Toxic Cabin Air/Aerotoxic Syndrome

[Serenity]

Seems an Australian court has found toxic cabin air to be the cause of repiratory illness.

Will this start further investigations and acknowledgements by the aviation industry??

'Toxic' cabin air: legal victory for sick flight attendant - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7993889/Toxic-cabin-air-legal-victory-for-sick-flight-attendant.html)

[Herod]

Let's hope things will progress. Sadly, it's too late for many.

[stilton]

It seems a very paltry award for the damage done to her.

[Dream Buster]

Stilton,

The fume event was in 1992, the legal proceedings have been going on for 10 years and she has made it clear that the case was NOT run for compensation but to:

* Set a legal precedent.

* Help the 25% of other aircrew who have been similarly affected.

[stilton]

I understand DB and good for her.




I hope this case will 'legitimise' the problem with regulators and force them to take action.




The amount awarded should have been greater however, both for the plaintiff's benefit and to further increase the attention required to fix this problem.

[Dream Buster]

Stilton,

The airlines and regulators are still saying 'there is no evidence' - even after a High Court case and all of the overwhelming evidence - so it's not over yet!

It's called denial - a bit like the African river - The Nile.

As you so rightly say, all anybody wants are the known solutions of:

Filtered bleed air - Just like cigarettes.


Fit toxic air detectors - not aircrew's noses!


Reformulate the oils - take out the nerve agents.


- Just in case?

[RatherBeFlying]

This court ruling may be of use in obtaining a full or partial disability pension for occupational disease (even if the onset occurs after employment has ended) from the governing Workers Compensation Board (or whatever the body in your area is called).

In some boards, extra assessments against employers incurring higher payouts can be levied:E

While many courts have time limitations for civil suits, compensation boards usually do not. So if you can't sue, go to your compensation board, preferably in a group with the other affectees and a smart advocate.

Many boards are a little bit disfunctional. In which case you will find that there are a number of advocates who know how to make a claim stick.

[Section 48 Ace]

The Bae 146 Alf engine (Helicopter designed powerplant) was modified to power Bae 146 and incorporated customer bleed air. Their Carbon friction bearing seals can wear and pressure can drop across seals at the top of climb of even good seals allowing some oil fume by pass to a/con system.

Most fixed wing A/C have power plants with Labyrinth bearing seals ( no contacting parts ) and give nil problems and work by differential pressure.

APU's have carbon friction bearings seals and when worn can contaminate bleed air ducts upstream to engine isolation valves and down stream a/con system.

Ansett introduced monitoring units in the aft overhead locker and changed the engine oil from Mobil jet 11 to 294 less carcinogetic.

Monash university should release a report end 2010 from a committee formed 18 months ago as advertised in The Australian which i am awaiting a reply.

I believe I have a solution and been in contact with Boeing, The French say it's no bigger deal than theater odours and not a problem.

A/C cabins are a confined space and create body odours, Galley odours, lavortory odours and can suffer engine oil vapours, Straight away pillows which adsorb unwanted vapours could be placed in overhead lockers until vapour filters are fitted to various systems.

Awaiting reply's from manufactures, they showed initial interest.

[flipper the dolphin]

Of course none of this could have happened with the Vickers Fun-Bus, the venerable VC10 (and no doubt many other types of the era) have separate dedicated cabin air compressors. Have we gone backwards in the intervening 40 years? I understand that these devices were heavy and power hungry but what is more important than looking after the self loading revenue stream?

[Dream Buster]

Flipper,

YouTube - Airlines: Gift im Flieger? - Teil 2 von 2

I think this German film explains what you mean. (subtitled)

[wbble]

Flight International Article posted on the Aerotoxic Association (http://www.aerotoxic.org/) website:



CABIN CONTAMINATION DAVID LEARMOUNT LONDON (http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/newspaper_and_internet_news/Flight-International-Australian-toxic-compensation.pdf)
Australian court upholds toxic compensation

East-West loses appeal over flight attendant damages award

A flight attendant from the former Australian regional carrier East-West Airlines whose health was damaged by toxic fumes in the cabin of a BAe 146 has had a A$138,800 ($129,000) compensation award upheld by the country's high court, against an appeal by the airline.

Joanne Turner was working for East-West when fumes entered the cabin in the descent at the end of a Sydney-Brisbane flight in 1992. She was 25 weeks pregnant and complained of a burning throat, sore eyes, headaches and persistent cough after the incident.

It has been established that the fumes that entered the cabin pressurisation system were the result of a leaking engine oil seal.

The Australian Dust and Diseases Tribunal — the national agency with the closest area of expertise to this case — awarded Turner $138,757 in damages some time ago, but East-West had appealed against that decision. Now the high court has upheld it.

Turner says: "I'm just very relieved it's finally over. I hope the fight will help other flightcrew."

Meanwhile, a University of New South Wales survey has found that about 25% of pilots who flew on the BAe 146 suffered long-term health degradation that deprived them of their pilot licences, and an Australian Senate inquiry found East-West and Ansett Airlines, by 2007, had been paid more than $2 million in 1993 by BAE Systems — British Aerospace's successor — to drop complaints about the BAe 146.

Court judgements are pending on the same subject in other Australian states and in Belgium.

Flight International 21-27 September 2010

[Sallyann1234]

This might raise the profile, if it ever happens:

Shadows from the Sky - Feature Film. (http://www.shadowsfromthesky.com/)

[Dream Buster]

Sallyann,

Shadows from the Sky (2011) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213602/)

[Southernboy]

Big corporations - especially Exxon - have a stinking record in more senses than one. This whole debacle has only continued due to corporate power. If there's continued boardroom resistance to common sense perhaps the boardroom & chief exec's offices should be fed their air supply from the same source.

It shouldn't take too much ingenuity to rig up a leaky turbofan to run the air con systems at head office.

[Section 48 Ace]

I recieved a reply quickly since my last post and follow up call which they thanked my interest and indicated that our new technology is not required and they have a program being created regarding particulate and volotile organic compounds (VOC) filters, which will change the game without admitting there is an issue.

Could something be created that could phase out older A/C like the demise of the B727 and their noise issue of yesterday in Australian sky's?

Preferably, a simple filter modified to undertake particulate and VOC vapours, from the,

1. Recirculation system (saves fuel and a great place to mix everthing up and redistribute to cabin outlets) Present practice incorporates a particulate filter which is changed regularly. Easy
2. Install a porous inner wall duct filter downstream of the water separators prior to cabin entry could save some older A/C if new technology superseeds them eventually. Harder to achieve due supply must not be interupted.

Our test show adsorbing/absorbing vapours puts out fires so why not have the side wall linings made of this new Gee Wiz stuff. I am a consultant by family association and medium discovered accidentally, with such a material and it is 100% recyclable. :ugh:

A cynic might think there is a race to reverse engineer it or obtain it by other means.

PS. I may be too small for them to take notice with the stakes so high. I have been carefull not to name names.

Very important to write up odour events for trend monitoring and necessary action.

I have been talking to the appropiate people since 2005 and patiently waited for my last reply from an interested manufacturer as mentioned, for 12 months,(Disappointed with response, initial correspondance advised they will fund testing). hence the posts.

My team consider approaching the issue from the less obvious tasks and as a consequence just happen to purge and evacuate the Toxic Hydrocarbons.

We have more work to do, there is more than one way to skin a cat and punching the big guys on the nose is not one of them.
The front door seems closed for now.

S 48 A

[bArt2]

A/C cabins are a confined space and create body odours, Galley odours, lavortory odours and can suffer engine oil vapours, Straight away pillows which adsorb unwanted vapours could be placed in overhead lockers until vapour filters are fitted to various systems.


The problem is not the smell, but the fact that you get poisoned if you ask me.

[Dream Buster]

Aircraft cabin air no more a health threat than sitting in an office | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318025/Aircraft-cabin-air-health-threat-sitting-office.html)

Perhaps the Australian cabin crew and Judge were wrong - all along.

It's a myth after all.....!

Phew - which chemicals are in those visible fumes in 1 in 2,000 flights.

Who cares?

DB :ugh:

[Swiss Cheese]

Keep your eyes on a lawsuit on a similar matter in Chicago, Illinois. It is by twenty passengers on an XL Airways Boeing 767 back in 2007, when a fume event at altitude seemingly liberated VOCs, with nasty results.

Boeing and others tried to get the case thrown out and back to the UK, but lost in a headline decision earlier this year in May. The case now proceeds in Chicago to damages. Watch this space.

The important issue for all here is that a single fume event is much less complex to prove in law, than prolonged exposure by flight or cabin crew to conditions, say in a 146 or 757. Something lawyers cause "causation" is the heart of the matter for these types of case.

As a matter of decency and simply doing the right thing, there has been a deliberate ducking of this issue by the industry for far too long. David Learmount and others are correct to call it the dirty little secret of the aviation industry, ably abetted by insurance companies and others who are keen to protect their capital from claims.

There will be "an Erin Brokovic" for toxic cabin air, it is just a matter of time.

[lomapaseo]

The important issue for all here is that a single fume event is much less complex to prove in law, than prolonged exposure by flight or cabin crew to conditions,

Yes, cause and effect as well as a smoking gun makes it a lot easier for a jury to understand.

Quite a bit different from the thread subject of Toxic (smelly) air

Of course I have no idea what the evidence is in the case you cite.

[Dream Buster]

Boeing 767 Flight number XLA 120 Aerotoxic Poisoning (http://www.stewartslaw.com/boeing-767-flight-number-xla-120-aerotoxic-poisoning.aspx)

and

BBC News Player - Something in the Air (http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7360000/newsid_7369800/7369837.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1)

Perhaps the BBC might have to do another Panorama follow up? - 2 years after the last one.

[FNFF]

Front page of the Sunday Express today.

Dead BA pilots 'victims of toxic cabin fumes' | UK | Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express (http://www.sundayexpress.co.uk/posts/view/373594/Dead-BA-pilots-victims-of-toxic-cabin-fumes-)

[Walnut]

Does anyone know what aeroplanes they were flying?

[JW411]

I read somewhere that one of them was raised on a farm. Is it possible that he could initially have been exposed to sheep dip?

[BOAC]

Walnut - http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/505527-low-cost-operator-incapacitation.html see post #4 by JW411

JW - if that was Richard, I would assume his brother, Guy (with whom I have flown), also grew up on the same farm and I am not aware that (hopefully) he has experienced the same problems. I did not know about Karen.

This topic was inexplicably relegated by a mod to the Safety Forum when ALL commercial pilots should be aware of the potentially fatal problem of aircraft air contamination. It may kill you. At least with National paper attention some appropriate focus may be placed on it at last.

If you get a serious occurrence of these so-called 'oil fumes', go onto 100% oxygen, consider landing asap if you feel it appropriate and see a medic asap.

[hetfield]

Most of the time I like the british humor.

Most of the time....., not always. (#3)

[Croqueteer]

:sad: I would like to know the real reason that Boeing have gone back to and independant supply of cabin air. I speak as one who after 17 years on the 146 suffered total and sudden kidney failure caused by my immune system, which is affected by organophosphates. The only clue I had was a consultant asking me if I had ever been in regular contact with oil.

[Sampan Angkasa]

I am pretty concerned. I have experienced oily type odors in B777s during descent from higher levels to below 10000 ft on many occasions. I had voiced those concerns but have never got a satisfactory answers. Some LAMEs opined that it was tempory/intermittent oil seal problems but said no one has died due to such odors!

I hope the industry pay more attention to reports of such odors.

[toffeez]

There's a "fumes" thread running in Prune's 'Medical & Health'.

[Walnut]

Thanks I had a feeling it was the RJ 146, as every time I paxed on one the air con always had an oily smell.

[BOAC]

This appears to have first been recognised as a problem in the 70's and the Grauniad carried this article in 2006 Toxic cockpit fumes that bring danger to the skies | Business | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/feb/26/theairlineindustry.uknews).

toffeez - I reckon this needs to be on a more widely-read forum than medical? By the time pilots start looking at that forum they tend to have some problems and it must surely be better to prevent them in the first place?

EDIT: I see also the thread you refer to is well down the page and refers to ground staff mainly.

[mike-wsm]

Bleed air? Straight off the engines(s)? Without being buffered via a heat exchanger?

Must've been designed by a homicidal maniac!

[eastern wiseguy]

Hetfield

I don't think that there was ANY attempt at humour

http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/6/3/187.full.pdf

There appears to be a link between the use of Organophosphates (in sheep dips) and nervous disorders.

[Walnut]

At least this will not be a problem on the 787 as I understand it does not use bleed air for the packs. Just the battery fumes to contend with!!!

[Chris Scott]

Quote from mike-wsm,

"Bleed air? Straight off the engines(s)? Without being buffered via a heat exchanger?
Must've been designed by a homicidal maniac!"

The 2006 Observer article (see link provided by BOAC, above) includes a summary of a report by the AAIB that suggests these problems involve an astonishingly-wide range of turbo-fan and turbo-prop engines, although I couldn't say if the air conditioning systems of the aircraft concerned all source their air by bleeding it directly from the engine. It's only fair to point out to the uninitiated that such a bleed is taken from one of the earlier compressor stages, well before any combustion takes place, so the air should be as unpolluted as the ambient air. Obviously, however, these compressor rotors have to be lubricated. But that applies to the rotating components of ANY air conditioning system.

Modern turbofan engines produce vast quantities of compressed air and, on the face of it, are an ideal source of clean air for air conditioning systems. They have plenty to spare, except when take-off thrust is required. Earlier jet engines, with lower bypass ratios (or zero bypass) did not. The VC10, with low-bypass Conway engines, used separate compressors driven by the accessory gearbox. The B707, which started off with zero-bypass engines, used engine bleeds to turn the turbines of turbo-compressors, although direct engine bleed was also available as a second choice on later engines.

Boeing has only recently decided to go down a completely different road, using electrical power to turn air conditioning compressors on their B787, as Walnut points out. They say they've done it for improved efficiency, and I've no reson to query that. In any case, as mentioned earlier, I think any compressor has moving parts that have to be lubricated.

[BOAC]

IFALPA have jut produced this leaflet http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/IFALPA%202013%2013HUPBL01%20-%20Cabin%20air%20quality.pdf - I think however they are mistaken when they say
"Occasionally, oil fumes from the hot section of the engine leak into this (cabin) air." I thought the problem originates with the 'cold section' oil seals?

[mad_jock]

I think any compressor has moving parts that have to be lubricated.

On turboprops you can have turbine compressors which the bearing is air.

You give them a bast for 60 seconds after start up and they spin up and the spinning makes them float in the shaft.

The flow off the engine spins the compressor which sucks fresh air in from outside. Only time I have smelt anything nasty is when de-ice fluid has got into them.

[BOAC]

OK - please explain how 'hot section' air gets into the bleed air? There are no bleed air tappings I am aware of after the combustion section, and they would be toxic without any contamination, would they not? The problem as I understand it is not actually 'fumes' but a 'mist' generated by high pressure oil 'leaking' through compressor seals..

[mad_jock]

Hot section air I would have thought wouldn't have much oxygen left in it anyway.

The compressor air is hot though but only due to it being compressed.

[JW411]

On the BAe146 the problem usually was a slight leak in the APU seal which allowed traces of oil to seep into the air conditioning system. We were always told to start the packs in Full Manual Cold and to run them like that for two minutes. This would usually ensure that any contamination present would be dumped overboard before any heat was applied.

However, I have seen pilots start the packs with a Hot selection and that, from time to time, would create a thin grey mist and a bit of a pong.

We had two pilots who had to be moved on to other aircraft on the fleet after suffering some symptoms.

I have always been fascinated to learn why it is that a small minority suffers so badly and the rest of us have no problems. I survived nearly 20 years on the BAe146 and I am pleased to report that I am still in rude health.

[blind pew]

Guy Westgate told me after his brother died that it is to do with Genetic make up.
I was very ill whilst flying the DC10 in the late eighties and tried to find alternative employment. Flew with one of our chiefs and he got me off the fleet.
My health improved but lost my licence a few years later.
Have another mate ex DC10s who lost his on physiological grounds.
I think the problem could be much bigger.

[JW411]

Now, you see, that's interesting for I flew the DC-10 for eight years also.

[mark exclamation]

Hi all
Just a couple of quick comments regarding this sad news and some of the issues people have raised.
I myself have been off flying duties after a fume event over 2 years ago but I think that was really the straw that broke the camels back as I have been feeling unwell for many years and indeed was lucky to survive kidney cancer some years ago.

Firstly, as has been said, we are all different genetically and our bodies can react differently to chemicals/toxins. I have seen evidence of chemical leaks, not in aviation, where a group of people have been exposed to the same chemical spill yet react differently, as diverse as from no effect to being confined to a wheelchair. It all depends on how our bodies process these toxins through our livers/kidneys and if they are efficiently disposed of from our bodies.
That is one of the problems facing this issue as for every single person affected by organophosphates, etc, then there are several hundred people from the same flight who are not, or at least not as badly.
I also believe that these problems are cumulative and these toxins build up in some of us over many years of low exposure until our bodies cannot cope anymore. That's what I believe has happened to me.

Secondly, the hot, high pressure air that can cause the oil or any other contaminant to disperse into the air conditioning.
Jet engines have 2 air conditioning supplies from the engine. One from the front bypass section, the low pressure (LP) air which is a lower temp compared to the one from deeper into the engine from the high pressure section (HP) which is at a much higher temp.
During most of a flight the engine is at high revs, T/O/climb/cruise, and the air supplies come from the LP air supply.
During descent or taxying the engine is mostly at idle and cannot maintain sufficient air supply from the LP alone so the HP air is then utilised and if there any contaminants in the ducting then they could be burnt off. Who's to say that this doesn't happen nearly all the time but that the amount involved doesn't cause a smell/fumes such that it doesn't get noticed?

That doesn't hide the fact that if an oil seal fails in either of these areas then oil fumes, which contain a small percent of organophosphate, will be released.

Well that's my small input but there is much more info from more qualified people on the net, specifically the Aerotoxic Association, Toxic Free Airlines and the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive [GCAQE], co-chaired by Tristan Loraine, an ex BA Captain who also suffers ill health.
It's a shame that more people at the coalface in aviation don't know about it and question why they sometimes feel so unhealthy/unfit!

Take care

[Turbine D]

Croqueteer,
I would like to know the real reason that Boeing have gone back to and independent supply of cabin air.
The B787 engines are "bleed-less" to improve the efficiency of the engines while reducing the weight, valving and piping complexities of both engine and aircraft, all of which reduces cost, the exception being those bleeds required for engine heating/cooling purposes. The traditional turbo-fan engines (two spool design) take air out of the compressor, usually in three locations. BOAC is correct, none of the removal location are in the turbine area.

For example, in the CF6 engines, bleed air is pulled off at the 7th, 8th and 11th stages of the high pressure compressor. This is pretty far back in the compressor and the air drawn off is warm. The 8th stage bleed air is what is provided exclusively to the aircraft for various purposes including cabin air.

So how might oil fumes get into the cabin air? Well, some air is drawn off the fan by-pass and is used for various reasons including pressurizing the "B" sump that sits in a compartment underneath the combustor forward of the HPT. The excess pressurization air is then sent forward and vents into the cavity area where the fan bearing and stub shaft joins the shaft connected to the LPT. The air is distributed through several compartments to eventually heat the shaft to maintain seal clearances.

Now as the seals begin to wear over engine operating time, some oil in the form of mist could possibly escape into the main stream airflow into the HP compressor and be drawn off at the 8th stage bleed into the cabin air. It would probably only happen in certain engine transient modes.

All engines are different in details so this is just one example and one possibility. It does seem to me that the chemical makeup of modern oils used in engines is important regarding air contamination and what crews (and passengers) are subjected to from time to time.

[Croqueteer]

Turbine, I am aware of the source of bleed air, but I suspect that independant compressors etc would incur a wt penalty. I can remember how substantial the compressors were on the Viscount, so my question stands.

[gas path]

The turbo compressors were not that big on the B707. Installed in the front of the pylons 2/3/4.:8
There is NO bleed taken from the 'hot' end. High pressure bleed will be taken from the back end and/or mid way along the compressor depending on the engine type. However this air can on occasion get contaminated with engine oil (overfilling in some cases or an oil seal problem).
The air conditioning Air Cycle Machines these days all have 'air bearings'.


@Sampan Angkasa
I would say that is an APU fault especially in the descent on the 777.
The APU can have a problem with oil seals when its got a few hours 'under its belt'. When the T/L's are retarded at TOD it causes a partial vacuum in the APU pneumatic duct and any oil residue will be drawn down into the pack heat exchangers. Hence it's noticeable in the descent!

[Dan Winterland]

The VC10s were wuite large and heavy. They could also introduce oil mist into the cabin if the lubricating oil had been overfilled during maintenace.

[SmsPro]

Is this a joke? and the farm remark...? Trying to figure what is the hidden innuendo.

[Loose rivets]

I think that was already answered.




Just seen this. Sins of the fathers . . .


Jet fuel, plastics exposures cause disease in later generations; Reproductive diseases, obesity (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130124183630.htm)

[Mac the Knife]

With more than 600,000 certificated Commercial pilots in the U.S. alone, if this is a real phenomenon then very clear medical evidence for it MUST exist.

Mac

[BRE]

I believe in previous threads we had on the topic, it was said that there are alternative oils without organophosphates. What is the status (certified for all applications? service life?)

[BOAC]

Mac - welcome to the topic. Good to see a 'medic' here. I have not seen much out of the US, but a catalogue of 'events' (Europe and Aus only, I think) back to 1997 is here (http://www.aerotoxic.org/news-and-articles/fume-event-incident-reports)

Any professional medical interest welcome. There has been a poster on PPRune called 'aerotoxic' who is, I believe, involved with the site linked. He now shows as 'active' but there are no posts listed in search, so I guess the mods must have taken a dislike to his posts.

[Petercwelch]

Attribution of illnesses to environmental factors requires real evidence, not just, I smelled something and then found I had renal cancer etc. i assume that flight departments have access to pilots medical histories but am not sure. Do they? Unscientifically based speculation can raise issues, but when these sorts of environmental concerns are investigated they usually turn out to be distributed randomly, and to have no basis on environment. Love Canal which was a cause célèbre for years in the US was never shown to have caused any disease. Cancer and vascular disease are the big killers in western countries and should be expected to occur everywhere.

[BOAC]

Peter - I think the thrust of the campaign is for exactly that - clarity. I believe blood tests can establish organo-phosphate exposure, but I do not think they are done on pilots who report 'fumes'. Should they be? 'Evidence' is at the moment largely circumstantial.

I understand that organo-phosphates are present in aero-engine synthetic oils and that O-Ps can cause cancer. I would like to see some sort of study to see if the two are linked in aviation.

[BRE]

I remember vaguely reading (here?) that Lufthansa has installed monitoring equipment on a handful of planes to actually obtain quatitative data.The question is how likely is it that a single plane actually has a fume event in a given year and would it be advisable to deploy monitoring equiment on a significant percentage of the fleet?

[Dengue_Dude]

I used to instruct on the 146/RJ for Avro and can confirm that the vast majority of their 'smelly' or fumes reports were attributable to the APU.

The fix apparently was to introduce a form of jet pump to lower the pressure in the APU gearbox to below atmospheric, thereby causing any leakage to go the 'other' way.

Either way, it just goes to underline how good the venerable VC10s were - no bleed powered ACMs in that aircraft - were they Rootes blowers?

We often had that kind of effect in the C130 when we have prop Gitz seal leaks - air from the compressor being taken for conditioning being contaminated. So I turned off the appropriate bleed valve.

Personally, I think we should 'bite the bullet' and insist on ambient air being compressed and conditioned. Yes I know it's heavier, more expensive - but I too believe this is the tip of an iceberg.

[Tinribs]

There was an earlier comment about sheep dip and its qualities.

There is no doubt that the orgaphosphates in some sheep dips cause serious health problems. Extensive protective clothing and systems are now required to use them after the problems being noted over a wide spectrum of users and long periods

I spent some years at an agricultural school and many years on the edge of farming, these problems are well known in farming and medical circles and there are posters about it market areas and agricultural suppliers.

The problem is that dipping sheep is both essential and legally required.
Undipped sheep suffer fly maggots which eat into the skin and cause extreme pain and even death. As a side issue such sheep rarely thrive so there is a profit motive.

Those dipping sheep, which are not enthusiastic about the process, suffer splashes or even soaking in the fluids used, and breath contaminated air. Dipping usualy takes place on good weather and so historically little heavy clothing was worn by operators and protective clothing unpopular

Th issue with sheep dip has lead to questions about the effects of similar organophosphates in aero engine oils and the fumes which may be found in the aircraft

[JW411]

I attended several sheep dipping sessions (as an interested observer) when I was a youngster and before the associated problems were known about. I don't suppose I was even wearing long trousers then!

It makes me shudder when I think about it.

[billysmart]

i see a few people making reference to the 146/rj.. they have different apu's ( mostly).

i have noticed that a LOT of crews either fail to use the overspeed to shut it down or just flick the off switch. the oil deprime valve is then closed causing oil biuld up in the system which eventually leaks out.

wonder how much is self inflicted

[JW411]

For the best part of 20 years we taught pilots to shut the APU down on the OVSPD. That is not to say that some of them did not do this at some point.

[Croqueteer]

Although the APU did smell, the serious problem I think is from misted oil from the compressor stages. Being brought up on a farm and thinking nothing of handling dipped sheep, maybe my problem predates the 146! There are so many articles on this subject, including a very good CD.

[Dream Buster]

Here is a Medical Protocol which may help:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/Medicalprotocol031909.pdf

or Aerotoxic Association - Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome (http://www.aerotoxic.org) for further.

The ill health effects of breathing oil fumes is unsurprisingly very similar to breathing tobacco smoke - but arguably much, much worse.......as very few people seem to understand it or even know about it.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Friend here works at our regional airport, baggage handling, refuelling, marshalling, monitoring the start-up etc. lots of exposure to Jet A 1 fumes from the turbine aircraft that fly in.

Couple of years ago he was diagnosed with something akin to leukeamia, and has since had radiation treatment - with all that entails - and then a complete blood replacement procedure, and thankfully seems to be recovering. The suggestion was that this was a direct result of breathing jet exhaust - that macho smell that we love so much !

There is no doubt that the orgaphosphates in some sheep dips cause serious health problems.

A sheep farmer friend suffered identical symptoms around the same time.

Not saying anything, just reporting the facts.

[AdamFlyer]

I flew the 146 and was ill health retired. It is my view that exposure to oil fumes is harmful and a flight safety issue:

The following links may be of interest:

Jim McAuslan of BALPA - Closing speech 21 April 2005 on Vimeo

Air Safety, Health and Security Department (http://ashsd.afacwa.org/?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=1396)

Broken Wings - Documentary by Fact Not Fiction Films (http://www.factnotfictionfilms.com/brokenwings.html)

Global Cabin Air Quality Executive | Home Page (http://www.gcaqe.org)

ITF Contaminated Air - What you need to know. on Vimeo

[Paddington]

Which aircraft types did Karen and Richard fly?

[BOAC]

I don't know about Karen but Richard was Airbus.

Unless we are dealing with something like the supposed APU problem on the RJ/146, the issue is actually engine related rather than airframe I think.

[JW411]

In a similar vein, does anyone else remember how we used to wipe the chinagraph boards clean in the RAF using gallons of CTC (carbon tetra chloride)?

Suddenly, we were told that CTC was incredibly dangerous and it became a banned substance. I wonder how many people were damaged by CTC?

[JW411]

BOAC:

I'm sure I read somewhere that Richard Westgate flew for Manx before he went to BA. Manx had some BAe146s.

[billysmart]

as an addition to my previous posting, i forgot to add:

shut down and WAIT until RPM is below 20% before sellecting "off"

[BOAC]

JW - interesting. I recall that there was a court case in Aus regarding the 146 and fumes and it does seem to be a recurring theme here. Is there a good case for a more detailed sampling of medical 'events' amongst those who have flown it?

[Gremlin 1]

JW411

Richard did indeed fly for Manx/British Regional Airlines, on the BAe ATP and the Embraer145.

Karen flew the B737/75/76.

[145qrh]

I flew with Richard on th ATP, and also the 145.. Not sure if he went 146?

[gorter]

I believe the 757 also has some anecdotal fume events. Perhaps this is how Karen was exposed?

[Dengue_Dude]

At Woodford, the SOP for APU shutdown was the Overspeed method. Yes there were two APU types, the latter being a Sundstrand, I think the original was a Garrett.

[tonytales]

The DC-8 always had turbo-compressors for cabin air and had no direct engine bleed capability into the cabin. I remember being surprised when the B707 which had turbo-compressors added capability for direct engine bleed air to the air conditioning. I was bemused to read here that the C-130 uses engine bleed air for cabin use. The Electra with similar Allison 501D engines had two mechanically driven cabin compressors. When you pulled the 5th and 10th stage surge bleed valves on the engines to check the engine compressor blades you found the blades were often coated with oily residue. Having an oil operated prop in front of the engine air inlet will do that although some may have come from engine seals. We had to do a lot of compressor cleaning to maintain engine power and I think it was best not to breath that air too.
The CL-44 also had a mechanically driven cabin compressors, big old Roots blowers. The L-1011 used engine bleed air for the cabin but the APU drove a separate load compressor for pneumatics supply so any APU engine seal leakage would not have gotten into the cabin air.
Mention was made of deicing fluid. Had several instances where the APU was being used for keeping the pax comfy while deicing and fluid ran into the APU air intakes (or pneumatic air intake on L-1011) and caused bad fume problems in the cabin. We found that using the APU only for electrics still could get anti-ice fluid residue left in in there and it was best to clean it out by starting the engines off the APU before using it for air conditioning.
Synthetic jet engine oil is nasty stuff and any mechanic doing oil screens or gearbox work can tell you of the skin condition of his hands after a good soak in it.
I think the B787 use of separate compressors, electric in this case or of turbo-compressors as in the old days is the way to go.

[kotakota]

I flew with Karen on 737s , delightful lady , very sad to read all this .

[Three Miles Out]

For those of you not in BALPA, you will be pleased to know that the whole contaminated air issue has been finally resolved by our BALPA experts.

Its actually Hyperventilation... I am not joking, but this is the new BALPA view announced today.

I would find this funny but for the simple fact I knew Karen from her time on the 737. Her memorial service was last week, she had been diagnosed with Aerotoxic Syndrome by her medical doctor and yet a week later, BALPA have the total disrespect to her family and to all of us, to say its all Hyperventilation.

I am on the bus and it frequently has the distinct oil smell. Do we put on oxygen, usually not, we all accept its the norm, but I will from now as clearly all BALPA will do is send me a paper bag!

Its not rocket science to work out that inhaling heated engine oils will give off toxic chemicals and carcinogens.

You can read it at: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iosh.co.uk%2Fidoc.ashx%3Fdocid%3D943322 d1-1216-4bce-97d1-37b08108a77d%26version%3D-1&ei=pmoNUcepB8ep0AWE7IDQDQ&usg=AFQjCNHHsKH8fLK6p5cNjkp9fjU2xcGG0w&bvm=bv.41867550,d.d2k&cad=rja

[Chunky Monkey]

Guy is probably correct, but don't think that means there isn't a problem...

3% of the population are pre-disposed to be symptomatic when exposed to long-chain organophospates. Of those, a percentage will be very ill, some will die, and others will have symptoms but be able to function more or less normally.

The problem is related to sheep-dip sundrome and I believe Gulf War syndrome. In the US the Pentagon has accepted GWS exists, and say that only 3% of those exposed to NAPS are symptomatic, which is in line with expectations based on genetic pre-disposition. Meanwhile, the MOD say it can't exist because 97% of those exposed are asymptomatic.

Then the British Air Lines' Puppet Association's General Secretary comes out and says it's nothing to do with contamination and we're all hyperventilating - an idea floated by Dr Mike Bagshaw - who just hapens to work for Airbus and be the retired head of British Airways Health Service.

However, in 2005 BALPA's GS said - and it's in video and can be reached via AOPIS.org - "There is a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew ... the workplace [is] the cabin environment. This, we conclude, is reulting in significant flight safety issues in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications"

Go figure!

[BARKINGMAD]

After 9 years on the Bae146 I am still allegedly fit now, but probably lucky so to be.


Not only did the 146 APU smell, the early production models would pump blue fumes into the rear of the cabin after startup and following pack initiation on1st start of the day. As the SLF would not be impressed we would start it early and clear the worst of visible fumes and odour before we would invite them aboard.

Also, certain airframes would provide an altimeter check consisting of a "sweaty socks" odour, for less than a minute, in the engine idle descent, at 8000 ft. Maybe it lasted longer but once a smell is in the nose it requires the nasal passages to be purged with fresh air before further detection.

Needless to say tech log entries produced neither positive nor useful rectification reports and never was a proper air sampling exercise carried out despite management being alerted via ASRs or 'ear-tugging'.

When I do pop my clogs I'll be happy for some bored pathologist to take various biopsies for research purposes and will even donate a bit of non-essential whilst still alive, if there is any program out there wishing to examine those who've definitely and repeatedly been exposed to these fumes for nearly a decade.

For the sake of our successors the CAA medical wallahs should display their inependence from industry pressures and using their vast medical database, with the permission of volunteers, a proper scientific & objective study could be performed.

If I have to submit to a breathalyser test before I board to operate, I expect to have a leeching done IMMEDIATELY and AUTOMATICALLY after landing following ANY fumes event!

But I can hear the beancounters arguing over who would pay for such a procedure, so in the meantime we're back to awaiting the "Tombstone Imperative"?

Ah, that's why I've got this posting name.....................:ugh:

[Three Miles Out]

BARKINGMAD not sure if you have watched the documentary film 'Broken Wings', an ex FlyBe 146 pilot let me borrow it.

Broken Wings - Documentary by Fact Not Fiction Films (http://www.factnotfictionfilms.com/brokenwings.html)

I know many people take a pop at David Learmount sometimes, but he gives an absolutely awesome interview in the documentary and sums up the whole problem very well. Worth a watch and it showed me how little line pilots like me actually know about the facts.

[BEagle]

Also, certain airframes would provide an altimeter check consisting of a "sweaty socks" odour....

I flew as a passenger many times on the 146s operated by buzz - this 'sweaty socks' smell could be detected on every trip and had a distinctive odour.

I also took NAPs in GW1, fortunately with no permanent effect....:confused:

[toxic-avenger]

Ladies and gentlemen great to see many concerned pilots out there looking for the truth!! The misconception that aerotoxic syndrome is for only pilots of these 2 types is a myth. While these 2 types did a lot of damage to crew so is just about every other type of jet airliner using a bleed system for air con. I have been seriously ill for 8 years having flown none of the forementioned types. There are tests available to detect genetic predisposition. I would ask any pilot interested to contact me via PM. I know that given the opportunity to test and perhaps make career (and in some instances life saving) decisions all those years ago I would have jumped at it....instead I had those decisions made for me by airline Dr's that deprived me of the truth!

[frangatang]

Any truth in the rumour that organophosphates are in those sprays they use
in the cabin going to/from OZ?

[Three Miles Out]

A concerned business friend frequent flyer of mine rang me (a bit too early) this morning to inform me that the story is again front page of the Sunday Express:

Toxic air plane crash warning | UK | Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express (http://www.sundayexpress.co.uk/posts/view/375221/Toxic-air-plane-crash-warning)

What I would like to know, is how can BALPA go from this position in 2005 following a BALPA conference examining all the facts :

Jim McAuslan of BALPA - Closing speech 21 April 2005 on Vimeo

to a position of denial of a problem?

What odds would I get at William Hill on these 5 possibilities:

1. Final indexed linked salary pension scheme for their General Secretary, so why rock the boat?

2. BALPA new Head of Flight Safety is the former Head Doctor at the CAA?

3. BALPA losing too many members to the new Virgin Pilot union Home (http://www.theppu.co.uk) so best not upset industry?

4. BALPA frightened the families of one of the deceased will sue BALPA for their failure to see their members properly protected in the work place?

5. or this one that came from a BA CSD who says she overheard some BA union reps saying BALPA were financially in the poo house as they had paid 3 million in an out of court settlement to BA last year linked to an Open Skies Watergate cover-up. :D

Perhaps I need to go back to flying fast jet in the military at least we had oxygen masks :)

[Three Miles Out]

fragatang Google this paper:

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE 50:345–356 (2007)
Pesticide Illness Among Flight Attendants
Due to Aircraft Disinsection

[blind pew]

Joking of course.
My last companys medical service was giving us anti malarial drugs that were banned in Germany because they caused liver damage with every dose.

Was admitted to RAF Halton in 1975 with suspected liver cancer although I wasn't told that but my wife was told I had a few days to live. Had years of liver pain and bowel trouble...flying the Trident at the time.
Mystery illness that I was offered anti depressants for and one :mad: in management tried to sack me as I was obviously of a nervous disposition and not suited to aviation.(flew four hours yesterday in the mountains under spinnaker nylon - so much for nervous).
12 years later I became very ill again - put down to the after affects of too many antibiotics and malaria.. Offered anti depressants again. I was flying the Dc10 and had quite a few flights as pax on the 146.
Eventually I recovered but suffer from tinitus and short term memory problems.
My last company had a policy of categorising obvious aviation caused health problems as non industry related because they had to pay the medical bills etc.
Eventually lost my licence on health grounds.

[billysmart]

frangatang.. if you mean the cabin pesticide sprays that the dollies walk up and down the cabin with then no.

They use Permethrin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permethrin) at about 1%...

you get it in most camping shops as a wash in agent for clothes and mozzie nets as it kills on contact.

[BOAC]

Wider and wider?
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/507161-british-airways-777-diverts-goose-bay-fumes-flight-deck-fo-incapacitated.html

[overthewing]

If it's scientifically established that a small percentage of humans is biologically vulnerable to certain chemicals, would it not be possible to screen potential employees before giving them jobs in the air? In the same way that air-forces screen for colour-blindness?

Or would that mean that they'd have to do the same thing with passengers?

[BOAC]

Or would that mean that they'd have to do the same thing with passengers? - if, as seems to be conclusive, this is a real problem, I suspect very few pax would really like to know they were likely to inhale these fumes.

[wiggy]

Three Miles

What odds would I get at William Hill on these 5 possibilities:


I can't possibly comment on your points 1 - 4 but knowing how BA's "Galley FM" works I'd say point #5 is decidedly shaky and sounds very much like wishful thinking.

[Dream Buster]

If it's scientifically established that a small percentage of humans is biologically vulnerable to certain chemicals, would it not be possible to screen potential employees before giving them jobs in the air? In the same way that air-forces screen for colour-blindness?

Or would that mean that they'd have to do the same thing with passengers?

Overthewing:

Yes and Yes.

Medical information (http://www.aerotoxic.org/about-aerotoxic-syndrome/advice-and-medical-help)

If they can identify a 500 year old skeleton found under a Leicester council car park as Richard 111, former King of England.....beyond reasonable doubt. ie 99%.

Only 51% Balance of Probability needed for mere mortals and little kiddies....

[Chunky Monkey]

BALPA changed its position from insisting something needs to be done to now saying it is hyperventilation. Why? How?

Well... discounting the rumours of blackmail - of which I have not heard of any real evidence, look at the personnel changes...

2009 Dr Rob Hunter left the CAA to become BALPA's Head Of Safety - a new (highly) paid post created for him. BALPA later start using Dr Mike Bagshaw as a consultant to their Ops. Av. Med. Group.

When the rest of the world acknowledged this problem, but UK did not, Mike Bagshaw was head of British Airways Health Service and Dr Rob Hunter was head of CAA Medical dept.

CAA and BA cannot go back on their earlier view because it makes their earlier decision reckless. Did they instead change the BALPA stance to align it with the old CAA/BA position, making it easy to say later that "we all got it wrong so it wasn't us failing in our duty of care, it was a lack of compelling evidence?

IMHO this UK disgrace apears to be down to just 2 people - Dr Rob Hunter and Dr Mike Bagshaw. I suggest BALPA members need to take some action against their union.

[wiggy]

BALPA frightened the families of one of the deceased will sue BALPA for their failure to see their members properly protected in the work place?


"we all got it wrong so it wasn't us failing in our duty of care,

But does BALPA have a "Duty of care" over this? Any legal experts have a view?

[Chunky Monkey]

... and Dr Bagshaw's explanation fails to account for the fact that the symptoms go on for weeks, months, or, as in a case I am very familiar with, 22 years. Is he suggesting this person as been hyperventilating for 22 years?

How does he account for passengers and cabin crew also being affected, or for the fact that biomarkers show some pilots as having had low-level chronic poisoning, meaning they probably never had a notable smoke/fumes event?

[Chunky Monkey]

You misunderstand me. The duty of care was owed by employers - ie BA - and therefore Dr Bagshaw, and the authority's medical department, ie Dr Hunter.

BALPA has a contractual responsibility to its members to use their money wisely and to protect their interests.

[toxic-avenger]

Dr Bagshaw has also consulted for Airbus as well!! Please correct me if I am wrong.....His hyperventilation theory is nonsensical and is based on no sound scientific evidence.

[Dream Buster]

The industry key to hyperventilation is that it is due to individuals 'health weekness' - the A/C is NOT the cause....

QED.

View of Dr Jonathan Burdon - respiratory expert - on hyperventilation:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/reports_and_evidence/J%20BURDON%20_2011_27%282%29.pdf

Professor Michael Bagshaw - Hyperventilation in Air Crew (http://www.aerotoxic.org/news-and-articles/675-professor-michael-bagshaw-hyperventilation-in-air-crew)

[blind pew]

A mate of mine made an emergency descent after a Trident cabin decompression in the 1970s.
The next day he checked in but felt a little bit unwell so he went over to BA medical service who sent him home. He then went to his GP who sent him to hospital.
He underwent an emergency procedure for a collapsed lung later same day which saved his life.
Amazing what can happen to aircrew if they hyperventilate.
Absolute disgrace which seems to be still happening.

[Dream Buster]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200412.pdf

"Irritant rather than a toxic effect"

The CAA view in 2004 (of a 2000 incident) was that oil fumes were 'irritating....' how right they were, but the wrong sort of 'irritation'.

How do the CAA continue to get away with it now - day in day out?

That's the mystery.

Does anyone else smell a rat and the mother and father of all unchallenged cover up's?

[RAT 5]

I do no more than ask a few varied relevant questions for discussion. I also admit to having a cynical regard for various XAA's. They do not bite the hand that feeds them.

In the mid-90's LH & AZ unions had a joint scientific study done on the possible effect of cosmic radiation on frequent flyers. In some extracts of their reports were stories of German scientists taking geiger counters unto FL370 and them going berserk. There was even talk of 'shielding' the B747's but at a prohibitive cost. It seems there were many serious conclusions drawn, but to my knowledge nothing has ever been done other than create a calculation of accumulated cosmic radiation exposure based on rosters. The companies then tell us there is nothing to worry about as we are below limits. I've never heard a counter argument from the scientific community nor the unions. After hearing that NASA scientists conclude that LoCo rosters are not fatiguing I've added them to my list of cynical regards.

Then there were the DVT incidents. Lots of newspaper coverage; a grudging acceptance by XAA's that there was a medical case to answer, but it was only pax who were discussed. They can walk about in the cabin, but pilots locked behind cockpit doors for hours with no room to move were not considered potential victims. FTL's have increased and XAA's and unions have allowed the subject to drift into apathetic history.

The oil fumes in the cabin atmosphere debate has been around for years and has been acknowledged as having a case to answer, but what has been done about it? Not a lot. Consider MSRA in hospitals; it doesn't effect them all nor all the residents therein. At least they acknowledge it publicly and try to do something about it, but the task of elimination is too great, but they try.

Regarding the 3 risks above has there been any real effort to counter them or is it considered too expensive for the level of risk involved? I am certain that whatever decision has been made to address or ignore will have money at the root of it. That and the fact the XAA's are, allegedly, in the pockets of the airlines. There is too much conflict of interest in many of their deliberations. Too much money involved. Flight safety is considered to be only about stopping a/c crashing. That failure or success can be quantified; all the other voodoo mumbo-jumbo can not. There's a very lumpy carpet somewhere.

[Chunky Monkey]

You say "allegedly in the pocket of the airline". I must correct you (with humble apologies): They are evidently in the pockets of the airlines and manufacturers - it is where all the money comes from to pay for the swish restaurant that we mere pilots are no longer allowed to use because we commented on how brilliant and cheap it was...

The XAA is now an "agency" or "trust" if you care to misuse that word. It operates at nil cost to government, and gets a free hand as a quid pro quo. The unintended consequence of this is that the XAA cannot rock the boat as it would be killing the goose that is laying their golden egg. All very cosy...

[FNFF]

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term 'bleed air' and how it gets contaminated. The following basic videos might help explain it more:

Contaminated Engine Bleed Air Explained - Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/59136226)

Source of Toxic Bleed Air: Part 1 of 4 - YouTube

[JW411]

Somebody mentioned previously that they would get a sweaty socks smell at around 8,000 feet in the descent.

In my previous company that was about where we used to start the APU prior to landing (perhaps a little bit lower).

[Chunky Monkey]

I have never operated an aircraft where we start the APU in descent - in fact we wait until we're about to turn onto stand...

However, the conclusion I've arrived at for the regular occurence of this smell in descent is as follows:

No.1 (and poss No.2 depending on type) bearings are the most likely culprit as they are upstream in the gas-flow from the air bleeds.

These bearings are normally protected from oil loss by two or more seals, essentially a carbon seal and a labyrinth air seal. The labyrinth seal is a number of sharp-edged discs on the rotor, surrounded by an abradable case. When the seal is installed and the engine starts the discs cut minute grooves in the abradable case lining. The result is a labyrinthine route to the gas flow from the space between the carbon seal and the labyrinth seal - hence the name. The purpose of this seal is simply to provide enough restriction to air flow that when a dedicated bleed air source is fed through holes in the rotor shaft into the space between the two seals there is enough back-pressure for the pressure to exceed oil system (scavenge system) pressure. Because of this air leaks inwards through the carbon seal instead of oil leaking out. This is the reason why air needs to be extracted from scavenged oil.

When the labyrinth seal wears over time the back pressure is reduced. This is not normally a problem because there is a large air supply pressure. However, in descent the bleed air pressure is low because the engine is at idle. Again this is not a probem because the fan is generally acting as an airbrake, meaning that a microscopic end-float movement of the rotorshaft rearwards occurs. This has the effect of moving the discs of the labyrinth seal out of alignment with their grooves, thereby reducing the gap and improving back pressure. However, when the aircraft goes below FL100, or (and THIS is the smell in the middle east folks) a higher speed limit point, and speed reduces, so the AIS-based load on the fan reduces, allowing end-float to reduce, and the labyrinth seal discs to move back towards alignment with their grooves. The back pressure consequently collapses, and we get oil leaking past the seal and into the gas flow.

Next time you smell "the oil rigs" in the gulf think again: those flare-offs should not smell of oil, but of smoke, shouldn't they? What you are smelling is simply oil - from your own engines. If you're one of the 3% you should be worried at that point...

[Dream Buster]

All correct Chunky monkey.

The next bit you need to understand is that anybody breathing the oil fumes is being exposed to organophosphates (work related).

Here is MS 17 a UK HSE (Health & Safety Executive) document from 2000, which graphically explains the medical effects on any exposed human beings.

Sadly this document is no longer avaialble from the Government sources - I wonder why?

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/reports_and_evidence/MS17.pdf

If only MS 17 were to be reissued to doctors, they might begin to understand the mysterious illnesses they witness every day, but can't work out what is causing the range of symptoms....

[BOAC]

Not sure if this link has been placed before, but it is apparent that the medical authorities in the UK place very little store by this possible risk whereas as you will see from the Australian efforts, they have put significant effort into it.

Australian Senate air travel report (http://www.opin.info/airaussenate.php)

I think it a worthwhile idea to ensure that GPs are at least aware of the questions.

This written evidence from the House of Lords' Select Committee on Science and Technology is of interest and contains a lot of references for those interested.

[Dream Buster]

BOAC,

GP's knew about this issue in 2000, as made clear in this 2004 report.

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/reports_and_evidence/OPReport.pdf Page 15.

They just 'forgot' to tell one another about it.

Just think how much money would be saved if people were properly diagnosed - let alone making them better by appropriate treatments.

Anti-depressants are hardly likely to cure somebody who has been poisoned.

[Tinytim]

I flew the Embraer 145 with Richard and did my command training with him.
The stale sock smell was an odour we got used to on older airframes associated with low thrust and often an icing encounter. The general view was that it manifested itself with the opening of the high stage bleed valve.

Although we complained regularly about this...nothing effective was ever done. Self evidently if, as we suspected, it was a leaking bearing seal then the remedy would have involved major engine surgery.

That was then.......

I now fly the business jet version of this aircraft, the Legacy.

I reported this smell a few weeks ago. The aircraft was immediately grounded and Rolls Royce replaced the engine............no ifs or buts.

Its would appear that belatedly the industry is taking notice (despite continued denials) and one can only wonder at the conversations that must be taking place in underwriter's offices and the boardrooms of aircraft and engine manufacturers.

[captainsmiffy]

I, too, flew the 145, same company and flew with Richard once or twice. Nice to hear that other companies are at least beginning to take the 145 odour problem seriously. Guess that I might count myself lucky to be symptom free.....

[starz]

Had to take a few deaths to wake them up a little!

[CISTRS]

Air quality on planes: Aerotoxic syndrome | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2013/02/air-quality-planes?fsrc=nlw|gul|2-12-2013|4983275|34401790|AP)

[Dream Buster]

BA cites independent studies commissioned by Britain’s Department for Transport which found "no evidence that pollutants occur in the cabin air at levels exceeding available health and safety standards".

As exposure levels from the 1940's and 50's were used and incredibly no fume event was published in the Cranfield study - it's true that levels were not exceeded - but it follows that conclusions are simply not valid, as per the following letter in 'Flight'.

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/BSingh-LettertoFlightInternational_June%202011.pdf

This is the horsemeat of the airline industry and they know it.

[AdamFlyer]

Saw there is a new film being made about this by an ex BA pilot:

A Dark Reflection - Film - Home (http://www.adarkreflection.com)

Should be interesting :D

[Roger Dixon]

Dr. Bagshaw is clearly an idiot and a corporate pawn. Ignore him.
(From an industrial hygienist.)

[wiggy]

Dr. Bagshaw is clearly an idiot and a corporate pawn. Ignore him.



I appreciate many here won't agree with Mike Bagshaw's comments but he certainly is not an "idiot".

The somewhat dated CV at the top of this document might give you some idea of where he is "coming from":

http://projects.bre.co.uk/envdiv/cabinairconference/cvs/m_bagshaw.pdf

[Dream Buster]

How any doctor can read the following FAA funded work:

'Exposure to aircraft bleed air contaminants among airline workers' - A Guide to Health Care Providers

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/Medicalprotocol031909.pdf

and then not understand how toxic oil fumes in a confined space make some people ill reminds me of this quote:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Upton Sinclair, 1936

[BOAC]

Until we can be satisfied that the UK has undertaken a proper study on this topic to establish whether there is a risk or not (cf Australia), and with acknowledgement to Upton Sinclair, I think the only way forward is to press for ALL aircrew to formally and properly report ANY suspected air contamination. The method of so doing needs to be properly established and I would have expected the multiple pilot and cabin crew unions to lead the way here. I would suggest that any 'odours' are relevant since their presence indicates the existence of some contaminant.

I can see nothing obvious on the IPA website and CHIRP appears to have no item since 2008. If BALPA appear to be exercising 'Nelson's eye' here (members need to ask!!), then we should press the cabin crew unions to agitate since it is their health that may well be in danger as well.

[Tiger 77]

On one particular Fokker 100 in our fleet, there is an oily odour that comes through the vents during the takeoff roll and lasts for around 5 mins after takeoff. This happens on EVERY takeoff.

Does this sound like something to be concerned about? It's been written up multiple times. Engineers clear the defect (on paper at least) by saying the hydraulic system oil was overfilled. However the odour is still there on the next takeoff!

Anyone else experienced something similar?

[Dream Buster]

The new Professional Pilots Union seem to be able to at least discuss the issue sensibly and give good advice, which is a start:

Cabin Air Quality (http://www.theppu.co.uk/PPU/Campaigns_News/News_Items/Cabin_Air_Quality.aspx)

The Independent Pilots Association (IPA) has done much over the past 5 years to raise awareness of the issue, even to the point of sponsoring medical research. All IPA paying members have been kept well informed on CAQ.

I know which Union I would rather represent my health interests. No question.

[BOAC]

That's excellent. 2 of the three unions 'on side' - why is BALPA now apparently 'rubbishing' this? I see the PPU states that an ASR is 'required' for fumes - where is the source for this? Certainly a few more crews donning masks and declaring an emergency would speed things up a bit to get a serious look at it.

Anyone know is c/crew unions are concerned?

[Dream Buster]

BOAC because:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/BALPA%20CAPC%20London%20April%202005%20(Pages%20313%20-%20320).pdf

Jim McAuslan of BALPA - Closing speech 21 April 2005 on Vimeo

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/BALPA%20CAPC%20London%20April%202005%5B1%5D.pdf

None of which is on the BALPA web site.

[BOAC]

DB - yes, I have seen this repeatedly, but we make little progress in examining the issue.

The message surely is loud and clear - those who may be at risk (possibly all crew) should be demanding action from their representatives if nothing is forthcoming from government. Surely it is ultimately a potential risk to life and health which MUST be as, if not more, important than hotel standards, pay, and any other issues of T&C faced by crews. Probably because it is seen as a long-term risk - "it won't affect me" - over-shadowed by more 'pressing' short-term needs, it has been neglected. Come the day when a crew member might become permanently unfit or worse contract a fatal condition, it will be too late. At least BALPA members should be asking their individual reps how this clarion call for action by the General Secretary has been silenced?

DB - what eventually came of the Australian investigation which appears pretty conclusive? Was any procedural/technical action taken or has it too now 'faded' into obscurity?

[Dream Buster]

BOAC,

QED.

[Walnut]

There appears to be a growing awareness of the effects of toxic fumes with the two recent BA diversions. However one group of airline staff must be much more at risk. I refer to pushback crews who spend their working lives on hot fume contaminated aprons. Has there been any analysis of their health problems??

[BOAC]

I understand the emphasis for ground staff is not the organo-phosphate contamination, but combustion products. I saw a post on PPR which detailed a study for ground staff somewhere - Germany I think.

[Dream Buster]

BOAC,

The Turner case of 3rd September 2010 in an Australian High Court found 18 years after a fume event flight that "....toxic particles in the cabin air from vaporized engine oil CAUSED long term adverse health effects".


Just be aware that Turner kept winning and 'the other side' kept appealing - so finally the case went to the highest Court in September 2010 where it was finally - WON.

18 years it took.

Here is a legal summary:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/toxiccabinairlitigation.pdf

Here are the Judgements:

East West Airlines v Turner - appeal dismissed ... twice (http://www.aerotoxic.org/news-and-articles/482-east-west-airlines-v-turner-appeal-dismissed)

How dare people (including doctors) say now that 'there is no evidence'.

It's contempt of Court and the whole legal system - as I understand it.....

[BOAC]

DB - I finally made contact with my local NHS practice, and fortuitously happened on the practice manager who is a CPL and ex RAF. He has confirmed that he had not been able to find an ounce of information on the subject in any NHS documents - he now has a few documents to circulate and also promised to flag the subject up shortly with a few current airline pilots friends and the local AME who is a part-time doctor at the practice.

[Dream Buster]

BOAC,

It's incredible that the NHS claim to know so little about this issue - after being told so much about it over the past 13 years by seriously sick pilots.

I remember an AME telling me that 'The jury was still out on aerotoxic...' - This was a DOCTOR!!!

Sadly the NHS also claim to know nothing about OP poisoning, yet this was published by HSE:

Medical aspects of work-related exposures to organophosphates (Guidance Note MS17) (http://www.aerotoxic.org/about-aerotoxic-syndrome/reports-and-evidence/363-exposures-to-ops-ms17)

I seem to remember you wanted to see the 2000 Senate report from Australia into the BAe146 fumes - here it is:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/bae.pdf

Does anybody else smell foul play?

[Chunky Monkey]

Would anyone at BALPA care to comment on the fact that they now employ Dr Rob Hunter (ex CAA CMO) and Dr Mike Bagshaw (ex head of BAHS) as the core of the Op Av Med Committee?

Isn't it strange that since this committee was created the official BALPA line has done a 180 and is now the line taken in the past by - er - the CAA and BA. After using members' money to hold a conference which resulted in the video on this thread, they then used members' money to pay for the 2 Doctors who always argued against these conclusions to come and form BALPA policy. My question is, what on earth was it that made them contemplate this move? I have heard an ugly rumour, but sincerely hope that it is unfounded, and I certainly wouldn't repeat it. I hope it is simply somebody's conclusion, which has then been repeated and gained credibility through lack of context.

Got cornered in the Cave by a Qantas A380 skipper (who is a delegate on IFALPA) who wanted to know "what the hell is BALPA up to?".

I couldn't give him an answer.

[Dream Buster]

Chunky Monkey,

It's not Dr Bagshaw - it's Professor Bagshaw. Here is his latest opinion on exposure to toxic oil fumes in a confined space.

http://www.gapan.org/file/1072/health-effects-of-contaminants-in-aircraft-cabin-air-summary-report-v2.3.pdf

Relax, it's safe.

Be very worried.

[Rail Engineer]

From the Aviation Herald


A Germanwings Airbus A319-100, registration D-AGWK performing flight 4U-825 from Milan Malpensa (Italy) to Cologne/Bonn (Germany), was on approach to Cologne's runway 14L when fumes on board prompted the flight crew to don their oxygen masks until after landing. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 14L. The entire crew subsequently went to the hospital for tests.

Germany's BFU confirmed the incident stating the occurrence was rated a serious incident. An investigation has been opened.

The airline stated the occurrence flight 4U-825 was reported to the relevant authorities in time and promptly after the pilots donned their oxygen masks on approach to Cologne due to fumes in the cockpit.

The aircraft remained on the ground for about 48 hours and resumed service on Dec 12th 2013.

D-AGWK has been involved in two similiar occurrences in the past: Accident: Germanwings A319 at Dublin on May 27th 2008, pressurization problems
and
Accident: Germanwings A319 near Cologne on Dec 19th 2010, smoke in cockpit, both pilots nearly incapacitated.


The investigations by the Irish AAIU and German BFU following the events in Dublin 2008 and the event in Cologne 2010 could not determine the causes of the events on board of D-AGWK.




Is it me or do there seem to be more of these reports in recent years ?

[Hotel Tango]

If the same aircraft has experienced the problem on three seperate occasions and they haven't been able to establish the cause, I'm surprised it hasn't been grounded until they do.

[Cough]

I would suggest that the pressurisation problems are almost certainly unrelated to fumes incidents.

[West Coast]

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

[Dream Buster]

Recent TV programmes from The Netherlands and Australia (for those who haven't yet heard that oil fumes are harmful to human health):

Zembla: Toxic cockpits - YouTube

Toxic Flyer (http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8762931)

It is beyond comprehension in the 21st century how the air in a confined space is not monitored - other than by human eyes and noses.

[VH-UFO]

Dream Buster, maybe there too afraid to monitor it.

[Cough]

West coast - Fumes are often caused by overheating equipment, or contamination entering the conditioning system. Loss of pressurisation is often caused by holes in the aircraft, dual failure of the packs or the control system to the outflow valve.

Very little cross over IMHO. I don't rule it out, I just think it is unlikely.

[Hotel Tango]

I agree Cough, but I wouldn't rule it out either since, as I read it, they didn't determine what caused the two previous events - which is why, IMHO, it all needs a little deeper investigation by the operator/manufacturer.

[Cough]

Just read the pressurisation problems article on AvHerald fully. The giveaway for me was 'prompted the AAIU to rule out loss of cabin pressure'. So it wasn't pressurisation problems then...

[West Coast]

That's my point as well, not to rule it out. If may be statistically insignificant but there are some scenarios that might be the cause. If indeed this is the third time this this has occurred and that investigators have looked at the obvious such as you mention then the outliers become more and more probable.

[underfire]

I think we all can look back at some of the initial claims from Boeing on the 787, that they subsequantly toned down, about how the circ system on the 787 was so much better at removing toxic chemicals from the cabin, virtually acknowledging the issue.
They toned it down after reporters starting asking if they were going to retrofit their existing aircraft with the system.
:}

[737Jock]

I think we all can look back at some of the initial claims from Boeing on the 787, that they subsequantly toned down, about how the circ system on the 787 was so much better at removing toxic chemicals from the cabin, virtually acknowledging the issue.
They toned it down after reporters starting asking if they were going to retrofit their existing aircraft with the system.

Huh? You have a gripe with the 787?

This thread is about an airbus a319.

[Nightstop]

Avionics equipment failure is one of most likely sources of smoke/fumes on the flightdeck since the avionics bay is often located beneath the flightdeck floor (as in the A319/320). Any avionics ECAM should put you on alert for a subsequent smoke/fumes event....

[Aluminium shuffler]

737jock, did you bother to read "underfire"'s post, or did you just see "787" and assume it was a criticism? It read as praise of the 787's system to me...

Underfire, not only is there a filtration system, but the use of electric compressors for cabin air smacks to me of a recognition of the issue while refusing to admit it.

[BARKINGMAD]

"Entire crew went hospital for tests".

Will we ever hear the results of what were hopefully comprehensive toxicology analysis and will the industry step up to the plate to address this long term issue?

I await with interest but not holding my breath...................................................... .:rolleyes:

[Dan Winterland]

Fumes in A320 series are often down to oil in the hp air ducting. This can come from the engines, but the APU is often the source. When shutting down the APU, the operator should wait for the air intake flap to be fully closed before switching the batteries off. This occurs at about 7%N. If they are too quick, then the oil vent discharge can be sucked back into the intake leaving oil residue in the system.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Combusted oil will contain benzene, and that's a known carcninogen. I could smell the fumes but I'm a chemist! Needs a tiny IR Spec machine in the cabin to sort this issue out

[Aluminium shuffler]

The problem is the tricresylphosphate (sp?), known as TCP, which is used as an anti-wear additive in the engine and APU oil. When it gets into the bleed air, the TCP is cooked into organophosphates. I suffered a similar incident years ago, though it was the cabin, not the cockpit that was affected. The crew were sent to hospital for arterial blood sample testing, but they had no idea what to look for, and neither did any of us at the time. I described symptoms similar to CO2 poisoning, but explained that there was no way for CO2 to be responsible. However, rather than looking for something else that would cause these symptoms, the hospital looked only for CO2 levels, wasting our time entirely (and giving us pretty sore arms too). It seems that the NHS are equally as oblivious to the issue and equally unwilling to give any serious investigation into events as the aviation industry itself...

[grounded27]

From a technical standpoint, fumes and smoke are usually helpful aiding in troubleshooting. I would not assume faults on this aircraft are related or not. An overheated component or associated wiring is just about always the weakest link and easily fixed with confidence it is not likely to repeat. I could regurgitate serious faults on the same aircraft all day long. Nothing to gawk at here ladies and gentlemen.

[Hotel Tango]

If all 3 recorded incidents (referred to as accidents in the official reports apparently) involve the same aircraft, I would beg to differ. I shan't move along just yet ;)

[grounded27]

Not an accident an indecent requiring a SDR be filed. There is no information stated to suggest the source of the fault was the same. Fumes or smoke in the cockpit is much more common than most believe, the response by the airline to send the crew to the hospital is simply to prevent accusation of further liability at a later date. The manufacturer and CAA evaluate and collect SDR's and determine if there is enough of a trend to mandate further action. Of the thousands of heavy aircraft in the skies a few are bound to have a run of bad luck. No need to "flame" on the subject.

[Doug E Style]

The aircraft involved is out and about today (just arrived in London from Cologne) so read into that what you will...

[Hotel Tango]

There is no information stated to suggest the source of the fault was the same

No, nor did we say there was. It is in fact because it is clearly stated (at least from what is quoted) that in all three cases the cause was not determined that the ? arose. No one's "flaming" by the way!

[ZeBedie]

What type of engine was this?

[zerograv]

IAE V2524-A5

[Steve Stubbs]

At the risk of upsetting 737JOCK by introducing another type, is this not similar to the spate of HS146 incidents relating to bleed air contamination?

[Dream Buster]

WDR Germany are making another TV programme on Cabin Air Quality and are on the look out for German contributors - anonymity guaranteed:

DasErste.de - Monitor - "Ungefiltert eingeatmet" - die Story im Ersten (http://www.wdr.de/tv/monitor/die_sendung/kontaminierte-kabinenluft.php5)

[BARKINGMAD]

Cut and pasted from my posting on a similar thread last year. This issue won't go away but nor will the authorities/airlines do anything until a fatal accident forces their hands, IAW the "Tombstone Imperative".

146 Odours.
After 9 years on the Bae146 I am still allegedly fit now, but probably lucky so to be.


Not only did the 146 APU smell, the early production models would pump blue fumes into the rear of the cabin after startup and following pack initiation on1st start of the day. As the SLF would not be impressed we would start it early and clear the worst of visible fumes and odour before we would invite them aboard.

Also, certain airframes would provide an altimeter check consisting of a "sweaty socks" odour, for less than a minute, in the engine idle descent, at 8000 ft. Maybe it lasted longer but once a smell is in the nose it requires the nasal passages to be purged with fresh air before further detection.

Needless to say tech log entries produced neither positive nor useful rectification reports and never was a proper air sampling exercise carried out despite management being alerted via ASRs or 'ear-tugging'.

When I do pop my clogs I'll be happy for some bored pathologist to take various biopsies for research purposes and will even donate a bit of non-essential whilst still alive, if there is any program out there wishing to examine those who've definitely and repeatedly been exposed to these fumes for nearly a decade.

For the sake of our successors the CAA medical wallahs should display their inependence from industry pressures and using their vast medical database, with the permission of volunteers, a proper scientific & objective study could be performed.

If I have to submit to a breathalyser test before I board to operate, I expect to have a leeching done IMMEDIATELY and AUTOMATICALLY after landing following ANY fumes event!

But I can hear the beancounters arguing over who would pay for such a procedure, so in the meantime we're back to awaiting the "Tombstone Imperative"?

Ah, that's why I've got this posting name.....................:ugh:

It's 18years since I flew the "5 APUs in close formation" and I kept a Class 1 til retirement late last year, and I appreciate I'm one of the lucky ones?!

Good luck in fighting this one!!!!!

[Uplinker]

Thanks Barking, that is very interesting.

I have just had an ASR rejected after a sweaty socks fume event on an A330, (because of "no evidence" - bloody cheek).

I too used to fly the dear old 146, and am also well acquainted with the distinctive smell, so I recognised it as soon as I smelt it.

I will pursue the point with my company.

[Dream Buster]

Jim McAuslan, BALPA General Secretary - Summary of CAQ Conference, London, 21 April 2005 - YouTube

[Aluminium shuffler]

Does anyone know if there is a suitable detector for aircon fumes that we could use, a bit like the CO detectors in puddle jumpers? That way, when our airlines inevitably shut down a report citing a lack of evidence, or worse threaten a crew who diverted with disciplinary action for an event that they can't prove, we'd have some evidence? It really is a common event - I've had many similar experiences to Barkingmad's "altimeter check" at similar altitudes at idle on the 737 (classic and NG alike), despite it being an aircraft with a relatively good reputation (at least compared to the 146 and 75).

[MrDK]

What sort of "fumes" are you looking to detect.
Most inadvertently refer to gases and vapors as fumes, but fumes areparticulates.

Though real time measurement is available for fumes it can be utterlyexpensive.

Many gases and vapors are quite easy to detect either specifically or usingcross sensitivity of other types of sensors, but if any accuracy is requiredfrequent calibration must be done.

Some sensors are also pressure sensitive either statically or transientlymaking variable cabin pressures a conflicting issue.

If real time is not required a simple solution for some fumes would be touse an air sampling pump with a collection filter. The filter would have to bereplaced fairly frequently, but cost only a dollar or two. In an event takesplace and become a dispute the collection filter can be sent to a laboratoryfor analysis. This cannot be a catch all an will not pick up gases and vapors.

Again, what compound do you want to detect?

[Dream Buster]

If carbon monoxide could be monitored 70 years ago in WW2 fighter aircraft, so could air contaminated with oil fumes in public transport passenger jets in 2014.

It only needs aircrew and passengers to demand that air in a confined space be monitored.

aerotracer - Airsense Analytics GmbH (http://www.airsense.com/en/products/aerotracer/)

:ok:

[MrDK]

@ Dream Buster
What are oil fumes?

[Uplinker]

MrDK,


Are you seriously telling us you don't know what oil fumes are??


Strewth.

[Machinbird]

Again, what compound do you want to detect?
Primarily organophosphates I would think.
Real time and inexpensively.

[Dream Buster]

Mr DK,

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcNNgqLcx5A

Read this:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Medicalprotocol031909.pdf

Don't worry about not knowing; that's exactly the way the airlines want it.

[woptb]

Oil smoke & fumes on the 146 & 75's were regular occurrences & talking points a while back.
I vaguely remember a university was (about to?) undertake a study to look for contaminants & swabbing surfaces was mentioned ?
Smells/fumes from first engine/APU start of the day are relatively common,which doesn't of course, make it any more acceptable.

[Dream Buster]

Oil fumes are a fundamental design flaw of bleed air and do not just apply to the 146/757.

Example:

Accident: Lufthansa A388 at Frankfurt and San Francisco on Oct 9th 2011, fumes permanently injure flight attendant (http://avherald.com/h?article=46c79b49&opt=0)

Jets which do not use bleed air were B707, DC8 and now the bleedless B787....

QED.

[MrDK]

@ Machinbird
Primarily organophosphates I would think.
Real time and inexpensively.

For that compound I know if no electrochemical or collective sensor that would work.
Even using a photo ionization detector (PID) is suspect as an ionization potential has not been established and if it had a lot of other "crap" would be picked up as a false positive, like alcohols and perfumes.

[MrSnuggles]

When thinking of oil fumes from a chemical standpoint it is a valid question, really. "Oil" is a mix of several hydrocarbons, each with its own ignition point. Oil can evapourate, thus "oil vapour" (or, mostly "fuel vapour" in aviation world) and it can burn, thus "oil smoke" but it is hard to define "oil fume" chemically.

Water is not described in the term "water fumes" either. You'd prefer "water vapour" or maybe "mist" or "fog" ;-)

About organophosphates, there is to my knowledge no real time detector but as it is a quite sticky family of compounds, I would suggest bringing a sterile cotton swab into the cockpit. Remove it from its protection layers when starting the flight and put it into a test tube when the flight is over (or when you had enough...) and send it to the closest agricultural lab to analyze. They have a vast experience with organophosphates within the agricultural industry so it is inexpensive but might be scary when you get your results back...

Don't ask if you don't want the answer and so on...

[awblain]

It might be difficult to define chemically, but it's easy to define physically - it's anything that makes its way from the unpleasantly toxic - but essentially performing - engine lubricant into the lungs and brains onboard, whether burned, toasted or evaporated.

Anything from the white smoke when gathered pools of oil burn, to blue haze from tiny particles, to this "socks" smell.

[MrDK]

@ MrSnuggles
When thinking of oil fumes from a chemical standpoint it is a valid question, really. "Oil" is a mix of several hydrocarbons, each with its own ignition point. Oil can evapourate, thus "oil vapour" (or, mostly "fuel vapour" in aviation world) and it can burn, thus "oil smoke" but it is hard to define "oil fume" chemically.

Water is not described in the term "water fumes" either. You'd prefer "water vapour" or maybe "mist" or "fog" ;-)

About organophosphates, there is to my knowledge no real time detector but as it is a quite sticky family of compounds, I would suggest bringing a sterile cotton swab into the cockpit. Remove it from its protection layers when starting the flight and put it into a test tube when the flight is over (or when you had enough...) and send it to the closest agricultural lab to analyze. They have a vast experience with organophosphates within the agricultural industry so it is inexpensive but might be scary when you get your results back...

Don't ask if you don't want the answer and so on...

Agree 99%, except it is easy to define a fume

[MrDK]

@awblain
It might be difficult to define chemically, but it's easy to define physically - it's anything that makes its way from the unpleasantly toxic - but essentially performing - engine lubricant into the lungs and brains onboard, whether burned, toasted or evaporated.

Oh lord help us

[Machinbird]

For that compound (organophosphates) I know if no electrochemical or collective sensor that would work.I wouldn't give up just yet.
I can think of 3 potential approaches for detecting engine oil fumes in the cabin and cockpit. (Some development required)


Organophosphate poisoning results from exposure to organophosphates which cause the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE). Develop an appropriate biosensor system on a chip to detect AChE inhibition. This technology is in its infancy however.
Determine a characteristic absorption spectrum for the Organophosphate bonds and build a narrow frequency spectrometer looking for absorption in a light beam transmitted through an air sample. The P=O double bond coupled with the P-O-H bonds might be sufficient to avoid false alarms and yet give rapid detection. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Phosphoric-acid-2D-dimensions.png/230px-Phosphoric-acid-2D-dimensions.png
Add an inactive but distict and easily detected (using present technology) chemical to engine oil. This chemical would be an analog for all the breakdown components of engine oil including the problematic organophosphates.

It is amazing to me that the MSDS for jet engine oil does not reflect the breakdown product hazards we now know to be present. For example :
http://qclubricants.com/msds/ROYCO500.pdf

[awblain]

@MrDK

My point was that all of the suggested forms would be of interest, if "fume" is used generically, rather than technically, for all sorts of airborne and ingestible lubricant-related muck. I understand that "oil fume incident" tends to be used to cover all.

Hence a test will be difficult, since the offending material could be in this wide variety of forms: a gas, a mist of different sized drops with different compositions, as a mantle on solid smoke particles, within the smoke particles…

MrSnuggles' swab traveling along with you sounds like a good start, although the swab is dry and doesn't inhale. You'd also probably be best to run a control with a fresh one, and to try exposing them in other circumstances, far from engine oil. The same goes for your collection sampler, which would be better since it has an airflow.

Another problem would be potential loss of volatile materials from the filter during the hours after exposure, as the level likely isn't at all constant.

[MrSnuggles]

I must have come across as lecturing about fumes. Sorry about that. I was just nerdy from a chemist standpoint. A bit tounge-in-cheek too.

Point taken on the dry cotton swab. That is easy to remedy, just add a few drops of water.

Actually, this seems like an experiment I would enjoy to do. Anyone passing ARN just give me a heads up and I will prepare an array of different swabs for you. :-D

[MrDK]

Using a collection material for fumes can be quite effective, but it requires additional data.
Sampling rate is one.
Most such monitors flow from 0.5 liters per minute to 5 LPM whereas human breathing rate at a light workload is 40 LPM and at complete rest about 25 LPM. Easy to compensate for that.
Using a collection media presents an accumulative measurement, so for example if a flight is 8 hours in duration it is important to know the duration of exposure (i.e. 30 minutes) or the sample will be diluted by the ratio between the two.
If the collection media is not replaced frequently (between each flight) trace and non-concerning concentrations will be added to sample over time and consequently distort the results.

Install a photoionization detector (PID) with a 9.6eV lamp and a datalogger.
It is cheap (~$2,000) and will pick up countless compounds, though not specifically.
A PID is excellent in detecting long chained HC's like oil, it is real time and can log 100's of hours by the minute.
Down side it should be calibrated at least monthly; a 2 minute and 99% automatic procedure.

[Golden Rivit]

More info,
http://ashsd.afacwa.org/docs/HCPfull.pdf
Tricresyl phosphate (?TCP?) :: The Arrows of Truth (http://thearrowsoftruth.com/tag/tricresyl-phosphate-tcp/)
Home of the Aerotoxic Association - aerotoxic.org (http://www.aerotoxic.org/)

Grounded 27,are you management? Nothing to see here?!?!

[Dream Buster]

ITF - International Transport Workers Federation video on contaminated air:

ITF Contaminated Air - What you need to know. on Vimeo

[grounded27]

Just stating that oil or hydraulic fumes used to be very common in older aircraft W/O a huge reaction. Being a freight dog it was quite normal, if bad enough for us to encounter fumes that were more than a simple discomfort greater than a crew member asking to pull his finger we usually changed the ACM socks as they would accumulate the contaminants. Modern aircraft (have not dealt with this problem for a decade or so) are much cleaner.

The worst case I experienced was on the ground where the ground/flight crew failed to turn off the environmentals during deice. We pressurized and dumped the cabin 3 times before everyone was comfortable in taking the flight. The second was a flight of several hundred pigs that died in flight, I had to was all my clothes 3 times after taking the aircraft after it's fourth leg. Then the Hajj flights, Hell we were expecting the smell and were all used to it after about 3 days.

Point being, fumes and discomfort in smell are a human factor. This thread makes me feel old. Not stating that anyone here is spoiled in comfort, just that the perception of what is acceptable has changed greatly from the above reactions over the years.

[Croqueteer]

Grounded, you just don't get it, do you?

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Quote:
For that compound (organophosphates) I know if no electrochemical or collective sensor that would work.
I wouldn't give up just yet.
I can think of 3 potential approaches for detecting engine oil fumes in the cabin and cockpit. (Some development required)

Organophosphate poisoning results from exposure to organophosphates which cause the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE). Develop an appropriate biosensor system on a chip to detect AChE inhibition. This technology is in its infancy however.
Determine a characteristic absorption spectrum for the Organophosphate bonds and build a narrow frequency spectrometer looking for absorption in a light beam transmitted through an air sample. The P=O double bond coupled with the P-O-H bonds might be sufficient to avoid false alarms and yet give rapid detection.
Add an inactive but distict and easily detected (using present technology) chemical to engine oil. This chemical would be an analog for all the breakdown components of engine oil including the problematic organophosphates.

It is amazing to me that the MSDS for jet engine oil does not reflect the breakdown product hazards we now know to be present. For example :
http://qclubricants.com/msds/ROYCO500.pdf

Sorry to be a pedant but that pic is not an organophosphate. You can't do a spec on it as you don't know the organic groups stucture. I could in the lab on a big IR machine, but I wouldn't expect a pilot to interpet it.

[Dream Buster]

Ex cargo clown,

Why the difficulty of detecting poison air in a confined space?

Carbon Monoxide could be monitored in front line RAF Hawker Typhoon fighter aircraft in the middle of WW2. Most light aircraft have CO detectors nowadays.

Surely a basic CCTV system would allow the pilots to see VISIBLE oil fumes in passenger cabins and to turn off bleed air systems pumping unfiltered toxic air into the cockpit and cabin?

At the moment, crew depend entirely upon their sense of smell and vision - all those in favour of Toxic Air Detectors in 'modern' jet aircraft - say: "Aye".

All against say: "Arrrgghhhh"

[dclews]

Last year (2013), a drama-documentary film has been made about the TCP issue. Its called "A Dark Reflection" and is due to have its premiere in the UK (Horsham, West Sussex) in April 2014. More information on the film here at [URL="http://http://www.adarkreflection.com"]http://http://www.adarkreflection.com[/URL

[MrSnuggles]

There is ongoing research, at least I found this interesting doctorate's degree paper (uh, words?) from Norway.

https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/12729

You can dl the whole paper from that page if you want to. If it does not work, for some reason, just PM me, I have a copy. It is in the public domain (at least in Scandinavia) so don't worry about copyright.

[MrDK]

@ Dream Buster
Your dream may just have been busted.
Airborne toxic exposure comes in 4 forms:
Gas, vapor, mist and fume.
The last two may very well be visible and the first two rarely so.
Sometimes an odor may be present, but not always.
Often a reasonable cost sensing device is just not available and they are they are usually not specific and may be pressure sensitive.
I could name at least 10 compounds that would set off a traditional carbon monoxide detector and yet pose no hazard, never mind a detector that is designed to detect more complex compounds.
If the compound is a fume or a mist an inexpensive collection device and a future lab analysis will usually work.
If the compound is a gas or a vapor real-time measurement MAY be an option, but in most cases they are cross sensitive to other compounds and often to the point that such interference could render them practically useless.
There are hopes though, nanotechnology sensors may become commercially available at a reasonable price in this decade.

[Dream Buster]

Mr DK

Not dreaming, just living in the real world.

aerotracer - Airsense Analytics GmbH (http://www.airsense.com/en/products/aerotracer/)

It ain't rocket science.

[MrDK]

That instrument you linked to is a "broadband" detector and is not specific in any.
It will not give you any indication of the actualcompound that it is detecting, just that is detecting something.
That "something" may include cologne
I mentioned options like that much earlier in thethread using PID.
This device will NOT detect any fumes. None, zero,nada.

Instruments like these require frequentcalibration or verification of accuracy (AKA bump test).
The test is easy to do, but require a source of referencegas which is usually supplied in compressed form.
The instrument after calibration should beaccurate in detecting the reference gas, but correction factors must be appliedor other gases and to apply a correction factor you must know the exactcompound being detected and if not known reading can be erroneously high or low.

In the real world it would help to know a little about atmospheric monitoring and sensing technologies and the limitations.

[mike734]

Apparently the fumes were so bad the crew had to wear their masks some of the flight.


"The captain also had to repeatedly ask his passengers to stop smoking marijuana because they were creating so much smoke that it actually began to seep into the pressurized cockpit. The co-pilots were forced to wear oxygen masks in order to prevent themselves from inhaling the smoke and getting high, which would have severely impaired their ability to safely maneuver the aircraft. If the pilots accidentally inhaled the smoke and failed drug tests after the flight, they could have risked losing their licenses."


Justin Bieber And Crew Reportedly Smoke Lots Of Pot, Harass Attendant On Private Flight (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/05/justin-bieber-pot-attendant_n_4731631.html)

[Dream Buster]

Here is a teaser for a soon to be completed movie on contaminated air - no detection equipment required, just watch it and ask yourself:

Why would so many professional people put in so much effort, if they didn't absolutely know that there is a serious problem that needs - fixing.

Enjoy.

A Dark Reflection - Film - Home (http://www.adarkreflection.com/)

[xcitation]

Why not use a dozen bags on the flight to get snapshots.
Place and seal them in the ventilation airflow at optimal time.
Afterwards the bags can be analysed e.g. mass spec or other detector at a lab to get the full chemical analysis.For a second test they might need to use a solvent to rinse particles attached to the container lining. Very low cost and requires no real-time equipment.

[MrSnuggles]

xcitation

This was my intention.

So, if any pilot wants to participate, just holler and I'll hook you up with some nice cotton swabs of different preparations. It'll be a hoot!

I'm betting some activated charcoal will do a nice job of finding stuff too. And, the agricultural industry has tons of equipment to analyse organophosphates rather cheaply, it's just a matter of getting the samples that might be a problem.

I'll see if I could get some chem students for a project.

Did any of you check out that paper I linked to?

[Capt_Tech]

Engine oils should be topped up within 2 hours of shutdown. after 2 hours the oil tends to hide so over servicing happens on start this excess oil pumps out of the breather system.
During APU shutdown one should allow the FADEC to shutdown before turning the batteries off this ensures that the air intake door is fully closed thus preventing oil bleed back into the intake,ground crew should wipe any oil from the APU intake door and surrounds.
Switching batteries off too soon will also give an indication on the APU oil sight glass of low oil quantity do not service with oil unless you are sure the air inlet door is fully closed,over hastie pilots not waiting for FADEC shutdown are causing this aerotoxic problem.

[Prober]

Pro:hmm:bably a good idea - but quote? Who actually says so?

[Cantiflas]

There are evacuated containers that can be used for sampling.It is simply a matter of opening and closing a tap.Maybe worth carrying on subject aircraft??
Used one from Boeing on a 1-11 once upon a time!!

[MrDK]

Why do you'll keep referring to gases and vapors as fumes?
From oil or fuel and without combustion there cannot be any fumes.

[Dream Buster]

Employer?s duty of care in airlines - suspected breaches Report by Philip Whiteley, Chartered Management Institute - aerotoxic.org (http://www.aerotoxic.org/news/employers-duty-care-airlines-suspected-breaches-report-philip-whiteley-10th-february-2014/)

[Cantiflas]

MrDK
Is that better?
However the term "fumes" has been used for many years with respect to actual
(or perceived) unusual gases or vapours in aircraft.

The reason might found in the UK dictionary definition of "fumes":

Amounts of gas or vapour with a strong smell or dangerous to inhale.
Ref Oxford English Dictionary.

[John Marsh]

Media Coverage

Aerotoxic Syndrome was featured on BBC 5 Live Breakfast this morning. Richard Westgate's lawyer Frank Cannon was interviewed and Professor David Coggart (Coggan?) commented on toxin levels and hazards.

The segment is available via the 'Listen Again' facility, at
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03vcj9g (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03vcj9g)

Scroll forward to 26 minutes. The segment lasts for approx. 4 minutes. Today's programme will be deleted after 7 days.

If you're outside the UK and cannot access the segment, try a web proxy.

The interviewer stated that the BBC TV programme 'Inside Out' will address this issue tonight, at 7:30. This will apply only to the North-West area. Better than nothing, I suppose.

[beamender99]

BBC News - Airline pilots' health fears over polluted air (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26155076)
( includes a video clip )


Airline pilots' health fears over polluted air

Airline pilots are taking legal action following claims they are suffering from a condition known as 'aerotoxic syndrome' caused by the inhalation of engine fumes.
Inside Out spoke to several pilots who claim that the condition has damaged their health and ability to fly.
Dr Jenny Goodman, an expert in environmental medicine, and Dr Michel Mulder, an aviation medical consultant, believe toxins in aircraft are the reason the pilots became ill.
But the medical establishment and civil aviation authorities refute their claims that aircraft toxins can damage the nervous system.
The Department for Transport says there is no conclusive proof that cabin air exposures cause ill health in commercial aircraft crews, whether in general or during 'fume' incidents.
Inside Out's Jacey Normand talks to solicitor Frank Cannon who is taking legal action on behalf of deceased pilot Richard Westgate who believed he was being poisoned by cabin air.

Inside Out (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03vq4vf) is broadcast on Monday, 17 February at 19:30 GMT on BBC One North West and nationwide for seven days thereafter on the iPlayer.

[Uplinker]

MrDK, stop being such an anorak you idiot.

If "fumes" is good enough for the Oxford English Dictionary, (thanks cantiflas), then it's good enough for me. I think you will also find that chemists use FUME cabinets or cupboards in which to do their experiments, not 'vapour' cabinets.

Why not address the question instead of the semantics?

[Dream Buster]

Accident: Condor B753 near Las Palmas on Mar 22nd 2013, odour on board causes 2 flight attendants to pass out (http://avherald.com/h?article=45fa1f5b&opt=0)

On Mar 18th 2014 the CIAIAC released an interim statement stating:

"In April 2013 the health of one of the flight attendants who had been onboard during the flight of 22 March 2013 worsened, requiring hospitalization. The symptoms presented were overall muscle fatigue, in particular proximal of the lower limbs, difficulty walking, sensory disorder, trouble concentrating and general fatigue. She was released from the hospital and continued treatment on an out-patient basis. The symptoms persisted and her health did not show improvement, even worsening at times to the point where she had to be hospitalized. As of the date of this interim report, she still has not been able to return to work. Although the tests performed on her have not been able to identify the cause of the symptoms afflicting her, the medical report from the hospital indicated poisoning caused by some type of neurotoxin."

= No evidence.

[proteus6]

The CAA paper is worth a look
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2004_04.PDF

[Aluminium shuffler]

Well, that stinks to high heaven! The CAA report bangs on about whether or not certain compounds will"difinitely" cause the symptoms. Well, hanging by the neck and shooting the head doesn't definitely kill people either - there have been numerous survivors of each. Likewise being hit by lightning or drowning. They are hiding behind the difference between a definite outcome, which can never be guaranteed in any event, and likely outcomes.

It's a known fact that TCP produces organophosphates, and it's been well established in agriculture that organophospates are very damaging neurotoxins. WHy the authorities refuse to link the two and agree that aircrew and pax are being routinely poisoned and insist on saying there is no evidence, despite so many documented events, is entirely due to corruption. Perhaps the various authorities, manufacturers and airlines, all complicit in this, should be facing terrorism charges? Anyone else conducting wilful indiscriminate poisoning on this scale certainly would.

[Dream Buster]

Two different views, but only one can be correct:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO7KpNNimt0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmxm1OyBprg

[proteus6]

At least the CAA report is based on facts"
The conclusions from Phase 2 were that the ducts
were contaminated with a carbonaceous material containing chemicals entirely consistent with the pyrolysis products of aircraft engine oil."
How can they set safe limits when there is no data, you cannot say 0 ppm is a safe limit or you will never fly.

[Aluminium shuffler]

The trouble with assessing only pyrolised ducts is that at those extreme temperatures, most of the harmful vapours are probably burnt away or inert - it's at typical bleed temperatures that the problem exists, and the report seems to have deliberately avoided that.

[Dream Buster]

We'll be looking for TOMBSTONES: A Boeing engineer's DEADLY warning about toxic cabin air | Health | News | Daily Express (http://www.sundayexpress.co.uk/news/health/470109/We-ll-be-looking-for-TOMBSTONES-A-Boeing-engineer-s-DEADLY-warning-about-toxic-cabin-air)

[cactusbusdrvr]

Most of the focus here seems to be on the issue of oil fume in the air conditioning and pressurization system. Which is understandable given the carcinogenic properties of turbine oil.

My worst experiences with fumes/vapor/smells have been after deicing. And it seems to have worsened in the last decade. I don't know if that is due to me being older but I suggest that it may be more due to the fact that we use a lot more type 4 fluid these days. It used to be that we were deiced and that was it. Now we have type 1 and type 4 fluid put on during the same process. I know I am very careful about having the packs off and the ditching switch on during deice but you have to turn the packs back on afterwards and that stuff does drip and spread and finds its way back into the A/C system.

I would like to see more attention given to the mix of fluids we are deiced with. All I can do now is run the packs on high and put on my mask if it gets too bad. It does go away after 30 minutes or so but I have received an airplane later in the day that had a deice smell and I knew it had been at least 7 hours since it had been deiced.

[Dream Buster]

http://aerotoxic.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Flight-International-April-2014-Articles.pdf

[Pittsle]

Maybe it is really serious...

British Airways pilot Richard Westgate died from toxic fumes on planes, research suggests | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/british-airways-pilot-richard-westgate-died-from-toxic-fumes-on-planes-research-suggests/story-e6frfq80-1227007382967)

The study:
http://www.welt.de/bin/case-study-130712813.pdf

[blind pew]

Thanks for posting the report...frightening reading.

[BOAC]

While the UK appears to be in a state of denial on this, Australia has been very active, possibly due to the number of 146's flying there and believed to have fumes problems. About time we woke up.

[shortfinals]

The Westgate case study story has just gone up on Flightglobal: BA crew autopsies show organophosphate poisoning - 7/31/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ba-crew-autopsies-show-organophosphate-poisoning-402138/)

Professor Mohamed Abou-Donia, the guy who identified Gulf War Syndrome, has this to say about what he saw from Westgate's autopsy: “In all my specialised tests for neuro-specific auto-antibodies he was the worst by far,” he says. “The air transport industry constantly overlooks vital components of OP poisoning: the combined effects of multiple compound exposure – repeated low-dosage exposure is just as dangerous as a single large dose (often more so) – and the genetic predisposition to toxicity of the individual’s genes.”

Wake up guys. There are remedies for this problem. Use them.

[DevX]

Interesting report, thanks for posting. I do know of at least one major engine manufacturer that takes this issue extremely seriously and is making positive steps to eliminate the possibility of cabin odour by carrying out a 'sniff test' on each engine prior to despatch to the customer.

[Nemrytter]

I remember an AME telling me that 'The jury was still out on aerotoxic...' - This was a DOCTOR!!!
And a bloody good one by the sound of it.

[Flying Lawyer]

Health Effects of Contaminants in Aircraft Cabin Air
Professor Michael Bagshaw MB BCh MRCS FFOM DAvMed DFFP FRAeS
Summary Report, Version 2.6
Latest version (October 2013)

Full paper here: https://www.airpilots.org/file/1277/air-contamination-health-effects-report-oct-13.pdf


CONCLUSION

There has been an increase in reported incidents of in-flight smoke/fume events since 1999, with a small number of crew members reporting adverse health effects which they associate with the events.
The source of oil contamination of engine bleed air was identified in early versions of the BAe 146 and the Boeing 757 and suitable modifications were implemented. A range of chronic health effects continue to be reported by some crew members.

The toxic effects of organophosphates are specific and are due to impairment of neurotransmission in the peripheral nerves, giving rise to muscular weakness and paralysis. In terms of medical toxicology, it is impossible to explain the wide range of symptoms and signs reported by some crew members as a unified result of TCP exposure.
Symptoms reported by some crew members who have been exposed to fumes in the cabin, particularly when emergency oxygen masks are used, are the same as those seen in acute or chronic hyperventilation. Obviously not every case of ‘aerotoxic syndrome’ is caused by hyperventilation, but it offers a plausible explanation for some reported events.
In some cases, the symptoms may be due to irritation associated with enhanced chemical sensitivity to certain volatile organic compounds.

The reported symptoms are wide-ranging with insufficient consistency to justify the establishment of a medical syndrome. It has been noted that many of the acute symptoms are normal symptoms experienced by most people frequently; some 70% of the population experience one or more of them on any given day.

Individuals can vary in their response to potential toxic insult because of age, health status, previous exposure or genetic differences.
In addition, it can be difficult to disentangle the physical, psychological and emotional components of well-being, and there is no doubt that different people will respond in different ways on different occasions.
It is not understood why most occupants of pressurised aircraft do not report symptoms despite having the same exposure as those who do.

Finally, so far as scientific evidence has been able to establish to date, the amounts of organophosphates to which aircraft crew members could be exposed, even over multiple, long-term exposures, are insufficient to produce neurotoxicity.
Investigations of aircraft cabin air world-wide have failed to detect levels of TCP above well-established and validated occupational exposure limit values. The partial pressure in the alveolar gas mixture of any TCP contamination of the cabin air is so low that it is unlikely to cross the alveolar membrane.

Genetic or particular susceptibility to a particular adverse effect of certain chemicals on the part of an individual does not alter the need for there to have been a sufficient chemical exposure to cause the injury or damage. For the reasons set out above, the possible exposure levels to ToCP on aircraft are so low relative to what is required to create a toxic effect through inhalation that a toxic injury is simply not medically feasible with current understanding.

Aviation medical professionals throughout the world continue to monitor the scientific evidence and remain receptive to objective peer-reviewed evidence.

[silverstrata]

I too was on the 146, and have been retired early due neurological ill health. This is a problem, and I would hope some of the posters on these threads show a bit more concern. It could be you next....

[silverstrata]

Snuggles

When thinking of oil fumes from a chemical standpoint it is a valid question, really. "Oil" is a mix of several hydrocarbons, each with its own ignition point. Oil can evapourate, thus "oil vapour" (or, mostly "fuel vapour" in aviation world) and it can burn, thus "oil smoke" but it is hard to define "oil fume" chemically.



That, is a load of old men making shoes.

The word 'fume' was derived from the French fumer and the Latin fumare meaning 'smoke' or 'steam'. And if you did not know that, then how have you been decoding TAFs and METARs all these years? Ah, you probably weren't....

So a fume is basically visible particulates in the air. And if you have ever seen a 146 APU have a fume event, you would know that 'fume' is the correct appellation. A 146 with an overheating APU is a bit like doing evacuation drills with a smoke generator.

However - I always thought that the 146's blue cabin smoke was coming form the overheating packs, not the APU itself. The fume events only happened in the morning when the pack went banzai and could not control its temperature, and had nothing to do with the APU itself. The engines could have the same effect, if you had not warmed everything up with the APU.

And talking of fume events and ill health - what sort of oil were they putting in those smoke generators, when we did smoke training?

[plhought]

And talking of fume events and ill health - what sort of oil were they putting in those smoke generators, when we did smoke training?

It's a vegetable based oil. Basically margarine. Had to buy some for the company x-mas party ;)

[Pacific Blue]

Boeing sued by flight attendants over toxic fumes that leaked into the cabin | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136713/Flight-attendants-sue-Boeing-claim-injury-engine-fumes.html)

[olandese_volante]

And talking of fume events and ill health - what sort of oil were they putting in those smoke generators, when we did smoke training? It's a vegetable based oil. Basically margarine.
Apparently for smoke training they use the same type of smoke generators as those used in entertainment venues and stage effects.
These use a mixture of water and glycol or glycerine, colloquially referred to as smoke juice. The smoke they produce has a characteristic sweet smell.

Glycol is somewhat toxic and slightly irritating, but you'd have to inhale a relatively large quantity of the stuff to suffer any serious ill effects.

Incidentally, glycol also occurs in some cabin fume events. De-icing fluid contains a significant amount of glycol, and it is not uncommon for some de-icing fluid to be ingested by the engines and consequently the glycol vapours finding their way via bleed air and air conditioning packs into the cabin.

Smoke machines using mineral oil based fluids are said to exist, but I never encountered one in my thirty year stage career, and I'd stay well clear if I did. Bleah.

[ShotOne]

"I'd stay well clear"...If only flight crew confronted with a fume event had that option

[Pacific Blue]

Death of BA worker blamed on cabin fumes | The Sunday Times (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1574397.ece)

[deptrai]

for those who don't have a subscription to read the article linked in the previous post in full, look here (http://aerotoxic.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Paper.pdf)

[Pacific Blue]

http://www.aeroinside.com/item/6020/british-airways-b772-near-london-on-jul-12th-2015-fumes-in-cockpit-rnl

[aox]

The inquest of Richard Westgate has opened in Salisbury.

(BBC South Today TV)

[Gibair]

Just saw a clip on the news saying his death was not related to cabin fumes.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-06/toxic-cabin-air-not-a-factor-in-pilots-death-coroner-rules/

[DaveReidUK]

The linked clip doesn't say that at all.

[Afterglow]

Judge for yourselves - I think all the comment that is required is this extract of the summary from the scientific paper on Richards autopsy written by amongst others a world expert (https://dibs.duke.edu/scholars/mohamed-abou-donia) in neuro-toxology:

We report here the case of a 43-year old airline pilot who presented with neurological deficits and other symptoms. The pilot died without regaining good health. In vivo blood had been collected ante mortem. Analysis of the serum confirmed grossly elevated levels of serum autoantibody biomarkers for neuronal cell degeneration compared with a control group. At autopsy, various tissues underwent histopathological assessment. Brain and spinal tissues exhibited axonal degeneration and demyelination. Peripheral nerves showed T-lymphocyte infiltration and demyelination. T-lymphocytes had infiltrated the heart muscle tissue. The post-mortem tests and pathological examination of the nervous system confirmed the autoantibody biomarker results. Differential diagnosis showed that the work environment, clinical condition, histopathology and serum biomarkers for nervous system injury are consistent with organophosphate-induced neurotoxicity. The results also indicated that the inferred exposure to organophosphates sensitized the nervous system and heart tissue towards further injury.

[Nemrytter]

Got a link to the actual paper?

[Afterglow]

Yes of course:

Autoantibody markers of neural degeneration are associated with post-mortem
histopathological alterations of a neurologically injured pilot (http://bleedfree.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/doi_10.402405AB14A.jbpc_.14.03.pdf)

[pulse1]

This local news would appear to be relevant:

Inquest into death of BA pilot will not consider aerotoxic syndrome (From Bournemouth Echo) (http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15210433.Inquest_into_death_of_BA_pilot_will_not_consider_ae rotoxic_syndrome/)

[plhought]

However - I always thought that the 146's blue cabin smoke was coming form the overheating packs, not the APU itself.

The 146/RJ packs use air bearings - no oil in them...

[Chris2303]

This local news would appear to be relevant:

Inquest into death of BA pilot will not consider aerotoxic syndrome (From Bournemouth Echo) (http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15210433.Inquest_into_death_of_BA_pilot_will_not_consider_ae rotoxic_syndrome/)

I was under the impression that an inquest was required to consider ALL factors into a death.

[sidtheesexist]

I think I might be displaying the symptoms..........could have sworn I saw a post on this thread about somebody having a quiet word with the Coroner.....
Has that post been voluntarily removed or God forbid, have we got censorship on these forums?
For the record, my personal opinion on this contentious subject:
I think the vast majority of modernish jet engines have been leaking small amounts of oil ( organophosphate) into cabin air for many years. Therefore, all persons on board airliners have been exposed to same. I would think that a very small percentage of persons are highly sensitive to OP and suffer terribly from exposure to same.

I suspect that all the vested interests ( and there are many) realise the potential costs of liability and are very happy to see the theory of AeroToxic Syndrome rubbished and discredited at every opportunity.

[lomapaseo]

Excellent summary in your first paragraph. To the point and positive assessment

However your concluding paragraph, provides nothing more than your single vote of your opinion and serves nil towards any solution beyond status quo.

It is that part of your message that gets rubbished

[DaveReidUK]

I was under the impression that an inquest was required to consider ALL factors into a death.

In a case like this, the Coroner is largely dependent on the findings of a post-mortem.

Unless the PM specifically attributes the death to Aerotoxic Syndrome, that possibility will be given no more weight than a multitude of other possible factors.

[Nemrytter]

Yes of course:

Autoantibody markers of neural degeneration are associated with post-mortem
histopathological alterations of a neurologically injured pilot (http://bleedfree.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/doi_10.402405AB14A.jbpc_.14.03.pdf)Great, thanks.:ok:

[Timmy Tomkins]

Basically all the industry denials are commercial & legal liability issues. BALPA massed an impressive collection of scientists and experts and were going into bat over it until someone (BA?) drew their attention to the impact of them proving the case; since then it has been deny & rule.

There have been too many well documented instances of tests, victims and investigations for it to be challenged realistically but the system makes it hard to budge any of the players. However, Boeing mysteriously decided that the 787 should have engine free air con and pressure and cited efficiency as the reason. Really? When "efficiency" was the reason engine bleed air was used in the first place.

If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck etc

[ApproachingIP480Kts]

2017 Aircraft Cabin Air Quality Conference

I see there is a major conference coming to London on 19-20 September 2017. The conference will be opened by Astronaut James Lovell.

The last conference on this issue, if I recall correctly was over 10 years ago and set up by BALPA.

[Nemrytter]

There have been too many well documented instances of tests, victims and investigations for it to be challenged realistically Let's be honest: There haven't. Lots of people posit that cabin air is affecting health but, thus far, there's been nowhere near enough robust evidence to prove this. Quite a lot of scientists have written papers about this, so far none of them have come to a robust conclusion.
With more research and more data that will change, but basing things on individual cases, anecdotes and the borders of conspiracy theories is not the way to move forward. That just detracts from the argument.

-edit- 2017 Aircraft Cabin Air Quality ConferenceThis is the type of thing we need more of. Bringing experts (and Jim Lovell :}) together to discuss it properly.

[Mac the Knife]

"However, Boeing mysteriously decided that the 787 should have engine free air con and pressure and cited efficiency as the reason. Really? When "efficiency" was the reason engine bleed air was used in the first place..... If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck etc"

Unfortunately, the evidence simply doesn't seem to be there - and I have looked fairly thoroughly. A proper epidemiologist would doubtless do a better job, but the evidence seems to be all very anecdotal, rather than science based.

As for Boeing's decision not to use bleed-air, it really comes down to a policy decision. Since "Toxic cabin air" has become an accepted meme of "fake news" that no scientific findings can reverse, one simply has to accept it.

Boeing, quite sensibly, have concluded that because of this, they will no longer use bleed-air for pressurisation and accept the associated inefficiency. This will lead to somewhat higher fuel burns and all that that implies, but this can be offset by higher ticket prices and possibly reduced services to some destinations.

As so often in the "alternative fact" world we live in, the majority will be inconvenienced by the absolute refusal of a small number of people to take as truth various things that they want to believe, since the negative cannot be proven.

[DaveReidUK]

Hmmm.

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

As the previous poster rightly pointed out, a lot more research needs to be done before any definitive conclusion can be drawn.

As for Boeing's decision not to use bleed-air, it really comes down to a policy decision.

Boeing might choose to disagree, having cited all of the following as reasons for the 787's no-bleed architecture:

Improved fuel consumption, due to a more efficient secondary power extraction, transfer, and usage.

Reduced maintenance costs, due to elimination of the maintenance-intensive bleed system.

Improved reliability due to the use of modern power electronics and fewer components in the engine installation.

Expanded range and reduced fuel consumption due to lower overall weight.

[Mac the Knife]

Thanks for the reply DaveReidUK.

And for your correction as to the reasons Boeing has given.

But I'd take a good-sized bet that the 787 will still suffer from complaints of Toxic Cabin Air.

If it isn't bleed-air, then it will be something else, less-obvious and more mysterious.

[Nemrytter]

But I'd take a good-sized bet that the 787 will still suffer from complaints of Toxic Cabin Air.
The latest research (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA%20CAQ%20Study%20Final%20Report_21.03.2017.pdf) does show that the 787 is not immune to fumes in the cabin. Far too early (based on only 8 flights) to draw any meaningful conclusions from that, however.

[Afterglow]

You can go round making studies of what the concentration of these chemicals are in the cabin till the cows come, the reality is that knowing the concentrations required to damage health of each chemical on it's own is one thing, but in combination is another. From my reading (but I maybe mistaken) the answers to those questions are not well known.

What's really required is a long term study of crew health with controls etc. Funding is an issue, and the science of detecting the effects and indeed the presence in the body is somewhat in it's infancy. However some are making progress - this paper makes interesting reading:

AUTOANTIBODIES TO NERVOUS SYSTEM-SPECIFIC PROTEINS ARE ELEVATED IN
SERA OF FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS: BIOMARKERS FOR NERVOUS SYSTEM INJURY (http://bleedfree.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/abou-donia-march-2013.pdf)

[tdracer]

If concern over Toxic Cabin Air was really the driving reason to go bleedless on the 787, the logical thing would have been for Boeing to adopt similar architecture on their other aircraft as soon as it's convenient. Yet since the launch of the 787, EVERY other Boeing airliner model has undergone or is undergoing a major upgrade (737 MAX, 747-8, 767-2C, 777X - all except the 767-2C involving completely new engines) yet all have maintained engine bleed.
And despite not using engine bleed air, I know of at least one oil fume event on a 787 (due to a bearing problem in the air cycle machine).

[Nemrytter]

From my reading (but I maybe mistaken) the answers to those questions are not well known.This is more or less correct. It's more accurate to say that the existing (few) large studies have shown either no link or an inconclusive link between fumes and the various proposed symptoms of 'aerotoxic'.

What's really required is a long term study of crew health with controls etc. Funding is an issue, and the science of detecting the effects and indeed the presence in the body is somewhat in it's infancy.The science is well-understood, the problem is the limited number of samples and the time required for a proper study.

However some are making progress - this paper makes interesting reading:...Interesting. However, the articles that cite it all seem to come to precisely the opposite conclusion.:bored: