emergency and continued for a safe landing. Passengers and cabin crew remained unaware until after landing.

On Jan 5th 2020 The Aviation Herald received more details: On approach to Heathrow the captain noticed the odour of dirty old socks, the first officer, pilot flying, did not smell anything. The captain believes the odour is dissipating. Then the first officer started breathing heavily, slumps forward and no longer responds to questions by the captain. The captain therefore takes control, dons his oxygen mask, declares Mayday, configures the aircraft for landing and lands safely. After landing, in care by medical staff, the first officer recovers.

The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Heathrow about 60 hours after landing.

linky:

Accident: British Airways A320 at London on Jan 2nd 2020, fumes take out first officer (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4d189839&opt=0)

ETA apparently the FO didn’t pass out

[M.Mouse]

First Officer did not pass out. (https://simpleflying.com/a320-ba-fumes-first-officer/)

[The Range]

And airlines and aircraft manufacturers keep denying it.

[jolihokistix]

First Officer did not pass out. (https://simpleflying.com/a320-ba-fumes-first-officer/)
And at the end of same article denying that anyone had actually passed out, is this sentence, "Just imagine what would have happened to flight BA-633 if the captain had also passed out." Poor editing, as of this time.

[lpvapproach]

First Officer did not pass out. (https://simpleflying.com/a320-ba-fumes-first-officer/)

That article states that
" TCP (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47740523) is a toxin that, when released into the cockpit or cabin, can smell like old socks, cause nausea and even incapacitate anyone breathing it in. While fumes in the cockpit are rare, they do happen from time to time and could prove fatal if not noticed quickly. Just imagine what would have happened to flight BA-633 if the captain had also passed out. "

Fume events Nov and Dec (https://www.change.org/p/stop-contaminated-cabin-air-in-aircraft/u/25556317) has quite a few Airbus entries..

[Gordomac]

For recognition training, may we have the inclusion of old socks smell awareness. Being a goody goody, I have no idea but, what a splendid job done by our BA Skipper.

[AviatorDave]

Fume events Nov and Dec (https://www.change.org/p/stop-contaminated-cabin-air-in-aircraft/u/25556317) has quite a few Airbus entries..

BA seems to have a quite prominent presence there with their A320s. What‘s up with that?

[jolihokistix]

Serious question. Does 'old socks' mean simply and literally 'old', (not new) or 'unwashed', i.e. cheesy?

[DaveReidUK]

ETA apparently the FO didn’t pass out

He was just incapacitated. So that's OK then.

[misd-agin]

He was just incapacitated. So that's OK then.

Where does it say 'incapacitated'? Let's stick with accurate descriptions of what is reported to have occurred. Not responding to questions isn't necessarily the same as medically unresponsive. Deep breaths, slumped forward, and not answering questions will be verified by the actual statements of both pilots and the FO's description of his actual symptoms and any known, or suspected, causes that he's aware of.

[Semreh]

That article states that
" TCP (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47740523) is a toxin that, when released into the cockpit or cabin, can smell like old socks, cause nausea and even incapacitate anyone breathing it in. While fumes in the cockpit are rare, they do happen from time to time and could prove fatal if not noticed quickly. Just imagine what would have happened to flight BA-633 if the captain had also passed out. "

Fume events Nov and Dec (https://www.change.org/p/stop-contaminated-cabin-air-in-aircraft/u/25556317) has quite a few Airbus entries..

For the avoidance of doubt, the TCP referred to in the article is not the TCP antiseptic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_(antiseptic)), known to many, but an organophosphate compound named tricresyl phosphate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricresyl_phosphate) of which one of its three isomers (tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate (TOCP)) is markedly poisonous to humans (and probably to other creatures). It is used as a lubricant and hydraulic fluid, and as an additive to lubricants and hydraulic fluids.

Edited to get name of TOCP correct.

[DaveReidUK]

Where does it say 'incapacitated'?

Post #1 in this thread. Like you, I have no idea whether that's true or not.

[misd-agin]

Post #1 in this thread. Like you, I have no idea whether that's true or not.

Subsequent report directly conflicts at least some of the information in the first post. So we're left without knowing how much is being accurately reported.

[Webby737]

Subsequent report directly conflicts at least some of the information in the first post. So we're left without knowing how much is being accurately reported.
Quite true, however I think we can all agree that there was a fume event. Sadly it seems quite common on the A320, not just with BA but several other operators of the type as well.
One odd thing, both the CFMI and IAE engined aircraft seem to suffer from the same problem.

[Prober]

I recall several entries I made in the tech log re smelly socks (whether old or new but unwashed I know not) when on the 757. It seemed to occur for a minute or two on the descent passing about FL300. I am now too old to remember exactly what happened at 30,000ft but think it might have had something to do with the packs. The stink was fairly repulsive.
Prober

[tubby linton]

Vereinigung cockpit have a very comprehensive post fume event checklist but in the UK the Balpa medical rep has been much more skeptical about these events and such events are under reported and also tend to be dismissed without any follow up as to the longer term effects of exposure.
Balpa has a lot of catching up to do.

[pilotmike]

Where does it say 'incapacitated'? Let's stick with accurate descriptions of what is reported to have occurred. Not responding to questions isn't necessarily the same as medically unresponsive.

As the FO was operating in the 'capacity' of performing the expected functions of a First Officer - which incidentally includes responding to questions in a reasonably timely manner - any failure to respond in the expected manner would be a strong indication of incapacitation. SOPs and all that.

From the sound of it, if the FO was not responding to questions, so that very neatly ticks the 'incapacitated' box for me.

If you are a commercial pilot in 2 crew operation (I don't know if you are), you'll be aware of SOPs, and the required challenge and expected response during for example, the take-off roll, around 80kts, in order for both pilots to establish very quickly whether they are both operating as expected in their capacity(ies), or whether there appears to be an incapacitation of whatever description; in which case there is one and only one sensible next step. Therefore, any doubt about both pilots' capacity to operate effectively needs to be established at that time, very quickly, and comfortably before V1. Any unresponsiveness is deemed incapacitation, as seems to be reported in this case. Discussion of medical definitions of unresponsiveness is irrelevant; if you're not responding to me per SOPs, you're a passenger, not part of the crew, and I'll respond accordingly. Simple.

[Avionista]

All BA A320s have IAE V2500 engines whereas Easyjet aircraft have only CFM engines. Although Easyjet have a larger fleet of A330/A319 aircraft, BA seems to suffer more 'fumes in cockpit' incidents. This suggests that the IAE engine may be the culprit. I understand it has a higher oil pressure than other jet engines thus putting greater stress on its oil seals.

[EcamSurprise]

All BA A320s have IAE V2500 engines whereas Easyjet aircraft have only CFM engines. Although Easyjet have a larger fleet of A330/A319 aircraft, BA seems to suffer more 'fumes in cockpit' incidents. This suggests that the IAE engine may be the culprit. I understand it has a higher oil pressure than other jet engines thus putting greater stress on its oil seals.

Avherald isn’t a biblical list of events. Many many events happen at airlines around the world which never show on Avherlad. Certain airlines seem to leak more information than others.

[marchino61]

There was a fairly detailed report on fume events on the BBC World Service today. It discussed several court cases that have been going on. The podcast can be found here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w172w0q34d6cs2y

[Max Angle]

All BA A320s have IAE V2500 engines
They also have an increasing number of A320 NEOs which are CFM powered. No idea if any NEOs have been involved in these events.

[lomapaseo]

All BA A320s have IAE V2500 engines whereas Easyjet aircraft have only CFM engines. Although Easyjet have a larger fleet of A330/A319 aircraft, BA seems to suffer more 'fumes in cockpit' incidents. This suggests that the IAE engine may be the culprit. I understand it has a higher oil pressure than other jet engines thus putting greater stress on its oil seals.

It's the difference in pressure on either side of the seal that makes the difference. So unless you define the seal that resulted in a leak the oil pressure in the system is a moot claim

[Water pilot]

Because a real pilot(tm) would not be affected by toxic fumes, so it can't possibly be that.

Jeepers. Toxic fumes are a real hazard when working around combustion engines and the reason that operators of planes, boats, and cars don't keel over every day is because of the concerted and unsung efforts of legions of engineers and technicians who work every day to ensure that breathable air is not contaminated with fatal air. Seals fail, pipes corrode, and sometimes there are bad designs that are more prone (even though it is a very slight risk) to leakage. With millions of flights, it is going to happen sometimes and the job of engineers and techs is to ensure that "sometimes" is a vanishingly small a number as humanly possible.

[Avionista]

AV Herald reporting another two recent fume incidents on Spirit A319s fitted with IAE engines.

[snooky]

Even without so called fumes events toxic poisoning is taking place daily. https://www.change.org/p/stop-contaminated-cabin-air-in-aircraft/u/25592436?cs_tk=AqdbztNJu8p-EMsDIF4AAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvAzMzlO6WWsW727wMnwyGcg%3D&utm_campaign=ae65af8f28c742478c484e58c8c0b7af&utm_content=initial_v0_2_0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs

[Dream Buster]

Vereinigung cockpit have a very comprehensive post fume event checklist but in the UK the Balpa medical rep has been much more skeptical about these events and such events are under reported and also tend to be dismissed without any follow up as to the longer term effects of exposure.
Balpa has a lot of catching up to do.

BALPA concluded on 21st April 2005 the following, they prefer their members not to know:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwxzHMekb4

https://www.anstageslicht.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Geschichten/Aerotoxisches_Syndrom/BALPA-CAPC-London-2005_WINDER.pdf

[Mr Optimistic]

[pax] There was a BBC radio File on Four programme about fumes yesterday, which my wife made me listen to. Probably a rehash of the World Service programme. Unfortunately it was short on statistics and case follow up so I didn't know what to make of it. A BA flight from San Francisco which diverted to Vancouver owing to behavioural ' abnormalities' with the crew was mentioned without any explanation of any subsequent investigation ( or if any passengers had issues). As a passenger, it was enough to sow seeds of concern but seemed to muddy the difference between acute episodes and long term exposure. Without long term medical statistics comparing crew with the general population it seems difficult to see how this can be resolved.

[Lordflasheart]

...
BA633 ATH-LHR 02 Jan 2020 - ASR

It seems the AAIB are conducting a 'correspondence investigation' rather than a 'field investigation' into the event with G-EUYM, 02 January.

The AAIB list their current (on-going) field investigations here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/aaib-current-field-investigations/air-accidents-investigation-branch-current-field-investigations (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/aaib-current-field-investigations/air-accidents-investigation-branch-current-field-investigations)

They don't seem to have links to on-going correspondence investigations, so you only see them in the full list of final reports - viz https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports The one for EI-DEO seems to represent a similar event and nine out of the first ten on the list are correspondence investigations.

Sofar, apparently, the only visible evidence for this "Full (Annex 13) investigation" (until completed) is via the BEA -

"File Number BEA2020-0004 "Serious incident to an Airbus A320 operated by British Airways on 02/01/2020 near London "[i]Summary - Preliminary data based on the notification from the United Kingdom authorities:

Ten minutes from landing the flight crew became aware of smell/fumes in the cockpit. First officer became unwell and fainted. Both crew went onto oxygen. Mayday declared. Aircraft landed safely and crew sought medical attention."

Link - https://www.bea.aero/en/investigation-reports/notified-events/detail/event/serious-incident-to-an-airbus-a320-operated-by-british-airways-on-02012020-near-london-investigat/ (https://www.bea.aero/en/investigation-reports/notified-events/detail/event/serious-incident-to-an-airbus-a320-operated-by-british-airways-on-02012020-near-london-investigat/)

According to other posters and reports, the airline has been lobbying the meejah, claiming that the F/O did not faint. It will therefore remain to be seen whether the AAIB and the BEA will give credence to the evidence, or to the BA PR spinners.

...

[FNFF]

We have a documentary film about the contaminated air issue currently showing in selected UK cinemas called 'Everybody Flies'.

Trailer, press reviews and screening details are available at:

https://www.everybodyflies.com/

Made by a former BALPA NEC member and BA Boeing 757/767 Captain.

[Ddraig Goch]

A very important subject that needs more independent study.
If the rest of the documentary is as good as the trailer it will be well worth watching.
My only question is why hasn't it had more exposure say on TV or Youtube?

[Dream Buster]

A very important subject that needs more independent study.
If the rest of the documentary is as good as the trailer it will be well worth watching.
My only question is why hasn't it had more exposure say on TV or Youtube?

Here is the 24th June 2007 answer...https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555467/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.htmlThe Daily Telegraph

Christopher Booker's notebook

By Christopher Booker

12:01AM BST 24 Jun 2007

Pilots disabled by poisoned air

A few years back Susan Michaelis, Tristan Loraine and John Hoyte were successful airline pilots, earning up to £100,000 a year. Last Monday, with health and livelihood destroyed, they joined forces with some 20 other similarly disabled pilots, to launch a campaign to alert the public to what should be seen as one of the most alarming scandals of our time.

Yet two days later came further evidence of how the regulatory authorities, in alliance with the airline industry itself, have stopped at nothing to cover up a health disaster whose financial costs for the industry could run to many billions.

The essence of the problem is that the air supply to the cockpits and cabins of many modern airliners is bled off from their engines, where it becomes contaminated with carcinogens, immunosuppressants and highly toxic organo-phosphorus (OP) chemicals, especially a compound known as tricresyl phosphate (TCP) used as an anti-wear additive. Both crew and passengers are thus exposed to small amounts of OPs and a cocktail of other nasties. OPs, more commonly used as pesticides, cumulatively attack the nervous system, causing disorders ranging from nausea, headaches and dizziness to, eventually, serious mental and physical breakdown.

Although this problem was first identified 30 years ago, following a near-fatal incident in the US, it was kept so quiet that when hundreds of pilots in the 1980s began to experience adverse reactions they had no idea why. One of the first to track down the cause was Susan Michaelis, flying BA146s in Australia, when in 1997 she was permanently grounded by severe illness. Two years later, at her instigation, an official inquiry by the Australian Senate heard enough expert evidence to confirm that the cause of so many pilots and cabin crew suffering ill-health was contamination of cabin air by TCP and other chemicals.

In 2001 the cause was taken up in Britain by Captain Loraine, a senior member of the British Air Line Pilots Association (BALPA), who flew Boeing 757s. But from the industry and regulators, such as the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), they met with a wall of denials. Although more pilots were suffering from "aerotoxic syndrome" every year, there began a cover-up which uncannily parallelled the methods used by government in the 1990s when the health of thousands of farmers was destroyed by OPs in sheep dip.

Ironically, in 2005, just after he had organised a BALPA conference of leading scientists and other experts from all over the world, Captain Loraine himself became seriously affected. Initially doctors for his airline saw no reason why he should not continue flying, but in 2006, following further exposure to contaminated air, he was permanently grounded by the CAA.

The career of Captain Hoyte, an experienced BA146 pilot, ended the same year for the same reason, although he was repeatedly told by doctors for his airline and the CAA that his only problem was "stress".

Tests run on both pilots by the leading medical experts on OP poisoning, including Professor Mohamed Abou-Donia, of Duke University, North Carolina, and neuropsychologist Dr Sarah Mackenzie-Ross of University College, London, confirmed brain cell death, cognitive problems and exposure to TCP, explaining why both had become textbook cases of OP-induced chronic neurotoxicity.

Dr Mackenzie-Ross, who since 2003 has been carrying out an extensive study of sheep farmers and airline pilots, has estimated that, in 2004, 197,000 airline passengers in Britain alone could have been exposed to contaminated fumes. The evidence suggests that a great many people have been made ill while flying without having any idea why. One of the scientists studying this problem, Professor Chris van Netten, a Canadian epidemiologist, has analysed swabs taken from many different airliners, finding traces of TCP in more than 80 per cent of the aircraft tested.

Yet, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence, the regulators and the industry have continued to deny that the TCP problem exists. For three years now, as with the sheep farmers before, the British Government has relied on its Committee on Toxicity (CoT) to conduct a seemingly interminable investigation into "cabin air quality", marked by a conspicuous reluctance to address the problem of TCP.

Last week, Michaelis, Loraine and Hoyte joined forces at Portcullis House, Westminster, to launch the Aerotoxic Association, backed by 110 MPs and many peers, including those veterans of the battle to expose the scandal of OP poisoning, the Countess of Mar and Lord (Paul) Tyler. On Wednesday, however, the CoT produced the minutes of yet another of its meetings. As official obfuscation, they were almost self-parodic. They referred to BALPA submitting "data relating to organo-phosphates", but this was the only reference to OPs in the document. The remaining 20 pages, dealing with anything from carbon monoxide to the need to review pilot-training procedures, showed that the committee had no interest in whether airline crews and passengers were being poisoned by TCP from engine oil. It is high time this particular cover-up was blown wide open.

[airsound]

Mr Optimistic (post #27) mentions a BBC Radio 4 File on 4 programme on 25 Feb. I missed it, but I caught the repeat today 1 Mar. Mr O says it was short on statistics and case follow up which I don't disagree with - but I feel it's another step in the right direction.

You can find it at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000fp62

The blurb is quite descriptiveSomething in the Air?File on 4 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006th08)

In January 2020, a British Airways flight from Athens to London issued a "Mayday" emergency call when the pilot flying the plane became incapacitated during a "fume event". The airline industry does not reveal how often fume events happen, but according to some estimates they occur every day on airlines worldwide.. They are thought to be caused by air containing chemicals from engine oil passing into the cabin.

Pilots and cabin crew say that sudden fume events and long term low level exposure to toxic cabin air can make them seriously ill. In some cases they claim exposure to affected air has caused premature death.

The industry insists that serious leaks of toxic gas into cockpits and cabins are relatively very rare, given the number of flights each day. And that no causal link between toxic cabin air and health problems has yet been proven.

But the industry faces multiple court cases this year. On File on 4 one representative of the airline industry agrees to face questions on fume events, claims of a lack of transparency and claims that the health of hundreds of pilots, cabin crew and frequent fliers is being affected.

We reveal confidential airline and Coroners' reports in connection with fume events and so called "aerotoxicity". We hear about pilots and crew who say they've been poisoned by toxic cabin air. And from scientists about research being done on potential links between airline cabin contamination and neurological health.

Presenter: Mike Powell
Producer: Paul Waters
Editor: Andrew Smith
airsound

[nevillestyke]

We have a documentary film about the contaminated air issue currently showing in selected UK cinemas called 'Everybody Flies'.

Trailer, press reviews and screening details are available at:

https://www.everybodyflies.com/

Made by a former BALPA NEC member and BA Boeing 757/767 Captain.
I was thinking of going to the flicks in Horsham tonight, but wondered if, in the current climate, it's wise to share a cinema with a potential audience of world travelling pilots and CC?
https://www.everybodyflies.com/

[FNFF]

I was thinking of going to the flicks in Horsham tonight, but wondered if, in the current climate, it's wise to share a cinema with a potential audience of world travelling pilots and CC?
https://www.everybodyflies.com/

Its a good question. Dr Rob Hunter of BALPA is due to attend tonights screening and he is probably better informed on the risks than most crew as he is Head of Flight Safety at BALPA if that helps.

[Dream Buster]

Accident: Jetblue A320 at Portland on Jan 20th 2017 and Jan 21st 2017, fumes injure captain, court confirms causal link (http://avherald.com/h?article=4daedcc8&opt=0)

https://www.aerotoxicteam.com/uploads/6/0/3/8/6038702/usa_fumes_breakthrough.pdf

https://www.aerotoxicteam.com/uploads/6/0/3/8/6038702/usa_fumes_breakthrough_2.pdf

[snooky]

Unfortunately the long running thread discussing this was recently moved to another section of the forum.
However there has been a very significant development in the US courts which may have far reaching effects on the industry.
Link to the case. (https://48b4ed48-471d-4786-b5ed-b7d9563b03f8.filesusr.com/ugd/3e3e4e_ef7b21e48b324c7191b4ce64cd6ee3f8.pdf)

[snooky]

More details of the case Here (https://www.change.org/p/stop-contaminated-cabin-air-in-aircraft/u/27502093?cs_tk=AohE2op_u8p-EEpsN18AAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvG1Zcfzzx_XAtq2SLqAFJY4%3D&utm_campaign=2313ba4bcb3c4830be16188a36484b0a&utm_content=initial_v0_4_0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs)
I’ll just have to accept that for whatever reason threads about this subject get moved to a quite obscure part of the forum. Considering that this is so important to the health of those in the industry and may well have a major effect on the profitability of airlines I can’t think of any other subject that is more appropriate for discussion in R & N. If I were a conspiracy theorist I’d think they’ve even nobbled pprune!

[Manual Pitch Trim]

The science and recent published reports have made a compelling case.

have a look at the researchgate article

“Ultrafine particle levels measured on board short‑haul commercial passenger jet aircraft

new study out just published

“Susan Michaelis1*  , Tristan Loraine2 and C. V. Howard3 

Abstract  Background:  Airline crew members report adverse health effects during and after inhalation exposure to engine oil fumes sourced to the air supply system onboard commercial and military aircraft. Most investigations into the causal factors of their reported symptoms focus on specific chemical contaminants in the fumes. The adverse health effects reported in aircrew exposed to the aircraft air supply, bled unfiltered off the engine or Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) may be related to particulate exposures, which are widely known to effect health. While oil contaminates the aircraft air supply, some suggest that this will only occur when there is a bearing seal failure, others document that there is low level oil contamination of the air supply during normal engine operation. This brief pilot study explores whether par-ticulate exposure may be associated with the normal engine/APU and air supply operation and to therefore increase the understanding that UFP exposures may have on crew and passengers.”

[airsound]

Finally, finally, could it be that a government might be heading towards taking the problem of toxic fumes in aircraft seriously?

The LA Times boasts an exclusive with the headline Congress is moving to curb toxic fumes on airplanes

The piece opens with The airline industry would be forced to adopt new measures to protect passengers and crew members from toxic fumes on airplanes under a bill introduced in Congress this week.

You can find the article at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-31/congress-curb-toxic-fumes-seeping-airplane-cabins?utm_id=51843&sfmc_id=1980085

Yes, I know there’s a previous thread on this called Toxic Cabin Air - but for some unexplained reason it got shuffled off to Ground & Other Ops Forums - and now it’s hard to find at all. Surely this subject is of huge safety interest to everyone in the business - and it deserves a new thread in Rumours & News? (Please, lovely Mods…)

airsound

[Havingwings4ever]

Airsound, thx for your posting.

I wasn't aware of Congress prepping a bill regarding this. Finally some recognition and progress. I am contacting the senators writing this bill because I feel it doesn't go far enough.

They can go much farther to protect airline crew than just alerting and reporting on board a flight. There needs to be a comprehensive testing program, mandated by Congress, out of reach of parties that try to keep covering this up, to establish what exactly is happening on many many flights regarding air quality on board.

Additionally it needs to be ruled an occupational disease so crews don't have to fight and go to court for years to get financial assistance.

Also Congres needs to mandate airlines to implement filters that catch those organophosphates and airplane manufactures to design new airplanes in a way that only fresh air enters the cabin, not through engines or APU, ala 787. yep that will cost money and fuel burn so you can expect a strong lobby against it. Maybe lives are more important than money ?

i lost my medical years ago due to this but wasn't aware of this issue until years later, after flying 27 years on all kinds of jets. Finally have my medical back.

[snooky]

Another case reported on yesterday https://www.change.org/p/stop-contaminated-cabin-air-in-aircraft/u/30463664?cs_tk=Ang_woPFu8p-EP5-aWIAAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvOLXY5KCuS6cQcTUZEGE6-M%3D&utm_campaign=78921bc5cec547279ab1fcefe9911c42&utm_content=initial_v0_5_0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs

[Manual Pitch Trim]

Unfortunately money is more important than lives. Pall Aerospace makes Cabin Air Sensors g
Airbus knows theres a problem proven by science but they prefer to cover it up and doubt it as they have done with climate change. Boeing knows thats why they designed the 787 that way. Technology exists to improve CAQ.
have a look at the Andrews Myers settlement against Jetblue, which is a landmark case proving the aerotoxic syndrome.

The thing is low dose exposures do damage but there havent been long term low dose studies done.

it is so undersported and when reported hard for maintenance to find the source in light minor events.

if you see the GCARS APP where we need all to report even minor events in this global reporting system.

when they tell you its must a minor smell doesnt affect you, its a lie its toxic air which can be improved with advanced filters upstream of the bleed by PTI technologies and system changes.

[snooky]

Interesting that Gulf War syndrome has been attributed to Sarin, which contains similar chemicals to those found in superheated aircraft engine oils. It has also been revealed that susceptibility to symptoms is due to genetic differences.
Link (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61398886)

[Longtimer]

Interesting that Gulf War syndrome has been attributed to Sarin, which contains similar chemicals to those found in superheated aircraft engine oils. It has also been revealed that susceptibility to symptoms is due to genetic differences.
Link (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61398886)
did I miss the info re the chemicals?

[TLoraine]

A dozen air accident departments globally have made over 50 recommendatuions and findings in relation to contaminated air events on aircraft in the last 15 years. Funded by numerous pilot and FA unions and the Royal Australian Air Force, a new blood test to confirm exposure to contaminated air is to be presented at the 2023 Aircraft Cabin Air Conference online 27-29 June 2023.

[Dream Buster]

Cabin Air conference 27-29 June 2023 - online.
https://www.aircraftcabinair.com/

[dogle]

A search of PPRuNe on 'aerotoxic' has revealed a wide miscellany of threads going back many years, but no common link.

I am therefore kicking off this new thread to draw attention to some new academic research, which may be of some importance to the 'cabin air' conference which is upcoming at the end of this month: -

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-023-00987-8

(without comment on my behalf, other than to say that I am glad that serious academic interest is emerging now ... and I have never been aboard a 146).

[ETOPS]

Just adding this in for reference.

https://www.aircraftcabinair.com


I flew the Boeing 757 from 1997 to 2001 with the majority powered by the RB 211- 535C. I recall being subjected to cockpit fumes on a number of occasions with all instances written up in the tech log. At the time I felt I was unaffected although colleagues reported a variety of symptoms.

Sadly some lost their medicals and there were a small number of fatalities….

My latest diagnosis had given me pause for thought.

[Flipster130]

I'm having a break at work but cant join the Conference, so please tell us more Tristan......
What's it called, where can we get it, how's it done, how accurate is it, what does it tell us and what can we/should we do if contaminated.....?
And more importantly, do regulators and operators recognise the results and have/will they incorporate it appropriate protocols/responses to suspect fume events?

Mods - wonder if this shouldnt be merged into the Contaminated Air thread or vice versa?

[goeasy]

Be great to keep it here instead of merging… I am very interested in tests as I have possible symptoms of exposure from a significant event years ago.

[Flipster130]

Be great to keep it here instead of merging… I am very interested in tests as I have possible symptoms of exposure from a significant event years ago.
I am happy with whatever...

[T28B]

For Flipster130: This is news, and is on a topic of general interest to the Flight Crew and Flight Attendants in the industry.

[Flipster130]

For Flipster130: This is news, and is on a topic of general interest to the Flight Crew and Flight Attendants in the industry.
Its more than just news...it could be MONUMENTAL.... and vitally important to everyone who flies, or has flown, as pax or crew - in the past 70 years....just wish we could see it.

[ACMS]

Keep us advised of any developments please.

[ASH26E]

So what, specifically, is this blood test intended to detect?

[Joe R]

Hi, here is a jumping pad for those who want to "DYOR" ("do your own research): a quick 15 min search via Google Scholar reveals some relevant papers:
(Link to list and origin doc: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16933831595963508431&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en)

TLDR:

A. We know that toxic particles exist in cabin air, originating from the bleed air system
B. We know that pilots and cabin crew self-reported "aerotoxic syndrome" for many years now
C. However, science was not yet able to conclusively link A and B in a causal relationship. So the blood test might exactly be what we need

Michaelis (2010):

Abstract: The thesis argues that the precautionary principle, occupational health and safety guidelines and aviation regulations are being ignored by the aviation industry, who continue to claim that cabin air is safe. The systemic misuse of available data is widespread, secondary to commercial objectives, and places passenger and crew health and flight safety at serious risk. The thesis concludes that the use of bleed air on commercial aircraft with no form of contaminated air detection or filtration system present should be discontinued. The risk to health and flight safety is no longer acceptable.
My take on the study: comprehensive in analysis, but suffering a bit from its method (survey-based data collection) due to lack of more available data - she comments this herself in the work.
Metrics: PHD thesis from respectable uni


Michaelis (2021):

Abstract: This study identified increases in UFP concentrations associated with engine and APU power changes and changes in air supply configuration. These results correlated with times when engine and APU oil seals are known to be less effective, enabling oil leakage to occur. The concentrations reached in the passenger cabins exceeded those taken in other ground-based environments. UFP exposures in aircraft cabins during normal flight indicates there will be health consequences for long serving aircrew and some passengers.
My take on the study: has a great practical relevance and identifies air bleed supply changes as the main events during which particles are blown into the cabin air. Still, only 4 flights were studies, suggesting further data collection is needed.
Study metrics: Paper was submitted in ENV health, with an H-index of >100 this seems to be a good journal in the field.

Howard (2018):

Abstract: We present strong evidence for the presence of aerosols of Nano-particles (also termed Ultrafine Particles (UFPs) in aerosol science) in the breathing air of pressurized aircraft using engine bleed air architecture. The physical and chemical nature of engine oils and the high temperatures attained in aircraft jet engines (up to 1,700°C in the oil circulation and up to 30,000°C in the bearings) explain why UFPs are to be expected. A discussion of oil seals used in gas turbine engines concludes that they will permit UFPs to cross them and enter the breathing air supply, in conjunction with a complex mixture of chemicals such triaryl phosphates which are neurotoxic. A consideration of the toxicology of Nano-particles concludes that their continual presence over a typical working lifetime of up to 20,000 hours in aircrew will predispose them to chronic respiratory problems and will exacerbate the translocation of neurotoxic substances across the blood brain barrier.
My take on the study: This seems to be a literature review on the topic rather than original research. Howard references to her previous work (which is widely cited): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169409X11002328
Study metrics: The journal in which this paper was published does not seem to be relevant, however, the main researcher is a widely cited scholar in the field. I think I wouldn' use this paper in research but the papers referenced by this one.

Harrison (2016):

Abstract: "Toxicology is a new science, the complexities of which have been highlighted in the papers contained within this special section. Our understanding of the mechanisms through which various chemicals interfere with nervous system function is constantly evolving and research is unable to keep up with the speed with which new chemicals are produced and put onto the market. Thus there are often controversies surrounding the health-effects of commercially available compounds and disagreement around what constitutes safe exposure limits. This article will introduce readers to an emerging concern in this field, the potential risk to health of toxic fumes in airplane cabins. We explore the challenges and methodological issues encountered by researchers who have tried to investigate this issue and highlight the need for further research on this topic. We hope this article will promote discussion amongst academics and clinicians, and lead to the identification of creative solutions to the methodological issues encountered to date."
My take: seems to be a balanced perspective and highlights method and data gaps
Study metrics: not journal-published


Summary on the research from Harrison (2016): "Some researchers have suggested chronic exposure to OP compounds (particularly TCP) in engine oil may be to blame (Winder and Balouet, 2002). To reflect this, in 2000 Winder and Balouet proposed the term ‘Aerotoxic Syndrome’ to describe the common symptoms reported by aircrew following exposure to toxic fumes in aircraft cabins, and encompasses both short and long-term effects such as ear/nose/throat irritation, skin conditions, nausea and vomiting, respiratory problems, headaches, dizziness, weakness and fatigue, sensory changes and nerve pain, tremors, chemical sensitivity and cognitive impairment (e.g. Abou-Donia, 2003; Cox & Michalis, 2002; Coxon, 2002; Mackenzie Ross, Harper & Burdon, 2006; Mackenzie Ross et al, 2011; Michaelis, 2010; Montgomery, Weir, Zieve & Anders, 1977). In addition, recent studies have reported evidence of neuropsychological impairment (Heuser, Aguilera, Heuser, & Gordon, 2005; Mackenzie Ross et al, 2006; Mackenzie Ross, 2008; Mackenzie Ross et al, 2011; Reneman et al, 2015) and neurological damage (Heuser et al, 2005); evidence of nervous system degeneration (Abou-Donia, Abou-Donia, El Masry, Monro & Mulder, 2013; Abou-Donia, van de Groot & Mulder, 2014); and altered white matter microstructure, cerebral perfusion and activation (Reneman et al, 2015) in aircrew and pilots. Although these studies have shown those working in the airline industry complain of an array of symptoms and/or show evidence of neurological damage, none of these studies have been able to determine cause. Indeed, without any objective measurement of exposure, it is very difficult to claim that contaminated air is to blame. The only studies published to date that have attempted to explicitly measure and link ill-health with exposure to cabin fumes have relied solely on self-report questionnaires"

[Joe R]

Also link to the other discussion here: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/653038-new-blood-test-contaminated-air-events.html

[gums]

Salute!

A blood test every flight or two? No good.

There are personal monitoring systems that are not that expensive and can provide warning ahead of time, versus telling the Doc that you and SLF were exposed to bad things on that flight last night when something smelled bad. I am not talking about being wired up ;like for an EKG that most of us here have done dozens of times.
I wear a ring at altitudes above 5,000 feet due to my lung problem and mild anemia. It vibrates like crazy at a certain oxygen saturation and/or pulse rates. Costs less than $200. Then we should consider basic aircraft detection systems besides the simple cabin altitude stuff we already have. Oh well.

Remember, besides histoxic anemia we can have hypemic hypoxia. Carbon monoxide detection is cheap, and if we are using bypass for the cabin pressure, it is a player.

Glad to see more interest in our breathing systems nowadays.

Gums sends...

[flash8]

Be great to keep it here instead of merging… I am very interested in tests as I have possible symptoms of exposure from a significant event years ago.
Not on the 146 I hope?
Now that is a kettle of fish.

[Dream Buster]

Respected aviation journalist David Learmount has just commented on the recent Cabin Air conference: https://davidlearmount.com/2023/07/10/dodging-the-verdict/

[Dream Buster]

Respected aviation journalist David Learmount has just commented on the recent Cabin Air conference: https://davidlearmount.com/2023/07/10/dodging-the-verdict/

[snooky]

I flew 757s for 20 years and regularly experienced the “sweaty socks”smell, usually at top of descent. I now suffer many of the commonly reported symptoms and know of others whose deaths probably resulted from such exposure.

[TLoraine]

I have been asked to provide an update on the TCP blood test. The blood test was presented at the 2023 Aircraft Cabin Air Conference by the research team at the University of Washington in Seattle. Their results clearly show that the blood test can confirm an exposure to the organophosphate tricresyl phosphate (TCP). TCP is used in a number of different applications but a specific formulation of TCP is widely used in jet engine oils, it has a low ortho isomer content especially blended to reduce expousre to the ortho isomers - this was done on the basis the other isomers were less problematic. This will soon be shown to be an error. Swab samples of aircraft cabins confirm exposure to these specific low ortho blends.
The TCP blood test works by seeing the additional molecular weight (part of the TCP molecule) attached to a specific protein. The research has been funded entiterly by the Royal Australian Air Force and pilot / cabin crew unions including AIPA, ALAEA and AFAP in Australia; APA, AFA (the primary investor), TWU in the US; Aeropers, SNPL, VC, IPA, Unite the Union and others in Europe to name a small few.
The research is now being prepared to be published in a peer reviewed journal and adapted so any certified laborartory anywhere in the world will be able to run the tests. This requires additional funding and unions are being asked to help with this final step.
I was on a flight in 2006 where there was a serious contaminated air exposure, the ailrine told me it was only de-icing fluid and it was perhaps something I had eaten that caused my and the co-pilot's symptoms. My blood was taken and sent to the USA and frozen for 17 years until last month, when it was tested and shared with my doctor. The results - significant exposure to TCP.
The blood test will be a very useful tool for aircrew who encounteer any form of impairment or where flight safety was compromised in any way from contaminated air or unknown sources. Many passengers and crews are actively asking for the test and ultimately I believe it will expedite the introduction of bleed air cleaning technologies currently being evaluated by the big 3 aircraft manufacturers and new less hazardous synthetic engine oils in advanced phases of development.
For more information please email the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive at [email protected]

[goeasy]

Not on the 146 I hope?
Now that is a kettle of fish.


no not 146, but 319, when whole cabin filled with reasonably thick smoke, which vanished quickly after packs selected off.

[Flipster130]

Thank you Tristan
Keep at it.

In the face of your organisation's (and others') constant and increased pressure, I'd like to think airlines and manufacturers are slowly realising that things have to change wrt Cabin Air Quality. I do know of some airlines who have already swapped out the engine oils they use, who have added better air filters and modified their maintenance/ engine inspection regimes to reduce the likelihood of fume events. There are also some airlines who have fitted detector/warning systems that are allied to better post-fume-event crew checklists, procedures and after-flight medical responses. Whilst they have done this very quietly so as not to embarrass the industry (maybe), it still is a start. Even the ever-increasing presence of the B787 on the world register is 'bio-marker' in itself - and those who fly this ac are immensely impressed by the air quality on board (even if Boeing SAY the concept was (re)introduced for other reasons).

Nonetheless, there is still a long, long way to go and all of the above does nothing for those who were harmed in the past, the recent past, or even those being harmed presently in aircraft/airlines who are slow on the uptake. Furthermore, it beggars belief that the most of the world's regulators are, in the main, still silent (Wake up CAA/FAA/EASA!).

The concerted Bradford Hills approach bears a close resemblance to the events of the 1960s and cigarette-smoking in Europe and America - which sadly took 20+ years to get governments to introduce bans on that 'bad habit' in public - but because of the slow response, many millions died or got sick despite the world getting there eventually. Let's hope that global aviation learns from that and introduces more-quickly the means to prevent airlines from poisoning their own staff and their fare-paying passengers in the pursuit of 'profits over safety' - also airlines would do well to consider compensating those personnel already affected. This might be expensive but probably a lot less so than fighting a deluge of class actions in the courts once the medical evidence exceeds critical mass for frequent-flyers - which is not far off even now.....

Contrary to what David Learmount says, I understand that 'Aerotoxic Syndrome' IS now an accepted medical term in many fields but that it needs to have its profile raised amongst the new generation of healthcare professionals - so when suffers present with symptoms, they can refer them more expeditiously to the appropriate specialists.

Well done and Good luck,
Flip

[Nil by mouth]

On a very recent VA flight LHR to DEL and back, the cabin crew passed through the cabin with canisters of what may have been insecticide. The haze lasted for quite a while and left most coughing and wheezing.
Cabin air quality eh?

[Radgirl]

We have been able to measure TCP for some time. de Ree et al produced a good paper which found the levels were below those that could cause the symptoms. (https://boerenlandvogels.nl/sites/default/files/Dutch-main%20klm%20response.pdf). In the absence of any other publications on this point it seems a blood test may not be the panaces

[TLoraine]

We have been able to measure TCP for some time. de Ree et al produced a good paper which found the levels were below those that could cause the symptoms. (https://boerenlandvogels.nl/sites/default/files/Dutch-main%20klm%20response.pdf). In the absence of any other publications on this point it seems a blood test may not be the panaces
We have been able to measure TCP for some time. de Ree et al produced a good paper which found the levels were below those that could cause the symptoms. (https://boerenlandvogels.nl/sites/default/files/Dutch-main%20klm%20response.pdf). In the absence of any other publications on this point it seems a blood test may not be the panaces

de Ree was only looking at TOCP, an isomer of TCP - TOCP is virtually not present in current synethetic jet engine oil formulations so mostly irrelvant to the debate. de Ree is not able to say levels present 'were below those that could cause the symptoms' as no other TCP isomer has an exposure standard. Also exposure standards when they do exist, do not apply to passengers - only workers, only relate to one compound, not a mixture (contaminated air exposure is an exposure to a complex mixture of chemicals) and they do not apply at altitude etc.. This was clarifed at the 2005 BALPA conference. The new blood test is not just proof of exposure to TCP but also looks at how much protein decoration has occurred.

[Manual Pitch Trim]

Another contaminated air event…

When will the authorities take action?

Aerotime
“A Qantas cabin crew was hospitalized in Melbourne after feeling unwell due to an ‘unusual’ smell reported as coming from the aircraft flight deck just prior to landing.

The incident occurred in the evening of October 26, 2023 just after 20:00 local time after flight QF1527 landed at Melbourne Airport (MEL) from Canberra Airport (CBR).

Emergency medical crew had been on standby and quickly took the cabin crew to a local hospital for a medical check-up.”

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/qantas-cabin-crew-hospitalized-after-unusual-smell-on-flight-deck-to-melbourne

[snooky]

One day the problem will be taken much more seriously.

[dixi188]

Strange that it is just cabin crew affected if it came from the flight deck.

[netstruggler]

Another contaminated air event…

When will the authorities take action?

Aerotime
“A Qantas cabin crew was hospitalized in Melbourne after feeling unwell due to an ‘unusual’ smell reported as coming from the aircraft flight deck just prior to landing.

The incident occurred in the evening of October 26, 2023 just after 20:00 local time after flight QF1527 landed at Melbourne Airport (MEL) from Canberra Airport (CBR).

Emergency medical crew had been on standby and quickly took the cabin crew to a local hospital for a medical check-up.”

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/qantas-cabin-crew-hospitalized-after-unusual-smell-on-flight-deck-to-melbourne (https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/qantas-cabin-crew-hospitalized-after-unusual-smell-on-flight-deck-to-melbourne?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_con tent=SkyWest+orders+19+Embraer+E175s+for+United+Airlines+net work+✈%EF%B8%8F&utm_campaign=AeroTime+News+%2F+October+27%2C +2023)

I was misled by the headline to believe that it was the whole cabin crew affected rather than a single member (I think).

[Capt Fathom]

So out of all the crew and passengers onboard, only one person was affected. They may have some sort of disposition to certain ‘fumes’. A bit like peanut allergies!

[HOVIS]

When will the authorities take action?
​​​​​​​I don't know what you mean by 'authorities' but fume events are taken very seriously by maintenance departments.

[goeasy]

I don't know what you mean by 'authorities' but fume events are taken very seriously by maintenance departments.

But then quickly swept under carpet by airline management for fears of poisoning claims by passengers lawyers….

What we really need is a confident blood test to do in these situations to isolate if it was indeed effects of air contamination, and not other issues.

[HOVIS]

But then quickly swept under carpet by airline management for fears of poisoning claims by passengers lawyers….

What we really need is a confident blood test to do in these situations to isolate if it was indeed effects of air contamination, and not other issues.
Airline management do not have the ability to erase maintenance records especially if an MOR or equivalent report has been raised. Any fume event report is a matter of record.
Any attempt at a cover up would be idiotic.

[Manual Pitch Trim]

“A Southwest Airlines flight made an emergency landing Thursday night after crew members reported an "unusual odor" and possibly smoke in the cabin, an FAA spokesperson said.

The Boeing 737 was in the air on its way from Las Vegas to Tulsa, Oklahoma (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/southwest/oklahoma), when the pilot turned around and landed safely at Harry Reid International Airport in Vegas around 8:30 p.m. local time, according to the FAA.

Southwest Airlines (https://www.foxbusiness.com/category/southwest-airlines) told FOX Business in an email Saturday night, "We didn’t find anything abnormal after inspection, aircraft was swapped and continued on to its destination."​​​​​​​

https://www.foxbusiness.com/industrials/unusual-odor-cabin-midflight-sends-southwest-plane-back-las-vegas-emergency-landing?fbclid=IwAR00QNvyu2DNRr7KfBR4SxQd2ytrS548wnTLjWkX1lj SBy43ZoA5lF_JzSw

[Manual Pitch Trim]

Sorry-Related may be in another thread but related to this one.

There are things the authorities can do like pressure for better less toxic oil, push for VOC-Ozone removal and better medical testing post event.

Many times crew do not want to be tested post events for fear of their licenses. Then when they do proper laboratory testing and blood testing is not available.

Hence a accident investigatior cannot find the proof needed, yet over 15 accident investigation branches have made recommendations for things like cabin sensors and improvements.

It appears that 15% of flight cabin crew are much more affected.
“The captain and co-pilot of a British Airways flight were both taken ill in the cockpit after reporting a “foul odour” while flying at 30,000ft.

The pair had been flying a BA Shuttle 13C between Newcastle and London on the morning of 19 October when the incident occurred, landing at Heathrow at around 9.14am”


https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/british-airways-captain-co-pilot-foul-odour-b2434234.html#locrz8ylsr1wugz6q1

[HOVIS]

There has been a couple of directives issued recently to do with A320 APU shutdown procedures, switching the batteries off too quickly causes incorrect cool down and subsequently, problems on restart.
This is not a new problem but can be traced to rushed procedures at the end of a long day when you just want to turn the lights out and go home.

[shore leave]

At low RPM bleed air is taken from the high pressure comp, any leaks through the labyrinth seals can get into the bleed air. On some types hydraulic lines are routed through the a/c bays and leaks have seeped into the air cycle machine, some of the MD's leaking Skydrol could enter the APU intake....

[snooky]

Lots of interesting reading and links on the latest petition update. https://www.change.org/p/stop-contaminated-cabin-air-in-aircraft/u/32048250?cs_tk=AiGwn2Z9u8p-EHm7SGUAAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvFPDmt9J62oBBfDXI9FJ8Ts%3D&utm_campaign=440efe0fb2074677988c0b93ce6a3be4&utm_content=initial_v0_6_0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs

[Saab Dastard]

The following 5 threads on this topic have been merged into this single thread, with redirects left for reference:

New blood test for contaminated air events (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/653038-new-blood-test-contaminated-air-events.html)
BA A320 FO Fumes event, FO incapacitated (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/628573-ba-a320-fo-fumes-event-fo-incapacitated.html)
Toxic Cabin Air (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/506344-toxic-cabin-air.html)
Aerotoxic Syndrome (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/653144-aerotoxic-syndrome.html)
Another Contaminated Air Event (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/655534-another-contaminated-air-event.html)

[Flipster130]

Thanks DB - I was getting a bit confused!

[42go]

More confused than DB?

[Flipster130]

I thought id share the following but appreciate they have already been flagged. There is this recent webinar from lock-down that raises some interesting questions. It seems that, in the US anyway, the medical world have accepted that there really is Aerotoxic Syndrome (AS), or at least that crew are exhibiting poisoning by OP/VOC/CO and other nasty things in burnt engine oil.

Aerotoxic Syndrome and Air Travel Safety - National Association of Environmental Medicine - NAEM (US) (/www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ETZRL1EAN4)

Well worth a look if you are remotely interested in the 'science and apparent evidence for AS' - or the 'apparent science and lack of evidence for AS'.....whichever is your POV.
Nonetheless, it appears that the evidence and widening acceptance for AS is building steadily. There also seem to be tests and treatments available if you are unlucky enough to have been (or remain) a sufferer of AS (crew or pax) - or even be one of the few who are genetically predisposed to OP toxicity. Sadly, the slow progress on this has caused the loss of many a good aircrew (and likely, passenger).

You would hope FAA/EASA/CAA/HSE would be all over this (LOL...!) and that the crew unions would be snapping at their heels to get crew tested, treated and protected after a fume event.
In the UK, I think UNITE and ECA are pretty good but not sure about BALPA and VA.....IIRC Prof Bagshaw's slewed view predominated in BALPA - is it any better these days?
What about the rest of the world? I believe things are moving for national legal responsibilities on airlines in the US and AUS......

[Flipster130]

On a very recent VA flight LHR to DEL and back, the cabin crew passed through the cabin with canisters of what may have been insecticide. The haze lasted for quite a while and left most coughing and wheezing.
Cabin air quality eh?
Apparently not uncommon from certain destinations - often pyrethrim based - mentioned in the webinar at my post #471 but I do also recall the OP 'air bombs' that our Air Load Masters used to set off in the cabin and freight-bay of the Hercs (before engine start) in certain places of the world - normally hot and or wet with lots of local nasty insects and creepy-crawlies. I don't suppose the contents were much good for you.

[Manual Pitch Trim]

Crew members on a Frontier Airlines (https://www.foxnews.com/category/travel/general/airlines)flight that landed in San Antonio, Texas, Thursday afternoon reported feeling nauseous after a fume-like odor was reported on the plane.

A spokesperson for Frontier Airlines told FOX Business that flight attendants on flight 990 from Denver to San Antonio (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/southwest/texas) noticed the "fume-like odor" and advised the captain.




https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/frontier-airlines-crew-left-feeling-nauseous-fume-like-odor-reported-plane?fbclid=IwAR38NsghypGcjQLC8HA39k5ObsAB9Y-DaBCBTeN3UIx8C_Zs80Z9CTA1g-k

[wcthomas]

I have not read the 473 posts in this thread so please excuse me if some of what I write has already been posted. I am not a pilot but my experience with jet engine oils may be helpful. I worked for 38 years with a major manufacturer of synthetic lubricants and have formulated and sold jet engine oils meeting MIL-PRF 23699, MIL-PRF 7808, and AS5780.

As I assume has been discussed here, a main suspect in cabin air sickness is TCP, which is contained in virtually all of the above spec oils at a 2-3% level. This additive is for anti-wear and ferrous metal inhibition. The balance of these oils is ~94-96% synthetic polyol ester, 2-3% amine type anti-oxidants, and small amounts of yellow metal inhibitors, anti-foam, and other additives. The toxic component in TCP is the ortho isomer, which is a potent neurotoxin. This isomer has cause oral poisonings in the past when levels were high, but the ortho isomer level has since been reduced to very low levels that the manufacturers consider safe. Toxicity is not my area of expertise so I cannot comment on its safety.

The polyol esters used as the base oils in these products are made by reacting neopentyl polyol alcohols with a mixture of short chain fatty acids from C5 to C10. It is the C5 fatty acid that contributes the "dirty sock" smell when the ester breaks down. This smell is not related to the TCP, but its presence may be an indication that the oil is a contributor to the odor.

If the cabin air sickness is caused by the TCP it is not an easy fix. Reformulating a jet engine oil to remove a vital additive is a task that costs millions of dollars and takes about 10 years to gain full approvals. Perhaps a faster approach would be to completely remove the ortho isomer from the TCP, assuming it is the only significant culprit. I'm not sure how practical this would be, but it seems easier than reformulating. Another approach would be a mechanical redesign to prevent oil vapors from entering the cabin, or a filter/scrubber to remove the vapors upon entry. Just speculating here since I was not involved in TCP manufacture and am not a mechanical engineer.

Happy to answer any questions about jet engine oils.

[Flipster130]

Thanks WCT
I suggest you do have a read of the thread and there a load of good references to scientific papers.
It does seem pretty clear now that the scientists are on the right track. I believe it is widely accepted that O-TCP is one of the main culprits - but, as you mention, there are so many isomers and components of oils (and therefore multiple thermal breakdown products that are equally nasty and also including CO). Also, AS is becoming more more-widely recognised as a medical condition and post-mortem reports often show CNS neuropathy.

That manufacturers, operators and regulators seem to be dragging their feet is another issue. That said, some operators have, in fact, read the writing on the wall and taken some measures - changed engine maint cycles/inspections, changed oils and fitted filters/sensors to some ac.
I also understand that some airline/ac fume event checklists have been updated . Most crew unions have good crew support post-event but am not sure all are on the same page. Passengers are generally not informed/included.
There is still a lot of work to do but I think manufacturers are worried about publicly acknowledging the seriousness of the issue because they fear a long queue of injury claims from crew and pax and that this may be 'catastrophic' for the industry (they say).
BUT the right thing to do - humanly and morally - is to take care of those who have suffered in the past (or are still suffering) .....and move on with ac ac/pressurisation systems akin to the B787 (VC10 if u like).....
Sure, it will hurt the companies share prices but they won't go bust - drug companies know this when introducing new drugs (which is why its takes an age of testing before they are released). To continue to deny the issue is doing the industry no favours in the long run.

[Less Hair]

How about requiring constant cabin air quality monitoring for TCP on every airliner?

[Flipster130]

I understand that a lot of oil makers have removed TCP (esp the o-isomer but the others aren't v nice either) and that airlines are using them - maybe WCT could suggest what other compound they might use?? Even so, as I mentioned, there are lots of other nasties in synthetic oils and the thermal breakdown products thereof. Effective filtration would almost certainly required (see PALL website) but I don't know how CAQ monitoring would work in practice....how accurate its is for all possible contaminants, how easy/expensive it would be to fit and how prone are such systems to false alarms....anyone know more?

[wcthomas]

Ester based lubricants have been around for over 70 years and are extensively used in industry for high temperature applications. Polyol esters, which are ~95% of jet engine oils, are non-toxic and are used in food grade lubricants, as well as being biodegradable and often made from renewable resources. Likewise the other ingredients such as amine anti-oxidants, anti-foam, and corrosion inhibitors are in very common use in many applications for many decades without issue, The only application I have ever heard of air quality problems is in aviation, which is why I believe the TCP, and more specifically the ortho isomer, is the primary culprit here. Of course in most other applications people don't generally breath the breakdown vapors so other components may possibly contribute, but more likely to irritation rather than to neurotoxicity. That's more the domain of phosphates.

While I have been retired for over 16 years, I do consult and keep in touch with the industry and technology. Formulation changes move very slowly in aviation oils, and new products ever slower. Last I knew only one jet engine oil substituted another phosphate ester for TCP, and it was not being used in commercial aviation. The TCP producers drove the ortho isomer level down to well under 0.2%, most well below 0.1%, which they consider safe at the low TCP doses used in jet engine oils.

Yes I'm sure other anti-wear/ferrous metal pacifiers can be substituted for TCP, but the development and approval process is extensive and expensive. It would take a lot of incentive to push such a reformulation, which starts with all industry players recognizing and admitting to problem and the oil being the cause, and even then would likely take an industry regulation or legal requirement.

I think that preventing vapors from entering the breathing air is a better solution than reformulating the engine oils.

[Flipster130]

I wish I could recall what oil maker we used who either, as you say, reduced the TCP content or replaced it...... Gulf or Exxon rings a bell?
The thing is that no-one is shouting about the many advances to push down smelly dog/fume events as a result of pressure from good people like these:

CCAQE (https://www.gcaqe.org/)
Aerotoxic Association (https://aerotoxic.org/)

Until everyone flies ac with a pressurisation system like B787 (my friends who fly this beast say it is a game changer for crews - who arrive at destination, not feeling like a pile of dirty washing) the industry is keeping schtum.....and aviation is not doing the right thing by the unfortunate minority who are made seriously ill by the VOC/CO nasties as a result of their working on older ac with leaky bearing seals and no mitigations.....

[Manual Pitch Trim]

Hello I think your refering to the NYCO oil which I understand is TCP free but has TIPPs and different toxins, yet I understand NYCO is working towards certification of a less toxic oil.

Meanwhile
Aviation Herald
“Incident: Delta A319 near Ft. Myers on Nov 19th 2023, smoky odour on board
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Nov 21st 2023 16:09Z, last updated Tuesday, Nov 21st 2023 16:09Z

A Delta Airlines Airbus A319-100, registration N341NB performing flight DL-1472 from Key West,FL to Atlanta,GA (USA), was enroute at FL320 about 20nm northeast of Fort Myers,FL (USA) when the crew decided to divert to Fort Myers reporting a smokey odour on board. The aircraft landed safely on Fort Myers' runway 06 about 15 minutes after leaving FL320.

The airline reported there was a smokey odour on board, the crew declared emergency and diverted to Fort Myers, where the aircraft was checked and released to service.

The aircraft was able to continue the flight after about 90 minutes on the ground and reached Atlanta with a delay of about 3 hours.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL1472/history/20231119/1929Z/KEYW/KATL”

[Flipster130]

Not all smoke and fumes incidents are 'fume events' caused by oil from the bearing seals - could just be an electrical short or a burning pie.......:)

[tdracer]

Not all smoke and fumes incidents are 'fume events' caused by oil from the bearing seals - could just be an electrical short or a burning pie.......:)

This is very much the case - back when I had access to the database, I would routinely scan the events - mainly for items that were relevant to my area (once discovered a very scary relevant event that the operator had not bothered to report to Boeing or the engine company, but had submitted to the feds). But also out of general interest/curiosity.
"Fume" events were fairly common, but the vast majority were either electrical or galley related - those attributed to engine bleed air were uncommon (and often maintenance related - such as improperly performed engine washes).

When Boeing was developing what became the 787, it was touted as an efficiency enhancement (engine cycle better optimized by eliminating service bleeds - something that really didn't bear fruit) - not improved cabin air quality. It's probably worth noting that - since the 787 was launched, Boeing has also launched new models of all its other passenger aircraft (including new engines) - 737 Max, 747-8, and 777X (the hasn't been offered as passenger aircraft for some time). This would have been a golden opportunity to incorporate 787 air cycle systems for cabin pressurization - which would have allowed them to claim an improved cabin environment as a competitive advantage over Airbus. Yet all the new models use the same basic engine bleed air system that dates back to the 707. Obviously Boeing does not think it's a major issue.

[Flipster130]

......Yet all the new models use the same basic engine bleed air system that dates back to the 707. Obviously Boeing does not think it's a major issue.

I might be wrong but I suspect that retro-fitting 787 type air cycle pressurisation/air cond systems to some older frames night be prohibitively costly, even if the flight experience of such systems is vastly better for both pax and crew.

Also, if I were being cynical, then perhaps manufacturers, airlines and regulators do not want to admit more-openly that the past 70 plus years of experimenting with engine bleed air for pressurisation and air conditioning has been an abject failure. The spectre of a class action by all those injured, maimed and killed as result of the experiment would be scary - it might be the end of many businesses and jobs. Whilst that IS a serous consideration, it doesn't make it right - morally or legally - to deny the past and not learn from one's mistakes.

[Manual Pitch Trim]

Aviation Herald


A United Airbus A319-100, registration N809UA performing flight UA-531 from Chicago O'Hare,IL to Tucson,AZ (USA) with 51 people on board, was enroute at FL380 about 110nm west of Wichita,KS (USA) when the crew decided to divert to Wichita due to a burning odour on board. The aircraft landed safely on Wichita's runway 19R about 25 minutes after leaving FL380.

A replacement A319-100 registration N891UA reached Tucson with a delay of about 4.5 hours.

[Manual Pitch Trim]

Incident: Azul AT72 at Curitiba on Dec 11th 2023, burning odour on board (http://avherald.com/h?article=51266f05&opt=0)


An Azul Linhas Aereas Avions de Transport Regional ATR-72-212A, registration PR-AKJ performing flight AD-5096 from Curitiba,PR to Cascavel,PR (Brazil), was accelerating for takeoff from Curitiba's runway 15 when a burning smell became detectable on board of the aircraft. The aircraft stopped the climb at 7000 feet and returned to Curitiba for a safe landing on runway 15 about 17 minutes after departure.

Brazil's CENIPA reported during the takeoff phase a burning odour was noticed, the crew decided to return to the airport of origin for an uneventful landing.

[Manual Pitch Trim]

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/spirit-airlines-flight-attendants-exposed-fumes-hospital?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Singapore+Airlines+to+begin+flights+from+London+ Gatwick+✈%EF%B8%8F&utm_campaign=AeroTime+News+%2F+December+18%2C+2023Three Spirit Airlines flight attendants were taken to hospital after they were exposed to fumes while carrying out preflight checks on an aircraft.

New Jersey State Police confirmed that troopers were sent to Atlantic City International Airport (ACY) on December 17, 2023, after the crew members were exposed to fumes around 5:45 am local time.

The Spirit Airlines (https://www.aerotime.aero/tag/spirit-airlines) flight attendants were subsequently taken to a nearby hospital for medical evaluation by doctors.
The news website NJ.com (https://www.nj.com/), said Jeffrey Lebron, a detective and police spokesperson, confirmed details of the incident later in the day.

[Sailplaneflier]

Not all smoke and fumes incidents are 'fume events' caused by oil from the bearing seals - could just be an electrical short or a burning pie.......:)

What would help might be CO2 / combustion product detectors in cabins as I've personally experienced several events where engine bleed air smelled like jet fuel / burning oil. It seems it's almost 20% of the time.

[tdracer]

What would help might be CO2 / combustion product detectors in cabins as I've personally experienced several events where engine bleed air smelled like jet fuel / burning oil. It seems it's almost 20% of the time.
Remember - if this is on the ground, it could very well be exhaust from nearby jet engines getting sucked in by the aircraft engine(s). I noticed this just a couple days ago while sitting in a 777-300ER in Jakarta. Not long after engine start, but before commencing taxi, I noticed the distinct odor of Jet A exhaust in the aircraft air. The external air quality at many airports is far from good...

[Sailplaneflier]

That, Sir, is a very likely reason why. Yes, it was Jet A and lots of aircraft at DEN.

[Flipster130]

Not so much CO2 detectors perhaps but CO detectors....we have these in our piston tin cans and houses - so why not in airliners?
CO is as likely, possibly even more so than Organo-Phosphates, to be the cause of fume events and the physical and neurological effects that ensue.
Also, there are much more modern and effective CO detectors than those bits of card with palladium sulphate that change colour. Modern detectors (alarms 100-400ppm) could be easily retrofitted to most modern airliners. Yes some issues with picking up fumes from nearby ac on ground - but once airborne, should not go off (WOW interlink?)
However, there are plenty other nasties created when aero-engine oil is pyrolised......not sure there is much research on this. However, the insidious effects of CO are well known
Footballer Emiliano Sala Crash Channel Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_English_Channel_Piper_PA-46_crash)

[Manual Pitch Trim]

My understanding is that over 150 VOC volatile organic compounds have been found on aircraft CO is just one

plese see this EASA report

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/22219/en



Here is the peer reviewed report on the highly recommended Van Netten air sampler

http://www.bleedfree.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/van-Netten-Air-Sampler-and-Application-in-Aircraft-2008.pdf



This is the best way to take multiple samples in different aircraft.
Van Nettens lab will analyze the filters for TCP isomers, i.e. the tell tale, and toxic, chemicals that indicate bleed air contamination from jet engine oils. The filters we use do not measure UFPs as such.

This is for a good reason as UFP are generated from all kinds of different sources, anything from laser printers to diesel engines, e-cigarettes and wild fires.
The filters thry use will identify specific toxins in the air that we breathe and trace these toxins to their source within the aircraft. A particular reading of UFP in an aircraft does not tell you their toxicity or their source.


After exposure, you can take out the filter and replace it with a new one, replace the batteries and get the sampler ready for another measurement on another flight.
The exposed filter can be placed in an appropriate container, i.e. a small zip lock baggy and sent to me in a standard letter which , after receipt, can be given to our lab for analysis.

The specific details etc. come with the VN air sampler after purchase.

Regarding prices for a VN air sampler, these are currently for sale at $250 USD each.
An analysis for TCP isomers using GC/Mass spec. for TCP isomers will cost $150 USD/filter.


Chris van Netten, MSc, PhD
Professor Emeritus, Environment Toxicology
School of Population and Public Health
Faculty of Medicine, UBC


Tel. H 604-462-9476

[island_airphoto]

Not so much CO2 detectors perhaps but CO detectors....we have these in our piston tin cans and houses - so why not in airliners?
CO is as likely, possibly even more so than Organo-Phosphates, to be the cause of fume events and the physical and neurological effects that ensue.
Also, there are much more modern and effective CO detectors than those bits of card with palladium sulphate that change colour. Modern detectors (alarms 100-400ppm) could be easily retrofitted to most modern airliners. Yes some issues with picking up fumes from nearby ac on ground - but once airborne, should not go off (WOW interlink?)
However, there are plenty other nasties created when aero-engine oil is pyrolised......not sure there is much research on this. However, the insidious effects of CO are well known
Footballer Emiliano Sala Crash Channel Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_English_Channel_Piper_PA-46_crash)
I have a CO detector for flying. It is very useful for airplanes that use air passed over the exhaust manifold for cabin heat. All the pressurized jet aircraft I know of take bleed air from ahead of the part of the engine where the fuel is introduced, so it should not have any way to have combustion products in it. The issue here is more a fine mist of oil leaking from bad seals at the front of the engine, which would not show up on a CO meter AFAIK.

[Flipster130]

Evidence shows CO will be released when oil is pyrolised......wonder if we should not all carry CO monitors when flying, esp if manufacturers don't/won't fit them

[island_airphoto]

Evidence shows CO will be released when oil is pyrolised......wonder if we should not all carry CO monitors when flying, esp if manufacturers don't/won't fit them
I have had one in my flight bag ever since a CO leak nearly killed me, but I did not know they would pick up on oil.

[Flipster130]

Its not the oil per se its still the insidious CO
C

[TLoraine]

I have been researching this issue for over 20 years. In September this year, in London, a major update will be given by OEMs, scientists, doctors and others on the issue.
Key points:

A new blood test funded by unions representing pilots, flight attendants, engineers and off shore oil works globally and the Royal Australian Air Force will be presented by the researchers. The blood test can confirm if an exposure to the aryl phosphates in the oils (anti wear additives) has taken place. It will also be published in a peer reviewed journal soon.
New engine oils which a related patent by the manufacturer states will help address the issue of Aerotoxic Syndrome will also be discussed.
The debate on whether flight deck monitoring, as recommended twice by the UK AAIB, is a positive or negative step on flight safety will also be discussed.
New bleed air filtration / air cleaning technologies will be presented by OEMs.
Recent FAA research in bleed air contamination detection.
Etc......

A list of confirmed presentations and more information is available at: https://www.aircraftcabinair.com/speakers

[island_airphoto]

Its not the oil per se its still the insidious CO
C
Thread diversion - I have long wanted someone to do a study of low levels of CO on pilots. If a person at sea level is running at 6,000 feet brain-density-altitude, they won't notice. If you are flying at 8,000 feet AGL or with 8,000 feet cabin pressure, that will degrade your performance quite a bit. 14,000 feet brain altitude is not good. It would explain some mystery crashes where what seemed like good pilots in good airplanes just somehow forgot what they should have been doing.

[netstruggler]

Thread diversion - I have long wanted someone to do a study of low levels of CO on pilots. If a person at sea level is running at 6,000 feet brain-density-altitude, they won't notice. If you are flying at 8,000 feet AGL or with 8,000 feet cabin pressure, that will degrade your performance quite a bit. 14,000 feet brain altitude is not good. It would explain some mystery crashes where what seemed like good pilots in good airplanes just somehow forgot what they should have been doing.

I haven't heard of low levels of CO being a problem. Do you mean lower levels of CO than normal or a low level CO increase?

I think the effects of increased levels of CO are pretty well understood. They're bad.

Edit: It's just occurred to me that you might mean Cabin Oxygen rather than Carbon Monoxide? If so ignore the above.

[Airclues]

https://www.pprune.org/medical-health/657435-progressive-supranuclear-palsy.html

[Fortissimo]

Thread diversion - I have long wanted someone to do a study of low levels of CO on pilots. If a person at sea level is running at 6,000 feet brain-density-altitude, they won't notice. If you are flying at 8,000 feet AGL or with 8,000 feet cabin pressure, that will degrade your performance quite a bit. 14,000 feet brain altitude is not good. It would explain some mystery crashes where what seemed like good pilots in good airplanes just somehow forgot what they should have been doing.

Not sure where you get the 8000ft performance degradation from. The RAF allowed ops without additional oxygen up to 10K ft, regulators were tuned to provide increasing concentration until 18K ft, then 100% required to 33K ft. Above that, you need it delivered under pressure.