Pilots protest over 'noxious' air
Well, I have said it before so I will say it again; run your packs in full cold for a good two minutes before turning the heat up. It worked for me for 19 years.
I think to link one expert's opinion to sheep farmers to the Royal family and then to one third of the population is highly unlikely to stand up to rigorous inspection.
I really do think that we should concentrate on finding out why it is that a few of us really do react badly to fumes.
It seems to me that such cases are about as rare as peanut allergies but just as important to those that really do suffer.
I think to link one expert's opinion to sheep farmers to the Royal family and then to one third of the population is highly unlikely to stand up to rigorous inspection.
I really do think that we should concentrate on finding out why it is that a few of us really do react badly to fumes.
It seems to me that such cases are about as rare as peanut allergies but just as important to those that really do suffer.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: no fixed abode ....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak
Clearly you are one of the disbelievers. Let me set you straight.
.
First, the evidence for 30% of individuals is not at all based on one opinion. In fact, a survey was done of all known current and past 146 pilots and it was found that about 1/3 of these had symptoms consistent with exposure to contaminated air. Think about this - this is utterly outrageous that so many people have apparantly been poisoned (let's call a spade a spade) with a potent neurotoxin.
.
Secondly, one of the problems with contaminated air is that it cannot always be detected by crew noses. And remember, there is no requirement for a sense of small for a medical. The problem in a nutshell is that the cabin air supply system is fundamentally flawed on health grounds (see my earlier post). At the least the problem should be minimised NOW with the fitment of filters. Except that would be tantamount to the industry admitting a problem exists, wouldn't it?
.
.
Correct, its not their career on the line. Its yours. And without your health, you have no career in aviation or anywhere else. Put bluntly, you seem to imlply that by raising the point, you might get sacked. OK, suppose that did happen. So what? Would you want to work for an airline that treated its staff in this way?
.
Also, one of our responsibilities as pilots is to put safety first. If an aircraft is unairworthy, we are the ones that have to stick our necks out and say so. Thats what pax expect, and what I would hope you would have the courage to expect of yourself.
.
Thirdly, I personally feel its a bit mean to say AOPIS suffer from a lack of focus. No-one's perfect but why not give credit where its due for the massive contribution these individuals have made to try and protect those within the industry - thats you, me and all our pax.
.
.
So, it appears you don't agree with what being done at present. I agree that its not yet got the results we need, so any suggestions you can offer would I am sure be carefully studied by the movers and shakers. What do you suggest would be more effective?
.
JW411.
No, no and no again. Sorry to be so blunt but this is important. It is NOT up to individuals to see how they react to toxic exposure that would be totally avoidable if only the industry did what was required. It is up to the industry to provide clean air - I think there would be very little benefit in determining why only some people find contaminated air so hugely toxic. Are you saying pax should also get tested to see if they are suitable to be passengers? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.
.
PP
Clearly you are one of the disbelievers. Let me set you straight.
.
First, the evidence for 30% of individuals is not at all based on one opinion. In fact, a survey was done of all known current and past 146 pilots and it was found that about 1/3 of these had symptoms consistent with exposure to contaminated air. Think about this - this is utterly outrageous that so many people have apparantly been poisoned (let's call a spade a spade) with a potent neurotoxin.
.
Secondly, one of the problems with contaminated air is that it cannot always be detected by crew noses. And remember, there is no requirement for a sense of small for a medical. The problem in a nutshell is that the cabin air supply system is fundamentally flawed on health grounds (see my earlier post). At the least the problem should be minimised NOW with the fitment of filters. Except that would be tantamount to the industry admitting a problem exists, wouldn't it?
.
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.
Correct, its not their career on the line. Its yours. And without your health, you have no career in aviation or anywhere else. Put bluntly, you seem to imlply that by raising the point, you might get sacked. OK, suppose that did happen. So what? Would you want to work for an airline that treated its staff in this way?
.
Also, one of our responsibilities as pilots is to put safety first. If an aircraft is unairworthy, we are the ones that have to stick our necks out and say so. Thats what pax expect, and what I would hope you would have the courage to expect of yourself.
.
Thirdly, I personally feel its a bit mean to say AOPIS suffer from a lack of focus. No-one's perfect but why not give credit where its due for the massive contribution these individuals have made to try and protect those within the industry - thats you, me and all our pax.
.
If you are going to fight the good fight, do it properly.
So, it appears you don't agree with what being done at present. I agree that its not yet got the results we need, so any suggestions you can offer would I am sure be carefully studied by the movers and shakers. What do you suggest would be more effective?
.
JW411.
No, no and no again. Sorry to be so blunt but this is important. It is NOT up to individuals to see how they react to toxic exposure that would be totally avoidable if only the industry did what was required. It is up to the industry to provide clean air - I think there would be very little benefit in determining why only some people find contaminated air so hugely toxic. Are you saying pax should also get tested to see if they are suitable to be passengers? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.
.
PP
Last edited by pilotpantsdown; 25th Oct 2007 at 21:38.
pilotspantsdown:
"A survey was done of all known current and past 146 pilots and it was found that about one third of these had symptoms..."
I have been trying to be objective and also sympathetic to genuine sufferers so far on this forum but you are not helping your cause by talking absolute b*llocks.
I was never asked to join in a survey nor was anyone that I know of among my fellow pilots. Mind you, we have only been flying 146s for 20 years and have a tiny fleet of 19 aircraft so what the hell would we know about it?
Perhaps you can let us into the secret of who exactly was involved in this survey and then they can come round to my home and start with me. How come we got left out in the first place?
"A survey was done of all known current and past 146 pilots and it was found that about one third of these had symptoms..."
I have been trying to be objective and also sympathetic to genuine sufferers so far on this forum but you are not helping your cause by talking absolute b*llocks.
I was never asked to join in a survey nor was anyone that I know of among my fellow pilots. Mind you, we have only been flying 146s for 20 years and have a tiny fleet of 19 aircraft so what the hell would we know about it?
Perhaps you can let us into the secret of who exactly was involved in this survey and then they can come round to my home and start with me. How come we got left out in the first place?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: no fixed abode ....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
Do you think your post was written in a spirit of respect? I suggest to you that it is not.
.
Why not leave out inflammatory language such as b*llocks and concentrate on the problem, which is incredibly serious and needs solving? Your emotional outburst makes me suspect that perhaps like a previous poster you are possibly suffering from contamination yourself. Yes really, this comment is absolutely not offered in an attempt to annoy you. Its not at all unlikely that you could be suffering from exposure to contaminated air (even if you are unaware of it) if you have 20 years on type.
.
(Anyone who's on a high risk type such as the 146 and has been told by their partner/family that they are or have become irritable/emotional/ratty etc might like to ask themselves if years of exposure to contaminated air might just be a reason for their condition)
.
From memory about 300 pilots were contacted. That's a fair sample. I cannot comment on why you and your colleagues were left out. I'm pretty sure of the number but I concede that my memory may not be entirely accurate, so please, GCAQE, I believe you will know who did this survey and some of the details. Please comment on this.
.
Finally, thank you for posting the idea to run packs cold for 2 mins as a way of minimising fume exposure. Does anyone else do this and if so do you also find it works?
.
PP
Do you think your post was written in a spirit of respect? I suggest to you that it is not.
.
Why not leave out inflammatory language such as b*llocks and concentrate on the problem, which is incredibly serious and needs solving? Your emotional outburst makes me suspect that perhaps like a previous poster you are possibly suffering from contamination yourself. Yes really, this comment is absolutely not offered in an attempt to annoy you. Its not at all unlikely that you could be suffering from exposure to contaminated air (even if you are unaware of it) if you have 20 years on type.
.
(Anyone who's on a high risk type such as the 146 and has been told by their partner/family that they are or have become irritable/emotional/ratty etc might like to ask themselves if years of exposure to contaminated air might just be a reason for their condition)
.
From memory about 300 pilots were contacted. That's a fair sample. I cannot comment on why you and your colleagues were left out. I'm pretty sure of the number but I concede that my memory may not be entirely accurate, so please, GCAQE, I believe you will know who did this survey and some of the details. Please comment on this.
.
Finally, thank you for posting the idea to run packs cold for 2 mins as a way of minimising fume exposure. Does anyone else do this and if so do you also find it works?
.
PP
Last edited by pilotpantsdown; 25th Oct 2007 at 21:36.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilotpantsdown - no, not a disbeliever in the problem - there clearly is one - but very much a disbeliever in generalisations, speculation, paranoia, poor advice, incorrect technical analysis, and bad science. That seems to sum up AOPIS pretty well. Aerotoxic is far more balanced and sensible. Sadly, many see those fighting the good fight on fumes to be nothing more than cynical ambulance-chasers in search of a payout. Some of the people arguing against the 146 and other targeted types do little to dispel that view. The fact is that very few experts support the cause, and there is little money to conduct the massive amount of research needed. Maybe there will be as time goes by, but ridiculous assertions by AOPIS that "we are winning" merely make those leading the fight look like fools (which they aren't). Affected pilots need professional guidance, not hysterical ranting. Must be the Aussie way...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: no fixed abode ....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak,
All accepted, and thank you for your reply. Sorry that I incorrectly had you down as a disbeliever.
Any suggestions you may have for how to advance this cause towards a solution would be great to hear.
PP
All accepted, and thank you for your reply. Sorry that I incorrectly had you down as a disbeliever.
Any suggestions you may have for how to advance this cause towards a solution would be great to hear.
PP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a friend in government who is looking at this. If you pm me I would be glad to pass on any messages with anonymnity (sp?) both ways. He like you has a pension to protect but is an honest man and would like to get to the bottom of this.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: no fixed abode ....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2G1P
.
I would be happy to receive your pm. However, not much can get done if perfect anonymity is permanently to be maintained. If your friend is to achieve anything in this area, he/she will have to stand up and be counted at some point. With this in mind, why not suggest that your friend contacts the Aerotoxic Association if he/she wants to get involved? The AA has a lot of information and resources at its disposal and I imagine it would be delighted to help your friend get better informed.
.
PP
.
I would be happy to receive your pm. However, not much can get done if perfect anonymity is permanently to be maintained. If your friend is to achieve anything in this area, he/she will have to stand up and be counted at some point. With this in mind, why not suggest that your friend contacts the Aerotoxic Association if he/she wants to get involved? The AA has a lot of information and resources at its disposal and I imagine it would be delighted to help your friend get better informed.
.
PP
Last edited by pilotpantsdown; 25th Oct 2007 at 21:33.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balpa Conference London 2005
JW411
The Balpa conference of April 2005 was quite a step forward for the subject.
For those unaware, 17 medical and industry experts from all over the world got together for 2 days to present their evidence.
The work is all contained in a 300 page book, but here are the conclusions:
London 21st April 2005.
The undersigned were present at the international Aero Industry Conference on Contaminated Air Protection Air Safety & Cabin Air Quality, held in London 20 - 21st April 2005.
We wish to bring to the URGENT attention of Government, Aviation Regulators and the Airline and Aerospace industry the following conclusions, distilled from the conference.
There IS a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew).
The workplace in which these illnesses are being induced IS the aircraft cabin environment.
This, we conclude IS resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications.
Further, we are concerned the PASSENGERS may also be suffering from similar symptoms to those exhibited by flight crew.
We URGENTLY call upon Government, Industry and Regulators to work in partnership with cabin environmental medical and analyst sopecialists and representatives from flight crew unions to analyse, quantify and remedy the cabin air quality problems that WE HAVE IDENTIFIED EXIST.
Exactly which part of the above is so difficult to understand?
QED.
DB
The Balpa conference of April 2005 was quite a step forward for the subject.
For those unaware, 17 medical and industry experts from all over the world got together for 2 days to present their evidence.
The work is all contained in a 300 page book, but here are the conclusions:
London 21st April 2005.
The undersigned were present at the international Aero Industry Conference on Contaminated Air Protection Air Safety & Cabin Air Quality, held in London 20 - 21st April 2005.
We wish to bring to the URGENT attention of Government, Aviation Regulators and the Airline and Aerospace industry the following conclusions, distilled from the conference.
There IS a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew).
The workplace in which these illnesses are being induced IS the aircraft cabin environment.
This, we conclude IS resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications.
Further, we are concerned the PASSENGERS may also be suffering from similar symptoms to those exhibited by flight crew.
We URGENTLY call upon Government, Industry and Regulators to work in partnership with cabin environmental medical and analyst sopecialists and representatives from flight crew unions to analyse, quantify and remedy the cabin air quality problems that WE HAVE IDENTIFIED EXIST.
Exactly which part of the above is so difficult to understand?
QED.
DB
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Buster
Trouble is, the Government, Industry and Regulators remain unconvinced...
We URGENTLY call upon Government, Industry and Regulators to work in partnership with cabin environmental medical and analyst sopecialists and representatives from flight crew unions to analyse, quantify and remedy the cabin air quality problems that WE HAVE IDENTIFIED EXIST.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak,
The Government are unconvinced it is true, but only because of the financial impact it would have on the aviation industry. Agreed?
Once they find out that passengers are being poisoned, they will be forced to face inconvenient facts.
I suggest you read the Balpa conference paper again to remind yourself of the scientists findings.
Tobacco, asbsetos, sheep farmers, jet engine oil - it's a repeat and it makes most reasonable people sick!
Do you bet by any chance?
I don't normally, but I certainly would on this one. It's a no brainer.
DB
The Government are unconvinced it is true, but only because of the financial impact it would have on the aviation industry. Agreed?
Once they find out that passengers are being poisoned, they will be forced to face inconvenient facts.
I suggest you read the Balpa conference paper again to remind yourself of the scientists findings.
Tobacco, asbsetos, sheep farmers, jet engine oil - it's a repeat and it makes most reasonable people sick!
Do you bet by any chance?
I don't normally, but I certainly would on this one. It's a no brainer.
DB
Dream Buster.
You can't eliminate the risk all you can do is to minimize to a practical extent. Some of the ideas of dicking arround with oils in the short term of your career span will likely decrease the reliability of the engine causing more Inflight shutdowns than you would care to experience. Yes there are problematic installations that frankly stink so crutching along with hit or miss maintenance seems like a reasonable degree of correction vs the percieved risk.
The government does not decide in-servce risk levels based on cost, it adresses them mostly on a prioritized basis of need. However, in this problem area very little hard statistical risk data is agreed.
You can't eliminate the risk all you can do is to minimize to a practical extent. Some of the ideas of dicking arround with oils in the short term of your career span will likely decrease the reliability of the engine causing more Inflight shutdowns than you would care to experience. Yes there are problematic installations that frankly stink so crutching along with hit or miss maintenance seems like a reasonable degree of correction vs the percieved risk.
The government does not decide in-servce risk levels based on cost, it adresses them mostly on a prioritized basis of need. However, in this problem area very little hard statistical risk data is agreed.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB data
Iomapaseo,
Most people would agree that the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) are a neutral, fair, dry, unemotional group of professionals who are not prone to exaggeration or over excitement - thank goodness.
I apologise in advance for the length of this post (you did ask for extensive evidence did you not?). It is a random summary of some of the actual UK AAIB reports from the past few years and may give the reader an idea of the effect of the fumes on the flight crews.
The big question being..................
What about the passengers?
The passengers do not have the benefit of oxyygen during a fume event.
The passengers are not made fully aware of the toxic chemicals that they have been exposed to.
The passengers will amost certainly not link any serious subsequent ill health symptoms with the exposure.
• The pilot in command, following the onset of these fumes, had difficulty in concentrating on the operation of the aircraft, and suffered from a loss of situational awareness.
• …the crew had difficulty explaining the urgency of the situation (Aircraft diverted to Paris due to fumes and a smell of oil in the flight deck) to air traffic control.
• During the first flight the purser experienced an unpleasant feeling of fainting. She told the other two cabin crew members about this and they stated they had experienced something similar. They did not recognise any special odour.
• During the subsequent flight one of the cabin attendants who was placed in the forward part of the cabin experienced an odd pressure in the head, nasal itching and ear pain. The other two colleagues in the cabin also felt discomfort and the feeling of “moon walk” while working.
• The third flight the same day was flown by the Commander. During the flight, which took place at a cruising altitude of FL 280, all three members of the cabin crew experienced similar discomfort as during the preceding two flights but more pronounced. During the first portion of the flight the pilots did not notice anything abnormal but shortly before they were to leave cruising altitude the Commander began to feel a mild dizziness.
During the approach into Malmo/Sturup airport when the aircraft was descending through FL 150 the Co Pilot suddenly became nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. Then, after an estimated period of ten seconds, the Commander also became very nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. After a few seconds of breathing in the oxygen mask the Co Pilot felt better and thereafter had no difficulty in performing his duties. However the Commander felt markedly dizzy and groggy for a couple of minutes.
He had difficulty with physiological motor response, simultaneity and in focussing. Finally he handed over control to the Co Pilot. After having breathed oxygen for a few minutes even the Captain began to feel better and landing on Runway 27 without problems.
This incident was caused by the pilots becoming temporarily affected by probably polluted cabin air.
• All four cabin crew members reported feeling nauseous following passenger disembarkation, but they did not realise that they all had been similarly affected during the descent until the matter was discussed between themselves after landing. In addition to nausea, they reported feeling light headed and hot, but neither the flight crew nor passengers reportedly suffered any ill effects. The aircraft was reported to have had a history of such events and, despite satisfactory ground tests after this incident, similar symptoms were reported two days later by a different cabin crew when working in the forward galley.
• During the climb, the Senior Cabin Attendant (SCA) entered the flight deck to report that two passengers towards the left rear of the cabin had informed that they had noticed an oily/petrol like smell. In addition, a cabin crew member of a Company BAe 146 positioning crew had also reported a similar smell.
He (First Officer) sat in his seat but began to feel progressively worse, although his work load was low. He felt ‘light headed’ and had difficulty concentrating. He was aware of a tingling feeling in his finger tips and his arms started shaking.
At about this time the Commander also began to feel nauseous and asked the First Officer how he felt. The First Officer replied that he “felt dreadful” and the Commander looked at him and saw his face was white and that his pupils appeared dilated.
When she (SCA) arrived, the First Officer was on 100% oxygen, his seat was well back from the aircraft controls and his hands were seen to be trembling.
The Commander was feeling progressively worse. He felt light headed and recalled considering three aspects: landing, declaring an emergency and putting on his oxygen mask. However he felt able to cope only with one decision and continued his approach.
…the Commander seemed to have ‘double vision’ and had difficulty in judging height.
The Commander noted afterwards that it was all he could do just to land the aircraft as by now he felt very light headed and tired.
He (First Officer) did not consider that being on oxygen had made him feel better only after he had left the aircraft. However, he still felt as if he was in a daze.
• The crew noticed an “oily metallic” smell on the flight deck during an outbound flight from London Heathrow to Copenhagen. The same smell was noticed on the return flight. Towards the end of the flight, on approach to Heathrow, the crew missed numerous ATC calls, which prompted the controller to ask “if everything was all right”. In addition the Commander did not reduce aircraft speed to configure the aircraft for landing until reminded by the controller when the aircraft was at 3.7 nm DME (Distance Measuring Equipment). It was only after landing that the crew considered a possible link between the smell and their performance. When the smell was first detected, the crew had discussed the use of oxygen masks, but had concluded that there were no side effects to justify their use.
Subsequently, neither crewmember experienced any further symptoms or adverse effects.
• After parking on stand, both flight crewmembers experienced headaches and eye irritation.
• .….the Commander found it very difficult to concentrate on completing the fuel check and R/T tasks. He reported that his throat was dry, that his eyes felt irritated, that he had a headache and was generally aware that all was not well. The SCA reported that she also had a ‘very dry throat and eyes’ and the other crewmembers also had headaches.
• The Commander stated that, following the incident, he developed blisters inside his mouth, around his left inner cheek, on the roof of his mouth and left lower rear gum. He also had a tight chest, sore throat and suffered from coughing. The source of fumes was subsequently traced to No 3 engine, which was replaced on the following day.
• ……when fumes entered the flight deck and reportedly caused ‘dizziness and irritation to eyes’
However the problem recurred on 22 February 2001 when an oily smell was reported to have persisted on the flight deck for the duration of the flight, causing nose, and increasing throat irritation in both pilots.
• In addition to headaches, both pilots suffered from irritation to their mouths and nasal passages. An oily film was subsequently wiped off the flight deck CRT displays and passed to the operating Company’s engineering department for analysis.
• Both flight crew were left with a metallic taste in the mouth; the Commander also experienced a tingling sensation on his lips and a sore throat for several days. The First Officer was left with minor eye irritation.
• During the climb the Commander noticed a metallic taste coupled with an increasingly strong smell. The commander began to feel light headed and “un-coordinated”. The effects were still evident after landing with some reported errors of judgement and garbled speech.
• During the turnaround, the Commander alighted the aircraft in order to breathe fresh air but, after a short time, he suffered a head ache, itchy eyes, nausea and a bad taste in his mouth. The same crew then prepared the aircraft for return sector but, when engines number 3 and 4 were started, the Commander and the cabin staff felt increasingly unwell and as a result, the flight was cancelled. The aircraft was inspected in accordance with Service Bulletin ISB 21 – 150 but this did not reveal any oil contamination. However, following an air test it was found that engine No 4 and the APU were both the source of the fumes.
• The fumes reportedly affected two cabin staff and several passengers.
• The cabin manager felt overwhelmed by these fumes, and was on the verge of passing out, when her colleagues became aware of the situation and administered oxygen to her. After 10 minutes, the cabin manager recovered but was unable to resume her normal duties. Subsequent blood tests revealed that she had been exposed to higher than normal levels of carbon monoxide. (CO).
• The crew began to feel nauseous and so donned their oxygen masks, declared a PAN and returned to Heathrow where an uneventful landing was made.
• Then he started to feel dizzy and so donned his oxygen mask.
• The co pilot was limited in his capability of acting during the approach and landing due to the effects of fumes.
The medical examination of the co pilot after the flight showed that during the flight toxic exposure took place.
The medical examination of the Commander after flight did not show any results.
• They described it as a ‘burnt’ or ‘exhaust’ smell, but it was not accompanied by any visible smoke. Soon after, both crew members began to experience symptoms of tunnel vision, loss of balance and loss of feeling in the hands and lower arms. They immediately donned their oxygen masks, breathing 100% oxygen, which improved their condition noticeably.
Most people would agree that the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) are a neutral, fair, dry, unemotional group of professionals who are not prone to exaggeration or over excitement - thank goodness.
I apologise in advance for the length of this post (you did ask for extensive evidence did you not?). It is a random summary of some of the actual UK AAIB reports from the past few years and may give the reader an idea of the effect of the fumes on the flight crews.
The big question being..................
What about the passengers?
The passengers do not have the benefit of oxyygen during a fume event.
The passengers are not made fully aware of the toxic chemicals that they have been exposed to.
The passengers will amost certainly not link any serious subsequent ill health symptoms with the exposure.
• The pilot in command, following the onset of these fumes, had difficulty in concentrating on the operation of the aircraft, and suffered from a loss of situational awareness.
• …the crew had difficulty explaining the urgency of the situation (Aircraft diverted to Paris due to fumes and a smell of oil in the flight deck) to air traffic control.
• During the first flight the purser experienced an unpleasant feeling of fainting. She told the other two cabin crew members about this and they stated they had experienced something similar. They did not recognise any special odour.
• During the subsequent flight one of the cabin attendants who was placed in the forward part of the cabin experienced an odd pressure in the head, nasal itching and ear pain. The other two colleagues in the cabin also felt discomfort and the feeling of “moon walk” while working.
• The third flight the same day was flown by the Commander. During the flight, which took place at a cruising altitude of FL 280, all three members of the cabin crew experienced similar discomfort as during the preceding two flights but more pronounced. During the first portion of the flight the pilots did not notice anything abnormal but shortly before they were to leave cruising altitude the Commander began to feel a mild dizziness.
During the approach into Malmo/Sturup airport when the aircraft was descending through FL 150 the Co Pilot suddenly became nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. Then, after an estimated period of ten seconds, the Commander also became very nauseous and immediately donned his oxygen mask. After a few seconds of breathing in the oxygen mask the Co Pilot felt better and thereafter had no difficulty in performing his duties. However the Commander felt markedly dizzy and groggy for a couple of minutes.
He had difficulty with physiological motor response, simultaneity and in focussing. Finally he handed over control to the Co Pilot. After having breathed oxygen for a few minutes even the Captain began to feel better and landing on Runway 27 without problems.
This incident was caused by the pilots becoming temporarily affected by probably polluted cabin air.
• All four cabin crew members reported feeling nauseous following passenger disembarkation, but they did not realise that they all had been similarly affected during the descent until the matter was discussed between themselves after landing. In addition to nausea, they reported feeling light headed and hot, but neither the flight crew nor passengers reportedly suffered any ill effects. The aircraft was reported to have had a history of such events and, despite satisfactory ground tests after this incident, similar symptoms were reported two days later by a different cabin crew when working in the forward galley.
• During the climb, the Senior Cabin Attendant (SCA) entered the flight deck to report that two passengers towards the left rear of the cabin had informed that they had noticed an oily/petrol like smell. In addition, a cabin crew member of a Company BAe 146 positioning crew had also reported a similar smell.
He (First Officer) sat in his seat but began to feel progressively worse, although his work load was low. He felt ‘light headed’ and had difficulty concentrating. He was aware of a tingling feeling in his finger tips and his arms started shaking.
At about this time the Commander also began to feel nauseous and asked the First Officer how he felt. The First Officer replied that he “felt dreadful” and the Commander looked at him and saw his face was white and that his pupils appeared dilated.
When she (SCA) arrived, the First Officer was on 100% oxygen, his seat was well back from the aircraft controls and his hands were seen to be trembling.
The Commander was feeling progressively worse. He felt light headed and recalled considering three aspects: landing, declaring an emergency and putting on his oxygen mask. However he felt able to cope only with one decision and continued his approach.
…the Commander seemed to have ‘double vision’ and had difficulty in judging height.
The Commander noted afterwards that it was all he could do just to land the aircraft as by now he felt very light headed and tired.
He (First Officer) did not consider that being on oxygen had made him feel better only after he had left the aircraft. However, he still felt as if he was in a daze.
• The crew noticed an “oily metallic” smell on the flight deck during an outbound flight from London Heathrow to Copenhagen. The same smell was noticed on the return flight. Towards the end of the flight, on approach to Heathrow, the crew missed numerous ATC calls, which prompted the controller to ask “if everything was all right”. In addition the Commander did not reduce aircraft speed to configure the aircraft for landing until reminded by the controller when the aircraft was at 3.7 nm DME (Distance Measuring Equipment). It was only after landing that the crew considered a possible link between the smell and their performance. When the smell was first detected, the crew had discussed the use of oxygen masks, but had concluded that there were no side effects to justify their use.
Subsequently, neither crewmember experienced any further symptoms or adverse effects.
• After parking on stand, both flight crewmembers experienced headaches and eye irritation.
• .….the Commander found it very difficult to concentrate on completing the fuel check and R/T tasks. He reported that his throat was dry, that his eyes felt irritated, that he had a headache and was generally aware that all was not well. The SCA reported that she also had a ‘very dry throat and eyes’ and the other crewmembers also had headaches.
• The Commander stated that, following the incident, he developed blisters inside his mouth, around his left inner cheek, on the roof of his mouth and left lower rear gum. He also had a tight chest, sore throat and suffered from coughing. The source of fumes was subsequently traced to No 3 engine, which was replaced on the following day.
• ……when fumes entered the flight deck and reportedly caused ‘dizziness and irritation to eyes’
However the problem recurred on 22 February 2001 when an oily smell was reported to have persisted on the flight deck for the duration of the flight, causing nose, and increasing throat irritation in both pilots.
• In addition to headaches, both pilots suffered from irritation to their mouths and nasal passages. An oily film was subsequently wiped off the flight deck CRT displays and passed to the operating Company’s engineering department for analysis.
• Both flight crew were left with a metallic taste in the mouth; the Commander also experienced a tingling sensation on his lips and a sore throat for several days. The First Officer was left with minor eye irritation.
• During the climb the Commander noticed a metallic taste coupled with an increasingly strong smell. The commander began to feel light headed and “un-coordinated”. The effects were still evident after landing with some reported errors of judgement and garbled speech.
• During the turnaround, the Commander alighted the aircraft in order to breathe fresh air but, after a short time, he suffered a head ache, itchy eyes, nausea and a bad taste in his mouth. The same crew then prepared the aircraft for return sector but, when engines number 3 and 4 were started, the Commander and the cabin staff felt increasingly unwell and as a result, the flight was cancelled. The aircraft was inspected in accordance with Service Bulletin ISB 21 – 150 but this did not reveal any oil contamination. However, following an air test it was found that engine No 4 and the APU were both the source of the fumes.
• The fumes reportedly affected two cabin staff and several passengers.
• The cabin manager felt overwhelmed by these fumes, and was on the verge of passing out, when her colleagues became aware of the situation and administered oxygen to her. After 10 minutes, the cabin manager recovered but was unable to resume her normal duties. Subsequent blood tests revealed that she had been exposed to higher than normal levels of carbon monoxide. (CO).
• The crew began to feel nauseous and so donned their oxygen masks, declared a PAN and returned to Heathrow where an uneventful landing was made.
• Then he started to feel dizzy and so donned his oxygen mask.
• The co pilot was limited in his capability of acting during the approach and landing due to the effects of fumes.
The medical examination of the co pilot after the flight showed that during the flight toxic exposure took place.
The medical examination of the Commander after flight did not show any results.
• They described it as a ‘burnt’ or ‘exhaust’ smell, but it was not accompanied by any visible smoke. Soon after, both crew members began to experience symptoms of tunnel vision, loss of balance and loss of feeling in the hands and lower arms. They immediately donned their oxygen masks, breathing 100% oxygen, which improved their condition noticeably.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that Carbon Monoxide was found in one case. The symptoms from other incidents sound similar to CO poisioning. Detectors for CO are the size of credit cards, are readily available and a $10 card lasts 18 months. Perhaps should be standard equipment?
http://www.avshop.com/product/ITEM6864/414
http://www.avshop.com/product/ITEM6864/414
Moon Walker
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: the Moon
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem is that pilots joining an airline are not warned about the problem.
Our B757 have a big problem with fumes ,i was involved with a test fight for fumes ,we had a fumes event during this flight!
The results should have taken a couple of weeks but its already 3 monhs ago.
the goverment and CAA are spineless and dont want to look into the problem ,they have set up the COT who dont want to listen to people who believe fumes are a problem!
Neil
Our B757 have a big problem with fumes ,i was involved with a test fight for fumes ,we had a fumes event during this flight!
The results should have taken a couple of weeks but its already 3 monhs ago.
the goverment and CAA are spineless and dont want to look into the problem ,they have set up the COT who dont want to listen to people who believe fumes are a problem!
Neil
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Buster
No, not agreed. Why should the government care what the impact is on the aviation industry? They certainly didn't care about the farmers in recent years, a much bigger industry and one with more impact on the economy. There are many other industries that have been badly treated by the government in recent times, so why is aviation special?
More to the point, why do you assume that governments are innately dishonest and self-serving? It is a typical viewpoint of the extreme conspiracists and other fringe groups who specialise in sensationalism at the expense of hard facts.
Could it actually be that the science is not compelling? Maybe the government is actually saying "we appreciate that there may be a problem, but until you PROVE it we can't act". One three hundred page book and a small amount of research is not the same thing as proof. It is a good start, and it may lay the foundation for better research to come, but it isn't enough in itself. Governments don't act because very small pressure groups, using very small samples, say they should. You have to make your case.
The problem with the summary of events that you detail above is that you don't actually KNOW what caused them. You are making a reasonable inference, but it isn't the same thing as proof. Case in point: many years ago, while doing a domestic flight, some of the crew and pax on a flight I was on felt dizzy and faint, similar symptoms to the one you describe. To cut a long story short, the cause was traced to a can of industrial solvent that had leaked in the hold - the fumes were leaking through the floor joins into the cabin. The can should never have been there, ot course, but the point is that the symptoms were nearly identical to the ones you describe - but had nothing to do with engines or oil.
If you want to fight this fight, you need to avoid the woolly thinking and hasty conclusions that have been the hallmarks of this issue. You have to differentiate between short-term exposure and it's effects (which is what you post above is all about), and long-term effects from years of exposure to less obvious contamination. They are two different issues, and yet the advocates of cabin air action constantly confuse the two and treat them as the same thing.
And finally... many years ago I was positioning on an ATP (another problem aircraft from the fumes viewpoint) when the cabin filled with oily blue smoke. An intercompressor turbine labyrinth seal had let go in one of the engines and filled the cabin with pyrolised oil smoke. We landed 20 mins later, with smoke still visible in the cabin. And yet... nobody reported feeling ill or impaired in any way. Not the pax, and not the crew. And they were all looked at by paramedics after we landed... so go figure. Maybe the issue isn't as cut and dried as you think.
The Government are unconvinced it is true, but only because of the financial impact it would have on the aviation industry. Agreed?
More to the point, why do you assume that governments are innately dishonest and self-serving? It is a typical viewpoint of the extreme conspiracists and other fringe groups who specialise in sensationalism at the expense of hard facts.
Could it actually be that the science is not compelling? Maybe the government is actually saying "we appreciate that there may be a problem, but until you PROVE it we can't act". One three hundred page book and a small amount of research is not the same thing as proof. It is a good start, and it may lay the foundation for better research to come, but it isn't enough in itself. Governments don't act because very small pressure groups, using very small samples, say they should. You have to make your case.
The problem with the summary of events that you detail above is that you don't actually KNOW what caused them. You are making a reasonable inference, but it isn't the same thing as proof. Case in point: many years ago, while doing a domestic flight, some of the crew and pax on a flight I was on felt dizzy and faint, similar symptoms to the one you describe. To cut a long story short, the cause was traced to a can of industrial solvent that had leaked in the hold - the fumes were leaking through the floor joins into the cabin. The can should never have been there, ot course, but the point is that the symptoms were nearly identical to the ones you describe - but had nothing to do with engines or oil.
If you want to fight this fight, you need to avoid the woolly thinking and hasty conclusions that have been the hallmarks of this issue. You have to differentiate between short-term exposure and it's effects (which is what you post above is all about), and long-term effects from years of exposure to less obvious contamination. They are two different issues, and yet the advocates of cabin air action constantly confuse the two and treat them as the same thing.
And finally... many years ago I was positioning on an ATP (another problem aircraft from the fumes viewpoint) when the cabin filled with oily blue smoke. An intercompressor turbine labyrinth seal had let go in one of the engines and filled the cabin with pyrolised oil smoke. We landed 20 mins later, with smoke still visible in the cabin. And yet... nobody reported feeling ill or impaired in any way. Not the pax, and not the crew. And they were all looked at by paramedics after we landed... so go figure. Maybe the issue isn't as cut and dried as you think.
Fumes from 146 Packs
I have to say that I have never been asked for my opinion about this in 20 years on the aeroplane and never been surveyed. I do know that it was started in Australia in the early 90's and carried on by a disgruntled Flybe Captain. None of the colleagues that I have spoken to (TNT, DAT, Titan, and others) have ever had a problem. That's a lot of hours on the little jet all over the world in all conditions. Don't try and blame your hangovers on the only aeroplane I know who's systems have never, ever, killed anybody. Think about it, and compare the record to 737 rudders, 747 fuel pumps, 767 reversers, Airbus fins, MD entertainment systems and centre engine failures and god knows how many 320 crashes due to software glitches. Yes they've crashed but system failure was not the cause.
Maybe we've all been lucky in our 30000 hours all told!!
Maybe we've all been lucky in our 30000 hours all told!!
pilotspantsdown:
Do you ever read what I actually say? On every post that I have made on this subject I have said that it would be very interesting to investigate why it is that some few 146 pilots suffer while the rest of us have no problems.
Why do you have difficulty with this? I personally know of two or three pilots in 20 years of operating the 146 who have had a problem. One of them had to move to another aircraft (A300) and he has been fine ever since.
I am simply trying to get the problem into perspective whilst you, and some of your mates, are trotting out completely spurious figures (which are rather dubious) to "support" your argument that one third of us is suffering from this problem. You have even suggested that I am suffering from 146 fumes simply because I referred to some of your logic as "b*llocks".
Let us just look at some of your statistics:
"A survey of all known current and past 146 pilots"
When I query this statement and point out that my company have flown 19 146s for 20 years and that none of us were ever asked, you respond with:
"From memory about 300 pilots were contacted. That's a fair sample. I cannot comment on why you or your colleagues were left out".
So, suddenly "every known 146 pilot" becomes invalid. I would think that we alone have gone through that number of pilots over 20 years.
Perhaps you could tell us all exactly which companies were quizzed and which companies responded?
"I concede that my memory might not be entirely acurate".
You have absolutely removed all doubt of that already.
I have no intention of posting again on this subject. I have great sympathy with those who really do have a problem but their cause is not being helped by people such as you who pluck so-called statistics out of the atmosphere which simply do not stand up to inspection.
Do you ever read what I actually say? On every post that I have made on this subject I have said that it would be very interesting to investigate why it is that some few 146 pilots suffer while the rest of us have no problems.
Why do you have difficulty with this? I personally know of two or three pilots in 20 years of operating the 146 who have had a problem. One of them had to move to another aircraft (A300) and he has been fine ever since.
I am simply trying to get the problem into perspective whilst you, and some of your mates, are trotting out completely spurious figures (which are rather dubious) to "support" your argument that one third of us is suffering from this problem. You have even suggested that I am suffering from 146 fumes simply because I referred to some of your logic as "b*llocks".
Let us just look at some of your statistics:
"A survey of all known current and past 146 pilots"
When I query this statement and point out that my company have flown 19 146s for 20 years and that none of us were ever asked, you respond with:
"From memory about 300 pilots were contacted. That's a fair sample. I cannot comment on why you or your colleagues were left out".
So, suddenly "every known 146 pilot" becomes invalid. I would think that we alone have gone through that number of pilots over 20 years.
Perhaps you could tell us all exactly which companies were quizzed and which companies responded?
"I concede that my memory might not be entirely acurate".
You have absolutely removed all doubt of that already.
I have no intention of posting again on this subject. I have great sympathy with those who really do have a problem but their cause is not being helped by people such as you who pluck so-called statistics out of the atmosphere which simply do not stand up to inspection.
Last edited by JW411; 26th Oct 2007 at 18:18.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's in the fumes?
Remoak,
I think we are all agreed that anybody with a bit of mishandling can fill an aeroplane with fumes relatively easily from the APU on the ground?
The question is, where do the fumes originate from? Would it be a fair assumption to agree that they come from the oil within the APU? It can't be the fuel after all. Still agreed?
Now if you look at the oil tin contents it advises you (or used to) that there are dangerous toxic chemicals which are deliberately put into the oil to make the APU last longer and act as a fire retardent. Still agreed?
If you now breathe these fumes (with experience everybody works out ways to reduce the fumes) but one is still left with APU's of different age and condition and of course flying with other pilots, who might not handle the controls in the approved manner.
I have witnessed a cabin and cockpit full of fumes on many, many occasions in 16 years of flying. Not deliberate obviously, it's just another fact.
So these are my concerns and the fact that nobody knows officially what those fumes are made from makes me wonder whether they want to find the answer?
If you know, please tell me. Because I think the fumes may have been responsible for altering my health over time.
Written English is not my strong point, but hopefully people can maybe at least begin to understand how many people have suffered over the years.
Why don't they at least test the theory? To have Doctors telling injured pilots that it may be due to "ingesting de icing fluid" - in the middle of summer is just XXXXXXXX sorry, i've run out of words.....insulting?
I think we are all agreed that anybody with a bit of mishandling can fill an aeroplane with fumes relatively easily from the APU on the ground?
The question is, where do the fumes originate from? Would it be a fair assumption to agree that they come from the oil within the APU? It can't be the fuel after all. Still agreed?
Now if you look at the oil tin contents it advises you (or used to) that there are dangerous toxic chemicals which are deliberately put into the oil to make the APU last longer and act as a fire retardent. Still agreed?
If you now breathe these fumes (with experience everybody works out ways to reduce the fumes) but one is still left with APU's of different age and condition and of course flying with other pilots, who might not handle the controls in the approved manner.
I have witnessed a cabin and cockpit full of fumes on many, many occasions in 16 years of flying. Not deliberate obviously, it's just another fact.
So these are my concerns and the fact that nobody knows officially what those fumes are made from makes me wonder whether they want to find the answer?
If you know, please tell me. Because I think the fumes may have been responsible for altering my health over time.
Written English is not my strong point, but hopefully people can maybe at least begin to understand how many people have suffered over the years.
Why don't they at least test the theory? To have Doctors telling injured pilots that it may be due to "ingesting de icing fluid" - in the middle of summer is just XXXXXXXX sorry, i've run out of words.....insulting?