Pilots protest over 'noxious' air
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Devon
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torycanyon
I do pity anyone who has so much time on their hands that they are able to scan the CAA website for such details.
However I thank you for bringing one incident out of the god knows how many that are alleged to have happened to my attention. One would query this though - almost 8 years ago......................
Can anyone tell me whether all airlines operating the B737/B757 and F100 will be publicly accused of endangering their passengers??
Out of the 700 pilots operating for Flybe, is there anyone using this forum currently employed by Flybe who has told Flybe they are "too scared" or "will walk" if they have to fly the Bae 146 - because they haven't made a very good job - Flybe don't know about it so I would suggest you discuss it with them rather than divulging information like that to the media who in turn blow it out of proportion in turn making everyone's job a misery - especially those poor sods in Customer Service....
Another job well done by a member of crew.......
I do pity anyone who has so much time on their hands that they are able to scan the CAA website for such details.
However I thank you for bringing one incident out of the god knows how many that are alleged to have happened to my attention. One would query this though - almost 8 years ago......................
Can anyone tell me whether all airlines operating the B737/B757 and F100 will be publicly accused of endangering their passengers??
Out of the 700 pilots operating for Flybe, is there anyone using this forum currently employed by Flybe who has told Flybe they are "too scared" or "will walk" if they have to fly the Bae 146 - because they haven't made a very good job - Flybe don't know about it so I would suggest you discuss it with them rather than divulging information like that to the media who in turn blow it out of proportion in turn making everyone's job a misery - especially those poor sods in Customer Service....
Another job well done by a member of crew.......
I doubt you will agree with me on this, but please at least try to think this over and perhaps offer us a considered response, as distinct from an emotional reaction. I repeat - this response is made with the greatest of respect to you. Please show the same respect to others here who may not be so lucky as you.
Just do not be misled by listening or seeking solace from like minded folks just as yourself.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the cynics that don't believe this is an issue because it never afffected them read on.........
18 months ago I suffered a serious fumes event on a 757; on landing the cockpit filled up with fumes & both of us were affected to a degree.....I stopped the a/c & shutdown on the first available parking slot, from that point on I was effectively incapacitated. I was concious but couldn't focus, my skin was burning, my eyes watering & my throat swelling. I was taken to a German Hospital where they carried out a number of blood tests & refused to release me as 4 blood tests taken showed my blood levels were outside of accepted levels for toxins. The same company has had in excess of 40 incidents this year alone...........they even took scientists on board to monitor a flight & the scientists witnessed a fumes event whilst on board
The report for that has yet to be released
Eventually I was released & returned to the UK whereby I attended Biolab in London (the only Lab I am aware of that can test for TCP'S)...they informed me they were getting at least one call a day from flight crew regarding fumes. I had a number of blood tests & a biopsy taken, the results were shocking. My body fat cells were showing levels of TCP's 70 times more than allowed in industry, I have never worked around farms/ weedkillers etc so there is only one place the TCP's could have entered my body. I took the decision to move on to another a/c & since then my general health has improved markedly. I have greater mental ability, my memory has got better & I find I don't suffer with headaches following flights.
Just because you have a higher tolerance or haven't suffered the effects of these toxins don't knock the people who are suffering.........I have seen an internal RR memo that states it is a known problem........Do you really think the CAA & COT will find anything, imagine the law suits if it were proven, a number of airlines would cease to exist overnight.
And I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just someone worried about what the future holds for their health!
18 months ago I suffered a serious fumes event on a 757; on landing the cockpit filled up with fumes & both of us were affected to a degree.....I stopped the a/c & shutdown on the first available parking slot, from that point on I was effectively incapacitated. I was concious but couldn't focus, my skin was burning, my eyes watering & my throat swelling. I was taken to a German Hospital where they carried out a number of blood tests & refused to release me as 4 blood tests taken showed my blood levels were outside of accepted levels for toxins. The same company has had in excess of 40 incidents this year alone...........they even took scientists on board to monitor a flight & the scientists witnessed a fumes event whilst on board
The report for that has yet to be releasedEventually I was released & returned to the UK whereby I attended Biolab in London (the only Lab I am aware of that can test for TCP'S)...they informed me they were getting at least one call a day from flight crew regarding fumes. I had a number of blood tests & a biopsy taken, the results were shocking. My body fat cells were showing levels of TCP's 70 times more than allowed in industry, I have never worked around farms/ weedkillers etc so there is only one place the TCP's could have entered my body. I took the decision to move on to another a/c & since then my general health has improved markedly. I have greater mental ability, my memory has got better & I find I don't suffer with headaches following flights.
Just because you have a higher tolerance or haven't suffered the effects of these toxins don't knock the people who are suffering.........I have seen an internal RR memo that states it is a known problem........Do you really think the CAA & COT will find anything, imagine the law suits if it were proven, a number of airlines would cease to exist overnight.
And I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just someone worried about what the future holds for their health!
Utter Rubbish!
Croqueteer; You may actually believe your own post, but the problems which the 146 has with air quality are real. The company I work for has managed to get on top of the problem with new engine seals and other measures. The CAA in Australia takes the problem seriously as did Qantas. I didn't have a problem with fumes at first, but have become more sensitive to the issue with time and exposure. I can easily tell now if a problem exists, but fortunately the occurences are now much less frequent. There was an Ansett hostess who used the 146 fumes issue to line her pockets, but that doesn't cancel the issue of fumes in the 146. Some crew have been much more troubled by fumes than others, which probably reflect their personal immune response to toxins of various types.
PersonalTitle to help support PPRuNe against legal bullying.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: France
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Croqueteer - I apologise for the directness of my remarks. However you are correct in one respect, my brainpower is actually somewhat limited 
PersonalTitle to help support PPRuNe against legal bullying.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: France
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADC2604 Your comment has just come to my attention.
Because if they are suffering (we can assume some of them may be) they just think they are ill due to something else. To study this subject it is pointless looking at pax unless, for a long period, they flew the same aircraft type for long durations every working day. It would be hard to trace such people and then when you do, you have to stumble on only those who are suffering the symptoms - not an easy data collection exercise for any scientific analysis.
Far easier to study the crew, many of whom who are in the cabin for the entire cycle (for example perhaps at certain problematic times when the pax are not - startup of APU for example was suggested) and therefore crew are better subjects to study.
In summary - how come the pax do not suffer? - they probably have done and put it down to air sickness.
A final thought - both the parents of an ex-girlfriend of mine died of a particular type of cancer - for this type of cancer, such an event to happen to a couple is almost unheard of, the explanation was that they probably had been exposed to something at the same time whilst together. I don't for a minute suggest that their deaths were related to the 146 or 757, but somewhere out there is the toxin - I would like to think that our society is proactive in its approach to such problems.
I mean how come none of the BE passengers have been affected
Far easier to study the crew, many of whom who are in the cabin for the entire cycle (for example perhaps at certain problematic times when the pax are not - startup of APU for example was suggested) and therefore crew are better subjects to study.
In summary - how come the pax do not suffer? - they probably have done and put it down to air sickness.
A final thought - both the parents of an ex-girlfriend of mine died of a particular type of cancer - for this type of cancer, such an event to happen to a couple is almost unheard of, the explanation was that they probably had been exposed to something at the same time whilst together. I don't for a minute suggest that their deaths were related to the 146 or 757, but somewhere out there is the toxin - I would like to think that our society is proactive in its approach to such problems.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: no fixed abode ....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean how come none of the BE passengers have been affected
This piece, aimed at passengers, should further enlighten those wanting to know more.
.
Airliner cabin air – the surprising truth about how and
why it could be very dangerous to your health.
.
An industry insider reveals the truth
why it could be very dangerous to your health.
.
An industry insider reveals the truth
.
What you are about to read may seem too far-fetched to be true. Sadly, it is an accurate picture of a little known yet serious problem.
.
At the altitudes at which airliners fly, the outside air pressure is very low so the cabin must therefore be kept supplied with a source of pressurised air to ensure that there is sufficient oxygen for the occupants to breathe. Early airliners used a separate machine to supply this air, however for several decades designers have used the engines as a source of pressurised air. This is cheap and convenient - but potentially dangerous - source of air for the cabin, as we shall see. Let’s have a brief look at the workings of a jet engine:
.
How jet engines work
Most people are familiar with the appearance of a typical airliner’s jet engine; a fat tube with a large fan at the front. This fan provides most of the thrust that propels the aircraft in flight. Behind this large fan lies a series of much smaller fans which take in the air that is used to burn the fuel. Each of these fans progressively compresses and heats the air before it reaches the engine’s combustion chambers. In modern airliners, a small amount of this very hot compressed air is ‘bled’ off; this bleed air is then used to supply the cabin after it’s treated for pressure and temperature. However, remarkably, no filters are used between the engines and the cabin. Yes, you did read that correctly.
.
Bearings
Now, each of the smaller fans runs in its own sealed bearing, which must be lubricated by engine oil. All is well with this system, provided that none of the engine’s many bearing seals become worn or damaged which can cause them to leak. Such leaks can allow engine oil to escape the bearing and become vapourised as it mixes with the bleed air on its way to the cabin.
.
Inhaling a tiny bit of vapourised jet oil may not sound too bad until you know what’s in it. Jet engine oil is not at all like auto oil – one crucial difference is that it contains around 4% organophosphates (OPs). Note that OPs are well known as a highly potent neurotoxin and were originally intended for chemical warfare purposes. Yes, what amounts to nerve gas might be in the air you have to breathe. Nice.
.
If vapourised oil does reach the cabin, the exposure mechanism is by inhalation against which the body has few defences. It is fact that passengers (and aircrews) are being exposed, and it’s happening on a daily basis to everyone on board. Aircraft are not fitted with fume detectors. Detection by passengers is impossible. Even when events are known about, airlines are not informing their passengers. Did I mention the lack of filters?
.
It seems that some people are particularly sensitive to exposure to OP toxins, and for these people even extremely small exposures are potentially very serious. Sensitive individuals can even find themselves literally incapacitated by the fumes in short order. Your pilot could quite possibly be one such individual. At least one such incident is on record, in which a crash was narrowly averted. There’s something to think about. Further symptoms then typically develop over many months. It can take literally years to recover from them. Some people never recover. Because of this time delay, pinpointing the cause of illness caused by this form of poisoning usually never happens - most people with Aerotoxic Syndrome as its becoming known, have absolutely no idea what’s wrong or why they have become so ill. Medical professionals are similarly unaware of this scandalous situation. From their point of view, the closest 'fit' is depression, so many exposed and symptomatic individuals are misdiagnosed and prescribed anti-depressants. A further dose of toxins in the form of synthetic pharmaceuticals is absolutely not what you need after being poisoned.
.
Please don’t underestimate just how unpleasant inhaling OPs can be. They are extremely toxic even in very small quantities. A brief summary of some of the many possible symptoms of Aerotoxic Syndrome is:
.
Short term symptoms
These can include severe fatigue, and even incapacitation. Also blurred or tunnel vision, disorientation, shaking and tremors, loss of balance and vertigo and seizures. The delicate chemistry of the brain is disrupted, typically causing the individual to be more emotional, reactive and volatile, and easily irritated and/or angered. Memory impairment, headache, light-headedness, dizziness, confusion, feeling intoxicated, gastro-intestinal symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, respiratory symptoms such as coughing and irritation of nose and upper airways. Breathing difficulties such as shortness of breath and chest tightness. Cardiovascular symptoms such as increased heart rate and palpitations. Irritation of eyes. There is also an increased chance of birth defects for newborns and miscarriages for pregnant women.
.
Long term symptoms
These typically include weakness and fatigue leading to chronic fatigue-type symptoms, exhaustion, hot flushes, joint pain, muscle weakness, muscular aches and pain. Other typical symptoms include memory impairment, forgetfulness, lack of concentration, reduced co-ordination, headaches/migraine, dizziness, depression, sleep disorders, gastro-intestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. Respiritory symptoms such as breathing difficulties and chest tightness may occur. Cardiovascular symptoms such as chest pain, increased heart rate and palpitations. Irritation of eyes, nose and upper airways. Chemical sensitivity leading to acquired or multiple chemical sensitivity. Physiological symptoms can include a severe reduction in libido and even a sensitivity to non-organic foodstuffs.
.
What can passengers do about this?
The bleed air system of pressurising airliners is as you can see, fundamentally flawed on health grounds. If you are on an aeroplane in which a contaminated air event, as they are known occurs there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The problem can occur on any aircraft type. One source estimates almost 200,000 individuals were exposed in one year in the UK alone. Boeing’s forthcoming new 787 will go back to the old and safer pressurisation system which was abandoned decades ago. In the meantime, personally, I will not risk travel by airliner any more. You have been warned.
.
If you want to know more, there's plenty of information including testimonials and a video at: www.aerotoxic.org
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger feedback
OK, I regret having to do this but here is an extract from a passengers letter to a well known organisation trying to get at the truth of contaminated air.
Dear Sir,
I came across your site and information by accident.
I travel weekly to and from EEEEEEE, using BBBBBBB International as my access point. During the course of my flights, I became aware earlier this year of numbness in hands and feet (during flights), irritation of the eyes and sneezing (immediately post-flight) and chronic on-going tiredness. I started to keep some notes of flights and symptoms since, unscientifically, it struck me that there may be a connection.
That said, I am still concerned enough to have now consulted my GP who is referring me for blood tests.
Having read your information however, I am interested to know whether this experience is similar to that quoted by other individuals and would be happy to offer to be included in any data sample.
So as you can see, as passengers get wise to the symptoms they begin to ask questions and I guess that is the point at which airlines will begin to listen a bit more carefully to the evidence and facts of the matter.
It's long overdue.
DB
Dear Sir,
I came across your site and information by accident.
I travel weekly to and from EEEEEEE, using BBBBBBB International as my access point. During the course of my flights, I became aware earlier this year of numbness in hands and feet (during flights), irritation of the eyes and sneezing (immediately post-flight) and chronic on-going tiredness. I started to keep some notes of flights and symptoms since, unscientifically, it struck me that there may be a connection.
That said, I am still concerned enough to have now consulted my GP who is referring me for blood tests.
Having read your information however, I am interested to know whether this experience is similar to that quoted by other individuals and would be happy to offer to be included in any data sample.
So as you can see, as passengers get wise to the symptoms they begin to ask questions and I guess that is the point at which airlines will begin to listen a bit more carefully to the evidence and facts of the matter.
It's long overdue.
DB
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes ...the pax are listening and reading and reacting .....
I have taken a keen interest in the toxic air syndrome, in recent years and regularly engage with air and cabin crew when I can to ascertain if they are aware of the issue.
Many Cabin Crew seem to be ignorant of the condition but have noted the AeroToxic.org website as well as the aopis.org site when i have provided the details. Some of flight crew I have spoken remain sceptical and cautious about the existence of the condition, and others (like many respondents in this thread) are in total denial of it.
If I am on a flight and notice any 'smells & odurs' out of the ordinary, I shall make the point to a member of the crew to see if they concur. I normally follow it up with a comment card to the airline.
I had reason to report 2 incidents on flights during the summer months on BA flights ( B744 & 767) when on push back and subsequent 'start-up' there were definite pungent 'fuel' odurs in the cabin. On both occasions the stewards agreed that they were also aware of the smell and reported it to the Purser.
I filled in the comment cards with my observations of the incidents and passed them to the Purser at the end of the flight.
I shall share you with you the response that I received on both occasions from BA customer relations...exactly the same letter....and no mention of the actual sort of complaint I was bringing to their attention!
I wonder if BA is trying to 'buy' my silence on this subject of contaminated air by providing me with additional Executive Airmiles??!!
"Dear Mr ………
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your concerns. Please forgive me for taking longer than usual to respond and for not writing back to you in as much detail as I would like. We are at the peak of our summer season and are much busier than usual.
We take our customer’s views very seriously and I am disappointed to learn you are not satisfied with your experience with British Airways. I want to reassure you that we have a number of initiatives underway to address shortfalls in our customer service and to improve the products and services we offer. Our customer feedback is very valuable to us and is used to help us identify and prioritise these improvements.
I have arranged for your Executive Club account to be credited with 20,000 BA Miles as a gesture of goodwill on our part to recognise the problems you have raised.
I am very sorry we have let you down on this occasion. I hope we have the opportunity to welcome you back on board again soon and restore your confidence in British Airways.
Best regards
J……… K…….
British Airways Customer Relations
Your case reference is:......."
When I thanked them for their generosity, but felt that i should like to understand the 'number of initiatives' that the airline is going to introduce in regard this matter, I did not receive any further comment.
Hopefully with pax as well as crews raising the matter more frequently & openly, the resources to undertake more independent research across all aircraft types will be made available. The subsequent findings should provided to an independent policy board as well as the airline industry for further action.
Given the interests of the various airlines, engine manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers & large petroleum firms, and a CAA that is more concerned with the health of the airlines rather than the Public's health and safety interests, I suspect that the chances of this occurring are slim.
Many Cabin Crew seem to be ignorant of the condition but have noted the AeroToxic.org website as well as the aopis.org site when i have provided the details. Some of flight crew I have spoken remain sceptical and cautious about the existence of the condition, and others (like many respondents in this thread) are in total denial of it.
If I am on a flight and notice any 'smells & odurs' out of the ordinary, I shall make the point to a member of the crew to see if they concur. I normally follow it up with a comment card to the airline.
I had reason to report 2 incidents on flights during the summer months on BA flights ( B744 & 767) when on push back and subsequent 'start-up' there were definite pungent 'fuel' odurs in the cabin. On both occasions the stewards agreed that they were also aware of the smell and reported it to the Purser.
I filled in the comment cards with my observations of the incidents and passed them to the Purser at the end of the flight.
I shall share you with you the response that I received on both occasions from BA customer relations...exactly the same letter....and no mention of the actual sort of complaint I was bringing to their attention!
I wonder if BA is trying to 'buy' my silence on this subject of contaminated air by providing me with additional Executive Airmiles??!!
"Dear Mr ………
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your concerns. Please forgive me for taking longer than usual to respond and for not writing back to you in as much detail as I would like. We are at the peak of our summer season and are much busier than usual.
We take our customer’s views very seriously and I am disappointed to learn you are not satisfied with your experience with British Airways. I want to reassure you that we have a number of initiatives underway to address shortfalls in our customer service and to improve the products and services we offer. Our customer feedback is very valuable to us and is used to help us identify and prioritise these improvements.
I have arranged for your Executive Club account to be credited with 20,000 BA Miles as a gesture of goodwill on our part to recognise the problems you have raised.
I am very sorry we have let you down on this occasion. I hope we have the opportunity to welcome you back on board again soon and restore your confidence in British Airways.
Best regards
J……… K…….
British Airways Customer Relations
Your case reference is:......."
When I thanked them for their generosity, but felt that i should like to understand the 'number of initiatives' that the airline is going to introduce in regard this matter, I did not receive any further comment.
Hopefully with pax as well as crews raising the matter more frequently & openly, the resources to undertake more independent research across all aircraft types will be made available. The subsequent findings should provided to an independent policy board as well as the airline industry for further action.
Given the interests of the various airlines, engine manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers & large petroleum firms, and a CAA that is more concerned with the health of the airlines rather than the Public's health and safety interests, I suspect that the chances of this occurring are slim.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those "I'm alright jack" types...
It's possible that repeat mild exposure causes sensitization. It's surprisingly easily done. I've managed to become sensitized to "zip kicker" an aromatic amine used to fast cure superglue. It took around 20 years of very infrequent use (less than weekly) without symptoms before I noticed a problem appear. More info on request.
Just when I thought that this might be a bit OT...
It seems there is quite a lot of different chemicals, including amines in bleed air...
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2004_04.pdf
"There are over 40 different chemicals contained in oil breakdown
products and many have no published toxicity data..."
http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/ds...ndle/1947/3349
"It was also claimed that contamination by the anti-oxidant amine additive, phenyl-α-naphthylamine, may also occur and it has been suggested that the compound causes sensitisation and may be carcinogenic."
I'm not a professional pilot but I'd be more worried about the possibility of continuous low level exposure than the infrequent but more obvious/noticable incidents.
It's possible that repeat mild exposure causes sensitization. It's surprisingly easily done. I've managed to become sensitized to "zip kicker" an aromatic amine used to fast cure superglue. It took around 20 years of very infrequent use (less than weekly) without symptoms before I noticed a problem appear. More info on request.
Just when I thought that this might be a bit OT...
It seems there is quite a lot of different chemicals, including amines in bleed air...
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2004_04.pdf
"There are over 40 different chemicals contained in oil breakdown
products and many have no published toxicity data..."
http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/ds...ndle/1947/3349
"It was also claimed that contamination by the anti-oxidant amine additive, phenyl-α-naphthylamine, may also occur and it has been suggested that the compound causes sensitisation and may be carcinogenic."
I'm not a professional pilot but I'd be more worried about the possibility of continuous low level exposure than the infrequent but more obvious/noticable incidents.
Last edited by cwatters; 24th Oct 2007 at 18:14.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: england
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now to complicate things, what if the engine oil was stupidly mixed up with hyd oil .... as it happens ...
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...highlight=om15
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...highlight=om15
www.aopis.org
(Aviation Organophoshate Information Site)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the debate today?
Where is the debate today?
AOPIS was set up in 2001 by Australian crews seeking to bring greater awareness of the contaminated air issue to crews and passengers worldwide.
In doing so we made a DVD, ‘Contaminated Air – An Ongoing Health and Safety Issue’ which was sent to over 20,000 pilots worldwide by pilot unions such as BALPA, IPA and AFAP.
Today we have welcomed our 2000th member, a pilot from Dallas in Texas.
Over the last six years we have funded research and part funded the 2005 BALPA conference in London on these matters. Most crews however remain poorly informed on these matters as can be seen by some of those who have posted on this and other threads. Some also seek to misinform on the issue to protect the industry. Why protect an industry that fails to protect its workers? Yes, we all work in aviation but that does not mean we should not force change to ensure we all have a safe and healthy working environment. Chance can only be achieved by working together.
Today, the leading group in the world is the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE) with one of the AOPIS founders as head of research, Susan Michaelis. Susan is working towards a PhD in these matters and has written the first ever reference manual on these issues available from libraries, entitled the Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual. GCAQE represents over 450,000 crews worldwide in 3 continents specifically on issues of contaminated air and has managed to get over half a million US dollars worth of research going. A tribute to the two Co-Chairs, Tristan Loraine and Judith Murawski, one a former airline captain and one an industrial hygienist from AFA. Tristan and Judith have done massive amounts of work for crews globally on these matters. They sit on the ASHRAE SPC-161 committee and played a big part in ensuring the next generation of aircraft will all have contaminated air detection systems.
Whilst the GCAQE is doing all in can for crews, not all unions are members. For example, in the UK both IPA and Unions Unite (TGWU) are members of GCAQE but BALPA are not and have embarked on a poorly informed and mad agenda with the UK aviation industry treating them like ignorant children such is there complete lack of understanding.
BALPA do not fund research into contaminated air, BALPA do not enforce current H&S regulations and on issues of contaminated air are seriously failing its members. In fact 365 of AOPIS members are listed as ‘BALPA’. The BALPA representative at Government level even told an AOPIS founder once that the TCP in engine oils was the same as TCP in Boots the chemist, such was his complete lack of knowledge.
We urge BALPA to actually start protecting its members and not have ill informed people making deals with Governments which compromise crew health. We need to work together globally and BALPA is sadly an example of one of the most ineffective unions in the world on contaminated air working against not only AOPIS but the GCAQE, ITF and others.
What can you do today?
The problem has many sides but the following should be seen as points which all crews should action so we can all collectively benefit.
1. If you believe or suspect the air is contaminated you must use 100% emergency oxygen. Don’t compromise flight safety. If you are cabin crew TELL the pilots immediately.
2. All contaminated air events are reportable events so have courage and enter them all in the tech log (technical log) or defect log. That’s what we are all paid to do.
3. Report all events to the CASA, CAA or regulator in your country regardless of what your company tells you to do.
4. Ask your airline for a copy of their Risk Assessment in relation to inhaling contaminated air and please send us a copy.
5. If you are sick or suspect your ill health is linked to contaminated air contact the Aerotoxic Association (www.aerotoxic.org) set up by a former Flybe Training Captain.
6. Write to your political representative and your regulator and ask them to ensure current regulations are actually enforced.
7. Don’t let engineers sign off a defect with ‘Please report further’ or ‘repair at company convenience’ If the air supply you are breathing is contaminated the aircraft is not airworthy.
8. Ask your company to use NON TCP based synthetic lubricating oils, these have existed for over 30 years!
9. If your union is a GCAQE member ask them to have your blood sent to their research projects.
Happy flying, we are winning and yes……today again we asked for the UK Transport Minister to resign but all things come to he (she) who waits.
Philip Lyng
www.aopis.org
AOPIS was set up in 2001 by Australian crews seeking to bring greater awareness of the contaminated air issue to crews and passengers worldwide.
In doing so we made a DVD, ‘Contaminated Air – An Ongoing Health and Safety Issue’ which was sent to over 20,000 pilots worldwide by pilot unions such as BALPA, IPA and AFAP.
Today we have welcomed our 2000th member, a pilot from Dallas in Texas.
Over the last six years we have funded research and part funded the 2005 BALPA conference in London on these matters. Most crews however remain poorly informed on these matters as can be seen by some of those who have posted on this and other threads. Some also seek to misinform on the issue to protect the industry. Why protect an industry that fails to protect its workers? Yes, we all work in aviation but that does not mean we should not force change to ensure we all have a safe and healthy working environment. Chance can only be achieved by working together.
Today, the leading group in the world is the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE) with one of the AOPIS founders as head of research, Susan Michaelis. Susan is working towards a PhD in these matters and has written the first ever reference manual on these issues available from libraries, entitled the Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual. GCAQE represents over 450,000 crews worldwide in 3 continents specifically on issues of contaminated air and has managed to get over half a million US dollars worth of research going. A tribute to the two Co-Chairs, Tristan Loraine and Judith Murawski, one a former airline captain and one an industrial hygienist from AFA. Tristan and Judith have done massive amounts of work for crews globally on these matters. They sit on the ASHRAE SPC-161 committee and played a big part in ensuring the next generation of aircraft will all have contaminated air detection systems.
Whilst the GCAQE is doing all in can for crews, not all unions are members. For example, in the UK both IPA and Unions Unite (TGWU) are members of GCAQE but BALPA are not and have embarked on a poorly informed and mad agenda with the UK aviation industry treating them like ignorant children such is there complete lack of understanding.
BALPA do not fund research into contaminated air, BALPA do not enforce current H&S regulations and on issues of contaminated air are seriously failing its members. In fact 365 of AOPIS members are listed as ‘BALPA’. The BALPA representative at Government level even told an AOPIS founder once that the TCP in engine oils was the same as TCP in Boots the chemist, such was his complete lack of knowledge.
We urge BALPA to actually start protecting its members and not have ill informed people making deals with Governments which compromise crew health. We need to work together globally and BALPA is sadly an example of one of the most ineffective unions in the world on contaminated air working against not only AOPIS but the GCAQE, ITF and others.
What can you do today?
The problem has many sides but the following should be seen as points which all crews should action so we can all collectively benefit.
1. If you believe or suspect the air is contaminated you must use 100% emergency oxygen. Don’t compromise flight safety. If you are cabin crew TELL the pilots immediately.
2. All contaminated air events are reportable events so have courage and enter them all in the tech log (technical log) or defect log. That’s what we are all paid to do.
3. Report all events to the CASA, CAA or regulator in your country regardless of what your company tells you to do.
4. Ask your airline for a copy of their Risk Assessment in relation to inhaling contaminated air and please send us a copy.
5. If you are sick or suspect your ill health is linked to contaminated air contact the Aerotoxic Association (www.aerotoxic.org) set up by a former Flybe Training Captain.
6. Write to your political representative and your regulator and ask them to ensure current regulations are actually enforced.
7. Don’t let engineers sign off a defect with ‘Please report further’ or ‘repair at company convenience’ If the air supply you are breathing is contaminated the aircraft is not airworthy.
8. Ask your company to use NON TCP based synthetic lubricating oils, these have existed for over 30 years!
9. If your union is a GCAQE member ask them to have your blood sent to their research projects.
Happy flying, we are winning and yes……today again we asked for the UK Transport Minister to resign but all things come to he (she) who waits.
Philip Lyng
www.aopis.org
Last edited by AOPIS; 24th Oct 2007 at 21:48.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm no chemist but it looks like you can get sample badges for recording chemical exposure "reasonably" cheaply ($75 a day approx)..
http://www.assaytech.us/pricelst.htm
Sure they are too expensive for everyone to do it all the time but it looks like it would be quite possible for someone to monitor their own exposure for a say a week - or perhaps just keep one badge until an incident occurs.
I guess the problem is knowing which group of chemicals to monitor. Perhaps..
http://www.assaytech.us/541_panel_sales.htm
"Who Uses This Panel: People who have an Indoor Air Quality issue at their facility, but do not know exactly what chemical(s) might be in the air."
http://www.assaytech.us/pricelst.htm
Sure they are too expensive for everyone to do it all the time but it looks like it would be quite possible for someone to monitor their own exposure for a say a week - or perhaps just keep one badge until an incident occurs.
I guess the problem is knowing which group of chemicals to monitor. Perhaps..
http://www.assaytech.us/541_panel_sales.htm
"Who Uses This Panel: People who have an Indoor Air Quality issue at their facility, but do not know exactly what chemical(s) might be in the air."
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems with this issue is the lack of focus demonstrated by groups like AOPIS. Maybe this can be forgiven if we assume that most of the instigators are not experts in the field, but the collection of advice above is way too vague to be useful. For example, what constitutes "contaminated"? If I can smell the hot breakfasts sitting in the forward galley on the 146, does that mean that the air is "contaminated"? Because all we are talking about here is smells. It's easy for AOPIS to urge us to enter "contamination" (which is defined as...? anybody...?) in the tech log, but then it isn't their careers or livelihoods that are on the line. As far as asking a company for a risk assessment of the dangers of breathing contaminated air... why limit it to aircraft? The air being breathed on the drive to work, in many cities, is just as contaminated. People get sick all the time, so perhaps we should also report every instance of a colleague coughing at work - they could easily contaminate you. You could ask you MP or whatever to ensure that regulations are being enforced, however their first question will be "what regulation are you referring to?" When they find that there isn't any specific regulation... and that you have just wasted their time... expect little further help. Don't let the engineers sign off a defect with a "please report further"? That is , in equal measures, naive and stupid. A pilot can't stop an engineer doing so, particularly as the engineer will be unable to find any problem in most cases. And while we are on the subject, please tell me how the suspicion of contamination (a condition that AOPIS conveniently fail to define) makes the aircraft non-airworthy. If you want to get picky, virtually all aircraft that use bleed air are to some extent contaminated, so let's just ground 90% of the worlds fleet. And as for "we are winning..." - no, you really aren't, not in any demonstrable way. Some interesting work is being done, but samples are still too small and not enough is known yet. It's just been setback after setback for the fumes people. Those payouts are a way off yet... And I'm not on the side of the manufacturers... no reason to be. Just disenchanted with the sort of worthless advice and ambulance-chaser mentality evident amongst some (and only some) of the cabin air quality advocates. If you are going to fight the good fight, do it properly.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How to test an 'event' - today.
Remoak,
Many BAe 146 pilots and engineers will tell you that the APU (the small jet engine at the rear of the aircraft - for the passengers benefit) has for many years given off visible light blue oil fumes when started from cold often for about 5 - 10 minutes just before the passengers board.
These fumes fill, the entire cabin and cockpit and the crew have to breathe them whether they like it or not. This is a fact.
These regular fume events have been going on for the life time of the aeroplane and although they may have improved things recently, I flew the aircraft for 16 years and probably at a conservative estimate did about 1000 early morning starts? This would equal about four full days of breathing oil fumes, spread over 16 years.
None of these events would have been put in the tech log, everybody knows they happen and after a while they just become 'normal' and part of the job.
The thought of the testers now trying to capture a 'fume event' at altitude is clearly extraordinary. The main engine oil seals maybe fail once in every 2,000 hours - so what possible chance has anybody of capturing an event? It clearly suits them to be seen to be trying, whilst completely ignoring the obvious events on the ground.
To my expert eyes this looks like extreme unwillingness to check the obvious things first...
My recommendation would be to start an old APU on a cold morning, mis set the airconditioning controls such that the whole cabin is filled with visible blue fumes and start testing! What chemicals are in the fumes?
Still nobody would seem to know the answer to this question. How very convenient.
It might also be prudent to seat all of the doubters, particularly the people who dictate about there being "no conclusive evidence of long term ill health in aircraft" in the fumed cabin for about an hour so that they can find out if they are one of the 30% of people who over time develop a serious medical reaction to the fumes? They should be fuming and have the answer well within the hour.
When the people who know the answers are continually ignored - it gets out eventually, always.
The sooner the better!
DB
Many BAe 146 pilots and engineers will tell you that the APU (the small jet engine at the rear of the aircraft - for the passengers benefit) has for many years given off visible light blue oil fumes when started from cold often for about 5 - 10 minutes just before the passengers board.
These fumes fill, the entire cabin and cockpit and the crew have to breathe them whether they like it or not. This is a fact.
These regular fume events have been going on for the life time of the aeroplane and although they may have improved things recently, I flew the aircraft for 16 years and probably at a conservative estimate did about 1000 early morning starts? This would equal about four full days of breathing oil fumes, spread over 16 years.
None of these events would have been put in the tech log, everybody knows they happen and after a while they just become 'normal' and part of the job.
The thought of the testers now trying to capture a 'fume event' at altitude is clearly extraordinary. The main engine oil seals maybe fail once in every 2,000 hours - so what possible chance has anybody of capturing an event? It clearly suits them to be seen to be trying, whilst completely ignoring the obvious events on the ground.
To my expert eyes this looks like extreme unwillingness to check the obvious things first...
My recommendation would be to start an old APU on a cold morning, mis set the airconditioning controls such that the whole cabin is filled with visible blue fumes and start testing! What chemicals are in the fumes?
Still nobody would seem to know the answer to this question. How very convenient.
It might also be prudent to seat all of the doubters, particularly the people who dictate about there being "no conclusive evidence of long term ill health in aircraft" in the fumed cabin for about an hour so that they can find out if they are one of the 30% of people who over time develop a serious medical reaction to the fumes? They should be fuming and have the answer well within the hour.
When the people who know the answers are continually ignored - it gets out eventually, always.
The sooner the better!
DB
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Devon
Age: 70
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dreambuster, where is the evidence that demonstrates/proves that "30% of people who over time develop a serious medical reaction to the fumes"?
Does that mean a third of all retired pilots are suffering from symptoms of cabin air fumes?
Does that mean a third of all retired pilots are suffering from symptoms of cabin air fumes?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Sarah Myhill OP expert.
Dr Sarah Myhill has been treating OP affected sheep farmers ever since they have had their problem with sheep dip chemicals, the very same family of chemicals found in jet engine oil.
She is quoted as saying "We know that roughly a third of the population are slow detoxifiers of organophosphates and my view is that it is roughly a third of all farmers (Pilots, Cabin Crew, Passengers, Politicians, Royalty etc) who have been exposed to OP's who have been affected physically in one way or another".
For more information visit drmyhill.co.uk
Toxic Problems - Organophosphates Symptoms and Treatment.
We are only trying to help people understand what MAY be causing their mystery ill health symptoms.
I hope nobody has a problem with trying to find the answers?
DB
She is quoted as saying "We know that roughly a third of the population are slow detoxifiers of organophosphates and my view is that it is roughly a third of all farmers (Pilots, Cabin Crew, Passengers, Politicians, Royalty etc) who have been exposed to OP's who have been affected physically in one way or another".
For more information visit drmyhill.co.uk
Toxic Problems - Organophosphates Symptoms and Treatment.
We are only trying to help people understand what MAY be causing their mystery ill health symptoms.
I hope nobody has a problem with trying to find the answers?
DB
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Buster - well, as it happens I have been flying the 146 for the last ten years or so. Unfortunately, I have a slightly different tale to tell. My experience is that normally, you only get fumes on APU start if the APU is worn, the ducts are covered in oil, or whoever set the temp controllers screwed up by trying to get the packs to warm up too quickly on a cold day. The 146 I currently fly has yet to produce any visible fumes at all, over the last six months at any rate. More to the point, you need to distinguish between the risks of exposure to the short-lived event that you mention, and long-term exposure to smaller, but longer lived, fume concentrations that occur during flight. Yes, if you deliberately select an old APU and then deliberately misuse the controls, you could induce fumes... but to suggest that this is a normal scenario is somewhat disingenuous, to say the least. And resting your case on a single "expert" is hardly convincing...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dunstable
Age: 44
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was at flybe I had a inciddent once where after 1 sector the cabin crew including myself became ill, felt sick and dizzy at the same time we complaines of strange smells in the cabin.
Crewing were informed and subsequently all our crew on that flight were told to report to hospital asap.
There we were tested for co2 posioning and found to have a high level than normal, but nothing dangerous.
I know of other crew suffering the same problems
Crewing were informed and subsequently all our crew on that flight were told to report to hospital asap.
There we were tested for co2 posioning and found to have a high level than normal, but nothing dangerous.
I know of other crew suffering the same problems