Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Toxic (TCP) Fumes

Old 3rd Dec 2013, 22:18
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: here
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lufthansa A388

Accident: Lufthansa A388 enroute on Nov 29th 2013, fumes injure 8 crew members
old rope is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2013, 00:40
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Interesting summation from one, in the Reader Comments from Rope's link above:

Rolls Royce engines have more oil fume issues than GE or Pratt engines.

RB211-535C has oil fumes issues with 757s

RB211-535E4 as well.

BA has always had this problem on the 757,767 fleet for years.

The 524Gs on the 767 ( and 747) have oil fume issues as well.
Chocks Away is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2013, 01:31
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting show....pity the "Truth" was kept secret ....
fruitloop is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2013, 10:44
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have worked on many different Rollers over the years and I can say that there is a high oil smell issue.

What gets me is everyone blames the airframe manufacturer, not the engine maker or the oil maker. Go figure!
Engineer_aus is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2013, 23:13
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: west island
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Never smelt oil fumes in flight but the amount of burning oil smoke and fumes coming out the back of the A320/321 V2500 engines on turn-arounds is like a steam train stopped at the station some times. Breathing this stuff can't be good for you and how many pilots have gone down with health issues towards the end of their careers ? Could be coincidence but who really knows.
point76 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2013, 09:10
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: In a deep pit
Age: 45
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So many millions of passengers carried each year without incident and all of a sudden this is a major issue?

There are many, many thousands of jet pilots that fly for decades without any adverse effects from this so called issue. Who is to say that those that fell ill would not have fallen ill regardless of their job as a pilot or cabin crew.

A longitudinal study into cancer rates in 6000 German pilots over 40 years found that "The mortality [in pilots] from all causes and all cancers was significantly lower than in the German population". An extract of the study can be found here Cosmic radiation and mortality from cancer a... [Eur J Epidemiol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

So based on the above study I would argue anyone stating that this is a serious issue is trying to push an agenda, and clearly is choosing to ignore facts.

Do isolated incidents of fumes entering the cockpit occur, of course. Is it a long term health issue, No. The studies support that this is not an issue, and no amount of guessing at what caused cancer in a few pilots will change this.

These pilots could have easily got cancer and other issues by being exposed to other toxic substances. As one poster said unleaded fuel is toxic, and I fill up my car every week and breath those fumes in.

Or maybe it is all because of the nasty Chemtrails
Javadreaming is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2013, 09:53
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think Java Dreaming, that some are more susceptible than others to chemicals and fumes. After nearly forty years of flying, I have had no ill effects, and have flown everything from the DC3 to the B747. I don't know any older pilots that have ever been affected by fumes, but that is not to say it happens. Unfortunately some people have systems that seem to develop allergies, and react, when others inhaling the same stuff, have no side effects at all. The whole world seems to suffer allergies now, that were unheard of even twenty years ago, why? Who knows.
Ida down is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2013, 19:14
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Java, this is no sudden concern, it has been going on from 1989 to my certain knowledge. I used to be a sceptic too.
Croqueteer is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 20:21
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toxic Haze
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Java.

Java there are no studies that scientifically and accurately conclude that low level chronic exposure to TCP in ANY quantity is safe. The last 'study' carried out was the seriously flawed Cranwell study conducted some years back.There is no research to back up your statements other than that manufactured by the industry to perpetuate this cover up. Please visit the aerotoxic website if you would like more info.
toxic-avenger is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 20:38
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
fume study

Hi all....have not been on for some time.....but this story got me going..there was a study carried out here by the syd uni the prof's name I cannot remember but samples were taken from several a/c both international and domestic,these samples were forwarded to the US for inspection.All this was funded by the ALAEA and the AIPA.....does anyone know the outcome,might be wise to ask the unions,this was all done with the help of the BALPA.
the rim is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2013, 12:53
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: In a deep pit
Age: 45
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Toxic, If you decide to ignore perhaps the best longitudinal study to date (the one I referenced above) then that is your choice. But don't be one of those people that ignore rock hard evidence just because it does not support your position.

As I said above, I agree there are instances where fumes have entered the cockpit. However I stand by my position that this is not a major issue. This is based on the indisputable fact that long term cancer rates in the pilot population are no higher than in the general population.

You can disagree all you want, but the evidence does not support your position.
Javadreaming is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 01:24
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Java... I'm glad that you have had no Ill effects...BTW when did you give up smoking ??
fruitloop is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 05:12
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sniff this

You've also got to contend with less life threatening onboard gases such as the good old fart;

Farts on planes among strange studies - Yahoo! New Zealand - Totaltravel

I recall a certain colleague I used to fly with who would purposely eat cabbage, beans, broccoli or a Big Mac the day before he flew with F/O's he didn't like, and he did this for obvious reasons!

But back on tropic, although studies into onboard toxicity isn't fully inclusive, there certainly is a lot of evidence pointing towards specific causes. And it would appear, as has already been suggested, that some people are more susceptible to these toxins than others, which is not entirely unusual in life.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 08:42
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toxic Haze
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Java

I think you are missing the point. The research paper you reference has nothing to do with Tcp exposure. It refers to cosmic radiation! Where is your association with what we are talking about here.
toxic-avenger is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 10:25
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: In a deep pit
Age: 45
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The association is that long term mortality rates in the pilot population are no higher than in the general population. If exposure to toxic fumes are such a pressing issue then surely we would see higher cancer rates in pilots. Since this is not the case then I conclude that exposure to these fumes in isolated cases are not affecting the long term health of the majority of pilots.

As I said above, I do agree that fumes enter into the cockpit at times. I also accept that some individuals are more susceptible to these fumes. I am saying that the majority of pilots work their entire career with no ill effects from these isolated events.

Oh and smoking is Bad.
Javadreaming is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 11:07
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Java, read my post on the 3rd Dec. I don't think you have read much on this problem. The Cranfield investigation was rumoured to have the funding removed as it was getting too close to the truth. Also read up on the sheep-dip problem of about 30 yeasr ago.
Croqueteer is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 18:41
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toxic Haze
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Java

Tcp is a neurotoxin that causes cell damage in various parts of the body. The paper you quote is no more than a statistical analysis on an unrelated subject and misses the point completely of what we are taking about here. Long term health effects of inhalation to TCP are without question. Boeing themselves say they have no idea about the possible consequences of breathing in these fumes. TCP is one of the most deadly substances known to man. It has no place even in minute quantities anywhere near the breathing air supply of a pressurised airliner. There are a raft symptoms and health implications for crew. I have spoken to dozens that have had their lives destroyed
. Java please visit the aerotoxic website you will find a huge number of testimonials and sound science based evidence to support what we are saying. I respect your taking an interest in the subject.
toxic-avenger is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 18:58
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Seoul/Gold Coast.....
Posts: 383
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
In Australia the aircraft which caused the highest number of fume problems was The Bae 146, it's Lycoming ALF 502 engines and Garrett 150M APU were both know to have compressor stage oil seal problems….I think the same APU was fitted on the B757 & G IV as well…..as a former 146 pilot I often encountered many fumes events and know of former colleagues who were forced to stop flying because of their own adverse reactions to the fumes (TCP).
zlin77 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2013, 10:42
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Danger Missing the point

As an engineer with over 40 years of experience (and exposure) to this stuff I have witnessed a few very good friends demise
with some sort of illness that cannot be confirmed that it was caused by engine oil contanation...but why has Boeing and Airbus gone to non engine bleed air suppelematial systems.The expouser to TCP is real and like I have said our unions have spent a lot of our money studying it and what has happened to that.In the past the airline industry used a number of toxic fluids that were unknowen to the users .....zinc chromate ,MEK and that lovely stuff we used to do nozzle washers with on the JT9D's ...we even heated this stuff for better results.I think all of us have it stored within our bodies all we need is the trigger to start the process off ...some will [unfortunally] but others will go to the grave with it.....hopefully we all will continue on till something else gets us
the rim is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2013, 11:56
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 116
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Has this got anything to do with chemtrails?
Break Right is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.