PDA

View Full Version : Aerotoxic in the news


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Pacific Blue
22nd Feb 2015, 05:30
Lots of news reports this week showing a breakthrough is on the cards
with regards to the acknowledgment of Aerotoxic Syndrome:

Warning over toxic fumes in plane cabins - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11427509/Warning-over-toxic-fumes-in-plane-cabins.html)

Ahernar
22nd Feb 2015, 07:31
I smell a big BS . Where is the data ? ONE doctor ?! Personally from my knowledge of how stuff works i believe that the air in a big city is much worse in pollutants that the compressed cabin air . The biological agents are another story but same thing happens even in a bus . Any doctors here ?

jack11111
22nd Feb 2015, 07:43
Now, how are we going to put this genie back in the bottle?

wiggy
22nd Feb 2015, 07:54
Whilst I've seen a few news reports in the UK (most prominently in the Mail and the Telegraph - "sister" newspapers) on the coroner's request, I don't see any real claim of an evidential "breakthrough", just the usual cycle of demands and issuing of denials, and various claims..

(FWIW I'm trying to keep an open mind on this subject).

ILS27LEFT
22nd Feb 2015, 10:42
Unfortunately we live in a society where profit takes over on anything else, including our own health and the future of our kids.
I am very frightened by profit and human greed, capitalism is clearly degenerating into a monster. I am not suggesting a diversion towards "communism", we only must be aware of the risks and protect our future, our health and our planet.
Each day I read of working conditions being eroded, across all industries.
An unacceptable high number of workers in the UK are earning less than the minimum wage, I do not want this future for our kids. A future with a tiny % of population earning ridiculous amount of money when everybody else lives in poverty-like conditions. Back to middle age.
The Aerotoxic Syndrome is very real, we all know. Let's not forget that until a few years ago we were all allowed to smoke on airplanes and in pubs. Now this seems crazy, we have learnt but too slowly. Aerotoxic Syndrome is the same concept as smoking in public spaces: new rules will be introduced and air cabin quality will improve by new legislation but it will be too late for many of us by then.
This is the result of putting profit and human greed at the heart of our lives. We are selfish.
Cancer is killing so many of us, mental health is a huge problem, suicide rates are extremely high, stress is a huge hidden disease, we are all overworked, overstretched, many are clearly not happy... living and becoming ill in the name of profit and money ...but life is only one. Let's not forget it.:*
This syndrome is only another example of our irrational lives.:ok:
PROFIT BEFORE SAFETY AGAIN?

rh200
22nd Feb 2015, 11:23
I am very frightened by profit and human greed, capitalism is clearly degenerating into a monster.

Hardly, its all about ignorance and legislation, we don't put it in, they arn't going to follow it. I don't know about you, but I expect my accountant to find every legal means necessary to minimize my tax, and I try every means I can to make as much money as possible. Don't see why companies can't do the same thing.

As for aerotoxic syndrome, its all about statistics, it could be a very real risk, but what level? nothing is absolute. Until someone can do the statistics that show its an unacceptable risk, there not going to treat it seriously. No rocket science in that.

The 146's were/is the obvious apparent outliers in the stats.

wiggy
22nd Feb 2015, 12:09
ILS27Left

I'd agree about the increasing pressure and stress but...

This is the result of putting profit and human greed at the heart of our lives. We are selfish.
Cancer is killing so many of us

I hate to break it to you but cancer has been a mass killer since the year dot and certainly well before the days of capitalism - it's responsible for about 1 in 4 deaths in the general population. Not cheery news I know, but as rh said "its all about statistics".

Aluminium shuffler
22nd Feb 2015, 12:32
Ahernar, your attitude marks you as someone with a vested interest in making this go away cheaply. It is a very real issue that causes severe harm to quite a number of people, and in some cases ultimately kills them. I have seen it first hand, as have many others.

That it has taken so long for it to be taken seriously by anyone shows how corrupt the authorities, governments and businesses are. As for city air being more toxic, there are many variables - the city, the weather and the aircraft type - a 787 is going to be positively fresh compared to Giangzou in a smoggy day, but an Avro 146 or 757 are not good places to be. Remember that only a proportion of city air has been through an engine or other machine; on an airliner all of the cabin air has. That means concentrations of harmful gasses can be damagingly high, and there is no way to escape them.

F6HellCat
22nd Feb 2015, 12:41
there is without a doubt a problem with bleed air being contaminated with toxic fumes from the engines. Its not rocket science. The seals from the compressors wear down over time and leak oil which is burnt and the resulting fumes (which are highly toxic) enter the bleed air system which we breath. This is a known fact. What we dont know is what are the acceptable levels of toxic fumes that we can breath and how much of it our bodies can naturally expel over how much time and how much of it remains in our system. The truth is that we have no idea and that is the scary problem.

People have died because of this. It doest take a genius to know that breathing toxic fumes can kill you. With the increase in air travel and short haul airlines pushing FTL I think there will sadly be more and more case of aircrew and pax becoming sick.

Also an indirect admission to the fact that there is a problem with the bleed system is the change from traditional pneumatic system to electrical bleed air system. All the new A/C such as the 787 and all the Neo 73's and 320s have electrical bleed systems which do not tap bleed air from engines.

barit1
22nd Feb 2015, 13:06
In cert testing an engine for exhaust emissions - sampling is done at both the exhaust AND the inlet.

And it is not unusual for the exhaust to be CLEANER than the inlet air. :ok:

phiggsbroadband
22nd Feb 2015, 13:21
I would hope that the tapping for the Bleed-Air would be 'upstream' of any lubricated bearings...
Perhaps some Engine Gurus could put us in the picture.

F6HellCat
22nd Feb 2015, 13:31
Barit1 yes jet engines also double as air purifiers you wouldnt happen to work for CFM or RR by any chance do you?

oscar zoroaster
22nd Feb 2015, 14:02
MD here.
I have no expertise in this particular area. I have no bias as to the reality of breathing compressed air and its causal relationship to illness.
In general however, I have high levels of skepticism when facts are lacking and the presented facts lack details. The coroners report is presented in what must be an edited format (allowing for misrepresentation and loss of context). The coroner misuses the term "symptom" (which is a patient reported complaint - obviously not possible EVER to a coroner) in place of "sign" (which refers to a physician observed physical finding). It is a minor issue, but sloppiness predicts sloppiness. There are no details given as to the specificity of biochemical changes in blood work or tissue sample specific pathologic alterations (which is the essence of pathologic assessment). It may be there but not understood as important from a non-science reporter and therefore not included. It would be a very simple exercise to measure chemicals in cabin compressed air, and similarly to search for those compounds in blood and tissues (again perhaps done and not reported). But then one must have tissue pathology that is causally related to those inhaled compounds. Again not presented.
There may be a problem, but that specific article does nothing but raise unsubstantiated alarm.

lomapaseo
22nd Feb 2015, 14:03
I would hope that the tapping for the Bleed-Air would be 'upstream' of any lubricated bearings...
Perhaps some Engine Gurus could put us in the picture.

Kind of hard to do seeing as you have bearings at the front and back of compressors.

Where's "Dreamcatcher" to wrap up this thread in a link to the constant running similar thread in this forum?

joy ride
22nd Feb 2015, 14:40
I remember Private Eye reporting these problems (particularly in Australia) perhaps 20 years or more ago and linked with a small 4 engined airliner with similar engines to those in Chinooks.

Ian W
22nd Feb 2015, 16:13
there is without a doubt a problem with bleed air being contaminated with toxic fumes from the engines. Its not rocket science. The seals from the compressors wear down over time and leak oil which is burnt and the resulting fumes (which are highly toxic) enter the bleed air system which we breath. This is a known fact. What we dont know is what are the acceptable levels of toxic fumes that we can breath and how much of it our bodies can naturally expel over how much time and how much of it remains in our system. The truth is that we have no idea and that is the scary problem.

People have died because of this. It doest take a genius to know that breathing toxic fumes can kill you. With the increase in air travel and short haul airlines pushing FTL I think there will sadly be more and more case of aircrew and pax becoming sick.

Also an indirect admission to the fact that there is a problem with the bleed system is the change from traditional pneumatic system to electrical bleed air system. All the new A/C such as the 787 and all the Neo 73's and 320s have electrical bleed systems which do not tap bleed air from engines.

Just some points to lower the hyperbole level a little.

1. The fumes occur when the oil seals are worn - that is perhaps the maintenance schedules need investigation.

2. Some people are far more sensitive to these fumes than others. That is to do with the speed with which their metabolism breaks down the emissions involved. Some people are unaffected some are highly susceptible. Perhaps those people should avoid 146 or 757.

3. The change to electric pumped systems was not an admission of any kind about the use of bleed air: it was done to improve engine efficiency as extracting air from the final stages of the compressor is a considerable efficiency loss. Use of electric compressors also means that air recycling can be increased whereas bleed air recycling is typically reduced to assist engine efficiency whether this improves the burnt oil problem is difficult to judge.

There are definitely some people who are very sensitive to the burned oil fumes (organophosphates). Does that mean that there is a major problem with the aircraft? There are probably as many people sensitive to nuts, should restaurants and the airlines stop serving them?

Pacific Blue
22nd Feb 2015, 16:23
We should be at a stage now where organophosphate fumes are minimised from entering the cabin. A 3 pronged solution would be the fitting of adequate air filters, a cabin monitoring detection system to highlight any elevated levels plus use of less toxic engine oil. To compare this to peanut allergy is absurd as most sufferers can manage to avoid peanuts whereas most airline crew and passengers have no such luxury.

AirScotia
22nd Feb 2015, 16:36
2. Some people are far more sensitive to these fumes than others. That is to do with the speed with which their metabolism breaks down the emissions involved. Some people are unaffected some are highly susceptible. Perhaps those people should avoid 146 or 757.

How would people know whether they're genetically sensitive or not? Is there a test?

How could pax avoid particular a/c types anyway? It's the company that chooses the type and may substitute at short notice. And some routes are covered by only one company, using only one type.

Ian W
22nd Feb 2015, 18:03
We should be at a stage now where organophosphate fumes are minimised from entering the cabin. A 3 pronged solution would be the fitting of adequate air filters, a cabin monitoring detection system to highlight any elevated levels plus use of less toxic engine oil. To compare this to peanut allergy is absurd as most sufferers can manage to avoid peanuts whereas most airline crew and passengers have no such luxury.

It does not affect pax as they do not get sufficiently exposed unless it is a real 'fume event'.

Crew members if they find they are badly affected could transfer to a different aircraft type. The main issue is accepting that there are crew members that are badly affected as they are more sensitive- whereas the majority are not. And that there are aircraft that have more of a problem than others that may need more frequent oil seal changes or perhaps an oil seal redesign.

Ian W
22nd Feb 2015, 18:07
How would people know whether they're genetically sensitive or not? Is there a test?

How could pax avoid particular a/c types anyway? It's the company that chooses the type and may substitute at short notice. And some routes are covered by only one company, using only one type.

Yes there is a test you can have your fat tested for accumulation of the various chemicals involved.

As said earlier pax are unlikely to be affected unless there is a real fume event. Although, I always found 146's smelly. I would far prefer that the oil-seals were fixed it is probably only a minor redesign needed. Or alternatively, more routine change out of the oil-seals. The costs of that will have the aircraft scheduled for replacement relatively quickly.

Vertical Speed
22nd Feb 2015, 18:26
My flying career came to an end at age 55 when I developed epilepsy.
Out of a total of over 16,000 hours I spent about 5500 flying the Bae146 aircraft. From my own research the two worst (Western) culprits for contaminated bleed air were the 146 and the 757. I consider myself fortunate that my epilepsy is "mostly" drug controlled thanks to the NHS and some excellent consultants in the UK. Sadly however, I know of other pilots employed by the same 146 operator who have suffered much more life threatening illnesses than me and in one case with fatal results. Whilst working on the 146 I suffered more bronchial problems than at any other stage in my life and these have gone since I ceased flying it. On numerous occasions I reported air contamination on that aircraft both via the maintenance log and separate safety reports but these were always dealt with in such a way as to minimise any publicity.
Boeing went to a lot of expense and risk designing the 787 NOT to use bleed air- but of course can not advertise this as all their other types still use it . Airbus looked at alternative air systems for the A350 but decided not to for cost reasons.
Obviously the airlines and aircraft manufacturers want this recent publicity "hushed up" as it could be catastrophic for the industry but IMHO it is time that a proper inquiry was commenced.

Pacific Blue
22nd Feb 2015, 18:31
Ian W, you seem very focused on the 146 as we know its the worst offender but the 2 pilots and 1 cabin crew member that have died were not on this type. Most cabin crew do not have any choice as to which aircraft they fly on.

Yes the seals should be replaced but also filters fitted to prevent fume events and low level exposure.

It's now on the BBC news: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zGVL1N4LZYM

KelvinD
22nd Feb 2015, 19:20
I am a bit confused here. The coroner's report said that a post mortem exam showed causes of death as "either pentobarbital toxicity or lymphocytic myocarditis". Surely the first possibility includes sleeping pills (Nembutal etc), while the second has a whole host of possible causes etc. Presumably the organ phosphate thing is only one. Yet this coroner goes straight to that as a cause. Absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it. Wouldn't he be better advised to wait until a full investigation is completed?
Not only that, but the lawyer representing the unfortunate man gave an interview on TV today alleging all manner of things, including pinning the blame for Gulf War Syndrome on these chemicals. I thought that, in the UK at least, Gulf War Syndrome doesn't exist?
Seems to me to be a lot of jumping to conclusions here. It would have been wiser for the coroner to shut up and wait until there was something concrete to report.

Aluminium shuffler
22nd Feb 2015, 19:37
There is no jumping to conclusions, just a lot of jumping to the defense of the manufacturers and airlines.

TCP is added as an anti-wear ingredient to the oil. The oil escapes intot he bleed system from the compressor and at temperatures over 80-90oC, well below pre-cooled bleed air temperatures, turns into organophoshates. The 70s agricultural industry demonstrated very well the neurological conditions associated with organophophate poisoning.

The authorities claim there is no evidence of any problem, despite numerous events and swabbing of aircraft, including brand new aircraft of types other than 146, and every aircraft was tested positive for contamination on the cabin surfaces. The authorities also state there is no evidence that organophosphate poisoning would have these effects on the occupants, as if the effects would differ from in agriculture just because the venue has changed. :ugh:

It's readily apparent there is a widespread problem, and the new electric compressors of the 787 seem a tacitadmission of the issue. The trouble is the litigation costs are so high and the authorities would be liable themselves too if the issue is admitted, so it's all buried.

lomapaseo
22nd Feb 2015, 20:05
Why don't all "long haul" pilots have DVT ?

Probably for the same reason that all retired test people from the engine manufacturers who worked in the test departments where these oil and seals are tested don't have anything but average statistical health problems.

I'm sure barit1 has inhaled way beyond the average in engine oil fumes.

Pacific Blue
22nd Feb 2015, 20:34
Smudger it's the 'just deal with it' attitude that has caused so many unnecessary deaths of young capable aviation professionals before their time. You should count yourself lucky you have been able to fly for so long without symptoms and hope you have as equally long and healthy retirement.

Croqueteer
22nd Feb 2015, 20:48
Smudger, I thought like you until after 17 years on the 146 I lost my kidneys in a week due to an unsual disease, "Good Pasture Syndrome" which affected my immune system, shutting down the kidney filters. The Docs were puzzled until the senior consultant asked me " Have you been in regular contact with oil?" , and the penny dropped. I know of several other cases of various other defect caused by the same organophosphate chemicals, including early deaths. The figures are not inconsequential, and they are similar to the problems farmers had with sheep dip. The uni at Cranfield that was reserching the problem suddenly had there funding withdrawn I believe as they were nearing a conclusion. I know what my own conclusion is! We will never win a fight with government and industry.

Aluminium shuffler
22nd Feb 2015, 20:52
lomapeso, the test engineers sit in a cubicle that is airconditioned from outside sources, not from the test engine's compressor, and they don't spend 10 hours or more every working day breathing that cubicle air anyway. Try to be balanced in your rebuttal.

rh200
22nd Feb 2015, 21:21
As usual, every one wants to take a extreme militant opposing position.

The human body is nothing but one big chemistry set. As I have stated before, what doesn't alter your chances of getting cancer. What doesn't alter your chances of some reaction to something.

Statistically people will have adverse reactions to all sorts of things, sometimes violently, sometimes cumulatively over time. This varies across the population.

This is the reason, they don't go on a holy Jihad/crusade to ground the fleet or whatever you expect to happen. Statistics and economics, or risk versus reward. What they may do is assume a probability of it being a particular risk and allow a natural attrition of aircraft design to take care of the situation.

Across the general population the risks are obviously extremely small, that leaves flight crew who have the potential for exposure level being in the greatest danger. Hence focus should statistically be on them, but again if their afflictions arn't any higher than the general background population, its hard to pin it down to any particular event.

As per usual in these things, extreme opposing views and potential gains and losses, will force the thing to be fought with lawyers and media, politics instead of cold hard facts.

Aluminium shuffler
22nd Feb 2015, 21:29
rh200, I agree to a point, but you have to remember they said the same sort of thing about lead in paint and in petrol, asbestos in building and the solvents in automotive paints until proven otherwise. The point is that the evidence is already overwhelming but is being denied by manufacturers, airlines and authorities, all of whom have a vested interest in continuing the denials of a problem to avoid extremely large levels of litigation. It'll eventually come out, and the litigation costs will be even higher, but bean counters are rarely concerned with long-term views, and these bodies will all be run by such individuals.

barit1
22nd Feb 2015, 22:13
Aluminium shuffler:test engineers sit in a cubicle that is airconditioned from outside sources, not from the test engine's compressor, and they don't spend 10 hours or more every working day breathing that cubicle air anyway.

Don't run your imagination and call it data, sir. I've spent many test hours outside the control cab, at many advanced and many primitive test sites. Also quite a few hours collecting test data in flight.

Try to be balanced in your rebuttal.

Not a bad idea, I say. :=

jack11111
22nd Feb 2015, 22:22
Here is how this will play out: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi.

Filters for the old, electric compressors for new designs.

Nemrytter
22nd Feb 2015, 22:27
The authorities claim there is no evidence of any problem, despite numerous events and swabbing of aircraft, including brand new aircraft of types other than 146, and every aircraft was tested positive for contamination on the cabin surfaces. Would you care to provide some evidence for that? Proper, peer reviewed, evidence. Not the usual hearsay and 'feelings' that propagate through these threads on here but cold, hard, facts.

tdracer
22nd Feb 2015, 23:07
If you spend any time at/around airports, you'll be breathing organophosphates, granted in extremely small quantities - and I'm sure the same is true of any metro area (especially highly polluted ones). As rh200 notes, the human body is an extremely complex chemistry set, every one unique. Just as some people are so sensitive to peanut allergies that they can have a reaction just by being in the same room as someone who recently consumed peanuts, I suspect some people are extremely sensitive to even low levels of organophosphate contaminations. I've noticed a significantly higher rate of fume events on Rolls powered 747 and 757 relative to Pratt and GE powered versions. I suspect this is related to the more complex lube systems required with a 3 spool turbine.

All that being said, properly funded, peer reviewed research is needed before we start mandating $Billions in redesign and retrofit costs.
The current level of research into organophosphate poisoning reminds me too much of the bogus "Vaccines cause Autism" studies which, years after being totally debunked, are causing supposedly intelligent parents to refuse to have their children vaccinated. The result being current epidemics of diseases that were once thought to have been eliminated in the US, and people have died as a result.:ugh:

BTW, do current technology filters even exist that can reliably filter out organophosphate contaminates?

jack11111
22nd Feb 2015, 23:23
tdracer,

" BTW, do current technology filters even exist that can reliably filter out organophosphate contaminates?"

I believe electrostatic filtering is up to the task of oil mist extraction.

Works very well in machine shops to extract coolant mist kicked up by lathes and mills.

rh200
22nd Feb 2015, 23:36
but you have to remember they said the same sort of thing about lead in paint and in petrol, asbestos in building and the solvents in automotive paints until proven otherwise.

Absolutely. But like every thing else its easy to say in hind site. As technology evolves so does society. Most companies are painfully aware of liabilities and the possibility of long term damage.

In the mentioned cases there was a large statistical distribution of cases. In those cases they where most likely there way before our societies had the ability or political (also grotty management) will to accumulate the data to prove that. As such it had to wait for a tidal wave of evidence.

With todays technology and reporting, its a lot easier to accumulate the evidence. As such you need to show that the cases are a 1 in small number versus a 1 in large number issue, and are attributable to the problem.

Yes there are solutions to the perceived risk, all have a cost associated with them. That cost has to be economically viable versus the other scenario. Sad but true outcome of economics.

TURIN
22nd Feb 2015, 23:51
Cancer is killing so many of us, mental health is a huge problem, suicide rates are extremely high, stress is a huge hidden disease, we are all overworked, overstretched, many are clearly not happy... living and becoming ill in the name of profit and money ...but life is only one. Let's not forget it.
This syndrome is only another example of our irrational lives.

Cancer is killing so many of us? That's because we're all living longer.

Mental health is a huge problem? Clearly. :\

Suicide rates are extremely high? Not according to The Samaritans....

"Suicide rates have stayed relatively stable in
the UK over the last 20 years, with some fluctuations. Since
1992, in the UK, there has been an overall decrease of around 2
per 100,000 for all persons. "

We are all overworked, overstretched,.... I'm not. :)

This syndrome is only another example of our irrational lives.

No, it's an example of poor quality control and in some cases maintenance.

Also an indirect admission to the fact that there is a problem with the bleed system is the change from traditional pneumatic system to electrical bleed air system. All the new A/C such as the 787 and all the Neo 73's and 320s have electrical bleed systems which do not tap bleed air from engines.

Er, no.


Airbus A320NEO No advantage to bleedless system (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-no-advantage-to-bleedless-system-on-a320neo-372323/)

B737MAX Pneumatics (http://www.b737.org.uk/pneumatics.htm#General)

ramble on
23rd Feb 2015, 01:27
The sickest I have ever been was after a three week duty on an aircraft with a light but obvious oil smell in the cabin.

It was from the APU and disappeared after takeoff.

I took pictures of the APU BLEED FILTER during the replacement but seem to have lost them and cant post them at the moment. The filter replaced was black and almost wet with oil residue.

Does anyone have a BEFORE & AFTER picture of any BLEED LINE AIR FILTERS?

pilotmike
23rd Feb 2015, 09:22
barit1:In cert testing an engine for exhaust emissions - sampling is done at both the exhaust AND the inlet.

And it is not unusual for the exhaust to be CLEANER than the inlet air.

And I'm sure that any manufacturer can arrange many factors and conditions in a test to provide almost exactly the result they require.

I surely don't need to remind you of the nonsense of car testing to produce the artificial figures for MGP and emissions for new cars? You know, the ones where alternators are disconnected, doors taped up, engines heat-soaked overnight, all excess weight stripped out, even heavy standard equipment that is needed for ACTUAL driving, just to get a good figure for the brochure - figures that you and I can never match. in the real world.

I have owned a large estate car (rhymes with Sunday but starts with an 'H', aye 40! onepointsevendieselbluedrive) from new that claimed over 65mpg and therefore was exempt from VED, but even with my very best driving I could never achieve over 50mpg, and was usually about 40mpg in regular long distance commutes to work. By contrast, another car I've owned (civictwopointtwodiesel) for over 2 years claims a mere 53mpg, road tax costs £145 per year, yet I regularly see a true 60+mpg over similar conditions on the identical route, and sometimes around 65mpg with care. What a pity they didn't 'cheat' the system the same way to get the better figures they deserved than the other car...

In other words, tests can be manipulated to achieve a result favourable to the manufacturer, and seldom tell the whole truth of real day to day results in normal, non-ideal conditions.
I'm quite familiar with testing protocols.
Then you'll know exactly what I am saying ;)

Ahernar
23rd Feb 2015, 09:59
Test can be manipulated but only by some degree and also all the competition has to do the same basic thing . You will not convince a tank to get 50mpg regardless of tricks . Same here - there is one thing when we speak about the fume events (these are real and dangerous) and another when suggesting that the cabin air is dangerous every time . I'm travelling with a 40 year bus full of diesel fumes daily so i'm not easily impressed . That 's why i was so loud , that and the whole x causes cancer hysteria .

Prober
23rd Feb 2015, 11:35
I have many thousands of hours oc 757 work under my belt but have well outlived my three score years and ten. I do, however, have many memories of tech log entries about a foul stench coming from the air conditioning for a few minutes at a time, reminiscent of rotting socks and usually, IIRC, when descending through FL300 (for a reason I never discovered). "Take your socks to the dhoby" was the usual engineer's response.:{
Prober

F6HellCat
23rd Feb 2015, 11:48
I don't understand why some people play this down so much. There is without a doubt an issue with the bleed air system which has caused people to become sick and possibly even die from it.

Its a serious health issue that we know little about and needs to be investigated and monitored even if it costs the airlines or the engine manufacturers millions who cares!? Right? Safety first? or is it money first then our health second?

This is a great article even though its from 2008.

Toxic fumes in airliner cabins ignored by authorities - 5/6/2008 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/toxic-fumes-in-airliner-cabins-ignored-by-authorities-223448/)

rh200
23rd Feb 2015, 11:51
I surely don't need to remind you of the nonsense of car testing to produce the artificial figures for MGP and emissions for new cars? You know, the ones where alternators are disconnected, doors taped up, engines heat-soaked overnight, all excess weight stripped out, even heavy standard equipment that is needed for ACTUAL driving, just to get a good figure for the brochure - figures that you and I can never match. in the real world.

Thats called functional testing, most testing is done to a specific standard so they can be compared correctly by professionals. Deciphering the actual results can be hard if you are not sure what parasitic loads have been removed.

At the end of the day, the testing is about consistency, why? because everything and every one is different in how they drive. It is a well known placebo phenomena when putting all those shonky save you some miles gadgets on your car. Likewise when dynoed they are usually bullsh!t.

For example, do you have the alternator disconnected when testing, of course you do, why, consistency. Why does it matter, it pulls a lot of power at times, state of the battery, aircondtioner, lights on, off etc.

The key thing to remember about the air issue is, differentiating a failure from well functioning system. There is no doubt that some of the stuff is toxic, but at what levels and in a perfectly good functioning system is it an issue? Then you factor in wear, and then a failure, Hence the statistics end up low, and hence the risk factor is low.

ShotOne
23rd Feb 2015, 12:00
"The pax would all get off in a rush.." How would they do that at FL 350 Henry?

Prober, you've described the scenario exactly; fume events have often coincided with a power change, perhaps as it alters the pressure on the seals. The fact you've lived through it in no way disproves anything. Exposure doesn't affect everyone the same way.

Nemrytter
23rd Feb 2015, 12:03
There is without a doubt an issue with the bleed air system which has caused people to become sick and possibly even die from it. So why is there never any peer-reviewed experimental data on this?

F6HellCat
23rd Feb 2015, 12:14
Toxic fumes in airliner cabins ignored by authorities - 5/6/2008 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/toxic-fumes-in-airliner-cabins-ignored-by-authorities-223448/)

Nemrytter
23rd Feb 2015, 12:20
That's not peer-reviewed.
The only peer-reviewed literature I can find on this (using data gathered either from crew blood / urine samples or from air sampling) states that concentrations are 'low' or 'below detection'.
That doesn't mean that this is not a serious problem - just that this statement "There is without a doubt an issue....caused people to become sick and possibly even die from it." is incorrect. There is plenty of doubt.

Lord Spandex Masher
23rd Feb 2015, 12:39
F6, please be aware that some of the incidents in that article were reported by people who, shall we say, had a bee in their bonnet about fumes.

I flew the 146 for several years and every "fumes" incident I had was with either of the two most well known and vocal fume sufferers.

ILS27LEFT
23rd Feb 2015, 12:41
Legal implications can be massive for airliners and manufacturers.
This is why, at this stage, I do not trust anybody except the victims, the ones who have died or became seriously ill have been kept out of the media attention for many years.
When there is a massive amount of money involved we all must be extremely aware of the risks of manipulation, ranging from testing stage to final statistical results. This is a fact.
This syndrome could become a huge issue especially from a legal and financial compensation point of view. Money involved here is well beyond our imagination.
I only know that there is a real problem, not affecting 100% of occupants, true, but despite % and stats aircraft air contamination remains a problem which can be easily fixed.
I genuinely believe that those pilots who have suffered from serious health issues (including death) linked to this syndrome are not "making it up or being exaggerated" , they are real cases proving that there is a tangible aerotoxic problem.
For too long the authorities have tried to ignore this problem. Successfully until now.
Media attention is quickly changing this trend. A bit late, as usual but a significant improvement.:ugh:

:mad:

F6HellCat
23rd Feb 2015, 12:43
Nemrytter im not sure where the doubt with you lays.

The engine manufacturers admit that a small amount of oil escapes through the seals into the bleed air. Thats when the engine is all shinny and new what about after 10000hrs?

Inhaling fumes from burnt oil from a jet engine is toxic to humans. I dont need a peer review to tell me that lol it even says it on the oil container.

The only doubt we have is about what cocktail of chemicals is in the air we breath during flights and how much of it is dangerous in the short term and in the long term.
Yes concentrations are low but how will exposure to low concentrations affect us over a 5 day block of flights? over a month? a year? 20 years? The body expels the toxins through the liver...how may of us are going to be on a liver transplant list in 20 years?
The average life of a short haul pilot now is 66 thats if you are lucky....

Nemrytter
23rd Feb 2015, 12:53
Nemrytter im not sure where the doubt with you lays. The doubt lies in whether a problem even exists here.
There needs to be proper, unbiased, scientific investigations into the chemicals present in cabin air. All the studies (that I can find) so far have said that toxic chemicals are either not detectable or are present in such small quantities as to be non-harmful. The only exception - to my knowledge - was one datapoint on one flight that was conducted with a damaged engine. On that flight the concentration was high enough to pose a problem if the crew/pax had been subject to long term exposure.

These studies have all been rather limited in scope, though. Hence why we need a proper peer-reviewed investigation into this. I mean this in the nicest possible way but hearsay and comments like "lol it even says so on the container" are unhelpful. They skew perception and do not present a true picture of what we're experiencing.

Anyway, I think we can both agree that this needs to be investigated further.:ok:

Aluminium shuffler
23rd Feb 2015, 13:03
A serious question to the naysayers: modern FTL schemes are meant to ensure crew are fit and rested, but reported fatigue and certainly the general complaints about it are rising. Yes, a lot of us are working slightly more hours than in the past, but a lot of us aren't, so is it not implausible that what a lot of us consider to be fatigue is in fact, at least in part, due to repeated low level exposure to these neurotoxins? I bet a sensitive search on any pilot with regular flight over a year will show positive results.

Prober, it's interesting that there was a specific trend for fume occurrences. I have noticed the same thing on the 737NG between 5k and 8k, again at idle thrust with the same dirty socks smell, and only just rarely during take off.

The trouble is that the industry refuse to fit any kind of detection equipment, which means that pilot reports are largely ignored as frivolous or false. I'm sure that is not an accident. Fit an exposure indicator, similar to the CO detector dots in light piston aircraft, and it'd be there for all to see and undeniable by engineering and management.

lomapaseo
23rd Feb 2015, 13:14
Quote:
In cert testing an engine for exhaust emissions - sampling is done at both the exhaust AND the inlet.

And it is not unusual for the exhaust to be CLEANER than the inlet air.


And I'm sure that any manufacturer can arrange many factors and conditions in a test to provide almost exactly the result they require.


Let's not muddy the discussion with emissions out the tailpipe exhaust (chemtrails etc.) :)

The passenger/crew cabin air concern has to do with persistent burnt oil fumes that find their way into the cabin.

I don't believe that the manufacturers or regulators are denying that such fumes exist or that they contain matter that could be harmful to your health in some quantities. heck many foods we eat also fit that bill .

The technical issue is how much and over what time period versus a scientifically validated cause-effect per human.

The engineers community can't eliminate anything, they can only minimize.

But what is an acceptable level?

They need the oil in order for the engines to survive long enough to complete a flight safely

flying apprentice
23rd Feb 2015, 14:23
Why is the 757 bleed air quality apparently worse than that on 767?

Is it purely due to the engines fitted ?

tdracer
23rd Feb 2015, 15:50
Why is the 757 bleed air quality apparently worse than that on 767?
As I noted earlier, there appears to be a significantly higher rate of 'fume' events on Rolls powered 757 (and 747) than for Pratt (and GE) - likely due to the more complex lube system required on a 3 spool engine.
Over half the 757s built were equipped with Rolls engines, where as less than 4% of all 767s built were fitted with Rolls engines.

ShotOne
23rd Feb 2015, 16:02
Yes, in a word. Types which have flagged up prominently are BAe146, 757 and A 340, and even amongst those aircraft, certain sub-types of engine are worse than others.

Re. testing, it's entirely possible a brand new engine might deliver a very low concentration of toxins under test conditions and perform much less well after thousand hours wear on the seals.

goeasy
23rd Feb 2015, 16:15
You hit the nail right on the head. The fact that manufacturers and airlines refuse to fit detectors, proves they know there is a problem. Otherwise detectors would refute all the misinformation.

I had a fumes incident on an A319, when the cabin literally filled with smoke just after landing. No mechanical fault was found and the aircraft was run for 4 hours to try and clear residues from the aircon plumbing, before we flew it home empty the next day. Despite no further visible sign of fumes, On landing all crew reported nausea/headaches including cabin crew. I just regret we didn't all go for blood test.

It's real folks. But only a proper investigation will provide incontestable proof.

lomapaseo
23rd Feb 2015, 16:24
You hit the nail right on the head. The fact that manufacturers and airlines refuse to fit detectors, proves they know there is a problem. Otherwise detectors would refute all the misinformation.

Why don't you bring your own detector into the cabin with a certified Go-NoGo"

gauge and what would you do mid-flight ?

ILS27LEFT
23rd Feb 2015, 16:43
We all know this is very real, why many in here keep denying reality is beyond logics. Are you really completely brainwashed by your employer to the point that you are blind and deaf hence you ignore all those around you telling that there is a problem.
The media will not let this go away anymore, there is more than enough evidence to push for the mandatory introduction of new legislation, mandatory sensors, etc... we will then go from there.

There is also a film on this subject coming out soon:
A Dark Reflection - Film - The issue (http://www.adarkreflection.com/issue.html)

I have not watched the film and I did not need this film to tell me there is a real problem. There is a huge number of real cases, many are fully documented. Real people have died, real people have been sick and ill.
It is not over-reaction, it is not isolated cases.
It is a systemic failure which must be stopped.
A bit late but still a massive improvement, at least now we can talk about it without being labelled negatively.
Only a few months ago many of us could not even mention Aerotoxic syndrome without being labelled as trouble-makers, incredible.:mad:
Nearly all airlines are affected and nearly all equipment types.:mad:
:ok:

Nothing to do with pessimism, this is just reality.:ok:
PROFIT BEFORE SAFETY

There is also a documentary start in here http://aerotoxicfilm.com/

yotter
23rd Feb 2015, 16:53
Fairly obviously you're going to feel ill if the cabin fills with smoke. What we're talking about here is the possibility of an insidious effect from long term exposure to conditioned air. I flew for 35 years, long haul and short and so far I'm OK and so are all of my peers - maybe we've been lucky.
Whilst not dismissing the idea, I did feel very dubious when I saw that it was a well known ex BA guy who was making a lot of noise about this. Are we to expect class actions and lawyers drumming up support to sue the airlines for mega bucks?

ILS27LEFT
23rd Feb 2015, 17:10
Each individual reacts in a different way to toxic substances.
Cigarette smoking: not all smokers will develop smoke related cancer or illness.
Living in polluted cities: not all inhabitants will develop pollutants related cancer or diseases.
We, however, do not conclude that smoking or pollution have no adverse effect on human health. Even if only a tiny minority is affected by a toxic element we still need to recognise the problem.
Long term health effects of external factors are often undetected for decades, e.g. asbestos

In the same way not all pilots, crew and passengers will be seriously affected by cabin air toxicity.
Only some will be affected, a minority (hopefully). This is not a sufficient reason to ignore or deny the issue, as airlines and regulators have done until now.
Vast majority of incidents are also not reported and remain unlogged.:mad:

wiggy
23rd Feb 2015, 17:38
ILS....

Are you really completely brainwashed by your employer to the point that you are blind and deaf hence you ignore all those around you telling that there is a problem.

No, Personally like many others I like to keep an open mind. I'm not easily impressed by lobby groups or fancy films either, and turning the volume up to 11 won't help ....

there is more than enough evidence to push for the mandatory introduction of new legislation,

No, sorry, but at the moment there certainly isn't, and shouting about it, getting the media involved or someone producing a film might raise the profile of the problem, it might raise awareness (which is a good thing) but it doesn't actually add to the evidence.

There may well be something to this, there may not be. Yes there should be more research, but at the moment there is nothing like enough evidence to force through a change in legislation or take on the airlines, aircraft makers and the rest of the industry.

Chronus
23rd Feb 2015, 17:45
I must admit I am a bit surprised that the UK coroner has called for action on a matter that was litigated back in 2010 in the Australian Courts namely, the case of East West Airlines Ltd v Turner.
It was then reported that toxic cabin air claims represented a very small percentage of the aviation tort cases currently filed, but the number of toxic cabin air claims filed represents only a fraction of reported fume events. It was predicted that the number of claims could rise in the near future as the public became more aware of the issue, as more research and testing are conducted, and especially if more courts or juries began awarding damages for health problems resulting from exposure to contaminated cabin air.
So here is yet more adverse publicity to contaminate the public`s view of safety in the aviation industry.

Bergerie1
23rd Feb 2015, 17:53
wiggy,
You are right. There is good reason to be concerned but where is the hard evidence required to legislate? And as for the media - forget it!

ShotOne
23rd Feb 2015, 17:53
We're not talking long term exposure to "conditioned air", yotter, but lethal toxins.

"I'm ok and so are all of my peers..." Really? That a very wide claim given the range of issues that have been attributed to aero toxic.

nickp
23rd Feb 2015, 18:30
F6 Hellcat - "The average life of a short haul pilot now is 66 thats if you are lucky...."
Any chance of a source for that statistic please?

A2QFI
23rd Feb 2015, 18:49
I understand that part of the problem is the combustion of oil used in the "Total Loss" systems in turbine bearings. Similar symptoms have been observed in vets and farmers, involved with sheep dips. http://tinyurl.com/dxyhftv

ILS27LEFT
23rd Feb 2015, 19:19
I am not suggesting we should stop flying; I am only hoping that sensors will be installed to clearly establish when, if any, there are instances of toxins going over the thresholds inside the aircraft, nothing else.
We all know that in the vast majority of times the thresholds are not reached, we only need to know what happens during real operations and if thresholds are ever reached. We need real operations data, e.g. 757 would be a surprise I think.
I am sure this is a sporadic problem and not a permanent feature on all flights, however installing sensors should be welcomed by all those involved, especially by the sceptical.
No sensors have been installed so far:ugh:. Why?
No enough evidence? Well, I disagree with those saying evidence is not there. Let's install some sensors on the old 757s, then we see who is right:ugh:

victor tango
23rd Feb 2015, 19:32
Latest on the news just now was the Boeing Dreamliner is much safer as it doesn,t use re-cycled air.

TURIN
23rd Feb 2015, 19:35
As I noted earlier, there appears to be a significantly higher rate of 'fume' events on Rolls powered 757 (and 747) than for Pratt (and GE) - likely due to the more complex lube system required on a 3 spool engine.

Which is odd, because in my experience the rollers are not high oil consumers. :suspect:

I understand that part of the problem is the combustion of oil used in the "Total Loss" systems in turbine bearings.

The only 'total loss' oil system I know was on the RB 162 and the Armstrong Siddeley Viper. Not many about these days. :ok:

Nemrytter
23rd Feb 2015, 19:41
No sensors have been installed so far. Why?Yes they have, there's been some studies that involved fitting sensors to a small number of aircraft. As I mentioned earlier the results showed no dangerous levels of organophosphates.

BRE
23rd Feb 2015, 21:16
@ILS27left
Lufty had a few planes with monitoring equipment flying experimentally. It's been awfully quiet on that front. Curious considering how vocal their cc and fc unions are.
@John Smith
Easiest way is to draw air through a Tenax tube and have it analyzed ex situ by mass spectroscopy. In situ monitoring in s compact box may pose a challenge

Aluminium shuffler
24th Feb 2015, 08:46
Wiggy, I can't help but get the impression you won't believe anything until you experience it yourself unless it is the good news from the industry profiteers. Not a very cautious attitude. I hope for your sake that you don't have to experience the terrible effects of organophosphate poisoning yourself.

Turin, I doubt the amounts of oil loss have anything to do with fume events as the amount of oil vapour needed is small. It's more to do with the location of any leak. These do seem to be transient, rather than continuous, and a few of us have observed they seem to be at certain pressure differentials with the engines at idle, lasting a short time. Most significant leaks will be burnt out the back of the engine, not pushed through the bleed system.

A trial using a detector on a handful of aircraft is not sufficient. All aircraft should have them - there have been documented events of all crew being incapacitated due to fumes (I seem to recall a Scandinavian one not so long ago), and the onset can be subtle, effects being severe by the time they're noticed and perhaps too late in some cases. Filters would also be beneficial.

It can't be expected that the whole world fleet be grounded for occasional transient issues, but detectors and measures to deal with events as they happen are not unreasonable until preventative systems are incorporated, either the retrofit of filtration systems or non-bleed air sources such as the 787 (impractical for retrofit in most cases, I accept). But is it not reasonable to insist all new aircraft models have non-bleed systems, starting with the 787, 350, Max and Neo?

rh200
24th Feb 2015, 09:11
you won't believe anything until you experience it yourself unless it is the good news from the industry profiteers.

And its hard to believe that you don't have a bias when you use words like "Industry profiteers". Considering thats what their business is, I don't see a problem.

A trial using a detector on a handful of aircraft is not sufficient. All aircraft should have them

But is it not reasonable to insist all new aircraft models have non-bleed systems, starting with the 787, 350, Max and Neo?

Its all well and good, but business deals with risk and legalities, not morality. Though myself, I would love to see the things you propose, if it needs to be mandatory, its a government and legislative thing.

Over here its simple, show that the airlines are failing in their duty of care, problem solved. Don't know about the rest of the worlds duty of care legislation though. I suspect if you where successful in one western country, you would get action elsewhere.

wiggy
24th Feb 2015, 11:19
Wiggy, I can't help but get the impression you won't believe anything


Oh I but I do: the facts, just the facts..peer reviewed evidence/research for example...so trot some out on this issue and we can have a proper debate.

OTOH I have a tough time unquestionably "believing" most of what is pumped out by the media, and I'm always have a very hard think about the claims of single issue pressure groups, especially if keeping an issue alive in the public domain is pivotal to their funding.

FullWings
24th Feb 2015, 11:24
I think the problem starts when people start using the word “belief” about what should be a purely scientific/statistical issue. Belief is for religion.

As someone who has operated 20+ years in aircraft with engine bleed systems and (hopefully) has many more left to do, I am definitely concerned and could be said to have “skin in the game”. I have also experienced a major oil smoke/fume event requiring an emergency landing.

I can completely understand why those who suffer unexplained illnesses wish to find out exactly what was responsible. First, this may not be possible - a lot of cancer is like this. Second, what appears from inspection to be the most likely candidate often isn’t. Third, you need enough solid data to draw conclusions - there just doesn’t seem to be enough at the moment.

To take action when you don’t really know what’s wrong is not a scientific or engineering approach that often pays dividends. Yes, I agree that contaminants should be kept to an absolute minimum and would be happy to see filters mandated or no-bleed systems. However, it would be a shame if that in a decade or two after doing that, people are still getting “aerotoxic” symptoms and we are still none the wiser. What happens then?

barit1
24th Feb 2015, 13:02
Here's a data point someone needs to collect:

The DC-8 was certified under old CAR criteria, and engine bleed air could NOT be used directly for cabin pressurization. Instead, bleed was used to spin a turbocompressor, which in turn pumped up clean ambient air for the cabin.

Then in the 80s, the CFM56 conversion/retrofit created the "Super 70". Among other things, the turbocompressors and the old freon-based cooling system were removed, and a/c packs per current FARs were introduced. A perfect back-to-back comparison of cabin pressurization, old (separate flow) vs new (compressor bleed) rules.

It should still be possible to get air quality data.

Pacific Blue
24th Feb 2015, 15:22
Global Cabin Air Quality Executive | Home Page (http://www.gcaqe.org/)

blind pew
24th Feb 2015, 16:22
Pacific Blue noticed that your link doesn't include Balpa although they chaired a symposium several years ago...saw it on Youtube.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the ex CMO of Big Airways going to the CAA, his deputy being promoted and also working for the union?
To those skeptics about it even existing it depends IMHO on the following;
System design.
maintenance
exposure frequency and duration.
Genetics.
Age.
Having not realized until many years afterwards I had two significant periods where I was affected.
The first was 1975 where I was given a week to live by Mr Roger williams who was involved in the first liver transplant.
The second was in the late 80s which I put down at the time to the after effects of malaria.
One has to take into account that many of those ex management (and present) wouldn't have had the same exposure as normal line pilots.
And cynically, one doesn't need a lot of imagination as to the catastrophic consequences if the thousands of aircraft flying have to be modified and the affect on their golden pension packets.

Pacific Blue
24th Feb 2015, 16:25
https://vimeo.com/120375685?from=facebook

To get it to play press the refresh button at the top of the search bar.

KenV
24th Feb 2015, 20:23
seals from the compressors wear down over time and leak oil which is burnt.....


BS. Bleed air is taken form various compression stages BEFORE the combustion chambers. And these stages have VERY little lubricating oil and essentially no "seals" because these are axial flow compressors. You are confusing the dynamics and mechanics of an internal cumbustion engine which is NOTHING like an axial flow turbine engine.

Aluminium shuffler
24th Feb 2015, 21:02
KenV, the compressors have bearings which leak oil mist into the airstream that is then bled through the pneumatic system, including the aircon and press systems. The vapour is not combusted, but bleed air temperatures are far higher than what is needed to cause TCP to decompose into the organophosphates. You are quite right that this is not exhaust gasgetting into the cabin and cockpit, but the bleed air is most certainly contaminated with engine/APU oil. Skydrol is another source of contamination, which can be caused by overfilling the hyd reservoirs (which a re pressurised by the pneu system to prevent foaming of the fluid). Had that too (smells sweet)...

Nemrytter
24th Feb 2015, 22:14
but the bleed air is most certainly contaminated with engine/APU oil.Which makes it puzzling why the few experimental studies thus far have found nothing significant inside the cabin.

Yankee Whisky
24th Feb 2015, 22:23
I think that this is blown out of proportion to reality and the occurrence of real sickness, or death, could also be influence by where pilots live.
Breathing toxic air is part of city life and I am 83 (including the toxic fumes I breathed during 8000 flights in power planes). Granted I am deaf as a doorpost, though ,
from jet and reciprocating engine noise !
I know several older pilots who have flown with airlines all their working lives and they are reaching ripe old ages o 80 and 90 plus................so what is the argument ?
If a pilot is allergic to fumes generated in a particular aircraft type, then he/she should change aircraft or get a desk job or, maybe, become a lawyer in a polluted city.;)

ShotOne
24th Feb 2015, 22:41
Frankly, YW would you accept that logic process in respect of ANY other safety issue? You might know several women who met Jimmy Saville and weren't raped by him ...which supposedly makes him innocent according to your reasoning. And the issue is nothing whatever to do with allergy. Where did you get that?

rh200
25th Feb 2015, 00:36
would you accept that logic process in respect of ANY other safety issue?

In general the risk with safety issues are done according to risk analysis. There is no absolute safe. Its just some issues can be emotive, or made to be emotive for various reasons rightly or wrongly, to effect a cause.

As such, then this can have the effect of someone taking action on a cause. This may or may not be warranted. Sadly in the case of taking action on a problem when it is not statistical warranted, that then takes resources away from where it could be better utilized.

Wunwing
25th Feb 2015, 02:33
I suspect how or if the fumes effect you badly are genetic or similar and may be coupled with other exposures like radiation, chemicals etc? Same for many other pollutants.

My father died at 96 with no lung disease. From age 14 to 60 he was daily exposed to high levels of asbestos with no problems but most of his workmates died in the 50s from lung related diseases.

Just because my father was OK doesnt mean asbestos is safe does it? I certainly dont intend to go anywhere near asbestos just because my Father didn't die from asbestosis.

Aluminium shuffler
25th Feb 2015, 09:30
Wow, the number of people posting "it hasn't affected me, so it doesn't exist" is staggering. Egocentric, much?

KenV
25th Feb 2015, 15:47
KenV, the compressors have bearings which leak oil mist into the airstream that is then bled through the pneumatic system, including the aircon and press systems.


Modern turbo fan engines have two shafts (three on many RR turbo fans). The power turbine and the compressor turbines share the same shaft. The shaft is supported by bearings. The shaft bearings do NOT "leak oil mist into the airstream". There is simply no airpath for that to happen.


The vapour is not combusted, but bleed air temperatures are far higher than what is needed to cause TCP to decompose into the organophosphates
If it were remotely true that the engine oil "decompose into the organophosphates" at normal operating temperatures, the oil would need VERY frequent changes. That is simply NOT true.


You are quite right that this is not exhaust gasgetting into the cabin and cockpit, but the bleed air is most certainly contaminated with engine/APU oil.
ONLY if there has been some sort of serious internal failure.


Skydrol is another source of contamination, which can be caused by overfilling the hyd reservoirs (which a re pressurised by the pneu system to prevent foaming of the fluid). Had that too (smells sweet)...
It would require a serious SERIES of failures for hydraulic fluid to get into the bleed system that feeds the environmental control system. Bleed air is drawn from differnt ports and different stages of compression for the various functions it is used for. The environmental control system and the engine systems don't share a common bleed port.

Bigpants
25th Feb 2015, 16:17
I flew the old model B757 with BA from 1996-1999 and they did sometimes blow oil vapour into the flight deck on start up. It appeared briefly as a puff of blue ish smoke or vapour, smelt of oil and then dispersed.

The exact route under which it could reach the flight deck is not something I can state but it did occur.

The other point at which pilots might get exposed to oil vapour with some types was on walk round when a little oil vapour would waft out the back of an engine.

If pilots or crew were already sensitised to Organo Phosphates then a whiff of oil vapour might trigger a reaction.

KenV
25th Feb 2015, 16:18
Wow, the number of people posting "it hasn't affected me, so it doesn't exist" is staggering. Egocentric, much?


IF this "aerotoxic syndrome" were REMOTELY true, aircrew would be exposed to much higher levels than the general public. There is no evidence whatsoever that aircrew are suffering illness and/or dying at higher rates than the rest of the population.

And on the subject of "egocentric", what about the guy that insists HE knows "aerotoxic syndrome" is a real and present danger despite the dirth of hard data to support this myth and in the face of LOTS of contrary data. The folks pushing this agenda are often the same ones pushing the "immunizations cause autism" agenda and sound remarkably a lot like the folks who insist the Apollo moon landings were an elaborate hoax.

KenV
25th Feb 2015, 16:26
I flew the old model B757 with BA from 1996-1999 and they did sometimes blow oil vapour into the flight deck on start up. It appeared briefly as a puff of blue ish smoke or vapour, smelt of oil and then dispersed.


This occasional oil smell thing on start up is almost always the result of recent maintenance on the environmental control system. Once the oil residues deposited by the maintenance action are swept away on start up, that's the end of it.

karlkasper
25th Feb 2015, 17:27
I wouldn't normally get involved in these discussions but I have to reply to Kenv's statement of when we get the oil smell(exhaust gas smell)in the fd. I'm a long term captain on 320 series and this smell occour on 20-30 percent of all start-up performed on this type. Often 2-3rd sector of a 4 sector day with no maintainence performed during the day. This is a known occurrence to all Airbus pilots. Probably on other types as well.
Another common cause for encounters with "the dirty sock" smell is overfilling of oil in the apu. Common occurrence with any Airbus operaters and known to technical staff.
These are the facts. A lot of other statements in this discussion would require further investigation. Let's hope that happens:hmm:

seagull
25th Feb 2015, 17:28
KenV
Keep dreaming that it doesn't exist!
Do you know how engine oils are tested so that its ok in case of human contact??
Let me enlighten you. The oil is spoon fed to chickens at room temperature!!
When was the last time your engine oil was at room temp when flying??
This was the answer from a certain oil manufacturer 9 years ago when we had a fumes event.:ugh:
We still await our reply from the 22 different people that were spoken to at the company about this event!!
ITS ALL ABOUT COST.....

Ahernar
25th Feb 2015, 18:34
If the engine temp is lower than the point when oil degradation starts (and it is ,logically , otherwise planes would top up tonnes of oil at every stop ) then the hot oil is the very same with the one at room temp . Water is water at 20C and at 80C but the hot one is harder to spoon fed to live specimens in order to test it's toxicity.

And yes it's all about cost , otherwise we would have ejection seats and 10 times the ticket prices .

Mac the Knife
25th Feb 2015, 19:01
Gotta agree with KenV.

Organophosphates are all around us, as DNA, RNA and various commonly used pesticides. We all of us have varying levels of a variety of organophosphates - mostly from pesticides.

Chronic medium level exposure certainly creates problems (agricultural workers are the most at risk), but data on the effects of chronic low or very-low level exposure is very hard to separate from random noise.

The answer to finding out whether Aerotoxic Syndrome is real is proper scientific study and there seems to be a dearth of that.

S'easy - take new starting airstaff, get a good history (esp. diet and gardening etc., etc.) and measure their levels. Repeat after 6-12-18 months.

Put a cabin-air sampler in suspect/all aircraft and check accumulated readings weekly or monthly.

Correlate with hours/aircraft etc. and within a year or two you'll have a proper scientific answer instead of anecdotes and speculation - which mean nothing at all.

safelife
25th Feb 2015, 22:25
Quite a couple of german airline cabins were sampled for TCP and almost all tested positive, even newer airframes. 737 and A320.

tdracer
26th Feb 2015, 01:42
Source?
Or hearsay?

lomapaseo
26th Feb 2015, 04:12
Quite a couple of german airline cabins were sampled for TCP and almost all tested positive, even newer airframes. 737 and A320.

Not a surprise ... try it on a busy street corner.

What we need is a portable detector that we can pin to our clothes everyday. Now if only we knew what to do with the readings afterwards ......

Aluminium shuffler
26th Feb 2015, 09:09
The scant few official studies have been tiny and carried out by authorities with the same attitude and vested interests as KenV, with a coverup the outcome. Everything Ken has said on the last page is incorrect. TCP decomposes at between 80 and 90oC, bleed air temperatures are in excess of 200. Oil from the front compressor bearings can escape the seals into the airflow before the bleed valves. As for the hydraulic contamination, it is easily possible - you only need the engineers to be in the habit of overfilling the reservoirs (as was the case at my employer until memos started whizzing around about the issue) and a slightly leaky check valve and the fluid can seep into the pneumatic manifold. As I said, I've had that, and more than once.

This is a real issue, and only those profiting from others' illness are going to deny it.

The small sample in Germany (six aircraft, I believe) that was referred to was done by German media. They arguably have an interest in a crisis story, so it is debatable how unbiased their study was too, but I recall they detected organophosphates on all six aircraft, including new A320s and 737s.
I agree that a proper scientific study is needed, but not just a small scale one set up by a party determined to bury the matter - a very wide and large study by a truly independent organisation with no vested interests.

Nemrytter
26th Feb 2015, 10:18
The scant few official studies have been tiny and carried out by authorities with the same attitude and vested interests as KenV, with a coverup the outcome.Define 'official study'. Who counts as an official? Because it sounds like in your mind anyone who is an official has a vested interest. Handy, it means you can automatically discount all their work.
TCP decomposes at between 80 and 90oC, bleed air temperatures are in excess of 200.Prove it. All the documentation I can find suggests that TCP degrades above ~300C.
For example: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290861/scho0809bquj-e-e.pdf
The small sample in Germany (six aircraft, I believe) that was referred to was done by German media. They arguably have an interest in a crisis story, so it is debatable how unbiased their study was too, but I recall they detected organophosphates on all six aircraft, including new A320s and 737s.You would detect organophosphates standing outside the aircraft too - they're in the atmosphere anyway.
As has been said multiple times already in this thread: It's not the detection that's important, it's the amount that's detected and - to my knowledge - no harmful amounts have been detected in a correctly functioning aircraft. If you have actual proof of harmful levels of TCP/organophosphates (i.e: Not just hearsay or journalist talk) then please post it.

Ahernar
26th Feb 2015, 10:23
House of Lords - Science and Technology - Fifth Report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/121/12107.htm)


4.38 Rolls-Royce stated that all current TCP used in the formulation of aviation lubricants contained far less than 0.1% TOCP and that, in fully formulated oils, TOCP was at practically undetectable parts-per-billion levels (p 271). ExxonMobil noted that jet engine oils formulated with TCP[<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/121/12107.htm#note57">57] are not classified as dangerous according to the toxicological criteria defined in the Dangerous Substances Directive (p 232).
4.39 Calculations by Airbus Industrie (Q 461 and refined in subsequent correspondence) showed that the worst-case scenario of the total discharge of an engine's lubricant into the engine would result in about 0.4 kg of oil passing into the cabin ventilation systems. Assuming that the oil contained 3% TCP, of which 0.1% was TOCP, the peak cabin atmosphere TOCP level would be about 0.025 mg/m3, reducing as a result of normal ventilation thereafter. The peak level would be a quarter of the workplace limit of 0.1 mg/m3 (and less than a tenth of the emergency workplace limit of 0.3 mg/m3). Contamination at much lower levels would result in visible smoke and odour which would normally result in the crew switching off the ventilation feed from the affected engine.


Of course the concerned people should try to gather more data but also should publish also the quantity detected .Simply detecting the stuff is of no importance since quantities barely detectable are not dangerous .Also TCP is NOT TOCP and the toxicity of one is very different fom the other

Pacific Blue
26th Feb 2015, 10:44
Now a recent cabin crew members death is being linked to OP poisoning:

Questions remain over air steward's death - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2015-02-25/questions-remain-over-air-stewards-death/)

Aluminium shuffler
26th Feb 2015, 11:35
And so we go round in circles, the deniers saying "prove it", when the only people with the resources to study it refuse to do so without any given reason, claiming there is no evidence of a problem, and yet with a very heavy financial reason for denying the issue. Asking a line pilot to prove this is ridiculous, but there is plenty of evidence to the open minded that objective and large scale testing is needed. Asking individuals with no resources and no biochemistry PHDs to prove things, citing their lack of proof of the problem as concrete proof of a lack of a problem is as infantile as it is disingenuous.

FullWings
26th Feb 2015, 13:43
Much of what we are seeing happening stems from the quite understandable desire to find out, if you became unwell, what made you unwell. It is much more difficult to do this for an individual, than it is to make statistical pronouncements about a population. Unless there is a bullet hole or something really obvious, you can only really guess or assign probabilities from the millions of possible causes, the most likely of which may be <0.1% of the total.

At the moment, there doesn’t appear to be any data which shows a significant difference between aircrew and the general population in terms of “aerotoxic symptoms”. So far, tests on board aircraft have shown little evidence of contamination above what you’d find in the general environment. None of this means that there isn’t a problem, just that with the current data we can’t draw any conclusions. Hopefully, in the near future, the datasets will be expanded enabling more refined methods to be used.

Supposing tomorrow the engine/airframe manufacturers and the airlines unanimously decided that for PR purposes, they’d fit filters, etc. Wouldn’t that be a great result? In some ways, yes, as you could cross 'TOCP poisoning from the bleed air’ off the list of worries when you go flying. Would it cure “aerotoxity”? Who knows? We don’t know what causes it (or if it exists) in the first place. The cure could be a complete placebo. In the meantime all the research and publicity will go somewhere else because the problem has been fixed.

It’s bad science when you start taking action without some kind of significant proof. It’s bad in engineering terms too. Even from a CRM point of view, it’s not a good idea. Look at the recent TransAsia crash, there was some “belief” in the cockpit that the left engine wasn’t working, even though the FDR shows the right one had actually failed - it seems that “belief” was stronger than instrument indications that day and they ended up shutting down the good engine too. Most of us who fly draw back in horror from such a scenario, so why do some feel the need to accept inadequate data and faulty logic elsewhere? Maybe because it’s an emotive subject and keeping objectivity is very difficult...?

Ian W
26th Feb 2015, 17:19
It is simple to blame poorly maintained engines and the potential fumes from them being fed into the cabin as bleed air. However, they are not the only source of chemicals that could affect people who are sensitive to them. There are many VOCs given off by the plastics in seats and cabin trim and the various adhesives used. These will vary as the fittings in the aircraft age are repaired and replaced, and may be more apparent in aircraft at 8000ft pressure than they would be testing for them on the ground.

Some people are extremely sensitive to some compounds - people with peanut allergies can be affected by nuts just in the same room. So it may not be a simple check the bleed air approach that is needed. Obviously, there may be some cases where on one flight a whole crew is affected where it is obvious it is something -on that flight- but it could be the wrong or too much chemical in the lavatory system or a disinfectant chemical used by the cleaners just as much as the bleed air.

It does look as if bleed air is getting the blame as it is easy to blame. There needs to be far more careful research. It is a real problem for some people, but taking the wrong action in an attempt to solve it will not help them.

KenV
26th Feb 2015, 19:02
This is getting ridiculous. At the risk of continuing the ridiculous I will venture a reply.

The scant few official studies have been tiny and carried out by authorities with the same attitude and vested interests as KenV, with a coverup the outcome
Vested interest?!
Absolute BS. I work in the aircraft maintenance and mod industry. If anything, I would have a “vested interest” in confirming this myth because it would send lots of work and LOTS of money my way to “fix” this alleged-problem.

Coverup?!
Absolute BS. The same folks who “coverup” this myth are the same folks who “coverup” the “immunizations cause autism” myth. The latter myth was proven and admitted to be a willful hoax using false data.

TCP decomposes at between 80 and 90oC, bleed air temperatures are in excess of 200.
Absolute BS If this were true, the lubricants would “decompose” while sitting in the oil sumps with the equipment not running. And that’s utter nonsense.

Oil from the front compressor bearings can escape the seals into the airflow before the bleed valves.
ONLY true if the seals and other parts fail. And even then, the seals are at atmospheric pressure while the compressors are by definition at higher pressure. Oil can only seep into the airflow when the engine is shut down and would then be immediately blown out at start up. That’s why the pilots on this forum report an occasional puff of smoke at start up.

you only need the engineers to be in the habit of overfilling the (hydraulic) reservoirs and a slightly leaky check valve and the fluid can seep into the pneumatic manifold.
Once again, multiple failures are required, including human AND mechanical. And even then, the hydraulic reservoir is at lower pressure than the pneumatic manifold when the system is running. Hydraulic fluid can only seep into the manifold after shut down, and this is immediately blown away at start up, causing the occasional “sweet” or “dirty socks” smell at start up.

I recall they detected organophosphates on all six aircraft, including new A320s and 737s.
Meaningless drivel. Take an air sample in a hospital operating room and you’ll detect organophosphates.

there is plenty of evidence to the open minded that objective and large scale testing is needed.
Total BS. A small scale random sampling can determine if a problem exists with well over 4 sigma confidence. If a problem is detected a larger testing regime can properly define the extent and nature of the problem.

And BTW, being “open minded” and “objective” goes BOTH ways. Now in your case you have decided, with essentially zero hard evidence, all of the following:
1. A serious health problem exists
2. Vested interests exist that deny the problem
3. Vested interests exist that prevent serious study of the problem
4. A “coverup”oexists involving the following:
a. Multiple industries
b. Multiple levels of government
c. Multiple governmental and industry agencies
d. Health agencies and experts
e. Multiple media outlets

Is just ONE of the above (much less all of the above) indicative of someone who is “open minded” and “objective”? Really??!

Now let’s look at the bigger picture:
1. IF this problem were real, air crew who have near constant exposure would be getting sick in significant numbers. That simply is not happening.

2. Submarines use the same lubricants in equipment with the same or similar operating conditions. But unlike airplanes whose atmosphere is exchanged several times per hour, submarines operate for weeks or months with an essentially 100% closed environment. IF this problem were real, dozens or hundreds of sailors would get sick with each deployment. That simply is not happening.

3. The International Space Station also uses these lubricants and their environment has been closed for well over a DECADE. IF this problem were real astronauts/cosmonauts would be getting mighty sick. That simply is not happening.

KenV
26th Feb 2015, 19:14
There are many VOCs given off by the plastics in seats and cabin trim and the various adhesives used. These will vary as the fittings in the aircraft age are repaired and replaced, and may be more apparent in aircraft at 8000ft pressure than they would be testing for them on the ground.Hmmmm. Numerous studies have shown that the adhesives, paints, plastics, etc used in homes and building give off far more VOCs and other pollutants than those in aircraft. Further, the atmosphere in an aircraft, unlike a home, is completely exchanged several times per hour, so the pollutants cannot build up. Homes (especially modern "green" homes built to tight thermal standards) have FAR greater VOC concentrations and air pollution than aircraft. And even greater than most polluted city air.


Some people are extremely sensitive to some compounds - people with peanut allergies can be affected by nuts just in the same room.Glad you brought that up. Several years ago airlines stopping serving peanuts for that very reason. Yet, they are serving peanuts again!! How can that be? Simple. First, the risk itself was overblown. Second, the high air exchange rate in pressurized aircraft make even the small risk vanishingly smaller.

Croqueteer
26th Feb 2015, 19:16
:hmm:As I said earlier, when I lost my kidneys, the consultant who is one of Britains top renal docs, Said "Have you been in contact with oil?" He had no knowledge of aircraft problems, so regardless what the doubters say, there could be a clue there.

KenV
26th Feb 2015, 19:33
Hmmm. What kind of "oil"? Crude oil? Whale oil? Engine oil? French fry oil? Skin moisturizer oil? Turbo machinery oil?

What kind of "contact"? Immersion? Occasional dermal contact? Ingested? Inhaled? Combination of the above?

I'd say there is no "clue" here at all, but a jumping to conclusions.

rh200
26th Feb 2015, 20:26
There are two streams for outcomes in this argument.

1) Is there a large scale problem affecting significant percentage of the population, aircrew or general.

The answer is most likely no, but maybe its sitting below the noise.

2) Is there a problem that can affect a statistical insignificant amount of the population.

Very possible, but what else in our every day lives don't. Every day people have severe reactions to all sorts of things. So the question is do we we bother to do anything about it if that is the case.

Like every thing, its a cost benefit analysis. What is the cost of installing filter for example? Anyone have an idea on here?

Cost of modifications, certification, upkeep etc. What loss of efficiency if any and fuel burn. You don't install anything in a system without affecting its efficiency, no matter how small.

Mac the Knife
26th Feb 2015, 20:49
Think You're Allergic to Penicillin? Maybe Not ? WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/news/20141107/think-youre-allergic-to-penicillin-maybe-not)

"Many Americans may check the box "allergic to penicillin (http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-3781-penicillin+g+benzathine+im.aspx)" on medical forms, but new research suggests that most of them are mistaken.

Follow-up testing revealed that most people who believed they were allergic to penicillin were actually not allergic to the antibiotic, according to two new studies.

In one study, 94 percent of 384 people who believed they were allergic to penicillin tested negative for penicillin allergy (http://www.webmd.com/allergies/default.htm).

And in the second study, penicillin skin testing was performed on 38 people who believed they were allergic to the antibiotic, and all of them tested negative for such an allergy.

The studies were to be presented Friday at the annual meeting of American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI), in Atlanta.

"A large number of people in our study who had a history of penicillin allergy were actually not allergic," Dr. Thanai Pongdee, lead author of the first study, said in an ACAAI news release.

"They may have had an unfavorable response to penicillin at some point in the past, such as hives (http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/guide/skin-conditions-hives-urticaria-angioedema) or swelling, but they did not demonstrate any evidence of penicillin allergy at the current time," Pongdee explained.

But such misconceptions might affect treatment. Once told that the patient thought he or she was allergic to penicillin, "their doctors prescribed different medications prior to surgery," Pongdee said. Those alternative antibiotics that may be more toxic and/or expensive, the ACAAI noted."


PS: An allergy is NOT the same as a toxic reaction

:(

Hydromet
26th Feb 2015, 21:16
Extract from today's Sydney Morning Herald obituary for Prof. Christopher Winder:
...he was particularly interested in contaminated air on aircraft. Despite being constantly criticised, he dedicated more than two decades to researching and eventually he proved the existence of "Aerotoxic syndrome" in flight crew...

ILS27LEFT
26th Feb 2015, 22:04
"The government's position is that "normally" aircraft air is less contaminated than air "in many work environments such as office buildings".
The Department of Transport notes pilots and cabin crew have complained of ill-health but says a review by the independent Committee on Toxicity in 2007 "did not establish a link between cabin air and pilot ill health, but nor did it rule it out".
Professor Clement Furlong is a Professor of Medicine and Genome Sciences at the University of Washington. He gave evidence to the Committee and was puzzled by their conclusion.

"I think, as the airlines say, (cabin air) is generally safe," he told ITV News "but when it's not, it's really not. If you have a fume event or leaky seals and Tricresyl Phosphate (an organophospate compound) or other compounds come into the cabin it can cause permanent damage to individuals."


and:

it is obvious that IATA members remain unaware of the full scientific facts pertaining to this issue.“

OPEN LETTER

Professor David Coggon OBE, MA, PhD, DM, FRCP, FFOM, FFPH, F Med Sci
Chairman
The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment
Food Standards Agency
Aviation House
125 Kingsway
London WC2B 6NH

16 February 2015

Dear David,

Contamination of the Breathing Air Supply – Passengers: children, infants and the foetus

Further to our recent exchange of communications I have been looking at your presentation to the IATA 2014 Health Conference and reading a copy, I understand all members of the COT Committee have received the volume, of Captain John Hoyte’s book.

From your presentation I note your comment that:

“Patterns of illness that have been reported following fume events do not conform with what would be expected from exposure to triaryl phosphates
•Over-exposure to tricresyl phosphates would be expected to cause delayed peripheral neuropathy

Given the peer reviewed papers, especially from Prof Clem Furlong, that have been forwarded to the COT, I was surprised that the only stated consequence of over exposure to tricresyl phosphate was “delayed peripheral neuropathy”. You will be aware of Vyvyan Howard’s recent comments, attached, on this issue and indeed those of Professor Furlong:

“The issue of the disruption of gene expression, especially in the brain, by TAP exposures is another crucial area of research that needs to be examined. It is highly undesirable to disrupt the brain metabolism of pilots who are responsible for the safety of the aircrew and passengers; clearly, it is undesirable to disrupt the brain metabolism of any occupants of an aircraft. It is known that exposure to OP insecticides disrupts gene expression in mouse brain”

Additionally, reading Captain Hoyte’s book reminded me of the very real limitations of the Cranfield Study, you will know one of the peer reviewers is a COT Committee member, which formed the bedrock of your presentation.

Sadly, especially from the foregoing, it is obvious that IATA members remain unaware of the full scientific facts pertaining to this issue. Which is a great shame since they could then take heed of the sage comments of Sir Austin Bradford Hill and begin to take some appropriate executive action:

“All scientific work is incomplete, whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time”.

Hill, Austin Bradford. “The environment and disease: association or causation?” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58: 295-300. (1965)

Croqueteer
26th Feb 2015, 22:15
:=Kenv, your mind is obviously closed. As they say in Scotland, "There's nane sae blind as them that winny see"

Nemrytter
27th Feb 2015, 09:17
And so we go round in circles, the deniers saying "prove it"...These comments sound very much like standard conspiracy theorists, the ones who deny the moon landings took place or think that 9/11 was done by the CIA. I think that on this subject such behaviour is very damaging and serves only to discredit those who actually do want to properly examine aerotoxic syndrome.
, claiming there is no evidence of a problem, Then please provide some, any, experimental evidence that there is a problem.
Asking a line pilot to prove this is ridiculous, but there is plenty of evidence to the open minded that objective and large scale testing is neededWhich makes it all the more strange that the only people (that I've heard) who think there is a problem are airline pilots. Everyone else (those who are actually qualified to study the problem, for instance) seems to think that either there is no problem or that there is not enough evidence.
Asking individuals with no resources and no biochemistry PHDs to prove things, citing their lack of proof of the problem as concrete proof of a lack of a problem is as infantile as it is disingenuous.The only time, as far as I can see, that anyone asked you to 'prove it' in this thread was me: Asking for you to show evidence of the degeneration temperature of oils. I don't have a biochemistry PhD yet it took me (at a conservative estimate) 3 minutes on google to find that you were incorrect.
If you're not even prepared to do such basic research then why should anyone listen to your opinions on the subject?:ugh:

flynerd
27th Feb 2015, 09:56
To me, this whole issue is a beat-up by those wanting to get a golden handshakes on full pay and never need fly again, or to blame their own physical problems on something other than what they really know they did wrongly ( tobacco, alcohol and worse).

I have never experienced any toxic fumes onboard an aircraft in 50+ years as slf on a regular scheduled flight, RAAF, USN or as a general aviator.

I _have_ noticed the smell of fuel/oils around aircraft prior to entering. The parking areas are normally rife with spilt oils, and yes, they can be smelled. Maybe this is the area that should be concentrated on. Clean up the spills. Just look around any parking area airside.

wiggy
27th Feb 2015, 11:49
Nemrytter

...These comments sound very much like standard conspiracy theorists, the ones who deny the moon landings took place or think that 9/11 was done by the CIA. I think that on this subject such behaviour is very damaging and serves only to discredit those who actually do want to properly examine aerotoxic syndrome .


My emphasis, and I agree completely.

Aluminium shuffler
27th Feb 2015, 12:38
That's quite an accusation, flynerd, and quite wrong. I have had numerous events of the "sock smell", which is oil passing through the aircon system. I have had one significant event, odourless, where the cabin crew and passengers were affected but not us in the cockpit. The cabin crew had symptoms which would be consistent with CO poisoning or hypoxia, though neither was the case, and within ten minutes of a midday take off, 80% or so of the 160ish pax were asleep; distinctly not normal. We diverted into one of the London airports and the crew were sent for arterial blood tests. However, the hospital only looked for CO levels as they (and the crew) had no knowledge of aerotoxic syndrome. So, I know first hand that this is a very real issue. Evidently, there was a contamination event in the right pack, but not the left that feeds the cockpit.

To my knowledge, I have no ill effects of the exposures I've had, but how would I know? Many of the issues I and others attribute to ageing and fatigue could be, at least in part, a reaction to these compounds. Neither do I have any desire to stop flying, at least for the foreseeable future.

Best that a proper study is conducted to find out that continue with a suspected issue, no?

FullWings
27th Feb 2015, 12:46
Kenv, your mind is obviously closed. As they say in Scotland, "There's nane sae blind as them that winny see"
I’m sure Kenv will be along with a reply but my thoughts on that quote would be: “what do you call someone who sees things that aren’t there?”

There is plenty of rhetoric but precious little evidence, none that appears to stand up to any kind of rigorous test. You might as well roll dice to determine what’s going on. Saying “It’s obvious! Can’t you see what’s happening!” then failing to provide scientific proof is not a way to endear yourself to the more academically-minded part of the community. Especially when abuse starts being put about because people with a brain want something more concrete than “It just does, OK!?”...

BRE
27th Feb 2015, 13:51
I tend to be on the better safe than sorry side of the debate but this made me think (even if it is published by an interested side):

Kabinenluft-Studie jetzt auf Lufthansa-Kurzstrecke - Meldungen - Lufthansa Group (http://www.lufthansagroup.com/de/presse/meldungen/view/archive/2014/november/20/article/3354.html)

- mobile measurement box was rotated around A380 fleet, will now be used on 44 A321 flights (-> why A321 only?)
- mobile box was developed jointly by LH Technik and MHH (one of the top medical schools in the country)
- no contamination exceeding any limits found after 800 h abord A380s
- did detect TCP, but can distinguish between the 10 possible isomeres, never detected any of the six neurotoxic o-TCP at any time with a detection limit of 1 ng/m³
- box seems to be able to do real time analysis as article mentions events like taxiing behind after aircraft or someone using a cleaning wipe can be detected
- box monitors 200 cabin air parameters, some through continuos logging, some by ex-situ lab analysis
- box installed in cockpit as one common air supply (maybe true for A380 but what about other models?)


Now I just wish for this box to be installed in more planes and more different types, and maybe a fume event to be simulated by intentional overfilling or installing faulty seals.

KenV
27th Feb 2015, 17:03
:=Kenv, your mind is obviously closed. As they say in Scotland, "There's nane sae blind as them that winny see"


Hysterical blindness is a funny thing. The "Apollo was a hoax" crowd, the "9-11 attacks were done by the government" crowd, "immunizations cause autism" crowd, the "breast implants cause systemic disease" crowd, the "breast implants cause auto immune disease" crowd, and apparently now the "aerotoxic" crowd choose to be blind to mountains of data that DO exist which refute their claims, while simultaneously seeing all sorts of things that do not exist. (Such as diseases, deaths, toxic substances, high concentrations of toxins, mechanical failure modes, system failure modes, industry-government collusion, corporate conspiracies, manipulative vested interests, massive cover ups, etc, etc.)

The worst thing about these false scares is that it desensitizes lots of people to the possibility of a real danger, i.e. the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. It seems the scare mongers have chosen to be blind to that, too.

lomapaseo
27th Feb 2015, 17:29
As long as there is no meaningful scientific data that safety engineers can work from, there will only be more meaningless studies published for discussion.

"when all is said and done, more will be said then done"

Pacific Blue
27th Feb 2015, 23:03
BA chief Willie Walsh insists 'cabin air is safe' - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2015-02-27/ba-chief-willie-walsh-insists-cabin-air-is-safe/)

NOMANSNEMESIS
28th Feb 2015, 20:40
In response to some of the previous posts, specifically Kenv.

In reference to the heading of this post, Smoke and Mirrors, there has been some careful misdirection involved with this whole problem.

On the statement of lack of people suffering from this potent and ghastly Industrial Disease, I have eight friends from my previous company all suffering from baffling Neurologic diseases, all have generally the same symptoms. They are all diagnosed with different complaints (MS, PTSD, etc), and in some cases other tests have confirmed misdiagnosis. Due to mis diagnosis they sit reasonably financially secure with company insurance plans. They cannot mention Aerotoxic Syndrome for fear of having their insurance payments revoked.

I have two more with lung damage, both were very fit, their lung specialist do not know how they can have their lung problems as fit non smokers.

I have two friends dead, one is Richard Westgate, his early Inquest results are well known by now. The second dead friend (at 50) was not tested due to his grieving family wanting a quick funeral. I would also wish to point out that in the case of the Richard, his Coroners findings are not scaremongering or even just letters. BA and CAA have been served with a section 28 Order to prevent future loss of human life life. They have to comply with this order.

I also have many more "new" friends with the same neurologic problems and near identical symptoms.

I have also been sent a publication on the deaths of current active BA crew, somewhere between 23 and 27 dead during 2014, these are in all age brackets, not just the old ones. You can all find this at Angelfleet, some have stated this is a normal death rate, other research has shown it to be ten times normal.

The identical symptoms most of us suffer developed without contact or knowledge from any of the others.

In some previous posts, ToCP is mentioned. This is the most known toxic compound of the ten Isomers of TCP. This Isomer has been reduced in turbine engine oils to very small percentages. This is why most Airline affiliated testing shows no results.

The other Isomers are, however, also known to be similarly toxic. The toxicity of these in more specifically to the "Higher Cognitive functions". These compounds have been tested on rats and chickens that don't have higher cognitive functions.

There was some mention of these compounds being on Submarines and the ISS, as far as I know Jet engines and bleed air do not feature on these vehicles.

There is also a comment on the unavailability of detection systems. There is a German made real time system that can be fitted to any aircraft that shows any hydrocarbon content in bleed air. this is all the detection needed to allow a faulty bleed source to be turned off. i would ask all on these forums to ask themselves why these systems are not fitted?

A second detection system is your white shirt. I purchased a new one, wore it on one flight, then sent it to Prohealth in Holland for an Organophosphate test. It came back with a positive result for several OPs. Unless M&S is now selling OP laced shirts, it came from the Aircraft.

I sit typing this response totally exhausted, I have numb hands, the bad stomach I have had for seven years, Nystagmus and many other Aerotoxic Syndrome/OPIDN symptoms as do my collection of gassed friends.

I am also in the process of building a large legal case, also as are my gassed friends. Some will argue "Its all about the money" etc, I used to enjoy my global flying job, I am now left unable to travel, even as a passenger, unable to even visit the Airport without onset of symptoms. I also have $550,000US in lost pay, will lose $3.5M in career earnings in total. I have a company insurance scheme that is blocked by a very vindictive Airline ($150,000 owed).

Lastly, I would like to offer some pearls of wisdom as a former Captain/Instructor/CRM Instructor specifically for the Captains and wannabee Captains reading this.

You have an obligation to deal with any incipient/perceived threat using firm and decisive action. The thoughts contained in some preceding posts of "There is no problem" are defined in CRM terms as "Dangerous Attitudes", they are reportable actions in terms of defining those unsuitable to Fly and should result in a loss of flying status for all those involved.

BRE
1st Mar 2015, 07:08
@NOMANSNEMESIS

Thank you for posting your sobering story! I wish you luck in your quest! Have you considered contacting German unions VC (pilots) and UFO (CC)? I am sure they have more detailed information on the testing LH has been carrying out.

I am confused about your comment that your former colleagues cannot mention aerotoxic syndrome for fear of losing their insurance. Sick and disability insurance I am aware of does not come with a gag clause, and if you can prove the disability is work induced, the payout is higher / longer lasting rather than less.

wiggy
1st Mar 2015, 07:52
NOMANSNEMISIS

I'm genuinely sorry to hear about your plight, but can I ask a question some of the numbers being quoted:

I have also been sent a publication on the deaths of current active BA crew, somewhere between 23 and 27 dead during 2014, these are in all age brackets, not just the old ones. You can all find this at Angelfleet, some have stated this is a normal death rate, other research has shown it to be ten times normal.


In order to make any sense or draw any conclusions from those numbers and claims we need to know:

1.By "current active BA crew" do they mean just pilots ( about 4000), just cabin cabin crew (about 15000) or all flying crew ( around 19000).

2. Causes of death? Are these 23-27 all down to neurological disorders or are Angelfleet including deaths due to the likes of road traffic accidents, suicide, heart attacks, cancer, and/or other nasty illnesses that may well not be "aerotoxic" related but take their toll on all communities.

3. some have stated this is a normal death rate, other research has shown it to be ten times normal.

...well which is it? I believe the death rate for that BA cohort and the death rate across the general population should be fairly easy to establish, though no doubt with a plus/minus, and the odd mention of standard deviations thrown in..it shouldn't be a matter of opinion.

This is one for the actuaries but to me 23-27 deaths (all tragic for all involved) across a community of 15000 or 19000 18-65 year olds doesn't sound like 10 times the "normal" rate. BTW we certainly didn't have 23-27 deaths in the active BA pilot group last year.

GrassRootsFlying
1st Mar 2015, 08:58
Re the ' sock smell'

I was always told ( on the 757 ) that the smell came from the interior honeycomb liner on the inside of the engine cowling particularly during a full power take off when the blades flexed and scraped the honeycomb. Was this a load of BS from management. The same management also denied for years the effect of not having noise cancelling headphones.
IIRC the source of air to the cockpit came via a different route to the pax cabin air.

zlin77
1st Mar 2015, 09:37
Two areas cause the problems, 1..Engine bleed air, 2..APU Bleed air, I might be wrong but I think The Bae146 & B757 were fitted with The Garret 150M APU, this is a definite cause of air quality problems, the engines on The Bae146 also had a major problem with oil seals in the compressor section allowing Mobil Jet2 to be ingested into the air-con system, I have no experience on the 757, but flew The Bae146 for 4 years and often experienced the smell...so far no effects on me but my former partner who was a flight attendant on them had to stop flying after one particularly bad fume event in Hobart, Tasmania...other colleagues, pilots and flight attendants were also affected to varying degrees, i.e. grounded forever or temporary medical problems.....It seems to depend on each individuals reaction to fume exposure, I hope with the 787 introducing an electrical compressor for aircon & pressurisation that fume problems will never be evident on that type, let's hope that future designs will follow this example.

blind pew
1st Mar 2015, 10:56
Makes sense regarding the Garrett APU...my second lot of ATS symptoms developed on the DC10 and I knew several guys who died at an early age on it as well as four who had "psychological" illnesses.

explorer61
2nd Mar 2015, 17:32
I too have had my career ended with this condition. I was a captain on a wide body jet for a UK airline. I went to my doctor at the age of 49, as my wife was concerned that I was in the early stages of dementia. I wasn't. Having tried to cope with my condition, I returned to my doctor, who signed me off sick. When I made that fateful call to the CAA, that was my career over. They asked me my symptoms, and when I told them about my severe memory loss, the lady said I would be getting "the letter". It's not a nice feeling.
At that time I had never heard of Aerotxic Syndrome, until another sufferer suggested I had some tests. I have had tests which confirm that I am "genetically susceptible" (not everyone is), and I have had a blood test which confirms that I have "damage to my central nervous system consistent with organophosphate poisoning". This test was carried out by the worlds leading authority on toxicity. A man with three professorships. There is no other way I could have been exposed to these organophosphates.

This is a real problem which affects many people around the world. I noted Willie Walsh's comments on ITV. How he flew for "18 years" and has not been affected. Well good for you Mr Walsh. If you are not genetically susceptible, it won't bother you. There's a man in my village who has been smoking unfiltered cigarettes for over fifty years, and he hasn't got lung cancer. Not every smoker does.

My problem was so severe, that on occasions, I would get in my car to go somewhere locally, get halfway there and get lost. I have lived in the same locality for almost forty years. On another occasion I was in my local pub when my son walked in. I looked at him and thought "I know him from somewhere". I didn't even recognise my own son. That is how bad it can get.

I could sit here for hours and write about my own experiences, but what is more worrying, is that some of my now ex colleagues who are still flying have contacted me, and they are worried about their own health. They are experiencing cognitive problems, disorientation, respiratory problems. The list goes on.

What the coroner has done in the Westgate case is very significant. Because the evidence he has seen is so convincing, he has made a decision to take action before the inquest is complete "in order to prevent future deaths". The people on this forum haven't seen that evidence. He has, and it's irrefutable.

rh200
2nd Mar 2015, 23:42
Question.

How many planes in the air at any minute of the day, for the last 30 years. How many people and flight crew cumulatively?

The vast majority of people who are skeptical, are not saying it doesn't happen and can't happen, its just appears to be statistically insignificant.

What that means, its easier to remove the people who may be susceptible than to fix the problem if indeed there is one. This in itself is not unusual. There are other professions where people want to work, but can't for various reasons.

lomapaseo
3rd Mar 2015, 02:34
rh200

What that means, its easier to remove the people who may be susceptible than to fix the problem if indeed there is one

Your logic is sound it's the execution that is the problem.

Those few that are susceptible don't know it until it's too late.

Any of us would now cringe down in our seat after reading these several pages if we smelled something. The fact that we are trapped and unable to find a breath of fresh air to alleviate our fears is part of the problem.

Pacific Blue
3rd Mar 2015, 10:11
This issue has been allowed to go on for far too long with governments, airlines and manufacturers trying to keep a lid on it. Finally pilots and cabin crew are realising the full extent of this problem, to say remove the people involved is absurd when it can be as high as 20% of aircrew and frequent passengers who are susceptible.

Many pilots 'medically-impaired' due to toxic cabin air - 2/26/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/many-pilots-39medically-impaired39-due-to-toxic-cabin-409456/)

explorer61
3rd Mar 2015, 10:21
To put some figures on this, it's about 3% of the population who are unable to detox atall from these chemicals. About 40% will be affected to varying degrees, but can ultimately detox.
As for ways to prevent the problem, that is the easy bit. There are filter kits available now to fit any aircraft. DHL have them on their aircraft for instance. The cost I believe is about 20K per airframe. On the subject of filters, let me relate a situation I was told of from a very good authority. A representative from a filter company gave a presentation to some senior managers from a "very" large UK airline. After his presentation he was shown out of the building by one of the managers. He thanked the chap for coming, but said "you do realise that there is no chance of XX fitting these filters to our aircraft". When asked why, he said "we already pay insurance premiums to cover our pilots if they go sick. There's no way we are going to pay those premiums, and pay for filters to be fitted". So there we have it. They don't actually care.
Back to the numbers of people affected. I know several people from my company who have the symptoms, but until they are made aware of the condition, they don't know what's wrong with them. Several have been mis diagnosed as the doctors don't know about this problem.
To the naysayers I say, if you haven't been affected (yet), good for you. The chances of getting it to the extent that you will be unable to fly are relatively small. But also look at the rates of cancer in the longer serving people in the industry. I was told years ago that the airline industry has the highest death rate of any industry in the world in the first five years of retirement. I cannot back that up with statistics, but I can believe it.

rh200
3rd Mar 2015, 10:31
Those few that are susceptible don't know it until it's too late.

Thats true for some I would think. I would imagine under fairly normal circumstances there would be a distribution people on how it affects them, if there is indeed a problem.

As such a proportion of those might just find it a minor irritant, and then at the other end those who a significant exposure could have irreversible effects.

In effect this isn't much different to other work place effects. I know people who have worked in various occupations, and then one day had a complete allergic reaction to something they have handled for years. Some never able to work again

The bigger issue is if there is cumulative minor effects. That should be easy to sort considering the sample size now is large both in aircrew and time.

This issue has been allowed to go on for far too long with governments, airlines and manufacturers trying to keep a lid on it.

You implying a active conspiracy where one most likely doesn't exist. Over here we have fairly good duty of care legislation. We have also had significant experience with every ones favorite aircraft the 146. These have also been used for charters for mining companies.

Some of those companies like BHP and Rio Tinto don't take kindly to possible health risks to their employees that they could be held responsible for.

GS-Alpha
3rd Mar 2015, 11:26
What tests are involved to determine whether you are genetically susceptible to this issue? I'd like to consider paying for them, because I for one would rather find out before I got I'll. I'm not entirely sure you can separate the exposure during flying from the exposure during normal life, but if I knew I was genetically susceptible, I'd probably jack in commercial flying just to play it safe...

Ian W
3rd Mar 2015, 13:37
What tests are involved to determine whether you are genetically susceptible to this issue? I'd like to consider paying for them, because I for one would rather find out before I got I'll. I'm not entirely sure you can separate the exposure during flying from the exposure during normal life, but if I knew I was genetically susceptible, I'd probably jack in commercial flying just to play it safe...

Unfortunately, the 'scientists' running drug testing and sensitivity testing tend to forget genetics and treat everyone being tested as identical: it makes the statistics so much simpler :rolleyes:. The problem being that there is no 'standard distribution'. It is like testing sensitivity to the Sun and not being concerned if the subjects are pale skinned red heads or not. So the results of these sensitivity trials can be a random distribution with one test showing no-one is affected and another showing a large percentage. This seems to be common to all medical and pharmacological testing and is why 'wonder drugs' can be withdrawn after a few months due to bad side effects.

What needs to be done is a genetic assay and allergy testing on all those who have been affected and see if there are any common markers or allergies that could predict sensitivity. A long tedious and sometimes expensive task with those affected wanting the results yesterday, and the beancounters asking for justification for spending money when such a small percentage are affected.

KenV
3rd Mar 2015, 18:23
A second detection system is your white shirt. I purchased a new one, wore it on one flight, then sent it to Prohealth in Holland for an Organophosphate test. It came back with a positive result for several OPs. Unless M&S is now selling OP laced shirts, it came from the Aircraft.


Hmmmm. You sound very certain. May I point out that unless you know how to properly conduct an experiment, including how to set up controls, the outcome of your little experiment is essentially worthless.

Since you are so certain, then of course you kept your brand new shirt in a sealed plastic bag until you boarded the aircraft, unsealed the bag and put the shirt on after you boarded, took it off just before deplaning, and sealed it in another plastic bag before sending it to the lab?

And you sent an identical brand new shirt bought at the same time from the same place to the same lab for testing as a control?

You didn't? Then you have no idea where the organophosphates came from. None. They may have come from the industrial processes that produced and packaged your shirt. They may have come from your home or your car or any number of other sources where you wore that shirt. Have you had the air in your car tested for organophosphates lately? How about the air in your home?

Have you worn a brand new shirt in your home for several hours while you did typical daily chores and then sent that shirt to the lab for testing? How about your car? If not, why not? Could it be because you had already decided what the source of your problem is?

Are you certain that your car is operating correctly and there are no leaks of any kind into the passenger compartment? Are you certain that the furnace, stove, oven, hot water heater, fireplace, air conditioner, etc in your home are all operating correctly? Have your home and car been inspected with one tenth the frequency that the aircraft you fly has been inspected? If not, why are you so certain that your car and/or home environment is not the source of your problem and the airplane "must" be the problem?

NOMANSNEMESIS
3rd Mar 2015, 19:48
Dear GS Alpha.
I have contacted my Aerotoxic specialist in Holland and will repost with further information if I need to.

The test you are asking about is a limited DNA panel to test for your genetic type with reference to your PON 1 gene.

This gives you an indication of your ability to process and excrete some toxic chemicals, and specifically organophosphates.

I think it is Prohealth in the Netherlands that can carry out this test, since my memory was so poor at the time I completed this test I have asked the specialist Doctor to confirm this.

NOMANSNEMESIS
3rd Mar 2015, 20:47
Dear Kenv.

In answer to your questions.

Am I certain about the source of Organophosphates on my shirt? Yes 100%

Does Marks and Spencer produce shirts pre laced with OPs? No, how do I know? Because I bought a pack of three, repackaged them all in separate ziplock bags. I unpacked one in the toilets of my Aircraft on the way to my seat and put it on. The other two are the controls you are concerned about.

There is a second more accurate test offered by Professor Chris Van Netten in Canada, he will send you a test kit if you want to see for yourself. His tester is a small electrically powered unit that comes in a sealed bag. You unwrap it before pushback, turn it on and leave it. It expires after about 90 minutes, you then reseal it in its bag and send it to the lab.

These testers are a newer idea and come back with the same results.

Additionally, my shirt tested positive for OPs in the same proportions as they appear in the Aircraft engine oil.

Can you please tell us all where OPs are found in Cars?

Can you please tell us all where OPs are found in homes?

As far as I know they are not present in either place, and even if they were they would not have made it onto my shirt, and they definitely wouldn't have made it into Professor Van Nettens testers.

Please contact him, order a tester and do it yourself. All flights so tested, fume event or not, have, to my knowledge, tested positive for OPs. The only flights so far to be tested negative are the B787. You refer to this being "my little experiment", it isn't little (there have been many many tests carried by by a huge cross section of people), and it's not mine (these tests are being carried out by multiple University Professors and not some bunch of amateurs).

Why don't Airbus develop these systems like Boeing? Cost (all easily researched on the net). Therefore Boeing spent money to redesign their Aircraft this way, Why? Because they know its a problem.

Getting back to where OPs are for sure, they make up 3% of the engine oil used in Jet Aircraft. The warning is right there on the can.

The Aircraft I flew was a large four engined type, it smelled of oil on most flights, produced smoke fairly often. It even has a QRH procedure for dispatch with a bleed supply known to be contaminated. We would start with 20 quarts in each of the four engines, complete flights up to 17 hours in length and typically have as low as 14 quarts remaining.

Lastly, what came first was my illness. I carefully checked and excluded other possible sources of this, specifically;

I bought a Hygrometer, left it out for a whole flight and recorded the minimum reading. This was 11%, coincidentally the same as in my house on a dry day. I assumed this might be the source of my constant colds/chest infections, burning eyes, burning nose and chemical burns on my lips after a flight. It was not.

I assumed the in flight food may have been causing my near permanent bad stomach, I eventually packed my own food for the entire flight including tea bags, cup, spoon etc, I even used bottled water for tea and boiled this in the Aircraft microwave. None of this had any effect.

I wondered if the high in flight pressure altitude was giving me the terrible headaches? This was confirmed as a negative by taking a holiday with accommodation at 10,000 feet for eight days, no headaches here.

This only leaves cosmic radiation and Aerotoxic Syndrome.

I would like to remind all reading this that I had a top class job, the Aircraft I flew was absolutely stunning to fly, the routes were superb, I had a very large salary, I was a Training Captain at the top of my game, I have two young kids that I need my salary to support, I have been obsessed with flying since childhood, I am addicted to travel and so on...

If I could go to the Airport and fly this Aircraft now I would, it was the most exciting thing I have ever done.

ILS27LEFT
3rd Mar 2015, 22:14
After the last post above, we must say nothing more, nobody can deny the problem anymore.:ugh:
:mad:
My post #nr 5, page 1, on this topic, now, after the last post, is critically re-confirmed as a very valid and true post.:ugh:
:mad:

I knew I was not exaggerating. It is just awful reality: profit before health & safety.:ugh:

wiggy
3rd Mar 2015, 22:46
nobody can deny the problem anymore.


Well "we" can certainly ask about the scale of the problem.

Me? 40 years plus flying, 20,000ish hours with all bar 100 hours on jets...of my peer group of 15 who went through military training over the years we've lost two, yep, two due to medical conditions - heart attacks..one on a cross country run..one jumping into his swimming pool. In my next peer group through into the airline ( 50+ of those, joining 25 year ago ) we've lost none, nil, ziltch, due to neurological illness. To be fair none of us flew the RJ but many did fly the 757/767 . In addition like many of that group I have got about 10,000 hours on another RB-211 type, albeit longhaul so not exposed to too many start cycles....so after a flying career of 40 years and knowing hundreds of pilots both military and civilian I personally know not one person who claims to have suffered from"aerotoxic syndrome"....so sceptical..you bet your ***", but not of a closed mind.

So lets ditch the anecdotes, including mine, run trials properly with all the controls, without interference from the airlines, aircraft makers, filter makers and lawyers, don't expect the trials to prove your own POV and then, and only then, we can continue the debate.....

rh200
4th Mar 2015, 00:22
profit before health & safety

No its not about profit before health and safety. There is no such thing as absolute health and safety. Its all done to a probability, legislation and affordability, this is the same in every industry.

Smokie
4th Mar 2015, 00:58
The Jumbelino was lovely to fly but over the 8 years I flew it there were serious Air Con problems. Not only for myself but other whole crews who would end up in hospital for checks after fume events, which were all to common on this aircraft.

tdracer
4th Mar 2015, 01:46
OK, here is a little study that could be done relatively cheap that should bound the problem:


There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who fly commercial aircraft for a living - mainly cabin crew and pilots. Pick a large data set - say the entire USA or the EU. Or if that's too big, do it for several large carriers. Do the demographics for all those who fly commercially for a living - break it down into age groups, say younger then 35, 35-50, 51-65, and over 65. Do the percentage of deaths by cause - with a little more effort include survivors of serious illness such as cancer and neurological issues. Then compare those numbers with the general population and see if the differences are statistically significant.
Because what we currently have barely qualifies as antidotal. Quite frankly some of it reminds me of a friend who smoked like a chimney for over 40 years, but when he came down with lung cancer immediately claimed it was due to asbestos exposure from his six months in a shipyard 4 decades earlier :ugh:

ChicagoHeights
4th Mar 2015, 02:09
After reading all of this, and while I believe yes we are exposed, instead of speculating about all of this, please go get tested. Then you know for sure and then you will really need to make a decision about this and what you are going to do about it.

Pacific Blue
4th Mar 2015, 06:43
On BBC Radio Berkshire, lots of discussion here:

BBC Radio Berkshire - Andrew Peach, 03/03/2015 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02k3z04)

KenV
5th Mar 2015, 14:48
NOMANSNEMESIS, your description of your actions sounds quite complete and thorough. I apologize for casting aspersions on your thoroughness. I sincerely hope your problem is properly diagnosed and resolved.

Separately, you made a good point about radiation exposure. I have no idea and wonder if some people are exceptionally sensitive to radiation exposure as it appears some people are exceptionally sensitive to some organophosphates.

Nevertheless I would recommend having the air in your home and/or car tested. I had a friend who had similar chronic problems, and it turned out after years of suffering and a lot of expense that the hot water heater in his home was defective. His wife and children were unaffected, but apprarently they were not as sensitive as he was.

Bokkenrijder
5th Mar 2015, 17:17
Because what we currently have barely qualifies as antidotal. Quite frankly some of it reminds me of a friend who smoked like a chimney for over 40 years, but when he came down with lung cancer immediately claimed it was due to asbestos exposure from his six months in a shipyard 4 decades earlierSo basically the 40 years of smoking could be compared to 40 years of working as a pilot? Or are you suggesting that 'it's obvious that cabin air is bad for a person?' :confused:

I'm nor sure if a single fume event could have extreme effects on a human body, but I can well image that crews who are exposed to even small doses of toxic air for thousands of flight hours and years and years in a row can develop physiological, neurological and psychological symptoms. Why do those symptoms develop in one person and why not in somebody else? Well, I have hay fever and start sneezing uncontrollably when cutting my lawn, but other can cut grass and have no problems. Why me? Some people can drink 4-5 beers and have few symptoms of impairment, while others drink 1 beer and feel totally wasted. Why do some people smoke die at 85, and others die at 65?

It's quite amazing that in today's world of asbestos, 'Black Lung,' 'CSE/Painter's Disease,' second hand smoke, car particle filters and 'Clean Air Acts," any possible long term effects of air crew to the exposure of small but toxic oil vapors is simply being dismissed as 'old wife tales' and people wanting to 'get rich quick' to claim a disability insurance.

The reluctance of any real industry wide study suggests to me that there are many skeletons hiding in this closet...

Ahernar
5th Mar 2015, 18:16
"
Between 1950 and 1992, BA monitored 6,209 pilots and 1,153 flight engineers comprising 143,500 person years of observation. The results were encouraging and revealed that life expectancy for long haul crew was four to five years better than that of the average recorded in members of the public - with short haul crew having an increased life expectancy of two to three years ."

If the results had been reversed i would have been one of your most vocal suporters .IMO it's a personal problem , if you are one of those unlucky sensitive ones then treat it like a bad case of bad luck or just another flight terminating disease , don't ask the world to change all the planes for YOU .

Bokkenrijder
5th Mar 2015, 18:46
@Ahernar

...treat it like a bad case of bad luck or just another flight terminating disease , don't ask the world to change all the planes for YOUInteresting post and I wonder why you even created an account and replied anyways? You seem like the kind of person who doesn't care much about anything, so why would you care if some people have their doubts about the quality of bleed/cabin air? Are you a management pilot? Are you a pilot at all? Read my post, I never asked 'the world to change all the planes for me,' and I never said that I'm suffering from the symptoms.

Sorry for you (and your corporate sponsors...) but this problem won't 'just go away' just because it's more convenient for YOU to ignore it. Why not start ignoring it by not posting in this thread? It's all nonsense anyways, isn't it? Good, then there's nothing to be afraid off because all scientific data will not support any Aerotoxic Syndrome and all the judges and juries will quickly agree with that! :ok:

Newsflash: it's not 1992 anymore, testing methods are much more advanced, people are more connected and will find out stuff much more easily, and people are no longer the gullible sheep that they were 20-25 years ago.

explorer61
5th Mar 2015, 19:18
Can I just point out that the German government have recently added this condition to their official list of recognized industrial illnesses.

KenV
5th Mar 2015, 19:28
NOMANSNEMESIS, just a quick follow up from my previous post.

From what you wrote I got the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you are experiencing your symptoms only during/after a flight. If we assume that the problem is one of inhaling organophosphates rather than dermal contact with organophosphates, then a simple solution might already be available. Don the crew oxygen mask and set it to 100%. If this would be too cumbersome to do on every flight, maybe you could do it on a single flight. If there are no symptoms on that flight then you could explore various options. Perhaps not wear the mask during takeoff and landing and only wear it during cruise. Or obtain some kind of filtered mask. I'm assuming the mask has a built in microphone for comms.

ShotOne
5th Mar 2015, 22:41
That "solution" hinges, Ken, on your belief that the harm done by OP poisoning is cured by breathing clean air (or bottled O2) for a few hours. If only!

Ahernar
6th Mar 2015, 05:07
@Bokkenrijder

Yeah , i will stop posting here , im just an IT guy with a mild interest in aviation ,arrived here looking for more info after the Trans Asia crash because i was bewildered how could they do that error . Now i know .

Good luck to everyone .

Aluminium shuffler
6th Mar 2015, 09:14
Shot one, exactly. Which in turn suggests the naysayers on here view aerotoxic syndrome as analogous to CO or CO2 poisoning, that is temporary and easily reversible with no long term damage. Organophosphate poisoning results in permanent damage, is irreversible and is usually progressive in the deterioration of one's health, the victim not necessarily being ill at the time of the event. It is that last point that makes it so insidious and is why the industry gets to play innocent.

Bokkenrijder
6th Mar 2015, 12:06
Can I just point out that the German government have recently added this condition to their official list of recognized industrial illnesses. Yes, "zee Germans" appear to be a lot more proactive with this matter and it seems they take the health of passengers and crews a lot more serious. In the long run this is IMHO the smart thing to do, instead of desperately trying to brush everything under the carpet in order to maximize short term profitability and management bonuses.

In the end the truth always comes out, and if it's not now then perhaps in 5-10 years from now. Testing methods will continue to be improved, the public and crews will continue to ask inconvenient questions and testing will continue to become cheaper and cheaper.

Here's an excellent documentary from the AerotoxicSyndrome channel on Youtube, unfortunately it's in German; part I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2ifbOaU_x4) and part II. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXZW87UvYNk)(English subtitles are available though)

p.s. the excuse that massive law suits would cripple the industry are IMHO nonsense because all airlines (*) and aircraft/engine manufacturers will be effected equally. Of course all airlines will be effected, but it will be the ones that are best prepared that will actually profit from this. Therefore it's again very smart what the Germans are doing, because sometimes the best defense is an offensive with the truth. The only reason why the industry is so reluctant to investigate is for the very same reason that has been hollowing our our T&C's: short term gains and bonuses for airline managements, and a laziness and stinginess to develop alternatives and filters on the manufacturers' side.

(*) except Boeing 787.

Aluminium shuffler
6th Mar 2015, 12:59
The longer it is left, the greater the resultant litigation will be, especially since it will be argued it was a known problem, which will bring it from a civil case to a criminal one.

Bokkenrijder
6th Mar 2015, 15:31
The longer it is left, the greater the resultant litigation will be, especially since it will be argued it was a known problem, which will bring it from a civil case to a criminal one.
Absolutely right but unfortunately most politicians think no further than their next election, and most managers only think as far as their next bonus.

bcgallacher
6th Mar 2015, 16:22
There seems to be a group who are firmly convinced that there is a problem - without any evidence except anecdotal.Until there is some kind of hard evidence an open mind should be kept.The doctor who provoked the MMR scare with his 'evidence' linking it to autism caused untold damage with his agenda.

dbee
6th Mar 2015, 16:54
BCG

I also live in Scotland where there are NO specialists in Asbergers or organophosphate exposure...........Please look at the list of symptoms on the Aerotoxic.org website; I have most of them!!

And also wait for the final inquest report on Richard Westgate, who died at 43

Aluminium shuffler
6th Mar 2015, 19:38
BCG, the conviction that there is a problem is based on personal experience for most of us. Denial is the more blinded stance, since there is plenty of evidence for the existence of an issue and none for the lack of it.

silverstrata
6th Mar 2015, 20:03
Mack

Chronic medium level exposure certainly creates problems (agricultural workers are the most at risk), but data on the effects of chronic low or very-low level exposure is very hard to separate from random noise. The answer to finding out whether Aerotoxic Syndrome is real is proper scientific study and there seems to be a dearth of that.



Because the CAA does not want to know. As usual, the city bureaucrats want an easy job, and confronting issues like this makes life difficult for them. Same with the agricultural sector, where the 1990 report on organophosphates was apparently destroyed:

Crucial sheep dip poisoning document 'destroyed' - Farmers Weekly (http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/crucial-sheep-dip-poisoning-document-destroyed.htm)

But it is well known that organophospates effect memory:
Exposure to organophosphates harm memory, say scientists - Farmers Weekly (http://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/exposure-to-organophosphates-harm-memory-say-scientists.htm)


So can constant low-level exposure effect memory? I think so, but I cannot really remember. Do I push or pull to rotate....? (Yeah - our aircraft used to fill with blue smoke on start-up too. But the APU was the worst offender.)

Frankly, the pen-pushers in their comfy offices with comfy pensions, are betraying all of the people who work on the front line. In all industries. They need a kick up the backside - all of them.

silverstrata
6th Mar 2015, 20:11
bcgall

There seems to be a group who are firmly convinced that there is a problem - without any evidence except anecdotal.



You are ignoring reality, Bcgall. Which pilot is going to volunteer for the chop, by telling the medic he cannot remember anything? How do you tell the wife and kids, that you have thrown in the towel, and you all need to move to a two-bed terrace? Besides, when I went to the medic complaining of constant headaches from flying, all I got was more paracetamol.

The simple truth is that aviation has long mastered the art of 'tombstone technology'. The real problem is that we now have 'tombstone management' to deal with too.

bcgallacher
7th Mar 2015, 08:21
Aluminium shuffler,Silverstrata, I have no doubts that you are unfortunate to have problems with your health. The difficulty is that at present there is no physical evidence that it is caused by organophosphates. There are other factors in flying such as high ozone levels etc which could cause health problems. The fact that so few pilots suffer these problems - pilots in fact are living longer than the general population for example - makes me a little sceptical.

explorer61
7th Mar 2015, 10:39
bcgallacher says that all the evidence is "anecdotal". Try telling that to Richard Westgates parents. The evidence is very real, and very scientific. He may be the first person to die from this who has actually tested for it, but he isn't going to be the last. Unless the person doing the autopsy knows what to look for specifically, then the problem does not manifest itself. There have been many aircrew who have died "out of normal age range" who's death certificates give cause of death as "TBA", because they haven't been checked for this condition.
As for the comment from someone about people wanting to "get rich quick" through the loss of licence payouts, I've had mine, but I'm still out of pocket by over a million pounds in lost income. So not getting very rich at all.

Bokkenrijder
7th Mar 2015, 11:46
As for the comment from someone about people wanting to "get rich quick" through the loss of licence payouts, I've had mine, but I'm still out of pocket by over a million pounds in lost income. So not getting very rich at all. Exactly right explorer61! Most pilots that start getting sick and lose their license are in the mid-40's (or older) and that's a very difficult age to jump start a new career and a new life. Pocketing a few 100k of the average Loss of License might sound tempting for the average Joe Sixpack and is perhaps enough to pay off the mortgage, but it does not provide the ex-pilot and his family with any retraining for a new job and any income to provide for the family.

This 'argument' is unfortunately very typical either for pilots who like to stick their head in the sand, or people with a direct interest (read: airline management and aircraft manufacturers) in a desperate attempt to keep this firmly swept under the carpet.

Mac the Knife
7th Mar 2015, 12:04
"bcgallacher says that all the evidence is "anecdotal". Try telling that to Richard Westgates parents. The evidence is very real, and very scientific. He may be the first person to die from this who has actually tested for it, but he isn't going to be the last. Unless the person doing the autopsy knows what to look for specifically, then the problem does not manifest itself."

I am very sorry for Mr Westgate and his parents, however the evidence for the existence of "aerotoxic syndrome" is both ill-defined and not currently scientifically supported.

In my profession tens of thousands of women were needlessly alarmed and many thousands of implant removal surgeries were performed during the silicone breast implant controversy on the basis of anecdotal and unscientific "evidence".

Subsequent in-depth and controlled studies have overwhelmingly demonstrated that "silicone adjuvant disease" does not exist as a scientifically demonstrable phenomenon.

See - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288052/pdf/10700847.pdf et seq.

The only people who profited from that scare were the lawyers who started the whole business on the flimsiest of anecdotal evidence from patients, without any attempt at scientific validation.

Either you believe in the the scientific method or you don't, you cannot be selective. It is just as valid for the design of the jet turbine blades and wings that keep you up there as it is for putative syndromes such as aerotoxic syndrome or the purported genotoxicity of electromagnetic fields generated by 835-MHz mobile phone frequency band.

Aerotoxic syndrome may well exist but the preponderance of evidence so far is that it does not - or if it does, it is restricted to a very small population who are abnormally sensitive to trace amounts of some organophosphates (which they are just as likely to encounter at home or in the high street as on an aircraft).

By all means investigate further but to presume on the current evidence is incorrect.

wo ping
7th Mar 2015, 12:19
Mac,

excellent balanced post.

you're no doubt about to get a roasting though.

A and C
7th Mar 2015, 12:26
Having been in the business for thirty years and never having had a problem my initial reaction was that there is no problem and it is an insurance scam.

I have moved on from this "no problem" stance to an opinion that just as some people have problems with things like nuts or shellfish there are some people who react very badly to very small amounts of the chemicals that are associated with aero toxic syndrome.

The industry is going away from bleed air systems for cabin air delivery but intill cabin air systems become 100% dry research needs to be done to try and identify persons who are likely to suffer from aerotoxic syndrome and keep them out of aircraft with cabin air systems that use bleed air.

bcgallacher
7th Mar 2015, 15:47
Mac - Logic and facts will get you nowhere - a little like trying to debate with chemtrailers.

Aluminium shuffler
7th Mar 2015, 19:21
Well, bcgallacher is never going to understand it because he is quite clearly unable to digest what he reads. I said I have had a definite event on my aircraft that affected the vast majority of pax and all the cabin crew but that the cockpit was unaffected, and said in a previous post that my health seems fine - nothing other than slowing down a bit over the last ten years through a combination of age and fatigue. So, regardless of how hard he wants to defend the naysayer side of the argument, he is evidently unable to read the arguments made by the witnesses of the problem.

Bokkenrijder
7th Mar 2015, 19:37
Good point Aluminium shuffler, and in addition I really don't understand why any pilot (if they really are pilots ;)) would really be against investigating any potentially toxic cabin air and would be willing to ridicule their own colleagues?
Do they also ridicule and actively discredit colleagues who point out that you're flying below MSA towards high terrain?

Let's be realistic, it can only benefit every pilot (including themselves!), cabin crew and passenger in the long run, right? So why not support them, or at least not try to sabotage them?

Are these people really only able to think inside the box (scary for pilots), or are they perhaps part of a "divide, ridicule and conquer" strategy of the very people who have a clear vested interest in trying to keep a lid on this thing?

Unless I'm an almond farmer or own a nuts store, why would I try to discredit someone who claims to have an allergic reaction to almonds?

lomapaseo
7th Mar 2015, 20:02
ad hominen comments about posters do not advance arguments.

Whatever facts do exist they have not been sufficient to be used scientifically in a manner that can practically reduce the risk in a measurable fashion.

What is needed are proposals for practical ways of doing such scientific studies.

reminds me of the chicken little response to volcanic ash a few years back, until some of the big airlines came up with means of addressing "how much is too much" in a timely fashion. Other problems like icing also were addressed this way.

Life of course is not without risks, but it's nice to know just how much is to much.

NOMANSNEMESIS
8th Mar 2015, 12:26
Anecdote; A short usually amusing account of an incident??
From Medieval Latin meaning "Unpublished items".

Can the posters of descriptions of this problem as "anecdotal evidence" please explain how this is so?

Is the Bournemouth Senior Coroner, Sheriff Payne, a man likely to issue a Regulation 28 Report to "prevent future deaths" on the basis of anecdotal evidence, I seriously doubt this.

Senior Coroner Payne holds his post as a man who is capable of receiving and digesting large amounts of information and making legal judgements based on these. He does this to protect the interests of those of us who cannot digest 1000 page documents.

In the case of Richard Westgate the documents submitted to the Coroner exceeded one thousand pages and weighed greater than 3KGs. Is this an anecdote?

You can purchase Richards short form autopsy report online should any interested parties wish to read this "anecdote", it's 19 pages only and includes prepared slides of his OP damaged brain and nervous system.

The valid use of the term "anecdotal" in regard to this problem expired ten years ago.

I have inserted the link below to another "anecdote", it's BALPA s 320 page document prepared after their conference on this in 2005, please take special note of the last two pages. These show the signatories to this document.

I would suggest all BALPA members ask "Why the U turn on this", as I see one member already has.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Faerotoxic.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2FBALPA-CAPC-London-April-20051.pdf&ei=zS_8VLW7EObGygPIq4GgAQ&usg=AFQjCNFjI7zDoK4NqyJxMJBtGnRXJwp9lg

explorer61
8th Mar 2015, 13:05
That's quite a document, and BALPA are very unequivocal. Now that there is even more evidence, one wonders why they've changed their minds! Anyone care to speculate?

Ian W
8th Mar 2015, 13:33
Anecdote; A short usually amusing account of an incident??
From Medieval Latin meaning "Unpublished items".

Can the posters of descriptions of this problem as "anecdotal evidence" please explain how this is so?

Is the Bournemouth Senior Coroner, Sheriff Payne, a man likely to issue a Regulation 28 Report to "prevent future deaths" on the basis of anecdotal evidence, I seriously doubt this.



The meaning of 'anecdotal evidence' is generally taken to be evidence without research support. Doesn't matter who provides the evidence.

Dictionary.com: "based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation"

or from Wikipedia: "The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases. Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim; it is, however, perfectly acceptable for claims regarding a particular instance. Anecdotal evidence is no more than a type description (i.e., short narrative), and is often confused in discussions with its weight, or other considerations, as to the purpose(s) for which it is used. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims".

As has been stated further into the thread there is a need for real scientific assessment both of the potential fumes in the aircraft and of each of the cases being made, to check for other environmental effects that could cause the same issues, or sensitize the individuals to chemical fumes in the aircraft. For example: did the deceased use organophosphate weedkillers in a home greenhouse, persistent-insecticide strips in their kitchen, or had they had their homes cavity wall insulated - all of which could lead to low level persistent chemical air pollution in their home?

When all these checks have been done and the particular chemicals in the cabin air have been identified and have been shown, or, are known to cause the problems reported only then does the evidence cease to be anecdotal.

Mac the Knife
9th Mar 2015, 17:41
https://medium.com/@writingben/a-disease-of-scienceyness-7b5571a34953

Worth a read.

rh200
9th Mar 2015, 21:17
The fact is, there is also no shortage of scientific analysis of aerotoxic syndrome and related issues.

A search of academic databases turns up various papers etc. So one would think that if there was any real issue the corporate lawyers would be getting the issue sorted.

As such you would have to think that if the issue is real it isn't showing up enough to raise flags at the moment from a numerical standpoint.

bcgallacher
9th Mar 2015, 21:24
Ian W - your post expresses my views on this subject better than I did. I have been around long enough never to take anything for granted. Look back a few years to the scares with swine flu,bird flu etc which were supposed to decimate the world.The prophets of doom crawl out from under the stones inferring that is the end of civilisation as we know it - a month later it is all forgotten.

KenV
10th Mar 2015, 15:26
BCG, the conviction that there is a problem is based on personal experience for most of us. Denial is the more blinded stance, since there is plenty of evidence for the existence of an issue and none for the lack of it.


Speaking of "denial" and a "blinded stance", it seems to me that there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence for "the lack of" an issue.


Good point Aluminium shuffler, and in addition I really don't understand why any pilot (if they really are pilots ;)) would really be against investigating any potentially toxic cabin air and would be willing to ridicule their own colleagues?



Fascinating. Can you name a SINGLE individual, be they pilot, aircrew, passenger, or other, who has actually expressed they are "against investigating any potentially toxic air"? Nope. There are none who are opposed to doing solid research on this issue.

However, the scaremongers have not only succeeded in convincing a number of folks that the problem is real and that there is ample evidence "proving" its reality, but have also succeeded in convincing those folks that there is an active conspiracy underway to "cover up" this "reality".

None are so blind as those who want to see something that is not there.

Can the posters of descriptions of this problem as "anecdotal evidence" please explain how this is so?

Is the Bournemouth Senior Coroner, Sheriff Payne, a man likely to issue a Regulation 28 Report to "prevent future deaths" on the basis of anecdotal evidence, I seriously doubt this.


There is clearly some 3 kgs and thousands of pages of data regarding the death of this individual. That is not anecdotal.

That this particular death was caused by exposure to chemicals in the cockpit remains anecdotal. That this particular individual's reaction to OP exposure is representative of the general population is anecdotal. And separately, this individual's death says absolutely NOTHING, anecdotal or otherwise, about a "conspiracy", about a "cover up", and about "vested interests".

That "solution" hinges, Ken, on your belief that the harm done by OP poisoning is cured by breathing clean air (or bottled O2) for a few hours. If only!

Sorry, no. I'm talking about the duration of the flight, or at least the vast majority of it.


(*) except Boeing 787.


Why is the DC-8 not also exempt? It did not have a bleed air supplied AC system.


Shot one, exactly. Which in turn suggests the naysayers on here view aerotoxic syndrome as analogous to CO or CO2 poisoning, that is temporary and easily reversible with no long term damage.


Wow, there it is again. HUGE extrapolations based on a single data point.
I was addressing a SINGLE individual who suffered from headaches while in the cockpit, but not elsewhere. There was ZERO evidence that this individual was suffering from OP toxicity or that he was hyper sensitive to OP exposure, only that he suspected that he was exposed to OP while in the cockpit. IF the cockpit air was the source of his headaches as he suspected (a huge assumption), one solution in his specific case may be to not breath the air in the cockpit. I never REMOTELY suggested that breathing O2 could "cure" or "reverse" OP toxicity. But, if he breathed pure O2 while flying and still got headaches, then he could rule out the air in the cockpit as the source of his headaches.

I reiterate, there is ZERO evidence that this individual was suffering from OP toxicity or that he was hyper sensitive to OP exposure, only that he suspected that he was exposed to OP. PERHAPS he's actually hyper sensitive to radiation, which is more than 20 times higher at the typical cruising altitudes of jets than it is near sea level.

And for all you scare mongers out there, suppose it was proved that hyper sensitivity to radiation was the cause of these folks suffering from "aerotoxic syndrome". Who will you accuse of being "the vested interest" that is "the source" of the radiation? God? Little green men?

Mac the Knife
12th Mar 2015, 19:57
And another example of jumping at shadows (not even a shadow actually)

Dunkin' Donuts ditches titanium dioxide ? but is it actually harmful? (http://phys.org/news/2015-03-dunkin-donuts-ditches-titanium-dioxide.html)

What troubles me more than the fact that we are now in the age of legal-driven medicine (rather than patient-benefit-driven medicine) is that we are slowly moving into the age of legal-driven ethics rather than ethics-driven ethics.

Because of the enormous cost of malpractice insurance for some medical specialities it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract trainees - for example it is getting harder and harder to find an obstetrician, and many Ob/Gyn specialists (like two of my colleagues) now plan to stop doing obstetrics. The insurance is simply too expensive.

Wanna have a baby? Call your lawyer!

:(

Naali
12th Mar 2015, 20:57
Well,nice to know that there are even more threats to my health that i knew about. And i always believed that my daughters were given to me by the weather radar. To live is to learn.

Mack,i agree that some professionalism is fading away...Doctors are joining in whatever pseudo invented, Lawyers making room for tort-cases to be acceptable. And sure,we have problems at our surroundings,too. Too many pressures from around,of people who really are just trying to race their personal life. Forgetting,disregarding that the decisions are not made behind the desk,9 to 5.

Aluminium shuffler
13th Mar 2015, 09:27
KenV, you keep banging on that there is no evidence of a problem other than anecdotal. That's because no-one will commit to a full study because they fear the results. Get that through your head. Lack of concrete evidence is not the same as your assertion of evidence that there is no problem - there is no evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise, that the problem does not exist.

This problem does not cease to exist just because a few ignorant and selfish individuals insist so. Why are these individuals opposed to independent study?

It has be proven by small scale studies that organophospate compounds are present in elevated concentrations in aircraft, and the farming industry experience proved beyond any doubt many of the effects of organophosphates, with undoubtedly more bad effects still to be linked (just like any toxin as medical research advances). Why do the authorities, industry leaders and a few on here insist that just because it's aviation, not agriculture, that the toxins have no effect?

ECAM_Actions
13th Mar 2015, 09:48
@KenV:

However, the scaremongers have not only succeeded in convincing a number of folks that the problem is realI hope that is a typo.

The problem *IS* real. Like any industry facing potentially tens nay hundreds of millions in payouts to those affected, not to mention cost of rectification, you can bet they will prevent the truth coming out.

The key words are LONG TERM EXPOSURE. i.e. EVERY DAY FOR HOURS.

Joe Public going on holiday and flying maybe twice a year are unlikely to be affected, but the crew who are exposed to it every day are the ones who will suffer the consequences of LONG TERM EXPOSURE.

The tobacco industry will tell you that cigarettes are safe, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's the same deal here.

Ian W
13th Mar 2015, 14:15
KenV, you keep banging on that there is no evidence of a problem other than anecdotal. That's because no-one will commit to a full study because they fear the results. Get that through your head. Lack of concrete evidence is not the same as your assertion of evidence that there is no problem - there is no evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise, that the problem does not exist.

This problem does not cease to exist just because a few ignorant and selfish individuals insist so. Why are these individuals opposed to independent study?

It has be proven by small scale studies that organophospate compounds are present in elevated concentrations in aircraft, and the farming industry experience proved beyond any doubt many of the effects of organophosphates, with undoubtedly more bad effects still to be linked (just like any toxin as medical research advances). Why do the authorities, industry leaders and a few on here insist that just because it's aviation, not agriculture, that the toxins have no effect?

It is not possible to prove a negative especially with such a low level of supposed positive cases.

I don't think anyone is opposing an independent study (perhaps you can quote) I rather fancy people are opposing having to pay for an independent study.

Your case on farmers and organo phosphates is not a fair example. The levels in the cockpit are traces at most and are below the 'safe' exposure levels even for long term exposure**. The farmers were regularly splashed or even up to the knees in sheep dip which is many orders of magnitude (i.e. billions and billions of times higher exposure)
As I said in a previous post any investigation would need to also investigate what other exposure people had outside the cockpit that may have sensitized them to the extremely low levels in the aircraft.

Your being convinced of the case does not form an argument that a large business will consider valid. A formal study needs to be carried out that looks at all possibilities. Someone needs to pay for that to be carried out. I have a suspicion that if the Airlines were to pay for a study and it said there was no problem your response would be well it would, the airline paid for it. So the study will need to be both independent and independently funded.

The only way I see for you to get that level would be to interest a university with a doctoral program in the idea of research that would cover the area.


** Remember that these chemicals are in use in household and industrial products worldwide. Setting more demanding lower levels of exposure for them is not just a problem for your hated aviation industry bosses. It would be a major problem for the international chemical and domestic product industries and agriculture. This is why the study cannot be just a few people from local trading standards or Health and Safety with a low grade detector.

KenV
13th Mar 2015, 14:51
KenV, you keep banging on that there is no evidence of a problem other than anecdotal. That's because no-one will commit to a full study because they fear the results. Get that through your head.

This is getting interesting. Get THIS "through your head": It does not take cooperation from the airlines, the aircraft manufacturers, the aviation regulatory authorities or any other "vested interest" to do a thorough and well documented study of airline cabin air. Just have a bunch of volunteers buy a bunch of airline tickets, have each carry on board a well designed regimen that includes an air sampling device that does in situ analysis and enables post situ analysis, and in a matter of days, maybe weeks, you'd have enough data to prove your point.

Since the above has NOT happened, why have the "vested interests" who are convinced this is a real problem (like you and your cohorts) not done the above? Is it because your true "vested interest" is NOT to learn the truth, but to stir the pot? And with the evidence already available, it is clear that collecting hard data will almost surely stop you guys from stirring this particular pot. Just as hard data stopped you guys from stirring the pot about the danger of immunizations, breast implants, peanut alergens, GMOs, high fructose corn syrup, palm oils, Alar in apples, frakking, etc, etc, etc, etc.

You really don't get it that for alarmists, hard data is the LAST thing they want. Because hard data, whether it proves them right OR proves them wrong, will result in the same thing: having to move on to some new alarm. And that takes effort, work, and a measure of clear thought. All things alarmists don't like.


Lack of concrete evidence is not the same as your assertion of evidence that there is no problem - there is no evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise, that the problem does not exist.
No evidence at all? Utterly false. There is literally mountains of evidence indicating that the OP problem you claim to exist does not exist. You just refuse to see that evidence, and when confronted with it, wave it off as generated by "vested interests" who are "colluding" in a vast "cover up".

There are none so blind as those who want to see something that is not there.

Croqueteer
13th Mar 2015, 15:20
The day that the consultant dealing with my sudden kidney loss, who had never heard of aerotoxic syndrome, said "Have you been in contact with oil?" I changed from a cynic to a believer. Kenv, suggest a less aggresive style of writing, I get a picture of you standing at a bar after four pints laying down the law!

PS Farmers "Puddled about" in sheep dip once a year, I puddled about every working day for 17 years in a 146!

Nemrytter
13th Mar 2015, 15:44
Kenv, suggest a less aggresive style of writing, I get a picture of you standing at a bar after four pints laying down the law!I imagine it's a result of the frustration of trying to deal with people who do not understand how research into things like this works.
"I once heard", "This happened to me", "A mate of mine" etc are not forms of evidence that can be used to generate a robust scientific conclusion. They're useful as a starting point for a theory but nothing more. Until proper, well documented, tests of cabin air quality are carried out there is absolutely no proof of aerotoxic syndrome. It's as simple as that.

Not to say it doesn't exist, mind you - just that there's no proof of it. Like KenV says it'd be easy to test this by pax flying air sampling devices but this has not been done. Doing so would be much more productive than repeatedly stating 'aerotoxic syndrome exists' until everyone gives up debating.

(edit) And before someone tries "but there's no evidence that it doesn't exist": There doesn't have to be. It's impossible to prove that something like this doesn't exist, the only way forward is to show evidence that cabin air does contain pollutants / toxins.

rantanplane
13th Mar 2015, 15:54
KenV, you stated:

There are none so blind as those who want to see something that is not there.

this is exactly you, because you want to see that there is NO evidence.

Aeronautical medicine is in stone age status compared to the information available in neuroscience today, especially the devastating effects by toxic chemicals on our and many animals nervous system, resulting into multiple indirect long term serious health issues. It does not affect everybody as sensitivity is very different, but are the standards really made to the most sensitive of us? Think about it, if people are stressed by other reasons then the systems gets weaker, resilience is braking down. Not a good time for your body to fight some chemical poisoning.

KenV
13th Mar 2015, 16:37
The day that the consultant dealing with my sudden kidney loss, who had never heard of aerotoxic syndrome, said "Have you been in contact with oil?" I changed from a cynic to a believer. "

With all sincerety, how does your consultant's question relate to aerotoxic syndrome?


Kenv, suggest a less aggresive style of writing, I get a picture of you standing at a bar after four pints laying down the law!


Aggressive? Really? May I point out that I started this thread talking about the mechanical realities of aeroturbine engines. It was not until a few folks replied directly to me, by name, and using such phrases as "get this through your head" that I replied in a more personal manner. If that is considered "aggressive" I would recommend you take it up with the folks who routinely write in such a manner and who accuse others of having a "vested interest" and participating in a "conspiracy" to "cover up" what they devoutly claim is "a proven fact", when it is anything but.

The bottom line? While I will not pick a fight, if someone picks one with me, they'd better come well armed. If you call that "aggressive", so be it. Nevertheless, the phrase "He brung a knife to a gun fight" comes to mind.

Croqueteer
13th Mar 2015, 17:01
hot oil, OP, nervous system, aerotoxic syndrome.

KenV
13th Mar 2015, 17:52
KenV, you stated: "There are none so blind as those who want to see something that is not there."

this is exactly you, because you want to see that there is NO evidence.


I "want to see that there is NO evidence?!!" Really? Wow, what version of English do you use?

I have clearly stated, MULTIPLE times, that there is literally MOUNTAINS of evidence. Why did you miss that simple English?

I have also stated that there are kilograms and thousands of pages of documentation supporting the neuorological effects of TCP. How was that simple English missed?

And I have also stated that the evidence linking TCP toxicity to aircraft cabin air is anecdotal at best, and more often tenuous, specious, and contradictory. More plain English contradicting your claim that you somehow missed.

So, why did you miss all that plain and often simple English?

Maybe because you are one of those who want to see something that is not there?

In case you missed it (and apparently you did) the ONLY person (I'm aware of) who has stated "there is no evidence at all" was the guy in YOUR camp who insists aerotoxic syndrome is "well proven". I have repeatedly acknowledged all sorts of evidence related to aerotoxic syndrome, and despite the great majority of it being specious and/or anecdotal, I favor a rigorous, in-depth and well documented study be done and even suggested one way of accomplishing it in days or weeks.

KenV
13th Mar 2015, 18:15
I hope that is a typo.

The problem *IS* real.


Uh huh. Says you and a few other very loud folks.

But the funny things is, the Aerospace Medical Association, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Australian CASA Expert Panel, House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, Australian Senate Investigation Committee, US National Research Council, UK Department of Transport, UK Parliament's Select Committee on Science and Technology, Aviation Medicine Directorate at King's College London, Medical Toxicology Unit at Guys' Hospital, US National Institute of Health, Aviation Committee on Toxicity, UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, and LOTS more all disagree with you.

Yeah, yeah, I know. All those organizations are "vested interests" who are "colluding" in a massive "cover up". Just as NASA colluded with countless other organizations and national governments to perpetrate the Apollo moon landing hoax.

Look, you folks can believe what you want to believe. And yet none of you are choosing steam ships or steam locomotives over airplanes when it comes time to travel any significant distance.

Nemrytter
13th Mar 2015, 18:29
rantanplane:
this is exactly you, because you want to see that there is NO evidence.
I've said this about 15 times already in this thread but I'll say it again: Please post a link or something to just one single scientific (peer-reviewed) study that shows evidence for aerotoxic syndrome. Despite asking many times I've not seen anyone do this so far.

rantanplane
13th Mar 2015, 19:26
KenV, in plain simple English, just what I see.. your attitude: if you can' t see it, it is not there, and then the test, wow: it is not there, therefore I cant' see it. Proven by evidence. Sadly this evidence is based on nothing than blindness. Science means you have to doubt what you see, read, calculate etc. and you have to doubt even more what you don't see.

How do you know which camp I belong to? Despite You know nothing for sure, you claim to do so.

KenV
13th Mar 2015, 20:04
KenV, in plain simple English, just what I see.. your attitude: if you can' t see it, it is not there


Aaaah, you claim to "see" my "attitude". So you base your statements on your (mis)perception of my "attitude" while utterly ignoring the multitude of words which I posted right here that contradict your misperception. Words that span several days of replies which clearly showed I have seen, and acknowledged, and responded to lots and lots of evidence.


and then the test, wow: it is not there, therefore I cant' see it.
As opposed to your test: you (mis)perceive my "attitude," therefore you can't see my plain English words posted all over this thread.

Further fascinating is that you folks believe that if you repeat a fabrication often enough, it magically becomes true. Your claim that I cannot or refuse to "see" evidence was a bald faced fabrication when uttered, and now repeated it remains a fabrication. A fabrication that numerous posts on this thread clearly contradict and which you refuse to see, much less acknowledge.

Aluminium shuffler
13th Mar 2015, 21:06
It's pointless debating with Ken, guys. He must just be winding us up - no rational person is so pig headed in a debate with so many direct witnesses and victims. Either way, most on here know what's going on and what needs to be done. Let's hope that Boeing's tacit admission in the 78 is a sign of better things to come. Shame that the 777X and 350 aren't following the example, but it might end up costing them in the long run.

Pacific Blue
13th Mar 2015, 21:59
For anyone doubting how serious this actually is have a read of this:

Is the Air Quality on Passenger Planes Killing People? | VICE | United Kingdom (http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/is-the-air-quality-on-passenger-planes-killing-people-767)

rantanplane
13th Mar 2015, 22:13
I have to admit I cannot present CCTV footage from OP's sneaking thru into human brains on airplanes. On the other side, there is no scientific study that shows it is impossible to happen - please guys show me there is! - and there is enough scientific evidence that it MIGHT be possible. Strange wise some air crew show all typical symptoms. But so what...

In my little more and less scientific rational world: too many cover ups by the industry, not only aviation, medicine and drug companies are actually far worse.

What I "see" happening right now: The industrie is aware, will try to keep things quiet but develop better systems and cleaner lubricants to reduce the toxification as much as possible. Then they will test thoroughly and tell: it's all fine, what have you been worrying about? Why is LH testing in their most modern aircraft and not in the oldest rusty ship?

And yes, only very few people get damaged beeing a lot more sensitive to certain chemicals than others. So just minimize leaking oil. Simples. But hey Ken, perhaps these over sensitive 'wimps' should be taken out of the gene pool anyway? you already try your best with your posts here..with or without scientific Evi-dance..

Bokkenrijder
13th Mar 2015, 22:36
It's pointless debating with Ken, guys. He must just be winding us up - no rational person is so pig headed in a debate with so many direct witnesses and victims.
Yeah, it really beats me why any colleague and professional pilot would not want to get to the bottom of this, after all it's the very air we breath day in day out, year in year out, for our entire career...

Why would any real pilot try to actively discourage any debate about ATS and pro-actively try to derail an investigation? Is KenV just a hired gun and an industry mouthpiece? He certainly acts as if an investigation and any possible unfavorable final conclusion will be directly taken out of his paycheck, profit share or bonus. :E

rh200
14th Mar 2015, 02:49
For anyone doubting how serious this actually is have a read of this:

Media articles are useless. If you want facts, look up the journals in the databases. No shortage of them there on the subject.

Statements like "all the evidence and in light of how many people" are nothing but emotional claptrap. Numbers, what is is it in victims, out of how many billion travelers and flight crew?

Then we go an say things like "its proof they are covering up because of the 787 design", immediately followed by well the 777X isn't.

Every profession deals with the facts according to their interpretation of risk and benefit.

The lawyers for the company will look at the problem and decide to fold or hold according to the facts as they see it, and how things are going to pan out. It will have nothing to do with who is right or wrong.

The lawyers for any potential victims will take it up on how they can see if they can win, or make a buck. Again it will have nothing to do with who is right or wrong.

The companies are out to make a buck for their shareholders, that is their duty within acceptable safety standards and risk.

Somewhere in all this is the truth.

Smokie
14th Mar 2015, 14:39
Tests have been carried out in a BAe146 years ago.
Draeger CO monitor with data logger. All results sent to ASHRAE.
Absorbtion tubes were used to detect OP's and other nasties. Results found Positive by Professor Chris Van Netten.
Swab samples also taken and confirmed by Prof. Van Netten to be positive for TOCP.

My Chest Xray showed that my Lymph Nodes lit up like a Christmas Tree!
Consultant asked if I ever had Pneumonia before, up untill that time I had not.
The results actually showed up what was later found to be caused by exposure to Petro Chemicals and that I presented with the symptoms of Chemical Pnuemonia.

Imperial college London was raided and all the results from those who had been exposed had their Medical records stolen. Fortunately copies were made and moved to a remote location. Seems that the paranoia actually paid off with the test results copies still intact.
Now you have to ask yourself who would have a vested interest in having these Medical records destroyed.

So there is no evidence then.......?::ugh:

nosmoking
14th Mar 2015, 22:58
And here´s another one...

Incident: SAS B736 near Stockholm on Dec 7th 2014, pilot ill (http://avherald.com/h?article=47e74f24&opt=0)

Heathrow Harry
15th Mar 2015, 10:53
The BAe146 tests at Cranford are the only near sytemantic study that I'm aware of

There is no overwhelming scientific evidence of aerotoxic syndrome but then no-one has ever really carried out any long-term, fleeet wide research

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why the industry and the government might, how shall we put it, "place aerotoxin research low on the list of priorities"

I have some sympathy with that view TBH as there are a lot more dangerous things out there - such as sleep deprivation, duty patterns etc

On the other hand those shouting "There is no evidence therefore it can't happen" sound like the tobacco comapnies in the early 1950's.......

rh200
15th Mar 2015, 11:16
On the other hand those shouting "There is no evidence therefore it can't happen" sound like the tobacco comapnies in the early 1950's.......

The vast majority of those going there may not be a problem are going there doesn't appear to be a problem as there doesn't appear to be enough evidence to support it statistically.

The 146 is a known so called problem child, as well as possibly a few others. These have been flown in western countries for a significant amount of time now. That means there have been significant amounts of time spent by flight crew in those western countries. A such there should be significant statistical spikes in related health problems with them.

Nemrytter
15th Mar 2015, 14:26
Tests have been carried out in a BAe146 years ago.
...
Swab samples also taken and confirmed by Prof. Van Netten to be positive for TOCP.The results of those tests showed that the TCP concentration on the two flights examined was, at most, 46 thousand times lower than the safety limit set by AGCIH.

lomapaseo
15th Mar 2015, 15:50
On the other hand those shouting "There is no evidence therefore it can't happen" sound like the tobacco comapnies in the early 1950's.......

I suppose, somewhere at some time somebody might have said that, but it has mostly been drowned out by lesser volatile arguments that "the evidence so far " does not support an identifable problem that can be scientifically addressed by available means". [sic]

bcgallacher
15th Mar 2015, 18:10
Lomapaseo - That is what most of the sensible contributers have been saying from day one,not that the problem does not exist,just that there is not credible evidence to support the existence of a problem. The fact that a few pilots have developed illnesses and in one case died may or may not be connected to organophosphates.
As a line maintenance engineer I spent the greater part of my life breathing air contaminated with turbine oil - I have prostate cancer,copd and type 2 diabetes none of which I am sure were caused by that - perhaps 60 cigarettes a day for 20 years contributed to the copd. I have never in 40 years heard of an engineer having the symptoms of the illness claimed to be caused by organophosphates.

Aluminium shuffler
16th Mar 2015, 13:04
And so we circle around, people saying there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. That's the point most of us are making - do a very large independent and credible survey to get the evidence. It is there for everyone to see if they're unbiased. The issue is that only a handful of studies have been done, all small scale and all by parties with vested interests; a newspaper trying to sell a story on one side and a few manufacturers, airlines or authorities on the other, all with zero credibility.

The argument that there are very few safety reports about the issue is plain stupid. What do you think would happen to a pilot who repeatedly files fume event reports with no physical evidence of the events? He'd be disciplined and eventually fired! So, with no detector to show the evidence, no report. The lack of detectors is not accidental. The whole industry is set up to deny the issue because it's going to cost a fortune. TCP free oils cost twice as much as the crap they all use now, and retrofit of separate compressors would be impossible, but it's the litigation and compensation that is going to hurt the businesses. However, denying the issue only works in the short term - in the end, it'll all come out and the liabilities will be much bigger. This goes back to AirRabbit's comments on another thread about execs being short-term thinkers who last only five years before jumping into a different company and different industry; the long term financial issues will be someone else's problem, so they just keep stalling to maximise their profit and bonus in the short term.

Smokie
16th Mar 2015, 15:23
Nemrytter,

How do you know that only 2 BAe 146s were tested? If I recall there were several aircraft tested over a 12 month period including 757 and 767 aircraft.

Ancient Observer
16th Mar 2015, 15:43
My memory might not be perfect. Didn't they say that OP had been found in both 146s and 75s, but not in all cases, and in such small doses that they were well below any Thresholds that the scientists thought were relevant?

Strikes me there is a lot of thrashing around in this thread. Can't some USA based lawyers take on Boeing and get them to do long terms tests in 757s?

In the case of the UK, can't the stato fraternity at the Belgrano look at the reportables histories?

Nemrytter
16th Mar 2015, 15:43
Smokie, sorry I should have been clear - I was referring to the test results published by Prof. Van Netten. So far he has only published data from 2 flights, showing the concentrations of TCP at around 46,000 times lower than the recommended limit.

There was a study by others that also tested 100 flights on various aircraft (including those you mention). This study concluded that:
Samples specifically taken during recorded air quality events did not have notably elevated concentrations of any of the individually measured pollutants. Therefore, with respect to the conditions of flight that were experienced during this study, there was no evidence for target pollutants occurring in the cabin air at levels exceeding available health and safety standards and guidelines.

That's not to say that higher concentrations are not possible. Just that they were not detected during 100 flights - including some in which the crew suspected a fume event.

MrSnuggles
16th Mar 2015, 16:27
Just remember that even if levels are well below regulator's limits, you must always be concerend about repeated exposure.

A somewhat similar response can be found in the simple task of piercing ears. Thousands, if not millions, of people have ears (or other body parts) pierced. There is always the risk of nickel allergy, yet only a few actually suffers from it. Somewhere there is a genetic predisposition, a sensitivity for Ni exposure for a small amount of people.

This may very well be the case of the Aerotoxic Syndrome. But, while nickel allergy is recognised, aerotoxic sufferers are not.

Pacific Blue
16th Mar 2015, 16:39
In 2009 the company below tried to offer its product to provide a solution, did any of the airlines decide to take this up? :

Cleaning aircraft-cabin air: Breathing more easily | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/14446718)

KenV
16th Mar 2015, 18:22
Yeah, it really beats me why any colleague and professional pilot would not want to get to the bottom of this, after all it's the very air we breath day in day out, year in year out, for our entire career...

Name one colleague, professional pilot, aircrew, technician, passenger or other (including Ken) that does not want to get to the bottom of this. Not a SINGLE person on this thread or this forum is opposed to performing a thorough and well documented investigation of the air quality in aircraft. Not one. You guys' repeated claim that there are some here (or indeed anywhere) that are opposed to a thorough, well documented investigation is a total fabrication.

Why would any real pilot try to actively discourage any debate about ATS and pro-actively try to derail an investigation? Is KenV just a hired gun and an industry mouthpiece?
Oh my goodness. One final time, I am not now nor have I ever been opposed to an investigation nor have I EVER "discouraged any debate about ATS." That is another blatant, wild eyed fabrication.

Edit: And as a side note, why are you folks posting these lies and making these personal attacks if not to "discourage debate"? Hmmmmm? May I recommend you look up the word hypocrisy and then look in the mirror.


He certainly acts as if an investigation and any possible unfavorable final conclusion will be directly taken out of his paycheck, profit share or bonus.

You guys see the strangest things in the strangest places. I work in the aircraft modification business. So any "unfavorable final conclusion" will send lots of work and LOTS of money my way. If the ramifications of this fact escape you: I have a tremendous vested interest in seeing an "unfavorable final conclusion."

And real pilot? Really? You actually went there? My oh my. Still more hypocrisy from the scaremongers.

Smokie
16th Mar 2015, 19:31
Hmmmm... Interesting. 46000 times lower than the recommened limit?
As far as I am aware there are no limiits as such. If there are I would love to see exactly what they are and who actually has set such limits.

What I do know though is whatever limits that are set for earth bound victims can not be equated to the effects on those experiencing symptoms at altitude.
I recall a formula that was used to get the Airbourne equivilent at altitude but it alludes me at the monent, as it was a long time ago that I had used it. It would be multiplied by a certain factor to get the true value at altitude.

The fact that there were no limits set back then, was the cause for much debate as to why not.

Nemrytter
16th Mar 2015, 20:43
As far as I am aware there are no limiits as such. If there are I would love to see exactly what they are and who actually has set such limits.The limit is referred to by Prof van Netten in his paper, it was set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Conference_of_Governmental_Industrial_Hygienists), as far as I know (which isn't very much, to be honest) they have no regulatory capacity - it's just an expert recommendation.
The limit they set is, according to Prof van Netten, 5 milligrams per cubic metre of TCP in a 3% oil mist. The highest concentration he measured was around 0.0001 milligrams per cubic metre.
I recall a formula that was used to get the Airbourne equivilent at altitude...He corrected for this in his paper. From memory the numbers I quote are airborne equivalent concentrations at 8000ft pressure altitude.

Tank2Engine
16th Mar 2015, 21:50
The limit they set is, according to Prof van Netten, 5 milligrams per cubic metre of TCP in a 3% oil mist. The highest concentration he measured was around 0.0001 milligrams per cubic metre.I've done a urine test in coordination with Dr. Mulder and if I understand it all correctly, according to him there is no such thing as "TCP" in one's blood or urine.

What you apparently have to look for in urine samples (within 9 hours from flight/exposure) are all sorts of metabolites that are remnants of this TCP, things like Di (2 Chlorophyll) Phosphate, Di-Phenylphosphate, Di-n-Buthylphosphate. (hope I spelled those correctly, I never was very good in chemistry ;) )

I did that urine test in Germany quite recently and 2 values of the above phosphates were well above the reference values in the column next to it, whatever that's worth. :confused:

Nemrytter
17th Mar 2015, 08:48
... according to him there is no such thing as "TCP" in one's blood or urine. It's not the subject of my research so all I can do is quote the peer-reviewed literature on the subject, but that definitely says "TCP" (and a bunch of other compounds) when discussing concentrations in air.
Urine, however, is probably a different thing all together - and one I'd rather not be involved in.:}

KenV
17th Mar 2015, 17:11
I've done a urine test in coordination with Dr. Mulder and if I understand it all correctly, according to him there is no such thing as "TCP" in one's blood or urine.

Hmmmm. This may or may not be true, but appears to be rather beside the point. The point is whether TCPs are present in the air of airliner cabins and cockpits.

Ancient Observer
17th Mar 2015, 18:47
There will be Threshold Limit Values for Organophosphates.

Google for them.

The standards are set for workers who are in daily touch with OP. (ie, not pilots who will have far less exposure to them than factory workers)

rh200
17th Mar 2015, 21:53
The point is whether TCPs are present in the air of airliner cabins and cockpits.

Actually its not about if, I would be surprised if they aren't. Its about what the level is and what is the rate it changes. Is it above the noise of the measuring instrument, and if so for how long how often.

Heathrow Harry
18th Mar 2015, 10:20
AL shuffler has got it right

"do a very large independent and credible survey to get the evidence. "

The question comes - who will fund it?

I also have a sneaking suspicion that it will find there IS a problem but that it only affects a small number of people on certain aircraft

Not sure that we don't have other, more serious problems, in the business - like stopping people stalling large transport aeroplanes.....................

Longtimer
18th Mar 2015, 14:32
EASA awards contract for cabin air contamination research
By: DAVID LEARMOUNTLONDON Source: Flightglobal.com in 6 hours
EASA has commissioned a pair of German organisations – one a medical school and the other an applied research establishment – to research cabin air quality. The agency says the research will start with in-flight work to identify suitable instrumentation to measure cabin and cockpit air contamination.

Once the instrumentation and testing methodology has been established, EASA says it will carry out a larger-scale test programme on board commercially-operated large transport aeroplanes in the near future. Measurements will be taken in the cockpit and passenger cabin during all flight phases.

The EASA research contract has been awarded to a consortium made up of research establishment Fraunhofer and the Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH). Both are based in Hannover.

EASA’s call for research bids states: “The quality of the air that passengers and air crews are exposed to on board commercial transport aeroplanes has been the basis of a continuing debate over the last 60 years, both from the health and safety points of view. Discussions about cabin or cockpit air quality need to differentiate between single cabin/cockpit air contamination [fume] events and the cabin air composition in normal operating conditions, for example the composition of the cabin air in the absence of any abnormal event and which can be compared, for instance, to the composition of the outside air or to the air at other workplaces.”

The project is expected take 20 months from taking measurements to analysis of the results. Results are expected in October 2016, says EASA, adding that the final details of the project – including the complete list of the aircraft types that will feature in the research – are still to be decided upon.

KenV
18th Mar 2015, 18:34
I hafta wonder how long it will take before the scaremongers declare that Fraunhofer and the Medizinische Hochschule Hannover are part of the existing vast conspiracy covering up this proven problem and therefore their research results and conclusions are not to be trusted.

Ian W
18th Mar 2015, 21:33
I hafta wonder how long it will take before the scaremongers declare that Fraunhofer and the Medizinische Hochschule Hannover are part of the existing vast conspiracy covering up this proven problem and therefore their research results and conclusions are not to be trusted.

That will depend on the results and how supportive or not they are of the claims. :rolleyes:

NOMANSNEMESIS
19th Mar 2015, 12:22
http://imgur.com/ujSoHcC

http://imgur.com/Zx3vEO9

http://imgur.com/C12l82o

http://imgur.com/axzN5RD

http://imgur.com/VhIFICk

There still seems to be a desperate need in many of the above posts to cling to the belief of "no scientific evidence".

I have uploaded jpegs of the Bournemouth Senior Coroners letter, please read it with care.

Also, a specific response for Ian W, I posted a link to the 2005 BALPA document on this subject, all 320 pages of it. Ian W was apparently able to read this in its entirety in 67 minutes, an astonishing 4.77 pages per minute for the understanding of heavy going scientific text?

So, What did you make of the article on .pdf page no 30 from Professor Chris Winder? What about the article on .pdf page no 59 from Professor Vyvyan Howard? What about the article on .pdf page no 81 from Professor Mohamed Abou-Donia.

I am afraid that there is either an element here of membership to "The Flat Earth Society 2.0", or, many posters here are Airline/AC Manufacturer/AC Engine Manufacturer insiders with a large vested interest in keeping this buried.

Kenv, Explorer61 and BC Gallacher have been honest enough to state their status in regard to the Aviation industry as have I.

So, I would request that others on here should give an approximate framework of who they are in relation to Aerotoxic Syndrome.

Also, many in the posts above have stated illnesses NOT connected with AS, specifically, Heart attacks, Lung problems, Prostrate cancer etc, please read CAREFULLY page four of the coroners letter with reference to Lymphocytic Myocarditis. This means any dearly departed Aviators that expired due to Heart attack may have been AS.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brunel.ac.uk%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpdf_fi le%2F0005%2F300200%2FThe_Berlaymont_Declaration_on_Endocrine _Disrupters.pdf&ei=PKgKVYOQAoOzPe-WgIgN&usg=AFQjCNHdiOqIZ5wRKpehHc-KRLCA0647tw

Here is a further link to research papers by Professor Carl Gustav Bornehag of the University of Karlstad in Sweden.

Please look carefully at .pdf page 3, you will see the reference to pesticide exposure leading to a series of horrible diseases at well below the officially agreed toxic level, specifically cancers/prostrate cancer. One of the twelve agreed worst Endocrine disruptors is the Organophosphate group.

These can also lead to Type 2 Diabetes as some posters have refereed to above as unrelated to AS. I know this because I attended one of Professor Bornehags lectures.

There has also been a "fairly reasonable" suggestion in the above posts that my chemical injury may have been caused by exposure to chemicals at home.

As my Aerotoxic Syndrome developed (a period of about five years), I took increasing precautions to eliminate all other sources of illness. We never used any aerosol insecticides in our home, we used electric fly killers, as I became more sick we reduced all household chemicals to non toxic equivalents.

During this time I would have holidays of up to three weeks and remain at home (I was too exhausted to travel anywhere). In these holiday periods I would recover fairly rapidly (reduced fatigue, reduced headaches, reduced muscle aches, reduced gastric problems etc). In these periods I would obviously be in my home a lot of the time and also use my car far more than during work periods.

Upon return to work I would, again, become sick. Within 20 minutes of engine start my nose/eyes/lips would start burning, severe headaches within 5 hours of departure, gastric problems within 12 hours of a flight.

Further evidence as to the benign nature of my home environment appears in the facts that my Wife would spend ten times as much time in our house and car as I would over any given year. additionally, my children were gestated in this house and started growing up in it with no obvious illnesses (the effects/endocrine disruptions from OPs is far greater in the young and unborn than in adults).

Further evidence to the toxic nature of these chemicals is apparent after my visit to my local Airport to let my kids look at the Aircraft. I was again sick within a short time of arrival there with burning eyes/nose mouth. These chemical burns took three days to subside.

If you suspect you or any loved ones have any of the aforementioned problems as a result of AS, get tested, link below.

Aerotoxic Diagnostics (http://www.prohealth.nl/Aerotoxic_Diagnostics.html)

I would suggest you then contact Frank Cannon at Cannons Law.

You should all also be aware that a "normal" autopsy will not find this problem, in the event of death of a family member you need to have the autopsy completed in Holland by Frank De Goot, link below.

https://nl.linkedin.com/in/frankvandegoot

Nemrytter
19th Mar 2015, 13:20
Let's make this very simple for you, NOMANSNEMESIS:
There still seems to be a desperate need in many of the above posts to cling to the belief of "no scientific evidence".
Based upon this statement it appears you have scientific evidence. So, could you be so good as to provide:
1) Peer-reviewed evidence that toxic chemicals are usually present in aircraft cabin air in significantly greater quantities than are present in the home or other similar day-to-day environment.
2) Peer-reviewed evidence that the aforementioned quantities of toxic chemicals are great enough to cause medical issues.

As far as I am aware neither of these has been shown thus far (hence the new German study) so I'm very interested in seeing your scientific evidence. Unfortunately despite a huge post you didn't actually include any.

Ancient Observer
19th Mar 2015, 16:53
The chemical industry, and various others such as pharms., rubber and petrochems have rather a lot more evidence than Aviation can or will assemble.

As you can imagine, the risk environment is far worse than what one might reasonably expect in a plane.

They have been "good guys" in this area for about 30 years in Europe.
Before about 1980, though, they were less obviously "good Guys".

Any chemicals that are suspected of causing disease/illness are researched.

A TLV is set. Presence or non presence of the nasties are recorded, 24 by 7. Occurrence of values over the TLV are not tolerated. If necessary, the plant is shut down.

All aviation needs to do is to learn from Chems/Pharms etc.

One footnote for NOMANS.
Some individuals are, for reasons not known to chemists, particularly susceptible to specific chemicals. For instance, a small number of people world wide cannot tolerate any exposure to TDI/MDI. (Google is your friend).
They have a personal TLV of zero.
It could well be that you are an individual with a personal TLV of zero to something in an aeroplane. It could be OP, but it could also be the carpets and/or the plastics in the plane.

cwatters
19th Mar 2015, 19:15
Nsnemesis - that sounds like a sensitization reaction. It's possible to become sensitized to something through repeated exposure at levels much lower than the official maximum safe level (I managed to become sensitized to superglue. Hobby use so nobody but me to blame). If that's the case it should be possible to find out what chemicals you have become sensitised to by some sort of controlled exposure (blind trial).

It seem that in some cases exposure triggers even worse problems..
Extreme Chemical Sensitivity Makes Sufferers Allergic to Life | DiscoverMagazine.com (http://discovermagazine.com/2013/nov/13-allergic-life)

rottenray
19th Mar 2015, 20:06
I personally don't understand all the heat against the idea of studying cabin/flight deck air quality.

And, the notion that particular tail numbers and types are "dirtier" than others makes a lot of sense.

As far as who would be interested in funding such research, maybe we should look to the folks who foot the bills -- insurance companies who have a lot of paper out there on pilots, cabin crew, and ground folks involved with handling jet engine oil.

Seems a few times a year, a flight diverts for fumes. I recall one instance I read about on this very site where CC became ill, and another where folks in the pointy end became ill.

I don't have a horse in this race. I fly infrequently these days, and have never taken a seat on a 146. I just wish everyone could approach this with less heat and anger.

Regarding the post above, CWatter spoke about becoming overly sensitized to superglue. CWatter, if you go in for surgery, make sure you include this in your med history. Some procedures use a variant of superglue in place of stitches.

I became overly sensitive to anti-bacterial hand soaps a couple years ago. At the time I was doing some volunteer work (dealing with the homeless) and it required a good scrub-up a few times an hour. I became so sensitive to the triclosan (the active ingredient in most anti-bacterial hand soaps) that I couldn't use any product containing it for nearly a year. Intense itching, redness, and flaking skin.

I can now use regular products which contain tric, but I've been told not to overdo it.


Cheers!

Ancient Observer
20th Mar 2015, 14:23
NOMANS could be one of a number of chemicals.

Maybe have a chat to a scientist/chemist at the H & S Exec. They should know which chemicals can cause this sensitisation. Superglue is certainly one, as is MDI/TDI, as is isocyanate in its various forms.

Heathrow Harry
20th Mar 2015, 17:10
Rottenray is right - lets stop trashing the guys who have a different take on this issue and wait for the research

Tourist
20th Mar 2015, 17:35
Equally Harry, lets stop wearing tinfoil hats until there is some peer reviewed science pointing to the existence of a problem.

The fact that the world has been covered in aircraft for 50 years and people are not falling like flies would suggest that this is along the lines of the MMR insanity.....

KenV
20th Mar 2015, 19:13
I personally don't understand all the heat against the idea of studying cabin/flight deck air quality.


Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

The scaremongers have succeded in convincing many people of the utterly false idea that there is a cover up underway and that there is opposition to doing testing/studying of air quality in aircraft. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Amazing.

KenV
20th Mar 2015, 19:17
Rottenray is right - lets stop trashing the guys who have a different take on this issue and wait for the research


Hmmmm. Name one individual who has been "trashed" for being a proponent of aerotoxic syndrome. I'm certainly unaware of a single one. On the other hand, aerotoxic proponents have cerrtainly trashed some folks who have a "different take" on this issue than they.

blind pew
20th Mar 2015, 19:48
A few little statistics for you.
Of the approx 20 foreigners who were recruited at the same time as me and flew the DC10...one left when he was on anti depressants and his skin disease and mental health problems cleared up...and four of us were grounded and never flew professionally again...me included.
I had one friend who flew the death ship for Wardair and had similar symptoms as moi...cleared after a stress ECG ...flew Toronto - Gatwick and dropped down dead (at 40).
I had three mates who flew the ex Bcal operation on the same ship...one "retired" rumoured to be mental health problems...died at 64 a couple of months ago.
When I was visiting the shrink every 2 months I bumped into a Skipper who was crying like a baby and another neighbour whom wasn't well when we flew together died the next year at 55.
One has to take into account that in my first company "mental health" problems paid 10% of sum assured.
In my last any losses due to the career were born by the company and illness not attributed were born by insurers...so malaria was classed as a false diagnosis or something one caught from a toilet seat.
As to the rubbish re suing for a pot of gold...my loss of career has paid out more than most pilots earn PA.
Lastly I flew with a skipper on the DC9 in the early 80s who had radiation measuring equipment which he had purchased (1000s)...Lufty CC had carried similar equipment and were banned from using it...Ifalpa did a study ...which was removed from our crew room. I was to fly up to 4 polar flights per month. Eventually there were guidelines issued of max one a month whilst our CC were allowed 3 NA crossing per month. Ten years later my daughter did up to 7NA per month which were all West Coast.
It's all about money and there are enough victims to make even you doubt the sincerity of the big boys.
From a guy who has lost short term memory, sense of smell and taste, suffers from tinitus and stomach problems and depression...not forgetting the muscle pain every night....whose medical records have disappeared ...
Has spent the last 20 years flying sailplanes/tugs/paragliders (in the mountains)/model aircraft and even bought microsoft flight sim cause he misses the job so much but is still being paid enough to live comfortably anywhere around the globe....
Guess that [email protected] on your fireworks

Tourist
20th Mar 2015, 20:13
Blind Pew

You need to google the difference between correlation and causation.

Incidentally, I have met literally thousands of pilots who are just fine. Does that mean all aircraft are safe?

rh200
20th Mar 2015, 21:03
You also need to look at how the study works out its samples. Say x amount of people out of a sungrouping developed problems when they may be exposed to multiple common factors can be misleading.

As such a good study will try and separate groupings to try and get a singular common cause. In the first instance they may be content to just do a basic statistical study. This would most likely come up with nothing due to shear numbers. But if done right it may come up with clusters.

Once a cluster is identified then the causation of that cluster can then be looked at. Another words flying aircraft x, and traveling to work for ten years though suburb y and z along route.

misd-agin
21st Mar 2015, 00:03
Years ago, beginning with the prop age, about 30% of the guys never made it to retirement. Not being medically fit causing early retirement has been around for decades.


And then there are the guys that fly for 40+ years, including 20+ yrs on the DC-10, that are fit as a fiddle.


You get the same radiation exposure (+/-5%) on an U.S. east coast to Europe trip as you do on a west coast to Europe trip. East coast trips average much higher due to shorter flight/lighter cruise weight.


Polar flights from the U.S. to Asia generate about the same radiation exposure as flights to Europe from the east or west coast of the U.S. (all within 10% of each other - +/-5%).

NOMANSNEMESIS
22nd Mar 2015, 23:19
Due to complaints about my posts being "huge", here's a short one.

It's a report of a successful US Legal action against Boeing by a Flight Attendant that has all the same symptoms as myself.

Boeing settles suit over cabin air safety - Travel - News | NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44777304/ns/travel-news/t/boeing-suit-settlement-stirs-jetliner-air-safety-debate/)

Please read the link above.

Some comments on this subject have suggested that this needs to be sorted in the courts.

It has.

Quote below from the text.

"The amount and other details of the settlement Wednesday between former American Airlines worker Terry Williams, a 42-year-old mother of two, and Boeing were not made public as a condition of the agreement".

Other wise known as a gagging clause, it looks like a cover up, smells like a cover up, so..... it's a cover up.

As for the "There's no science" complainers above, see the second pasted text quote below.

"But 250,000 pages of company documents turned over to the plaintiff's legal team by Boeing seem certain to fuel the long-running battle over the safety of cabin air in commercial jetliners".

What could possibly be in a quarter of a million pages of documents that led to a successful law suite?

Ps. It's obviously lots of good evidence/science otherwise this action would not have been successful, but, We'll never know because it's been covered up!

Tourist
23rd Mar 2015, 08:26
NOMANSNEMESIS

It has not had a successful court action.

It was settled out of court.

That happens all the time and shows no decision either way.

You can infer what you want from their decision to settle, and it is not unreasonable to think that Boeing probably had some concerns, however nuisance suits are settled every day purely due to the costs of the trial rather than because the evidence is incontrivertable or even plausible.

In fact, if you are confident of winning why would you settle? You settle because continuing to trial is a risk unless you have incontrivertable evidence. You accept less money for the certainty.
Companies settle for various reasons. Sometimes because they are guilty and want to minimise their damages and keep it under wraps, but also sometimes because you can never be sure which way a jury will jump, particularly with a lack of definitive evidence and if they lost the class action could be huge.
A gagging clause is a mutually agreed agreement. The plaintif is equally guilty of covering up the affair.

p.s. The science doesn't go away because of a gagging clause. If good science exists, there is nothing to stop another plaintif from using this peer reviewed science in another trial.

Tourist
23rd Mar 2015, 08:40
Incidentally, a court decision neither invalidates or validates science.

Only reality can do that.

Various luminaries in history were imprisoned or executed after courts found them guilty of being wrong about the roundness of the earth or the earth moving around the sun.

"And yet it moves"

Pacific Blue
23rd Mar 2015, 10:14
At last the UK governement seems to be taking the issue seriously:
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/565550/Flying-airplanes-toxic-fumes-dangerous-for-10-of-Brits

ShotOne
23rd Mar 2015, 10:37
"..If you were confident of winning why would you settle?" Well for one, cost. Big companies can simply draw out the legal process to financial exhaust the opposition, regardless of the strength or otherwise of the legal case. Two, time. Not much point in "winning" if you die before seeing any money.

Aluminium shuffler
23rd Mar 2015, 12:29
Or, Tourist, you might settle because you're too ill to face long court battles unless you absolutely have to and the out of court offer was big enough (why would they give a big payoff if they didn't expect to lose?).

The manufacturers and authorities know full well what is happening. In my perhaps twisted logic, that makes it not only conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, but conspiracy to commit mass murder. You'd think the non-aviation authorities around the world would take that more seriously. Some lunatic sets off a nail bomb or goes on a shooting spree and the police and media go nuts, but a whole industry knowingly and willingly poisons millions of people a year, and nothing happens. The difference is the depth of the pockets of the poisoners.

Nemrytter
23rd Mar 2015, 12:55
As for the "There's no science" complainers above, see the second pasted text quote below.
"Complainers"? Seriously?
So you think that those who want to look at this from a scientific perspective, using real data and robust methods, are "Complainers"? That's a pretty shocking attitude to take.
As I have said before, this attitude really hurts the cause of those who do argue for Aerotoxic syndrome to be researched in detail. It gives the impression that you're not interested in any evidence beyond your own anecdotes and conspiracy theories.
In short: If you want aerotoxic syndrome to be taken seriously then act seriously. Doing otherwise discredits the entire subject.

"But 250,000 pages of company documents turned over to the plaintiff's legal team by Boeing seem certain to fuel the long-running battle over the safety of cabin air in commercial jetliners". Big number. Doesn't mean anything. Each test flight I'm involved with (testing a specific sensor for another purpose) generates a similar quantity of data. I'm sure Boeing has huge amounts of data on air quality, engine performance, AC pack performance, etc, that is relevant to this discussion. In that context 250,000 pages isn't that much.

Also, I'm still waiting for any peer-reviewed studies you may wish to offer. None forthcoming so far...

Heathrow Harry
23rd Mar 2015, 14:00
"It has not had a successful court action.

It was settled out of court.

That happens all the time and shows no decision either way. "

REALLY???

Maybe you don't want the risk of setting a precendent and having to shell out to everyone???

Settling out of court never struck me as "innocence"