Toxic (TCP) Fumes
 

Interesting story on 60 Minutes Australia tonight, which I think has a lot of legs in it.

Here is the story for those who missed it (see "Toxic Flyer")

Interesting extended interview with the BA pilot but I can't find the video link in the "Extended Minutes" section.

A question for the engineers: To what length, if any do HEPA filters help in this instance?

Happy landings.

'Bleed Air', the legacy continues...
 

The whisper jet was an absolute dog for this issue. But the BAE146 is not the only aircraft to have poisoned its occupants. The issue in itself is not new, but the reality is that big business is in bed with the Governments so it is rare that they are ever penalised for the dangers they bestow on the unwary.
The spin doctor Consultant in the 60 Minutes story was nauseating to say the least. Boeing has had what some may say is a checkered past with 737 rudder faults and lap joint work issues, but that isn't really relevant here, but it does prove that it is very hard to ping a manufacturer for wrongdoing.

The girl in the below link went on to win a payout against AN for the exact issue discussed in tonight's 60 Minutes story;

Flight attendant welcomes Senate report on cabin fumes [ 13oct00 ]

As a footnote, the alleged inability to design a chemical detection system, cheaply, for the aircraft cabin is a complete crock. There are numerous designs and prototypes out there, it's just that the aircraft manufacturers and indeed many airlines don't want them installed. I wonder why?

Some more light reading;

Global Cabin Air Quality Executive - www.FumeEvents.com

I haven't seen the video, but I can tell you the HEPA filters are only on the recirc fans. Could you imagine the litigation if it turned out to be admitted by all.

Well if it is bad, it is bad.
The asbestos and tobacco issues took a long while to become accepted as a problem.

Ever read the fine print on a 44 gallon drum of Mobil Jet Oil II?

Start No 2
 

Gee....... I wonder what that strong smell is every time I first start no.2 in my NG in the mornings???

Never seen any smoke or anything like that on the walkaround!

Of course "36 Minutes" wouldn't be beating this up would they? Like illustrating the story with file footage of the Helios crash which resulted from a failure to pressurise.

Which they referred to as a "fume event".

When ironically some "fumes" would have saved them.

Jet aircraft have been flying for decades, if there was some long term health issue to every one we would know by now.

There is an issue with mechanical failures that results in contamination of cabin air. This in some case adveresly affects some people. This is no different to many other problems in society. We have enough statistics over the length of time now to say the problem is statistically insignificant.

Unfortunate for the people it does affect, sadely they will not be the same again, but the aircraft industry works on affordable safety. If you can come up with some numbers showing effects are significant for total number of people flying, then something will be done about it.

Interestingly, a good mate of mine (airline pilot) was recently diagnosed with leukaemia..The doctor advised that this type of Leukemia is caused by radiation and/or Benzine (a product found in oils and fuels)!!! Makes you wonder ??

Some companies in Australia do believe it is an issue and have strict requirements regarding the reporting of "unusual smells" in aircraft.
To say is similar to "the earth is flat theory.
People smoked for years before governments stood up and confirmed that smoking was a health hazard. mobile phones, airport screening, aircraft fumes may well have long term issues. Until some one like CASA medical do a long term study we won't know.
What I do know is that I am aware of several people who have ceased flying using "fumes" as the likely reason for their medical condition.

I for one am not going to discount the possibility off hand.

Having said that I flew the 146 for many years without ever smelling fumes.

rh200
 

Would you like to tell all what those stats are you state are there. As far as I know there are no stats on air contamination.

As to it only being a problem with mechanical failure, that is incorrect. Ansett's 146s had a number of problems with contamination and the events had nothing to do with mechanical failure.

As to your statement "the aircraft industry works on affordable safety." Since when has any employer been able to state that as an excuse to not provide a safe work environment. That and this comment, "Unfortunate for the people
it does affect" sort of kills your it isn't happening belief.

I doubt any company could legally be able to provide a work environment knowing that a % of its employees will be harmed by that environment just by being present in it.

Like any company, airlines and manufacturers will do nothing until someone else provides irrefutable proof, don't expect them do anything which will cost them money in the future or provide a case for compensation in the past/present. Ain't going to happen.

BTW, I believe the 146 issue was caused (suspected) by seal issues. I understand a lot of effort was put into replacement seals.

I don't think that's how it all quite works ANCPER.

Everything is risk assessed and nothing is 'no risk'. There's always a chance of something happening, however remotely small even with safeguards in place. The workplaces of today with a decent OH&S system in place will attempt to get any activity in the very low/low range. Anything higher and further safeguards are required to reduce the risk. If the companies of today were legislated to provide risk free environments, we wouldn't have a job - it is affordable safety.

There is a very good chance the crap we breathe doing walkarounds behind an engine, or the oils we get all over ourselves, the sealants we smooth over with our fingers, the skydrol we have all over the hydraulic lines spewing out under pressure and all over the place, etc, do have an adverse effect on our health.

However, pinpointing any of them to any ailment when our normal outside of work environment is full of unnatural pollution which has been shown to cause illness over decades of exposure is going to be near on impossible. If people were dropping dead a week after a smoke/fumes event, different story, but the numbers don't stack up.

Like unleaded fuel..

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Hahahahaha..... That's gold.


Funniest post of the year, I reckon !

You're all missing one major point though fellas!

By Boeing's own admittance in a leaked Memo, TCP's are a real issue... and that was 6 years ago.
Review the video, as this internal Memo is at the rear of the story (13min mark).

By the way, here is the extended interview I was looking for, from the BA pilot.

:ok:

:(I lost my Kidneys 6 years ago after 17 years on the 146. Up till then, I was a sceptic on the fumes issue, but I had a rare condition (Good pastures syndrome) which shut down my kidneys in a week. The only clue I had was a consultant asking me if I had been in contact with oil. Apparently the organophosphates in the oil acts on the immune system and can give a variety of conditions, in my case , kidney failure. It is well documented in the farming world as the old sheep dip had the same effect. I know of many colleagues ex 146 that have been seriously affected in various ways, also including the 757. Don't tell me that Boeing went to the expense of using independent compressors for aircon in the 787 out of the goodness of their hearts! Anyway, I had a transplant two years ago, and am back to a normal life, still flying in a Jodel.

I personally know of two other cathay guys other than Ben in the 60 mins
expos'e who lost their licence with this issue. They both have elevated levels
of this toxic crap in their blood, lost their licences and have long term mainly
cognitive problems. This will not go away , it seems to affect some people and will surely become an asbestos style " oh dear who would have thought"
scenario

I know a female former Ansett pilot who has no recollection of her dark stormy night arrival into YBBN from Rocky. Last flight of her career.

All the same symptoms, from the BAE 146.

It is real. For those who fly from the VA Brisbane base, many will know her husband.

Ansett even rates a mention here Toxic fumes in airliner cabins ignored by authorities

Some more reading here;

http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/tox200621addannex1a

This is no joke.

So it seems that if CASA went after the cause with same vigour they persecute GA operators then we might have had a conclusion and/or positive result to this issue over 10 years ago... But engine manufacturers are not the same soft target and safe aviation workplaces are not "within CASA's mandate" are they?

Does the industry need yet another example of a dysfunctional regulator?

Lufthansa A388

Accident: Lufthansa A388 enroute on Nov 29th 2013, fumes injure 8 crew members

Interesting summation from one, in the Reader Comments from Rope's link above:

Interesting show....pity the "Truth" was kept secret ....

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!

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.

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:E:E:E

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.

Java, this is no sudden concern, it has been going on from 1989 to my certain knowledge. I used to be a sceptic too.

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.

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.

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.:)

Java... I'm glad that you have had no Ill effects...BTW when did you give up smoking ??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

Has this got anything to do with chemtrails?:\