The Aerotoxic Association
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Aerotoxic Association
The Aerotoxic Association was launched officially on 18th June 2007 at the Houses of Parliament, London.
Any comments gratefully received.
DB
Any comments gratefully received.
DB
Last edited by Bad medicine; 19th Jun 2007 at 21:43. Reason: Removed link
?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: oxfordshire. uk
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad Medicine, Redress.
An excellent start to this Association with excellent science applied by Professor Hooper to an area that often attracts ad hoc action. An ad hoc approach to this important area is indeed bad medicine.
Some of the pilots at this meeting have had problems persuading their medics (and/or managers) that aerotoxic syndrome exists. It was identified in 2001. (Winder, C. & J.C Balouet (2001) Aircrew exposure to chemicals in aircraft: Symptoms of irritation and toxicity" The Journal of Occupational Health & Safety- Australia & New Zealand, Volume 17 # 5 October, 2001)
“Historically, when the totalitarian state of Russia dealt with its dissidents, they sent them to psychiatric facilities.
Now, when pilots complain about safety in UK airlines; they send them to psychiatrists.”
This is a call to all pilots who feel that they have been threatened with the unfair use of a psychiatric category to keep them in line with company policies, when those policies are bringing the company into safety deficit. (The standard being that which is cited in ICAO Digests.)
Two categories are suggested. Its use by:
If you have been identified in a psychiatric category and think that you have aerotoxic syndrome. Let us know.
If your GP wants to prescribe antidepressants without investigating your physical status, and you think this is innapropriate, give them these links:
Then, if you think your doctor:
* has not kept their medical knowledge and skills up to date and are not competent;
* has taken advantage of their role as a doctor or have done something wrong;
there is redress. However, before the GMC can stop or limit a doctor's right to practise medicine, it needs evidence of impaired fitness to practise.
The GMC can also issue a warning to a doctor where there has been a significant departure from the principles set out in the GMC's guidance for doctors, Good Medical Practice. A warning will be disclosed to a doctor's employer and to any other enquirer during a five-year period.
For Further Information on the Regulation of Doctors and Guidance about good practice and ethics see:
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/index.asp
http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/compl..._gmc/index.asp
Some of the pilots at this meeting have had problems persuading their medics (and/or managers) that aerotoxic syndrome exists. It was identified in 2001. (Winder, C. & J.C Balouet (2001) Aircrew exposure to chemicals in aircraft: Symptoms of irritation and toxicity" The Journal of Occupational Health & Safety- Australia & New Zealand, Volume 17 # 5 October, 2001)
“Historically, when the totalitarian state of Russia dealt with its dissidents, they sent them to psychiatric facilities.
Now, when pilots complain about safety in UK airlines; they send them to psychiatrists.”
This is a call to all pilots who feel that they have been threatened with the unfair use of a psychiatric category to keep them in line with company policies, when those policies are bringing the company into safety deficit. (The standard being that which is cited in ICAO Digests.)
Two categories are suggested. Its use by:
- Airline Managers
- Company doctors
If you have been identified in a psychiatric category and think that you have aerotoxic syndrome. Let us know.
If your GP wants to prescribe antidepressants without investigating your physical status, and you think this is innapropriate, give them these links:
Then, if you think your doctor:
* has not kept their medical knowledge and skills up to date and are not competent;
* has taken advantage of their role as a doctor or have done something wrong;
there is redress. However, before the GMC can stop or limit a doctor's right to practise medicine, it needs evidence of impaired fitness to practise.
The GMC can also issue a warning to a doctor where there has been a significant departure from the principles set out in the GMC's guidance for doctors, Good Medical Practice. A warning will be disclosed to a doctor's employer and to any other enquirer during a five-year period.
For Further Information on the Regulation of Doctors and Guidance about good practice and ethics see:
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/index.asp
http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/compl..._gmc/index.asp
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am listening to R4 You & Yours this morning, and heard them say that tomorrow's program (June 22nd) is talking with pilots who have suffered due to the quality, or lack thereof, the air in the aircraft. Not sure of the times in the UK, but am guessing its around noon. I'm listening between 0630 and 0700 local in Wichita, KS...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: no fixed abode ....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerotoxic Sydrome is real
I'd like to add to this thread that Aerotoxic Syndrome IS a real issue in aviation health, with a very significant number of crew losing their licence and jobs because of it.
Most of these individuals probably never realised why their health deteriorated, because they never knew of the cabin air problem and the symptoms it could cause.
Humans are not designed to breathe the organo phosphates that are found in engine oils, and a cabin air system design in which any possibility of air and oil becoming mixed exists is asking for trouble. This however is the reality for all (as far as I am aware) commercial airliners in present service, and some crew are paying a heavy price with the simultaneous loss of both their health and their livelihood.
How do I know? - it's happened to me.
Most of these individuals probably never realised why their health deteriorated, because they never knew of the cabin air problem and the symptoms it could cause.
Humans are not designed to breathe the organo phosphates that are found in engine oils, and a cabin air system design in which any possibility of air and oil becoming mixed exists is asking for trouble. This however is the reality for all (as far as I am aware) commercial airliners in present service, and some crew are paying a heavy price with the simultaneous loss of both their health and their livelihood.
How do I know? - it's happened to me.
Last edited by pilotpantsdown; 21st Jun 2007 at 20:42.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: no fixed abode ....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The You and Yours show on BBC4 can be heard by following this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/?focuswin
This thread existed earlier and it was removed (censorship I think). The problems that are arising from breathing poisoned cabin air is widespread and I feel will rear its ugly head in a big way as more and more people become aware of the symptoms.
Those persistent colds that a pilot has- Organophosphate poisoning? The ear infection problems with vertigo that a cabin attendant suffers with- is THIS OP poisoning? Many aircrew suffer with various ailments and just put them down to 'one of those things.' But are they really showing signs of early OP poisoning?
I know at least four colleagues who have been diagnosed with this illness by leading clinicians- it is not something that your GP will be able to diagnose. A good friend of mine is suffering badly and has been diagnosed with definite neurological damage. Organophosphates have been found in his body and it looks likely that he will never fly again. Whether he will regain his health to what it was before is anybody's guess. He flew the BAe 146 for a number of years. Another ex-colleague is now so riddled with neurological problems he needs his wife's help to sit at the telephone and hold the receiver correctly. Again, he was a BAe 146 captain. But this problem is more widespread that the 146- other types are known to be prone- Boeing 757, Fokker 100 etc.
There is no smoke without fire. Aircraft air quality incidents are happening on a day to day basis- how many pilots have smelt that 'sweaty sock' smell when boarding an aircraft? If it is reported, the engineers usually fob you off. We hear that the coalescor bags in the Airco packs need changing and it gets put as a Cat X item- i.e. deferring it for 1 year. Why? Because it is a big job and not very pleasant. Also, the engineers do not have to fly it- they just switch the packs off whilst they do their checks!
It is about time that the airlines and the manufacturers admitted their responsibility and changed the specifications of the oils used in the engines to not include the TCP's that cause the problems. Or, air filters must be retrofitted to the bleed air system to prevent the oil particulates getting into the bleed air.
Until this happens, there will be more and more diagnosed cases of OP poisoning- more people will lose their health and their careers over something that could be prevented. If this does not happen soon, as awareness rises, the Tort Lawyers will ride into town and quite rightly fleece the airlines and aircraft/engine manufacturers for billions. It will be asbestos all over again!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/?focuswin
This thread existed earlier and it was removed (censorship I think). The problems that are arising from breathing poisoned cabin air is widespread and I feel will rear its ugly head in a big way as more and more people become aware of the symptoms.
Those persistent colds that a pilot has- Organophosphate poisoning? The ear infection problems with vertigo that a cabin attendant suffers with- is THIS OP poisoning? Many aircrew suffer with various ailments and just put them down to 'one of those things.' But are they really showing signs of early OP poisoning?
I know at least four colleagues who have been diagnosed with this illness by leading clinicians- it is not something that your GP will be able to diagnose. A good friend of mine is suffering badly and has been diagnosed with definite neurological damage. Organophosphates have been found in his body and it looks likely that he will never fly again. Whether he will regain his health to what it was before is anybody's guess. He flew the BAe 146 for a number of years. Another ex-colleague is now so riddled with neurological problems he needs his wife's help to sit at the telephone and hold the receiver correctly. Again, he was a BAe 146 captain. But this problem is more widespread that the 146- other types are known to be prone- Boeing 757, Fokker 100 etc.
There is no smoke without fire. Aircraft air quality incidents are happening on a day to day basis- how many pilots have smelt that 'sweaty sock' smell when boarding an aircraft? If it is reported, the engineers usually fob you off. We hear that the coalescor bags in the Airco packs need changing and it gets put as a Cat X item- i.e. deferring it for 1 year. Why? Because it is a big job and not very pleasant. Also, the engineers do not have to fly it- they just switch the packs off whilst they do their checks!
It is about time that the airlines and the manufacturers admitted their responsibility and changed the specifications of the oils used in the engines to not include the TCP's that cause the problems. Or, air filters must be retrofitted to the bleed air system to prevent the oil particulates getting into the bleed air.
Until this happens, there will be more and more diagnosed cases of OP poisoning- more people will lose their health and their careers over something that could be prevented. If this does not happen soon, as awareness rises, the Tort Lawyers will ride into town and quite rightly fleece the airlines and aircraft/engine manufacturers for billions. It will be asbestos all over again!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: oxfordshire. uk
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Biggles Syndrome
Dear Stop Stop Stop,
How right you are.
What bothers me is the part of the industry that pretends it knows what it is talking about. For instance, those who assert that there is no problem. This is neither scientific nor sensible. At worst, where scientists have access to the literature, it is criminally incompetent—because it means that pilots (and passengers) don’t get the medical treatment they need.
My advise is this: when a person tells you there is no problem, ask them to cite the scientific articles that they have read that confirm this view. What literature search did they do? How long was the list? What were the central arguments and contra arguments? (I wouldn't know how to handle the engineers you mentioned. Surely there is paperwork?)
Let us remind ourselves that according to ICAO, safety is neither ad hoc nor informal. To be safe it is proactive and informed.
At least you had the good sense and integrity to say that your statement was about your feelings about the future. The industry is full of people who speak in high tones, as if they really know about toxicity! (The Biggles Syndrome) They pontificate on matters on which they have no experience, nor do they take the time to do a literature search. And that makes all the difference
What gets me is when leading physicians’ reports confirm OP poisoning, yet we hear these ‘Biggles experts’ arguing against them (without any qualifications to so do.) I’m glad your colleagues have managed to get a clear diagnosis; I know that GPs find it difficult to diagnose. At some point we should contact the General Medical Council to get the subject, (history, symptoms, and diagnosis) circulated among doctors (if BALPA hasn’t already done so.)
In the Case of Andrew Sayers’ poisoning —this unfortunate man was given no treatment, nor even human company, for a full hour after he collapsed. It even says on the tin that urgent treatment would be needed if a person was splashed. By the time an independent person found him and called for an ambulance he was nearly dead on arrival at hospital. And all of these facts are in the documents released by the Court in Glasgow.
Make these people accountable because they are eroding safety margins in aviation. And when, as with the asbestos scandal, the insurance industry starts finding it difficult to compensate the victims, I say be proactive, stop making victims.
As you say, “It is about time that the airlines and the manufacturers admitted their responsibility and changed the specifications of the oils used in the engines to not include the TCP's that cause the problems. Or, air filters must be retrofitted to the bleed air system to prevent the oil particulates getting into the bleed air.” And I understand this would be cheaper than the losses to the insurance industry (if you want to see it in monetary terms).
However, would you trust them?
24th June
PS Oh, and yes. You and Yours did an excellent job!
How right you are.
What bothers me is the part of the industry that pretends it knows what it is talking about. For instance, those who assert that there is no problem. This is neither scientific nor sensible. At worst, where scientists have access to the literature, it is criminally incompetent—because it means that pilots (and passengers) don’t get the medical treatment they need.
My advise is this: when a person tells you there is no problem, ask them to cite the scientific articles that they have read that confirm this view. What literature search did they do? How long was the list? What were the central arguments and contra arguments? (I wouldn't know how to handle the engineers you mentioned. Surely there is paperwork?)
Let us remind ourselves that according to ICAO, safety is neither ad hoc nor informal. To be safe it is proactive and informed.
At least you had the good sense and integrity to say that your statement was about your feelings about the future. The industry is full of people who speak in high tones, as if they really know about toxicity! (The Biggles Syndrome) They pontificate on matters on which they have no experience, nor do they take the time to do a literature search. And that makes all the difference
What gets me is when leading physicians’ reports confirm OP poisoning, yet we hear these ‘Biggles experts’ arguing against them (without any qualifications to so do.) I’m glad your colleagues have managed to get a clear diagnosis; I know that GPs find it difficult to diagnose. At some point we should contact the General Medical Council to get the subject, (history, symptoms, and diagnosis) circulated among doctors (if BALPA hasn’t already done so.)
In the Case of Andrew Sayers’ poisoning —this unfortunate man was given no treatment, nor even human company, for a full hour after he collapsed. It even says on the tin that urgent treatment would be needed if a person was splashed. By the time an independent person found him and called for an ambulance he was nearly dead on arrival at hospital. And all of these facts are in the documents released by the Court in Glasgow.
Make these people accountable because they are eroding safety margins in aviation. And when, as with the asbestos scandal, the insurance industry starts finding it difficult to compensate the victims, I say be proactive, stop making victims.
As you say, “It is about time that the airlines and the manufacturers admitted their responsibility and changed the specifications of the oils used in the engines to not include the TCP's that cause the problems. Or, air filters must be retrofitted to the bleed air system to prevent the oil particulates getting into the bleed air.” And I understand this would be cheaper than the losses to the insurance industry (if you want to see it in monetary terms).
However, would you trust them?
24th June
PS Oh, and yes. You and Yours did an excellent job!
Moon Walker
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: the Moon
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a big prolem with fumes on our 757.(RR RB211-535C engines)
And the only fix is selling them im afraid ,but then somebody els would be stuck wth them.
Im very happy that its more and more in the public eye and i hope the Goverment ,CAA and COT take note off all the evidence and pull there finger out of there ****
Neil
And the only fix is selling them im afraid ,but then somebody els would be stuck wth them.
Im very happy that its more and more in the public eye and i hope the Goverment ,CAA and COT take note off all the evidence and pull there finger out of there ****
Neil
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: oxfordshire. uk
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“i hope the Goverment ,CAA and COT take note off all the evidence and pull there finger out of there ****” Neil Armstrong
I have been following Hansard comments about the aforementioned triumvirate and their attitude to evidence.
1977. The first scientific evidence appeared in the research literature “A previously healthy member of an aircraft flight crew was acutely incapacitated during flight with neurologic impairment….The etiology of his symptoms was related to an inhalation exposure to aerosolized or vaporized synthetic lubricating oil arising from a jet engine of his aircraft.” (Montgomery 1977)
1999; Organophosphate lubricants were the focus of a question in the house regarding “possible health hazards for air crews. [66599]
However, Mr. Doug Henderson, responded, “We…have in place a number of preventative measures to prevent air and ground crews from being exposed to these hazards and also regularly review the health risks.”
2001; the cockpit of a British Aerospace 146 filled with toxic fumes. A sudden and unexpected Airworthiness Directive was issued. Close inspection of this reveals a vague reference to a previously unreported “recent crew incapacitation incident in the UK” details of which Private Eye established. It had taken a non-industry magazine, Private Eye, to review the health risk and establish what the industry couldn't see.
2001. a growing body of scientific evidence recognized Aerotoxic Syndrome.
Yet:
In 2007 Lord Tyler asked "What consideration they have given to introducing regulations on the installation of contaminated air detection systems in United Kingdom registered aircraft." Hansard. [HL1947]
Lord Bassam of Brighton responded: The principle of better regulation is to legislate only where necessary. It is not clear that contaminants are present in the cabin environment in a quantity harmful to crew and passengers. That is why we asked the independent Committee on Toxicity (COT) to undertake a comprehensive review of all the evidence, and we will, of course, be guided by the COT’s conclusions and recommendations.”
My advice to Lord Bassam is to go and fly with you pilots and sit on a jump seat while you don your oxygen masks. He might change his tune then because he is ignoring the body of up-to-date scientific evidence already in existence and is unaware of the concept of a proactive safety system as advocated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) . And where is his humanity?
As for COT. Lady Mar had some choice words. Professor Alan Boobis, a member of COT was cited. "These compounds can cause diseases but not at the levels found in these [blood] tests". As for the chemical cocktail effect, he stated:
"There is simply no evidence it exists".
She responded: There is an ever increasing body of scientific literature from around the world that indicates that some chemicals are giving rise to adverse health effects.
Even the royal commission accepts that there is clear evidence of
ill-health which may be attributable to exposure to small quantities of toxic chemicals. She reminded the Committee that Toyber said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. “I continue to find it extraordinary that our so-called experts exhibit so little scientific curiosity. Their objective seems to be to maintain the status quo and dismiss out of hand any hypotheses others may propose. Their pronouncements in the face of so much contrary evidence do not tend to engender public confidence."
"I could be justifiably angry that sick people are being ignored—as long as they are fit enough to fly an aeroplane, no one is responsible for how they feel or the conditions under which they are expected to work. Neither the aviation regulators nor the airlines seem to consider that occupational health and safety are their business. They are currently using the excuse of waiting for the Government's advisory committee to report after the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity has reported to them and then, presumably they will be waiting for legislation or regulation. I have seen it all before.”
John Woodley, the Australian former Senator who chaired his government's inquiry into this subject is reported to have said:
"Some people in the industry and some of the regulators seem to think they are God and so can take risks with the lives of their employees and customers, but they are not God and this is not a joke. It is time they got serious, stopped mucking about and started to play the game seriously".
She asked the COT to heed his words.
She discredited the science of COT (CAA-approved) ‘experts’.
Dr Ruge, a member of the AHWG, in referring to the UK Government and CAA-initiated and sponsored research paper Cabin Air Quality published in 2004, stated:
"The results did not suggest that there is a health risk for passengers, including infants, and crew".
This is dishonest - that paper reveals that:
" this report addresses the effect of cabin air contamination on the pilot's ability to safely fly and land an aircraft.” No infants there.
“the scope of this research did not attempt to determine the extent of any such risk".
The research paper relies heavily on a BAe "Commercial—in confidence" paper by Marshman and neither paper has been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal, and yet they seem to be accepted as gospel.
What gets me is the dishonesty, the intellectual corruption, of people who are paid to, ostensibly at least (and that's another story), safeguard our health—at least terrorists are honest about their crime.
I have been following Hansard comments about the aforementioned triumvirate and their attitude to evidence.
1977. The first scientific evidence appeared in the research literature “A previously healthy member of an aircraft flight crew was acutely incapacitated during flight with neurologic impairment….The etiology of his symptoms was related to an inhalation exposure to aerosolized or vaporized synthetic lubricating oil arising from a jet engine of his aircraft.” (Montgomery 1977)
1999; Organophosphate lubricants were the focus of a question in the house regarding “possible health hazards for air crews. [66599]
However, Mr. Doug Henderson, responded, “We…have in place a number of preventative measures to prevent air and ground crews from being exposed to these hazards and also regularly review the health risks.”
2001; the cockpit of a British Aerospace 146 filled with toxic fumes. A sudden and unexpected Airworthiness Directive was issued. Close inspection of this reveals a vague reference to a previously unreported “recent crew incapacitation incident in the UK” details of which Private Eye established. It had taken a non-industry magazine, Private Eye, to review the health risk and establish what the industry couldn't see.
2001. a growing body of scientific evidence recognized Aerotoxic Syndrome.
Yet:
In 2007 Lord Tyler asked "What consideration they have given to introducing regulations on the installation of contaminated air detection systems in United Kingdom registered aircraft." Hansard. [HL1947]
Lord Bassam of Brighton responded: The principle of better regulation is to legislate only where necessary. It is not clear that contaminants are present in the cabin environment in a quantity harmful to crew and passengers. That is why we asked the independent Committee on Toxicity (COT) to undertake a comprehensive review of all the evidence, and we will, of course, be guided by the COT’s conclusions and recommendations.”
My advice to Lord Bassam is to go and fly with you pilots and sit on a jump seat while you don your oxygen masks. He might change his tune then because he is ignoring the body of up-to-date scientific evidence already in existence and is unaware of the concept of a proactive safety system as advocated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) . And where is his humanity?
As for COT. Lady Mar had some choice words. Professor Alan Boobis, a member of COT was cited. "These compounds can cause diseases but not at the levels found in these [blood] tests". As for the chemical cocktail effect, he stated:
"There is simply no evidence it exists".
She responded: There is an ever increasing body of scientific literature from around the world that indicates that some chemicals are giving rise to adverse health effects.
Even the royal commission accepts that there is clear evidence of
ill-health which may be attributable to exposure to small quantities of toxic chemicals. She reminded the Committee that Toyber said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. “I continue to find it extraordinary that our so-called experts exhibit so little scientific curiosity. Their objective seems to be to maintain the status quo and dismiss out of hand any hypotheses others may propose. Their pronouncements in the face of so much contrary evidence do not tend to engender public confidence."
"I could be justifiably angry that sick people are being ignored—as long as they are fit enough to fly an aeroplane, no one is responsible for how they feel or the conditions under which they are expected to work. Neither the aviation regulators nor the airlines seem to consider that occupational health and safety are their business. They are currently using the excuse of waiting for the Government's advisory committee to report after the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity has reported to them and then, presumably they will be waiting for legislation or regulation. I have seen it all before.”
John Woodley, the Australian former Senator who chaired his government's inquiry into this subject is reported to have said:
"Some people in the industry and some of the regulators seem to think they are God and so can take risks with the lives of their employees and customers, but they are not God and this is not a joke. It is time they got serious, stopped mucking about and started to play the game seriously".
She asked the COT to heed his words.
She discredited the science of COT (CAA-approved) ‘experts’.
Dr Ruge, a member of the AHWG, in referring to the UK Government and CAA-initiated and sponsored research paper Cabin Air Quality published in 2004, stated:
"The results did not suggest that there is a health risk for passengers, including infants, and crew".
This is dishonest - that paper reveals that:
" this report addresses the effect of cabin air contamination on the pilot's ability to safely fly and land an aircraft.” No infants there.
“the scope of this research did not attempt to determine the extent of any such risk".
The research paper relies heavily on a BAe "Commercial—in confidence" paper by Marshman and neither paper has been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal, and yet they seem to be accepted as gospel.
What gets me is the dishonesty, the intellectual corruption, of people who are paid to, ostensibly at least (and that's another story), safeguard our health—at least terrorists are honest about their crime.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ref 6# -Yes, I have read the Sunday telegraph article, in fact I have a copy of it in front of me. It is bad enough losing your medical but even worse when so-called experts say that you have dementia or Alzheimers. I hope that the representative sample of 1500 pilots will show that a high percentage, military as well, will have signs of exposure to OPs
DB16
DB16
Last edited by db16; 29th Jun 2007 at 10:01. Reason: spelling errors
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unions
Unions, or at least BALPA are a questionable commodity.
1. Legaly binding contract to pay legal costs.
2. When the union appointed solicitor screws up and fails to present actual case - incurring £15K costs, union pulls out and makes you pay costs.
3. Then arranges out of court settlement that isnt fully complied with by the airline.
Meanwhile the health hazard to pax and crews continues.
Perjury and contempt rules, at least for managers.
Hmmm.
1. Legaly binding contract to pay legal costs.
2. When the union appointed solicitor screws up and fails to present actual case - incurring £15K costs, union pulls out and makes you pay costs.
3. Then arranges out of court settlement that isnt fully complied with by the airline.
Meanwhile the health hazard to pax and crews continues.
Perjury and contempt rules, at least for managers.
Hmmm.
Another chemical
Whilst most of the focus over the last few years has been on OP and the possible release of OP when oil was overfilled on 757/146's, there is another possible chemical which can cause the same problems. All around us in the plane are Polyurethane (PU) chemicals. Our seats, shoes, noise and heat insulation is made from PU. PU is made from phosgene. Maybe next time BATA et al look for OP, they ought also to look for PU and traces of phosgene.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: the state of denial
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a big prolem with fumes on our 757.(RR RB211-535C engines)
Do you know if the problem is limited to RB211-535C engines only or does it concern RB211-535E engines as well? Is the fumes problem bad enough for you to not recommend moving onto the 757?
I've been offered the type, but as I have other options available I thought I'd seek the opinion of others before making a decision. From the information that is available on the Internet it does seem to be a nasty glitch to have to deal with.
Cosmo
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: no fixed abode ....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosmo,
The 757 is a known high-risk type for exposure to contaminated air. As you probably know, there are a number of well documented cases of 757 crews losing their medicals and livelihoods because of this very problem. Its even possible you are being offered a seat because of a vacancy created in this way.
It appears that not everyone is sensitive to the effects of such exposure in that they don't immediately become symptomatic. There are many unknows, but it is not at all impossible that even individuals who do not become noticeably symptomatic after exposure will nevertheless suffer damage.
If you already have terminal cancer, I wouldn't worry about the 757.
Otherwise you might be better off on another type.
However, the bottom line is that no type is immune from this problem unless it does not use bleed air for pressurization. I do know of a nice job going on a C152 if you are interested........
PPD
The 757 is a known high-risk type for exposure to contaminated air. As you probably know, there are a number of well documented cases of 757 crews losing their medicals and livelihoods because of this very problem. Its even possible you are being offered a seat because of a vacancy created in this way.
It appears that not everyone is sensitive to the effects of such exposure in that they don't immediately become symptomatic. There are many unknows, but it is not at all impossible that even individuals who do not become noticeably symptomatic after exposure will nevertheless suffer damage.
If you already have terminal cancer, I wouldn't worry about the 757.
Otherwise you might be better off on another type.
However, the bottom line is that no type is immune from this problem unless it does not use bleed air for pressurization. I do know of a nice job going on a C152 if you are interested........
PPD
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: oxfordshire. uk
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerotoxic Evidence
Thanks BOAC; now that's what I call evidence-based practice. Well researched, well documented, publicly available and transparently open to scrutiny.
This is unlike the management practices in most airlines we hear about on this website. However, (and I know the arguments against this ) it is up to professional pilots to keep managers compliant with evidence based practice.
This is unlike the management practices in most airlines we hear about on this website. However, (and I know the arguments against this ) it is up to professional pilots to keep managers compliant with evidence based practice.