B757 Flight Deck Contamination - Toxic Fumes
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Darwin
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCP may be in low amounts but still DANGEROUS...
The TCP may be at about 3% but repeated low level exposure to Organophosphates is not good for you as the Gulf War veterans found out.
As we should always talk facts lets listen to an expert in the field:
Professor Abou Donia who is an Organophosphate expert and a Professor of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Professor of Neurobiology at the Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology at Duke University Medical Center.
He states:
“Furthermore, Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity (OPICN) induced by low-level inhalation of organophosphates present in jet engine lubricating oils and the hydraulic fluids of aircraft could explain the long-term neurologic deficits consistently reported by crewmembers and passengers, although organophosphate levels may have been too low to produce OPIDN.”
So why don’t we stop the “its OK to breath it, drink it, bath in it” nonsense and ensure it stays out of the cabin and cockpit air.
As we should always talk facts lets listen to an expert in the field:
Professor Abou Donia who is an Organophosphate expert and a Professor of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Professor of Neurobiology at the Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology at Duke University Medical Center.
He states:
“Furthermore, Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity (OPICN) induced by low-level inhalation of organophosphates present in jet engine lubricating oils and the hydraulic fluids of aircraft could explain the long-term neurologic deficits consistently reported by crewmembers and passengers, although organophosphate levels may have been too low to produce OPIDN.”
So why don’t we stop the “its OK to breath it, drink it, bath in it” nonsense and ensure it stays out of the cabin and cockpit air.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Houston/TX - USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK… this is turning into a Presidential Candidate Debate and I like to end mine with these closing statements;
Three words… Context, Perspective and Reality.
1. Statements, such as Professor Abou Donia’s comment here, although correct in itself, are often taken out of its context…
2. We are exposed to various levels of toxins in our everyday lives, such as chemicals used in pesticides, mercury levels found in fish, my example of Coca Cola etc., but all things should be considered in perspective! It has been concluded that “at the dosage required for neurotoxicity, it would be virtually impossible for a person to absorb or ingest enough jet engine oil in the normal workplace (or in an aircraft) to cause such toxicity.”
3. The reality is that there are equally many scientific studies, supported by the NTSB and other independent universities, indicating there should be no significant toxicity concerns from potential exposure situations in aircraft due to the TCP present in synthetic turbine oils. These studies were also published in the UK and Australia. Now we can argue these facts all day long… and go nowhere!
It sounds to me that you are on some sort of crusade with your own airline to either correct a maintenance culture issue, or correct an inherent design issue with a particular aircraft type you are operating, such as the BAe 146, but this does not mean we all are traveling through the same “DEAD ZONE” so to speak...
Dag
Three words… Context, Perspective and Reality.
1. Statements, such as Professor Abou Donia’s comment here, although correct in itself, are often taken out of its context…
2. We are exposed to various levels of toxins in our everyday lives, such as chemicals used in pesticides, mercury levels found in fish, my example of Coca Cola etc., but all things should be considered in perspective! It has been concluded that “at the dosage required for neurotoxicity, it would be virtually impossible for a person to absorb or ingest enough jet engine oil in the normal workplace (or in an aircraft) to cause such toxicity.”
3. The reality is that there are equally many scientific studies, supported by the NTSB and other independent universities, indicating there should be no significant toxicity concerns from potential exposure situations in aircraft due to the TCP present in synthetic turbine oils. These studies were also published in the UK and Australia. Now we can argue these facts all day long… and go nowhere!
It sounds to me that you are on some sort of crusade with your own airline to either correct a maintenance culture issue, or correct an inherent design issue with a particular aircraft type you are operating, such as the BAe 146, but this does not mean we all are traveling through the same “DEAD ZONE” so to speak...
Dag
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The arguments here only serve to underline that proper research has to be done (if it has not been already). It is often the case that manufacturers play down the effects of some of their products, the list of examples is huge. It is also true that some people greatly exaggerate (or misunderstand - more likely) the numbers involved.
As a quick question - did the BALPA testing take place in the cabin or the flight deck? Ditto the BAe testing. There may be a significant difference as in the 757 for example the air piped to the flight deck is different to that to the cabin. (cabin has more recirc, FD almost none).
It is important to put all this in context. I fly the 757 and while I don't want to stop flying it or run about screaming about toxicity, I do want to make the air I breathe safer if it does have a deleterious affect on my health.
As an aside, I think the health affects of eating too much airline food can be pretty bad. I just need to look at my tum to see that. Too much saturated fat! (esp in the brekkies!). Some of it is great quality (first class!), but the crew food and the pax stuff is sometimes grim as grim can be and certainly not good for you in the long run.
As a quick question - did the BALPA testing take place in the cabin or the flight deck? Ditto the BAe testing. There may be a significant difference as in the 757 for example the air piped to the flight deck is different to that to the cabin. (cabin has more recirc, FD almost none).
It is important to put all this in context. I fly the 757 and while I don't want to stop flying it or run about screaming about toxicity, I do want to make the air I breathe safer if it does have a deleterious affect on my health.
As an aside, I think the health affects of eating too much airline food can be pretty bad. I just need to look at my tum to see that. Too much saturated fat! (esp in the brekkies!). Some of it is great quality (first class!), but the crew food and the pax stuff is sometimes grim as grim can be and certainly not good for you in the long run.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading 'DJohnsens' remarks, one is left to ponder who is right and who is wrong in this debate,
Perhaps breathing engine and apu oil fumes is completely harmless and safe.
Perhaps the many reports of pilots suffering from headaches, dizziness, nausea, sore eyes, fatigue etc., after breathing in these fumes, are simply the product of a 'sensitive type' pilot, someone who has a vivid imagination, a troublemaker.
Perhaps when Exxon conducted safety tests of their Mobil Jet Oil on some laboratory hens and found it to be safe, aircrew should be satisfied, with this unbiased report.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that some of the ingredients of Mobil Jet 2 are to be found in Sarin nerve gas, insecticide's, Gulf war personnel.
All I would say to anyone reading this thread, is to be aware and informed of the very real dangers of 'fume contamination' and don't just ignore it.
Majorbyte
Perhaps breathing engine and apu oil fumes is completely harmless and safe.
Perhaps the many reports of pilots suffering from headaches, dizziness, nausea, sore eyes, fatigue etc., after breathing in these fumes, are simply the product of a 'sensitive type' pilot, someone who has a vivid imagination, a troublemaker.
Perhaps when Exxon conducted safety tests of their Mobil Jet Oil on some laboratory hens and found it to be safe, aircrew should be satisfied, with this unbiased report.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that some of the ingredients of Mobil Jet 2 are to be found in Sarin nerve gas, insecticide's, Gulf war personnel.
All I would say to anyone reading this thread, is to be aware and informed of the very real dangers of 'fume contamination' and don't just ignore it.
Majorbyte
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody who needs convincing, is more than welcome to join me for a week on one of our offending aircraft ( All things being equal). As I seem to be "the only one" who appears to "Ride" on the same aircraft for the whole tour, whilst the rest of the crew normally seem to get assigned and dispersed to other aircraft during their tour. This almost certainly helps alleviate their problem but not unfortunately mine.
I think that the results that Balpa have obtained recently,
show that there is no doubt at all about the Contaminated Air that we breath in on a daily basis.
What is needed now is to convince the owners of the offending aircraft ( The Airlines ) that fitting the appropriate Carbon Filters is the only solution to the problem. They are there ready to be fitted and have been for several years now.
I know it is Expensive and a hard pill to swallow but it will be far, far, cheaper than any ongoing litigation from any Public or Private Law Suites that will inevitably follow.
You only have cast your minds back to the Asbestos and Cigarette industrial fiasco's.
I think that the results that Balpa have obtained recently,
show that there is no doubt at all about the Contaminated Air that we breath in on a daily basis.
What is needed now is to convince the owners of the offending aircraft ( The Airlines ) that fitting the appropriate Carbon Filters is the only solution to the problem. They are there ready to be fitted and have been for several years now.
I know it is Expensive and a hard pill to swallow but it will be far, far, cheaper than any ongoing litigation from any Public or Private Law Suites that will inevitably follow.
You only have cast your minds back to the Asbestos and Cigarette industrial fiasco's.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Article in last Sundays "Mail on Sunday."
Back to the thread.
Does this all mean that when I'm wandering around the tarmac inspecting aeroplanes I should be wearing an O2 mask everytime one of you chaps turns the a*se end of an aircraft in my general direction?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Majorbyte,
" Sensitive type Pilots, vivid imagination, trouble maker"
These are all buzz words that are very familiar to me.
They are used by the very people that should be addressing a very real problem.
I assume when a whole crew are effected and have to use Oxygen then it is Mass Hallucination?
I find it a convenient coincidence that a whole crew who could be "sensitive individuals" just happend to be rostered together on a troublesome aircraft.
" Sensitive type Pilots, vivid imagination, trouble maker"
These are all buzz words that are very familiar to me.
They are used by the very people that should be addressing a very real problem.
I assume when a whole crew are effected and have to use Oxygen then it is Mass Hallucination?
I find it a convenient coincidence that a whole crew who could be "sensitive individuals" just happend to be rostered together on a troublesome aircraft.
