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 3rd Apr 2015, 16:02
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,593
Can they read?

I sometimes wonder about "contributors" on this thread. Can they actually read? Do they read? If they do, does the eye link with the brain?

Of my various posts on the thread, my input has been supportive of sufferers, and supportive of science. I then suggest that it has all been said, and get slagged off.

The facts that we know so far are simple.

1. Various chemicals exist in aeroplanes.
2. Some engine and etc events cause even more chemicals to be present in aeroplanes.
3.Some individuals have a zero tolerance of one or some of these chemicals. The chemicals can be in cat 1 above, and/or in cat 2 above. They are sensitised, and have a zero TLV of that chemical.
4. Some chemicals affect more people, perhaps most people, if a TLV is exceeded.
There has not been anywhere near enough research on what these chemicals might be,and what the TLV should be. For instance, are any of them like Asbestos - where a single minute exposure can kill any one of us up to 50 years after the exposure? I went to a funeral yesterday of a 68 year old who probably died due to exposure in his 20s!
5. The whole topic needs research by manufacturers and operators.

All pressure should be put on them to carry out the research.

meanwhile, those who are sensitised to a particular chemical, or mix of chemicals, needs to do what has been suggested on here with exposure tests.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2015, 20:07
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
AO


"I went to a funeral yesterday of a 68 year old who probably died due to exposure in his 20s!"


What possible evidence do you have for that statement?

There are so many things in this world which kill us by the millions. You shouldn't invent new things just because you think there might be a payout......
Tourist is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2015, 20:18
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 15
THE TOXICITY OF COMMERCIAL JET OILS

Ancient Observer, I agree with all your points 1-5. The problem is that no-one wants to be responsible for what might prove to be a 'can of worms' I suspect.

Some research has been done here and there but the industry needs to start listening and reading the research itself. Failure to provide safe air to breathe on board is a breach of FAR 25.831(b) and would therefore surely be a type certification issue. I recently found the article mentioned in the title of this post. It's heavy reading (approx 27 pp) and some knowledge of chemistry will assist but it generally explains itself well.

http://jet-oil.com/The%20Toxicity%20...Jet%20Oils.pdf

Jet oils are specialised synthetic oils used in hig
h performance jet engines. They have
an appreciable hazard based on toxic ingredients, b
ut are safe in use provided that
maintenance personnel follow appropriate safety pre
cautions, and the oil stays in the
engine. Aircraft engines that leak oil may expose
others to the oils through
uncontrolled exposure. Airplanes that use engines
as a source of bleed air for cabin
pressurisation may have this source contaminated by
the oil if an engine leaks.
Examination of the ingredients of the oil indicates
that at least two ingredients are
hazardous: N-phenyl-1-naphthylamine (a skin sensiti
ser) and Tricresyl phosphate (a
neurotoxicant, if ortho-cresyl isomers are present)
. Publicly available information
such as labels and MSDS understates the hazards of
such ingredients, and in the case
of ortho-cresyl phosphates, by several orders of ma
gnitude.


FYI: ISOMER: In chemistry, are molecules with the same chemical formula but different chemical structures. That is, isomers contain the same number of atoms of each element, but have different arrangements of their atoms in space.
Design Engineer is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2015, 00:24
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 252
It's probably exposure to Di-Hydrogen Monoxide. Some pilots are exposed to it on a daily basis.
MarcK is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2015, 05:22
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
I don't know if people are aware Marck, but a huge amount of the internal volume of modern aircraft is filled with flammable liquids!
Under certain circumstances, this stuff burns!
It is surely a breach of regulations to have this stuff so near passengers.

Aircraft engines that leak fuel may expose others to flame!

I think people are just scared to expose this can of worms...

This, twinned with your terrifying revelation about Di-Hydrogen Monoxide puts the nail in the coffin for passenger travel as far as I'm concerned....
Tourist is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 10:12
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: In the bar
Posts: 2
oil can

Click on this link. It shows the warning from a can of jet engine oil, as used up to 2004, when Exxon removed it and replaced it with a "milder" warning. NIOSH in USA took action through the courts to have it restored, but it was settled out of court, and was never reinstated. http://imgur.com/5vqfqE9

Last edited by explorer61; 5th Apr 2015 at 10:13. Reason: spelling
explorer61 is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 11:10
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
We can play the MSDS game all day. Here's one from something else carried on a plane:
Continuous inhalation of concentrations higher than 75% may cause nausea, dizziness, respiratory difficulty and convulsion
Maybe we should do something about that.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 13:28
  #308 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: london
Posts: 18
Maybe send the oil health warning to this guy:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lO7KpNNimt0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Pacific Blue is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 16:02
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: In the bar
Posts: 2
Question

Originally Posted by Pacific Blue View Post
Maybe send the oil health warning to this guy:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lO7KpNNimt0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I know someone who is planning to do exactly that. Can I invite you all to suggest some questions for him
explorer61 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 16:18
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,593
Tourist



Mesothelioma



The guy worked in a factory in his teens and 20s. Since then he has not had direct asbestos exposure that we know of. However, as a single fibre can be fatal years later, he could have caught it anywhere.......

Don't insult me about "invention". Mesothelioma is not "invented".

That is why I used the word probably.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 15:26
  #311 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,882
Mesothelioma exists and is linked to aspestos exposure - fact

"...a single fibre can be fatal years later..."

Citation please
Mac the Knife is online now  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 16:10
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
You say the smoke [B]Might[B] be bad for you. I think that we have established that this smoke contains organoshosphates.
We? Who's "we?" You and who else? The FACT is that no reputable source has "established" that smoke contains organoshosphates.

If you are getting smoke through the air conditioning, the chances are that it is engine oil.
Utterly false. Of the many thousands of "smoke/fume events" that have been reported, a teeny tiny number were attributed to an engine/APU failure. The vast majority of such events are caused by electrical or other failures.

The oil contains organophosphates. Fact.
True, but incomplete. Not all organophosphates are toxic. TCPs are toxic, and jet engine oil contains extremely low levels of TCPs, thousands of times below allowable levels.

The chances of it not being bad for you, has to be about zero.
False. It all depends on what the smoke contains, and the chances of it containing toxic TCPs is extremely low, with the chances of it containing levels of TCP that exceed allowable levels far far lower still.

If I came to your house, and heated some engine oil to the level that it gave off some fumes, would you be happy for you and your family to sit there and breathe it in?
If you showed up in my house uninvited, I would not be happy and would make that very clear to you. If you have some sort of fetish for heating engine oils, I would suggest you do it somewhere else.

Last edited by KenV; 7th Apr 2015 at 16:21.
KenV is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 16:16
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
KenV, I don't know where you've gleaned your information from, but Trent 1000's that are used on the 787 most definitely have one engine driven hydraulic pump (per engine).
You are correct. The 787 has three independent hydraulic systems. Two systems have an engine driven pump and an electrically driven pump (this is true of both the RR and the GE powered Dreamliners.) The third system has only two electrically driven pumps. The engine driven pumps only "kick in" when flow rates exceed the capacity of the electrically driven pump. So the vast majority of time the engine driven pumps are not loaded.
KenV is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 16:17
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 732
Ken, you are full of it. I have had numerous fume events, every one from bleed air, never electrical. Every one of your rebuttals is a distortion so far from reality that they're not worth reading.
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 16:28
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Ken, you are full of it. I have had numerous fume events, every one from bleed air, never electrical
Really? And you have the failure and correction reports to back up your assertion? A review of literally thousands of failure and correction reports that include "smoke and/or fume" disagrees with your assertion.

Every one of your rebuttals is a distortion so far from reality that they're not worth reading.
Hmmmm. And yet you not only read them, you thought it "worth" your time and effort to comment on them. Often in personal and "aggressive" ways, just like this one. Hmmmm.
KenV is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 18:33
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,899
Ken, what electrical fault would cause a fume event? It's possible I agree for faulty electrics to produce heat and smoke (and flame!) but that would be recorded as fire rather than a "fume event".
ShotOne is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 19:38
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
ShotOne

What aircraft do you fly?

On most of the aircraft I fly there are a whole series of pages of the emergency cards which try to establish whether the smoke is electrical or from the AC etc.

Of the many many instances of smoke in the cockpit I have had, I would say about half were electrical. To be honest they were always the ones I was worried about. Nasty stuff in electrical smoke.....
Tourist is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 21:07
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,380
Aluminum shuffler and Shotone
As I noted a couple pages back, I've been watching the incoming Boeing 21.3 events for "fume" or "smoke" reports (I always monitor the incoming reports, but I normally only pay attention to engine related issues). In the last couple months, there have been ~a dozen reported events (Boeing and ex-McD - I obviously don't see Airbus reports).
Most were reported as electrical overheats or galley smoke (a couple both - overheating ovens). A few were no-fault-found (the BA 777 diversion noted a couple pages back was reported as an 'electrical odor' but the report only said the aircraft was AOG while they continued to investigate). The ONLY report that was associated with engine or APU bleed was an event next flight after an engine water wash where they apparently didn't do it right and got water wash contamination into the bleed system. No reported engine oil events.


But that only includes ~5,000 airplanes and a couple million flight hours, so don't let me bother your rants with actual data

Last edited by tdracer; 7th Apr 2015 at 23:20. Reason: fixed typo
tdracer is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 22:38
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,899
Tourist, I'm not sure the relevance of my aircraft type since I have no argument that electrics and lots of other things besides can cause smoke (most recently a pair of cc cabin shoes left in an oven(yes really!)). But would these be pigeonholed as fume events?
ShotOne is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2015, 04:40
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: CE
Posts: 87
tdracer, I think you'll find that there will nearly always be oil contamination in cabin bleed air, especially on start up. It's just a question of how much, and don't forget that different people have different degrees of smell sensitivity so just because you can't smell it, it doesn't mean that it isn't there. Maybe now's the time to equip aircraft with sensors to determine exactly how much contamination there is at any given time during operation and log it, but then I suspect that engine manufacturers might be opposed to that idea.
DevX 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.