Pilots protest over 'noxious' air
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is. If you have been trained properly and operate to a high standard this sort of thing should be second nature when the going gets tough for what ever reason. The "Pilot" claimed they had time to discuss if they had been cleared. They saw that the runway was clear so decided to land any way. (Obviously safe in the knowledge that a prompt instruction from the tower to go around would be forthcomming if required.) If they were that concious of what was going on their failure to seek confirmation is tantamount to neglect.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well when you can't remember to land, your brain is full of noxious poisons and you can't switch your attention easily asking ATC if cleared to land is confirmed isn't easy
Yes it is. If you have been trained properly and operate to a high standard this sort of thing should be second nature when the going gets tough for what ever reason.
Are you sure about that? Are you saying that a pilot who has been gassed, whose motor and cognitive functions have been scrambled by a cocktail of poisons should be able to reason, disseminate and function without fault? You might want to reconsider that statement unless you've had first hand experience of such a situation.
I spoke to a pilot who suffered this. Out of our whole conversation seven words spoken without emotion or exaggeration remain in my memory, "I thought we were going to die". This from an ex-fast jet pilot who had undergone all that entailed including hypoxia exposure, centrifuge training, .......the works.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ear ear
Nigel is right I fear. methinks its one of these BSE type issues. "There's no proof etc" and then it turns out there was a problem all along.
We know that many other issues are identified by the sufferers and denied or ignored by the authorities. As my GP once said to me, "You know your body better than anyone else." Julian Soddy made the point well. Felt ill, went back when better, felt ill again. He is far from the only one with a similar story.
An engineer told me (I'm not one so..) that oil seals are "wet" seals. This is born out by the small traces found on every flight that Panorama tested. Others have done the same, with the same result, on many types of a/c.
So, a wet seal fits there doesn't it? Now we're only arguing about the quantity & what is acceptable. no doubt older, less well maintained a/c as well as the known offenders, means you could be on the one that's regularly putting out just a bit more.
Why also do we use Exxon Mobile oil that's full of poisons? There's a French oil that has none? As used on many military a/c including the UKs....wonder why?
We know that many other issues are identified by the sufferers and denied or ignored by the authorities. As my GP once said to me, "You know your body better than anyone else." Julian Soddy made the point well. Felt ill, went back when better, felt ill again. He is far from the only one with a similar story.
An engineer told me (I'm not one so..) that oil seals are "wet" seals. This is born out by the small traces found on every flight that Panorama tested. Others have done the same, with the same result, on many types of a/c.
So, a wet seal fits there doesn't it? Now we're only arguing about the quantity & what is acceptable. no doubt older, less well maintained a/c as well as the known offenders, means you could be on the one that's regularly putting out just a bit more.
Why also do we use Exxon Mobile oil that's full of poisons? There's a French oil that has none? As used on many military a/c including the UKs....wonder why?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autofeather
Sorry just noticed that you seem to be saying that Insurers are recognising that LOL can be due to Organophosphate poisoning?
notwithstanding the other problems you refer to, I understood that the CAA were refusing to make a link between all these pilots with similar symptoms or recognise that something like Aerotoxic Syndrome exists.
I know a couple of guys who've lost licences after being diagnosed as suffering from stress related issues, or chronic fatigue syndrome but as J Soddy said in the program, it was the aeroplane that turned out to be the linking factor, which subsequent blood tests confirmed.
It's a trick one for sure & asking the insurers before you're affected sounds like good advice to me.
notwithstanding the other problems you refer to, I understood that the CAA were refusing to make a link between all these pilots with similar symptoms or recognise that something like Aerotoxic Syndrome exists.
I know a couple of guys who've lost licences after being diagnosed as suffering from stress related issues, or chronic fatigue syndrome but as J Soddy said in the program, it was the aeroplane that turned out to be the linking factor, which subsequent blood tests confirmed.
It's a trick one for sure & asking the insurers before you're affected sounds like good advice to me.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southernboy
Sorry just noticed that you seem to be saying that Insurers are recognising that LOL can be due to Organophosphate poisoning?
Those investigations confirmed they were suffering from OP poisioning, the effects of which the CAA then decided to suspend the medical.
The LOL insurers are paying temporary benefits only for the reasons I stated.
Of course those individuals cannot really prove where they got the posioning, what they are suffering can be clealry confirmed, believe me it is not good.
Again, no one seems to want to recognise the problem and Balpa, for sure, have not been supportive of those who have sadly lost their living from flying.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/379687.html
Published: April 18th, 2008
Alaska Airlines flight evacuated
SEATAC, WASH. -- An Alaska Airlines 737-400 was evacuated Thursday at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport after hazy smoke appeared in the cockpit shortly after landing, officials said.
No major injuries were reported and the source of the smoke remained under investigation, said Mike Fergus, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman, and Paul McElroy, an airline spokesman.
The crew of Flight 529 from Los Angeles reported a potential landing gear problem 23 minutes before landing, but all appeared normal until "a light gray haze ... not thick smoke" appeared on the flight deck five minutes after touchdown and shortly after the plane cleared the runway, Fergus said. At that point, at 9:17 a.m., the pilot ordered that evacuation chutes be deployed on the taxiway, he said.
Two passengers reported minor injuries, such as twisted ankles, and the co-pilot was given "very precautionary medical attention" for smoke inhalation, McElroy said.
"It was a fast evacuation, as emergency evacuations always are, but it was very orderly," he said.
The plane carried 103 passengers and a crew of five.
The episode began when electronic indicators on the flight deck failed to verify that the nose landing gear had lowered and locked into place properly while the plane was over the Seattle area and 5 to 10 miles from the airport, McElroy said.
Fergus said the pilot reported the potential problem at 8:49 a.m., but everything appeared OK on a fly-by past the airport control tower and the plane was cleared to land.
The source of the smoke could not be immediately determined, nor could investigators who initially examined the aircraft say whether there was any connection between the smoke and the landing gear. The plane was towed to a repair hangar for further examination.
McElroy said he could not immediately determine the age of the plane or whether it had experienced previous smoke problems.
Published: April 18th, 2008
Alaska Airlines flight evacuated
SEATAC, WASH. -- An Alaska Airlines 737-400 was evacuated Thursday at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport after hazy smoke appeared in the cockpit shortly after landing, officials said.
No major injuries were reported and the source of the smoke remained under investigation, said Mike Fergus, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman, and Paul McElroy, an airline spokesman.
The crew of Flight 529 from Los Angeles reported a potential landing gear problem 23 minutes before landing, but all appeared normal until "a light gray haze ... not thick smoke" appeared on the flight deck five minutes after touchdown and shortly after the plane cleared the runway, Fergus said. At that point, at 9:17 a.m., the pilot ordered that evacuation chutes be deployed on the taxiway, he said.
Two passengers reported minor injuries, such as twisted ankles, and the co-pilot was given "very precautionary medical attention" for smoke inhalation, McElroy said.
"It was a fast evacuation, as emergency evacuations always are, but it was very orderly," he said.
The plane carried 103 passengers and a crew of five.
The episode began when electronic indicators on the flight deck failed to verify that the nose landing gear had lowered and locked into place properly while the plane was over the Seattle area and 5 to 10 miles from the airport, McElroy said.
Fergus said the pilot reported the potential problem at 8:49 a.m., but everything appeared OK on a fly-by past the airport control tower and the plane was cleared to land.
The source of the smoke could not be immediately determined, nor could investigators who initially examined the aircraft say whether there was any connection between the smoke and the landing gear. The plane was towed to a repair hangar for further examination.
McElroy said he could not immediately determine the age of the plane or whether it had experienced previous smoke problems.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: YQL
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is to be hoped that in the near future the authorities will clearly identify the source of the problem and corrective measures so they can minimize the likelihood of future incidents.
A couple questions.
* Is there a significant premium paid for OP free oils?
* Is the oil usage per flight great enough that the premium will make that much of a difference in operating costs?
I know that this could be a difficult question as the economics of running an airline are getting a bit more gloomy, at least in the near term, but flight crew's health should be a prime consideration.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that there is a cure and/or effective treatment for the illness yet, and it will be harder to come by if there isn't a direct "smoking gun" so to speak. Nevertheless, it is still difficult to see flight crew losing their livelihood over events they had no control over, regardless of the ultimate cause.
*****************
Modified 747 @ Dunsfold is here (re: dd and bb) http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0297.shtml
A couple questions.
* Is there a significant premium paid for OP free oils?
* Is the oil usage per flight great enough that the premium will make that much of a difference in operating costs?
I know that this could be a difficult question as the economics of running an airline are getting a bit more gloomy, at least in the near term, but flight crew's health should be a prime consideration.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that there is a cure and/or effective treatment for the illness yet, and it will be harder to come by if there isn't a direct "smoking gun" so to speak. Nevertheless, it is still difficult to see flight crew losing their livelihood over events they had no control over, regardless of the ultimate cause.
*****************
Modified 747 @ Dunsfold is here (re: dd and bb) http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0297.shtml
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
Nigel & autofeather thanks for that info. I know a man who'll be interested to learn about it.
What will be interesting re the US incident above is what it's classified as. It is clear that airlines quote statistics on fume events that are clearly only the tip of the iceberg.
What will be interesting re the US incident above is what it's classified as. It is clear that airlines quote statistics on fume events that are clearly only the tip of the iceberg.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: uk
Age: 58
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOUBLE DOLPHINS;;;;
that nice lady dont want answers??? and julian's trouser's size has gone up???
seems you need to get a life or you will be the next teletubbie???
people get sick , the main reason pilots and crews whom have been affected dont come forward is because what??? i dont know let me think now??? they get paid off within the industry ooops.....
that nice lady and julian had the courage to speak out!! what does everyone else do??? give them credit where credit is due.
that nice lady dont want answers??? and julian's trouser's size has gone up???
seems you need to get a life or you will be the next teletubbie???
people get sick , the main reason pilots and crews whom have been affected dont come forward is because what??? i dont know let me think now??? they get paid off within the industry ooops.....
that nice lady and julian had the courage to speak out!! what does everyone else do??? give them credit where credit is due.
Synthetic oils have been used in aircraft turbine engines for over 40 years, engine manufacturers approve certain oils which can be used in their engines, the operator makes the choice. If it is TCP which is causing the problem there may not be any alternatives. I would have thought that if enough MOR's in the UK are raised concerning possible fumes in the cockpit the CAA would have to carry out a proper investigation. The obvious solution is for cabin air to be sourced externally and not from the engine compressor.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Weston
I appreciate that a reduction of TCPs et al contamination to zero is indeed impracticable for all the reasons given.
What the majority of sane, thinking people seem to want, is some logical course of action being taken to completely remove TCPs and reduce other OPs should cabin-air contamination occur, as well as steps to reduce aerosol contamination generally.
e.g. working up design considerations, trials and guidelines for at least a first-line of defence filtration system.... are the CAA for instance, seriously not looking at the basic necessities for removing this headache from their Inbox? Are they political automatons or human beings working there now - they certainly used to take safety issues seriously, whosoever or however they were brought to their attention, ...
To do nothing, to instigate no corrective actions, is surely tantamount to reckless endangerment now that this problem has been recognised as being more serious than hitherto thought (of course it was always known there was a degree of contamination, by simple reasoning, now we have other factors, many more a/c and pax at risk, and synthetic oils, as well as some engines and apu's that have become 'notorious' in this respect).
Dare I say it... there's no smoke without fire!
Last edited by HarryMann; 24th Apr 2008 at 22:33.
Paxing All Over The World
Bealzebub
I agree that to those taking an interest in A/c it was anomalous but my guess to it being used were, i) It was cheap, being at an airfield already used by the BBC with all camera equipment available on site. ii) It could not be identified with any airline.
However, what irritated me about the prog was that it wasted lots of time with sweeping shots of said a/c - which were repeated several times - and spent no money on some simple animated graphics that would have demonstrated how the problem occurs. Further, when talking about the 787 and Boeing's claim that it would not have this problem - there was no explanation as to how the system had been designed - and if they had learnt from current problems. All they did was show a computer generated promotional film that would have been free of cost.
Another point they should have clarified is the one explained in this thread about the difference between start-up fumes and fumes blown back during push. I think that some folks will now smell exhaust fumes and think that it is TCP fumes. The samples taken and analysed were good.
So, I thought the prog tackled a serious subject and succeeded in raising the profile of the problem but, for many, I think that it would not have explained the problem. In other words, a typical modern TV documentary. Had they been allowed to spend a bit more money - or better used the amount they had - they might have fully explained the problem. However, I think the reporter was good (not Jeremy Vine who is just the figurehead and not involved).
I kept wondering why Panorama chose to present a programme with a fictitious stage managed prop in the background. It didn't really send the right message?
However, what irritated me about the prog was that it wasted lots of time with sweeping shots of said a/c - which were repeated several times - and spent no money on some simple animated graphics that would have demonstrated how the problem occurs. Further, when talking about the 787 and Boeing's claim that it would not have this problem - there was no explanation as to how the system had been designed - and if they had learnt from current problems. All they did was show a computer generated promotional film that would have been free of cost.
Another point they should have clarified is the one explained in this thread about the difference between start-up fumes and fumes blown back during push. I think that some folks will now smell exhaust fumes and think that it is TCP fumes. The samples taken and analysed were good.
So, I thought the prog tackled a serious subject and succeeded in raising the profile of the problem but, for many, I think that it would not have explained the problem. In other words, a typical modern TV documentary. Had they been allowed to spend a bit more money - or better used the amount they had - they might have fully explained the problem. However, I think the reporter was good (not Jeremy Vine who is just the figurehead and not involved).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Berkeley
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
high ozone levels on some US flights
Some ozone to go with your flight, sir?
New Scientist (subscription), UK - Apr 23, 2008
[[[ a report showing illegally high ozone levels on some US flights suggests that all aircraft should be fitted with ozone converters
New Scientist (subscription), UK - Apr 23, 2008
[[[ a report showing illegally high ozone levels on some US flights suggests that all aircraft should be fitted with ozone converters
Moon Walker
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: the Moon
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toxic fumes in airliner cabins ignored by authorities
A very good article in Flight international about fumes!
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...thorities.html
Neil
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...thorities.html
Neil
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: England
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comment - Don't wait to take action over toxic cabin air
... and this reader has put the whole situation in a nutshell
http://www.flightglobal.com:80/artic...xic-cabin.html
http://www.flightglobal.com:80/artic...xic-cabin.html
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHIRP report
Here is a report from the latest CHIRP.
Does this sound familiar to anyone or perhaps it would be easier to ask if anybody hasn't experienced these symptoms?
I’ve been an Airline Pilot for several years, and from quite early on found I was often feeling fatigued, and I assumed it was due to the unusual work schedule that I wasn’t used to before. As time went on, I found that my levels of fatigue were increasing, and was beginning to feel my short-term memory was getting worse, it was getting more difficult to concentrate, and generally I was really not enjoying the job anymore. It wasn’t until about a year before I stopped flying, that I began to realise this was probably not normal, and a few months later began to experience neurological problems including tremors, muscle twitches, speech problems, light-headedness and worsening fatigue and cognitive problems. I had heard that bleed air could get contaminated by engine oil that contains TCP, an organophosphate and neurotoxin, and I suspected that breathing day-to-day background levels was causing my health problems. I had an opportunity to change aircraft types, and I hoped after the change to the new type, my problems would disappear. As it happens they worsened, to the point I had to stop flying due to concerns for my health, and the safety of the aircraft. As I investigated the issue, my suspicions were reinforced as I found there were many more people who had had similar experiences, and that the airlines and CAA are aware of the concerns of aircrew on this issue, but do not want to acknowledge the problem, and have only carried out half-hearted and endless research that never manages to come to any conclusions. I keep hearing about people who have become sick after flying and are suffering long-term health problems, and I believe there are many other pilots, cabin crew and passengers that have been similarly affected, some of them possibly not knowing why, as this problem is still not widely known or acknowledged. I also believe there are aircrew who have some of these symptoms, and are still flying, presumably due to financial pressures, and because they don’t want to lose their livelihood.
This is a serious problem for flight safety, and it’s time for the Airlines and authorities to tackle it head-on. Fume detectors and bleed air filters could be fitted, and I believe there is a jet engine oil available that doesn’t contain toxic organophosphates. Safety (and people’s health) first.
If you need help it's available at www.aerotoxic.org If you don't - lucky you, just hang on in there!
DB
Does this sound familiar to anyone or perhaps it would be easier to ask if anybody hasn't experienced these symptoms?
I’ve been an Airline Pilot for several years, and from quite early on found I was often feeling fatigued, and I assumed it was due to the unusual work schedule that I wasn’t used to before. As time went on, I found that my levels of fatigue were increasing, and was beginning to feel my short-term memory was getting worse, it was getting more difficult to concentrate, and generally I was really not enjoying the job anymore. It wasn’t until about a year before I stopped flying, that I began to realise this was probably not normal, and a few months later began to experience neurological problems including tremors, muscle twitches, speech problems, light-headedness and worsening fatigue and cognitive problems. I had heard that bleed air could get contaminated by engine oil that contains TCP, an organophosphate and neurotoxin, and I suspected that breathing day-to-day background levels was causing my health problems. I had an opportunity to change aircraft types, and I hoped after the change to the new type, my problems would disappear. As it happens they worsened, to the point I had to stop flying due to concerns for my health, and the safety of the aircraft. As I investigated the issue, my suspicions were reinforced as I found there were many more people who had had similar experiences, and that the airlines and CAA are aware of the concerns of aircrew on this issue, but do not want to acknowledge the problem, and have only carried out half-hearted and endless research that never manages to come to any conclusions. I keep hearing about people who have become sick after flying and are suffering long-term health problems, and I believe there are many other pilots, cabin crew and passengers that have been similarly affected, some of them possibly not knowing why, as this problem is still not widely known or acknowledged. I also believe there are aircrew who have some of these symptoms, and are still flying, presumably due to financial pressures, and because they don’t want to lose their livelihood.
This is a serious problem for flight safety, and it’s time for the Airlines and authorities to tackle it head-on. Fume detectors and bleed air filters could be fitted, and I believe there is a jet engine oil available that doesn’t contain toxic organophosphates. Safety (and people’s health) first.
If you need help it's available at www.aerotoxic.org If you don't - lucky you, just hang on in there!
DB