Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Aerotoxic in the news

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Aerotoxic in the news

Old 20th Mar 2015, 20:03
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 809
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.
rh200 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 23:03
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 1,985
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%).
misd-agin is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2015, 22:19
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 7
Looks like a cover up, smells like a cover up

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

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!
NOMANSNEMESIS is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 07:26
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
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 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 07:40
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
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"
Tourist is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 09:14
  #246 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: london
Posts: 18
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
Pacific Blue is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 09:37
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,889
"..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.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 11:29
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 732
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.
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 11:55
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
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...
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 13:00
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
"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"
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 13:36
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,590
Mr Heathrow,

Having been on both sides of "settlements" from Court actions, I can assure you that a whole host of motives are involved.
In one case I was involved in, the employer won 19 - 0 in Court. A complete victory. It must have cost them a fortune in wasted Exec and lawyer time.

When it came to a possible appeal, the employer paid out 50,000 to make the awkward so and so go away.

They thought it was worth it.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 18:23
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
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

Please read the link above.
Hmmmm. From the linked article:

"Terry Williams says her life was changed by a single exposure, when toxic smoke and oil fumes leaked into her MD-82 aircraft cabin on April 11, 2007, as American Airlines Flight 843 from Memphis, Tenn., to Dallas taxied to the gate."

This article describes a SINGLE event on a SINGLE aircraft, which is TOTALLY different than the chronic, on going, long-term, wide spread, fleet-wide problem the score mongers are advocating.

Now lets see what Terry Williams' doctor has to say about this:

"Cabin air is safe to breathe; crew and passengers can feel safe and comfortable on commercial aircraft. Rarely ... mechanical problems can occur with ventilation that can lead to exposure to airborne chemicals. Most will have temporary symptoms, but be aware of a small possible chance of chronic health issues," said the San Francisco-based physician, who has diagnosed such exposure in more than 40 patients over 15 years."

Once again, totally different than what the score mongers are advocating.

In my perhaps twisted logic, that makes it not only conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, but conspiracy to commit mass murder.
Twisted Logic? If only it were that benign. A SINGLE event, on a SINGLE aircraft, on a SINGLE flight affected a SINGLE individual adversely, and this is proof positive of a "conspiracy to commit mass murder". MASS MURDER!!!!!!! This logic is way way beyond "twisted".

Last edited by KenV; 23rd Mar 2015 at 18:34.
KenV is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 19:04
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 202
Let's not forget what we're talking about here: organophosphate poisoning.

The basic problem is this: cabin air comes off bleed air from the engines. The oil used to lubricate said engines contains organophosphates (why I have no idea - I'm not a chemist).

During a "fume event", something like bad oil seals causes oil to enter the bleed air where it is super-heated to a gas. In sufficient quantity it appears as smoke in the cabin/cockpit.

If an aircraft experiences a "fume event", why do only one or two actually get ill?

The reasons are simple:

1) Random factor (how much of the air breathed was heavily contaminated?)
2) Susceptibility of the individual
3) Previous exposure to organophosphates

Further up the discussion, someone was saying "but it's only one person - your argument is invalid!" The person affected was a cabin attendant. Coincidence?

What about all the pilots who suffer symptoms of organophosphate poisoning after flying certain types of aircraft? I guess pilots just get ill from flying? /sarcasm.

Show me an office worker with similar work pattern that has the specific health problems pilots suffer after 10+ years flying certain aircraft. The difference is the office worker isn't breathing contaminated bleed air!

Anyone want to take any guesses as to why the B787 (and I think A350) use compressors for cabin pressurization/air conditioning and NOT engine bleed air? More weight and more complexity. They're not doing it to save money or fuel...
ECAM_Actions is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 19:25
  #254 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,545
The A350 uses bleed air for pressurisation.
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 20:08
  #255 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,878
"Show me an office worker with similar work pattern that has the specific health problems pilots suffer after 10+ years flying certain aircraft."

Given the rather vague, differing and multitudinous symptoms of "Aerotoxic Syndrome" dare I suggest that you might find quite a lot.



Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 20:28
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 809
There has been no shortage of cancer clusters amongst workers in buildings. In some cases they have found no causal link and have just moved the business.

The body, one big chemistry set, reacts according to statistics.
rh200 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 21:16
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 1,939
Anyone want to take any guesses as to why the B787 (and I think A350) use compressors for cabin pressurization/air conditioning and NOT engine bleed air? More weight and more complexity. They're not doing it to save money or fuel...
Actually, I think that's exactly why they do it. Bleeding from the engines reduces their efficiency and increases the fuel burn.
Jesse Pinkman is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 23:55
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 243
Given that B787 cabin pressurization is not from "free" energy, the engine driven alternators must provide electricity for electric air pumps.

Last edited by jack11111; 24th Mar 2015 at 00:55.
jack11111 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2015, 04:30
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 809
I'm sure theres a smart cookie about who can spell out various efficiencies and projected cost savings over time for comparison between systems. You are correct, nothing is free, but they all have various efficiency assicoated with them
rh200 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2015, 04:53
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: space
Posts: 20
787 is about 1 to 2 percent more efficient in cruise acording to Boeing. It was a slight gamble to bring up such an amount of new technology in a single package and almost backfired (the lithium batteries problems) but now as the platform matures the benefits can be enjoyed . Airbus played conservatively with the 350 .
Ahernar is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.