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 23rd Feb 2015, 16:10
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 212
Individual reactions

Each individual reacts in a different way to toxic substances.
Cigarette smoking: not all smokers will develop smoke related cancer or illness.
Living in polluted cities: not all inhabitants will develop pollutants related cancer or diseases.
We, however, do not conclude that smoking or pollution have no adverse effect on human health. Even if only a tiny minority is affected by a toxic element we still need to recognise the problem.
Long term health effects of external factors are often undetected for decades, e.g. asbestos

In the same way not all pilots, crew and passengers will be seriously affected by cabin air toxicity.
Only some will be affected, a minority (hopefully). This is not a sufficient reason to ignore or deny the issue, as airlines and regulators have done until now.
Vast majority of incidents are also not reported and remain unlogged.
ILS27LEFT is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 16:38
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,331
ILS....

Are you really completely brainwashed by your employer to the point that you are blind and deaf hence you ignore all those around you telling that there is a problem.
No, Personally like many others I like to keep an open mind. I'm not easily impressed by lobby groups or fancy films either, and turning the volume up to 11 won't help ....

there is more than enough evidence to push for the mandatory introduction of new legislation,
No, sorry, but at the moment there certainly isn't, and shouting about it, getting the media involved or someone producing a film might raise the profile of the problem, it might raise awareness (which is a good thing) but it doesn't actually add to the evidence.

There may well be something to this, there may not be. Yes there should be more research, but at the moment there is nothing like enough evidence to force through a change in legislation or take on the airlines, aircraft makers and the rest of the industry.
wiggy is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 16:45
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 72
Posts: 687
I must admit I am a bit surprised that the UK coroner has called for action on a matter that was litigated back in 2010 in the Australian Courts namely, the case of East West Airlines Ltd v Turner.
It was then reported that toxic cabin air claims represented a very small percentage of the aviation tort cases currently filed, but the number of toxic cabin air claims filed represents only a fraction of reported fume events. It was predicted that the number of claims could rise in the near future as the public became more aware of the issue, as more research and testing are conducted, and especially if more courts or juries began awarding damages for health problems resulting from exposure to contaminated cabin air.
So here is yet more adverse publicity to contaminate the public`s view of safety in the aviation industry.
Chronus is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 16:53
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 78
Posts: 741
wiggy,
You are right. There is good reason to be concerned but where is the hard evidence required to legislate? And as for the media - forget it!
Bergerie1 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 16:53
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,893
We're not talking long term exposure to "conditioned air", yotter, but lethal toxins.

"I'm ok and so are all of my peers..." Really? That a very wide claim given the range of issues that have been attributed to aero toxic.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 17:30
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: maidenhead, UK
Posts: 20
Borrowed time

F6 Hellcat - "The average life of a short haul pilot now is 66 thats if you are lucky...."
Any chance of a source for that statistic please?
nickp is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 17:49
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 80
Posts: 1,508
Orao-Phosphate poisoning

I understand that part of the problem is the combustion of oil used in the "Total Loss" systems in turbine bearings. Similar symptoms have been observed in vets and farmers, involved with sheep dips. http://tinyurl.com/dxyhftv
A2QFI is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 18:19
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 212
Sensors

I am not suggesting we should stop flying; I am only hoping that sensors will be installed to clearly establish when, if any, there are instances of toxins going over the thresholds inside the aircraft, nothing else.
We all know that in the vast majority of times the thresholds are not reached, we only need to know what happens during real operations and if thresholds are ever reached. We need real operations data, e.g. 757 would be a surprise I think.
I am sure this is a sporadic problem and not a permanent feature on all flights, however installing sensors should be welcomed by all those involved, especially by the sceptical.
No sensors have been installed so far. Why?
No enough evidence? Well, I disagree with those saying evidence is not there. Let's install some sensors on the old 757s, then we see who is right
ILS27LEFT is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 18:32
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Berkshire
Age: 75
Posts: 118
Latest on the news just now was the Boeing Dreamliner is much safer as it doesn,t use re-cycled air.
victor tango is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 18:35
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,648
As I noted earlier, there appears to be a significantly higher rate of 'fume' events on Rolls powered 757 (and 747) than for Pratt (and GE) - likely due to the more complex lube system required on a 3 spool engine.
Which is odd, because in my experience the rollers are not high oil consumers.

I understand that part of the problem is the combustion of oil used in the "Total Loss" systems in turbine bearings.
The only 'total loss' oil system I know was on the RB 162 and the Armstrong Siddeley Viper. Not many about these days.
TURIN is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 18:41
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
No sensors have been installed so far. Why?
Yes they have, there's been some studies that involved fitting sensors to a small number of aircraft. As I mentioned earlier the results showed no dangerous levels of organophosphates.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 20:16
  #72 (permalink)  
BRE
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 179
@ILS27left
Lufty had a few planes with monitoring equipment flying experimentally. It's been awfully quiet on that front. Curious considering how vocal their cc and fc unions are.
@John Smith
Easiest way is to draw air through a Tenax tube and have it analyzed ex situ by mass spectroscopy. In situ monitoring in s compact box may pose a challenge
BRE is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 07:46
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 732
Wiggy, I can't help but get the impression you won't believe anything until you experience it yourself unless it is the good news from the industry profiteers. Not a very cautious attitude. I hope for your sake that you don't have to experience the terrible effects of organophosphate poisoning yourself.

Turin, I doubt the amounts of oil loss have anything to do with fume events as the amount of oil vapour needed is small. It's more to do with the location of any leak. These do seem to be transient, rather than continuous, and a few of us have observed they seem to be at certain pressure differentials with the engines at idle, lasting a short time. Most significant leaks will be burnt out the back of the engine, not pushed through the bleed system.

A trial using a detector on a handful of aircraft is not sufficient. All aircraft should have them - there have been documented events of all crew being incapacitated due to fumes (I seem to recall a Scandinavian one not so long ago), and the onset can be subtle, effects being severe by the time they're noticed and perhaps too late in some cases. Filters would also be beneficial.

It can't be expected that the whole world fleet be grounded for occasional transient issues, but detectors and measures to deal with events as they happen are not unreasonable until preventative systems are incorporated, either the retrofit of filtration systems or non-bleed air sources such as the 787 (impractical for retrofit in most cases, I accept). But is it not reasonable to insist all new aircraft models have non-bleed systems, starting with the 787, 350, Max and Neo?
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 08:11
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 809
you won't believe anything until you experience it yourself unless it is the good news from the industry profiteers.
And its hard to believe that you don't have a bias when you use words like "Industry profiteers". Considering thats what their business is, I don't see a problem.

A trial using a detector on a handful of aircraft is not sufficient. All aircraft should have them
But is it not reasonable to insist all new aircraft models have non-bleed systems, starting with the 787, 350, Max and Neo?
Its all well and good, but business deals with risk and legalities, not morality. Though myself, I would love to see the things you propose, if it needs to be mandatory, its a government and legislative thing.

Over here its simple, show that the airlines are failing in their duty of care, problem solved. Don't know about the rest of the worlds duty of care legislation though. I suspect if you where successful in one western country, you would get action elsewhere.
rh200 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 10:19
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,331
Wiggy, I can't help but get the impression you won't believe anything

Oh I but I do: the facts, just the facts..peer reviewed evidence/research for example...so trot some out on this issue and we can have a proper debate.

OTOH I have a tough time unquestionably "believing" most of what is pumped out by the media, and I'm always have a very hard think about the claims of single issue pressure groups, especially if keeping an issue alive in the public domain is pivotal to their funding.
wiggy is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 10:24
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,375
I think the problem starts when people start using the word “belief” about what should be a purely scientific/statistical issue. Belief is for religion.

As someone who has operated 20+ years in aircraft with engine bleed systems and (hopefully) has many more left to do, I am definitely concerned and could be said to have “skin in the game”. I have also experienced a major oil smoke/fume event requiring an emergency landing.

I can completely understand why those who suffer unexplained illnesses wish to find out exactly what was responsible. First, this may not be possible - a lot of cancer is like this. Second, what appears from inspection to be the most likely candidate often isn’t. Third, you need enough solid data to draw conclusions - there just doesn’t seem to be enough at the moment.

To take action when you don’t really know what’s wrong is not a scientific or engineering approach that often pays dividends. Yes, I agree that contaminants should be kept to an absolute minimum and would be happy to see filters mandated or no-bleed systems. However, it would be a shame if that in a decade or two after doing that, people are still getting “aerotoxic” symptoms and we are still none the wiser. What happens then?
FullWings is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 12:02
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 77
Posts: 4,580
Back-to-back data

Here's a data point someone needs to collect:

The DC-8 was certified under old CAR criteria, and engine bleed air could NOT be used directly for cabin pressurization. Instead, bleed was used to spin a turbocompressor, which in turn pumped up clean ambient air for the cabin.

Then in the 80s, the CFM56 conversion/retrofit created the "Super 70". Among other things, the turbocompressors and the old freon-based cooling system were removed, and a/c packs per current FARs were introduced. A perfect back-to-back comparison of cabin pressurization, old (separate flow) vs new (compressor bleed) rules.

It should still be possible to get air quality data.
barit1 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 14:22
  #78 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: london
Posts: 18
Global Cabin Air Quality Executive | Home Page
Pacific Blue is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 15:22
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: by the seaside
Age: 70
Posts: 807
wot no Balpa

Pacific Blue noticed that your link doesn't include Balpa although they chaired a symposium several years ago...saw it on Youtube.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the ex CMO of Big Airways going to the CAA, his deputy being promoted and also working for the union?
To those skeptics about it even existing it depends IMHO on the following;
System design.
maintenance
exposure frequency and duration.
Genetics.
Age.
Having not realized until many years afterwards I had two significant periods where I was affected.
The first was 1975 where I was given a week to live by Mr Roger williams who was involved in the first liver transplant.
The second was in the late 80s which I put down at the time to the after effects of malaria.
One has to take into account that many of those ex management (and present) wouldn't have had the same exposure as normal line pilots.
And cynically, one doesn't need a lot of imagination as to the catastrophic consequences if the thousands of aircraft flying have to be modified and the affect on their golden pension packets.
blind pew is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 15:25
  #80 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: london
Posts: 18
https://vimeo.com/120375685?from=facebook

To get it to play press the refresh button at the top of the search bar.
Pacific Blue 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.