Pilots protest over 'noxious' air
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Buster
You are missing the point on many levels.
Nobody is suggesting that an APU cannot produce fumes (mainly when mishandled).
Nobody is suggesting that engine oil does not contain nasty substances, or that these substances are bad for you.
Where the problems start, is when you make the leap from oil containing nasty substances to people breathing them and getting sick, because, as you say yourself, nobody knows what the fumes actually consist of.
Even you are not sure on what might have caused your health problems, because, as you say yourself, after all the research, the fumes you have breathed "may" have caused your health problems. So you really don't know what has caused your health to deteriorate - but you have chosen fumes as the most likely culprit. You may well be right, and as I have already said, I have no issue with the fact that many pilots are experiencing health issues, and that those health issues "may" be related to oil, APUs and OPs.
My point - and this is the one you seem to have missed - is that it is up to YOU and the various lobby groups to prove it. Or at least provide enough evidence to get a major investigation underway.
The COT don't support you. You would say "well of course they don't, they are protecting the airlines", but you are unable to explain WHY they would want to support the airlines, or what possible motive they could have to suppress the "truth". According to the various groups fighting this battle, the installation of filters would fix it forever, or the use of different oils would have the same effect. If that is true, a government edict to fix the problem would have a small economic effect on the airlines and manufacturers - so what possible reason could they have to withold such an edict? Certainly not from the fear of putting airlines out of business - so why?
The Australian government didn't support such action either - they too found the evidence less than compelling.
Just for the sake of bringing some balance to this - do you live in a house that contains any MDF or particleboard, plywood, adhesives, paints, PVC windows or vinyl floors? If so, read this:
Now please tell me how many of those products are banned in the UK (or Australia), and then ask yourself why. It is the same problem - chemical sensitisation - as affected pilots seem to be suffering. Now answer me this - is it the APUs that are affecting pilots, or their kitchen worktops?
(Quote from http://www.canadiansforproperlybuilt...rofhealth.html)
You are missing the point on many levels.
Nobody is suggesting that an APU cannot produce fumes (mainly when mishandled).
Nobody is suggesting that engine oil does not contain nasty substances, or that these substances are bad for you.
Where the problems start, is when you make the leap from oil containing nasty substances to people breathing them and getting sick, because, as you say yourself, nobody knows what the fumes actually consist of.
Even you are not sure on what might have caused your health problems, because, as you say yourself, after all the research, the fumes you have breathed "may" have caused your health problems. So you really don't know what has caused your health to deteriorate - but you have chosen fumes as the most likely culprit. You may well be right, and as I have already said, I have no issue with the fact that many pilots are experiencing health issues, and that those health issues "may" be related to oil, APUs and OPs.
My point - and this is the one you seem to have missed - is that it is up to YOU and the various lobby groups to prove it. Or at least provide enough evidence to get a major investigation underway.
The COT don't support you. You would say "well of course they don't, they are protecting the airlines", but you are unable to explain WHY they would want to support the airlines, or what possible motive they could have to suppress the "truth". According to the various groups fighting this battle, the installation of filters would fix it forever, or the use of different oils would have the same effect. If that is true, a government edict to fix the problem would have a small economic effect on the airlines and manufacturers - so what possible reason could they have to withold such an edict? Certainly not from the fear of putting airlines out of business - so why?
The Australian government didn't support such action either - they too found the evidence less than compelling.
Just for the sake of bringing some balance to this - do you live in a house that contains any MDF or particleboard, plywood, adhesives, paints, PVC windows or vinyl floors? If so, read this:
Chemicals like urea formaldehyde, a possible carcinogen and known sensitizer, are given off by particleboard and MDF (medium density fibreboard) used for trim, countertops, shelving and cabinetry. Hardwood plywoods are also glued together with urea formaldehyde resins. Many adhesives and paints contain solvents (vapours) such as xylene and toluene, while vinyl floors and PVC windows give off vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen.
It takes a new home about 15 years to fully off-gas these pollutants.
"You are more likely to get sick from pollution in your home and office than from pollution in the air outside," says Nolan, who knows first-hand about environmental sensitivities. She and daughter Allison, now 12, developed multiple chemical sensitivities and suffered for years before discovering the problem. Nolan and husband Norm Leeming had built a series of new homes, moving into each successively and the buildup of urea formaldehyde affected them.
"We got sicker and sicker and sicker," Nolan recalls. She couldn't eat many foods or use soaps, shampoos and cosmetics. She had difficulty breathing, couldn't think straight and had to give up her work. "I lost 30 pounds. My daughter couldn't go to school."
Now, after making all the connections, they live in a 17-year-old house that has finished off-gassing, with hardwood and ceramic floors. They eat organic and Allison goes to a school that accommodates her needs.
"It's wonderful," Nolan said. "We both have our lives back."
Leeming now builds healthy homes.
The good news is that there are many green options available to replace the poisonous ones and you don't have to go too far to get them. Home Depot, for example, now carries Columbia Forest Products, which offer completely formaldehyde-free plywood, 2-by-4s, 2-by-6s and so on.
It takes a new home about 15 years to fully off-gas these pollutants.
"You are more likely to get sick from pollution in your home and office than from pollution in the air outside," says Nolan, who knows first-hand about environmental sensitivities. She and daughter Allison, now 12, developed multiple chemical sensitivities and suffered for years before discovering the problem. Nolan and husband Norm Leeming had built a series of new homes, moving into each successively and the buildup of urea formaldehyde affected them.
"We got sicker and sicker and sicker," Nolan recalls. She couldn't eat many foods or use soaps, shampoos and cosmetics. She had difficulty breathing, couldn't think straight and had to give up her work. "I lost 30 pounds. My daughter couldn't go to school."
Now, after making all the connections, they live in a 17-year-old house that has finished off-gassing, with hardwood and ceramic floors. They eat organic and Allison goes to a school that accommodates her needs.
"It's wonderful," Nolan said. "We both have our lives back."
Leeming now builds healthy homes.
The good news is that there are many green options available to replace the poisonous ones and you don't have to go too far to get them. Home Depot, for example, now carries Columbia Forest Products, which offer completely formaldehyde-free plywood, 2-by-4s, 2-by-6s and so on.
(Quote from http://www.canadiansforproperlybuilt...rofhealth.html)
www.aopis.org
(Aviation Organophoshate Information Site)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak,
You may like to make out your an expert in this field but why don't you tell us who you are and what papers you have published. Or maybe tell us what expertise you actually have.
You say COT (UK COT Committee) don't agree with the hundreds of crews and politicians who are critical of COT and you believe everything the CAA, COT and industry tell you, but why don't you ask yourself one simple question?
Apart from AOPIS, why does the GCAQE (450,000 crews represented) and ITF (1.5 million aviation workers) disagree with you? Might it be that your mistaken and the GPWS warning you hear in the background is real?
Check it out:
http://www.itfglobal.org/press-area/...essdetail/1638
Toxicity investigation ‘a wasted opportunity’
If your an expert tell us what papers you have published?
Philip Lyng
www.aopis.org
You may like to make out your an expert in this field but why don't you tell us who you are and what papers you have published. Or maybe tell us what expertise you actually have.
You say COT (UK COT Committee) don't agree with the hundreds of crews and politicians who are critical of COT and you believe everything the CAA, COT and industry tell you, but why don't you ask yourself one simple question?
Apart from AOPIS, why does the GCAQE (450,000 crews represented) and ITF (1.5 million aviation workers) disagree with you? Might it be that your mistaken and the GPWS warning you hear in the background is real?
Check it out:
http://www.itfglobal.org/press-area/...essdetail/1638
Toxicity investigation ‘a wasted opportunity’
If your an expert tell us what papers you have published?
Philip Lyng
www.aopis.org
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Lyng
Your little rant goes some way towards explaining your lack of success.
Please point out anywhere in my posts where I have claimed to be an expert on anything (other than flying the 146 of course). Besides, you don't need to be an expert to see the obvious flaws in the AOPIS argument. So what papers have YOU published?
You also make the foolish error of assuming that I do not believe that pilots have suffered illness - I have already confirmed that I do believe this to be the case. I am therefore unsure why you think the members of the organisations you mention might disagree with me.
The only point of difference between us is that I am not so quick to jump to conclusions as AOPIS clearly is.
Case in point:
http://www.ecocenter.org/sustainable...ics_full06.pdf
Hmmm... so is it the 146 APU... or is it the pilots new car? Do you know? Can you prove it? Guess not...
Can you see a pattern emerging here?
Your little rant goes some way towards explaining your lack of success.
Please point out anywhere in my posts where I have claimed to be an expert on anything (other than flying the 146 of course). Besides, you don't need to be an expert to see the obvious flaws in the AOPIS argument. So what papers have YOU published?
You also make the foolish error of assuming that I do not believe that pilots have suffered illness - I have already confirmed that I do believe this to be the case. I am therefore unsure why you think the members of the organisations you mention might disagree with me.
The only point of difference between us is that I am not so quick to jump to conclusions as AOPIS clearly is.
Case in point:
Vehicle interiors contain a cocktail of chemical compounds that off-gas and leach from trim panels, carpeting, seating, electronics and other parts into the air and dust that passengers breathe. Since our 2005 report, we have witnessed increasing public concern about these chemicals and their potential to cause human health effects.
While many chemicals used in cars pose risks, halogenated organic chemicals—such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs)—cause some of the greatest concern. Many of them are toxic, persist in the environment, bioaccumulate, and have been associated with serious health effects throughout their life cycle. When used in vehicles, they pose risks to workers who manufacture vehicle components, as well as people sitting inside their cars. Halogenated organics can also be extremely hazardous at the end of vehicle life. The majority of plastics in
vehicles end up as auto shredder residue (ASR), which is often incinerated or used as a feedstock in blast furnaces for the production of steel. When burned in this way, plastics that contain halogenated organics can create dangerous chemicals, such as dioxin—a likely carcinogen as well as a reproductive and developmental toxicant. Because of the dangers associated with halogenated substances during all stages of their life cycle, our evaluation now includes three topics specifically relating to halogens: “Reduction of BFRs”, “Reduction of PVC” and “Improvement in Cabin Air Quality.” While we believe that the entire set of halogenated organic chemicals should be avoided in automotive applications, these three topics represent first steps that automakers can take to phase them out of their products.
I N C R E A S I N G C O N C E R N A B O U T C H E M I C A L A D D I T I V E s
Brominated Flame Retardants
BFRs, most notably poly-brominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), are a group of halogenated organic chemicals that pose risk to vehicle occupants and the environment. PBDEs are added in large amounts to many interior vehicle components, including seating, trim panels and wiring, in order to impart fire resistance. They persist in the environment and levels of these chemicals in the food chain and in human bodies are rising rapidly. Studies have found that PBDEs may cause liver, thyroid and developmental toxicity, among other health problems. In a recent report, the Ecology Center found that
vehicle interiors are a significant source of PBDE exposure for many Americans. The study found that levels of PBDEs in vehicle dust are more than five times higher than levels detected in homes and offices. More
troubling, the study findings suggest that UV rays and heat may cause deca-BDE—the predominant PBDE used in autos today—to breakdown inside cars into more problematic and more toxic compounds, such aspenta-BDE and octa-BDE, which have been banned by government health agencies and the auto industry due to their toxicity.
Non-halogenated alternatives to deca-BDE exist, as well as alternative materials that are inherently more resistant to flames than conventional petroleum-based polymers. Some companies have begun to phase-in
these alternatives in their products, including Dell, Apple, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Ikea, Samsung Electronics, Sony and others. Because of the risks associated with deca-BDE exposure, the high concentrations of deca-BDE found in vehicles, and because industries have begun to demonstrate the feasibility of replacing it with alternatives, we find it reasonable to expect the auto industry to restrict their use of these chemicals as well. For these reasons, we have added BFRs, with particular focus on deca-BDE, as a topic in our evaluation. The detailed grading criteria for this topic can be found in Appendix B.
Polyvinyl Chloride and Interior Cabin Air Quality
Another halogenated substance, PVC, is also of concern in automobile interiors. PVC is a plastic commonly used in many vehicle components, including seats, arm rests, dashboards, trim panels, wiring and sealing. It
contains large amounts of the halogenated vinyl chloride monomer, which is a likely carcinogen, and creates dioxin when heated during production or burned in disposal. In addition to vinyl chloride, PVC also contains
plasticizers called phthalates. These chemicals off-gas from PVC and are deposited on dust particles and windshields, where they cause fogging. When inhaled or ingested by vehicle passengers, phthalates can lead
to a number of health problems, including damage to the liver and testes, reproductive effects, and possibly cancer.
While many chemicals used in cars pose risks, halogenated organic chemicals—such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs)—cause some of the greatest concern. Many of them are toxic, persist in the environment, bioaccumulate, and have been associated with serious health effects throughout their life cycle. When used in vehicles, they pose risks to workers who manufacture vehicle components, as well as people sitting inside their cars. Halogenated organics can also be extremely hazardous at the end of vehicle life. The majority of plastics in
vehicles end up as auto shredder residue (ASR), which is often incinerated or used as a feedstock in blast furnaces for the production of steel. When burned in this way, plastics that contain halogenated organics can create dangerous chemicals, such as dioxin—a likely carcinogen as well as a reproductive and developmental toxicant. Because of the dangers associated with halogenated substances during all stages of their life cycle, our evaluation now includes three topics specifically relating to halogens: “Reduction of BFRs”, “Reduction of PVC” and “Improvement in Cabin Air Quality.” While we believe that the entire set of halogenated organic chemicals should be avoided in automotive applications, these three topics represent first steps that automakers can take to phase them out of their products.
I N C R E A S I N G C O N C E R N A B O U T C H E M I C A L A D D I T I V E s
Brominated Flame Retardants
BFRs, most notably poly-brominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), are a group of halogenated organic chemicals that pose risk to vehicle occupants and the environment. PBDEs are added in large amounts to many interior vehicle components, including seating, trim panels and wiring, in order to impart fire resistance. They persist in the environment and levels of these chemicals in the food chain and in human bodies are rising rapidly. Studies have found that PBDEs may cause liver, thyroid and developmental toxicity, among other health problems. In a recent report, the Ecology Center found that
vehicle interiors are a significant source of PBDE exposure for many Americans. The study found that levels of PBDEs in vehicle dust are more than five times higher than levels detected in homes and offices. More
troubling, the study findings suggest that UV rays and heat may cause deca-BDE—the predominant PBDE used in autos today—to breakdown inside cars into more problematic and more toxic compounds, such aspenta-BDE and octa-BDE, which have been banned by government health agencies and the auto industry due to their toxicity.
Non-halogenated alternatives to deca-BDE exist, as well as alternative materials that are inherently more resistant to flames than conventional petroleum-based polymers. Some companies have begun to phase-in
these alternatives in their products, including Dell, Apple, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Ikea, Samsung Electronics, Sony and others. Because of the risks associated with deca-BDE exposure, the high concentrations of deca-BDE found in vehicles, and because industries have begun to demonstrate the feasibility of replacing it with alternatives, we find it reasonable to expect the auto industry to restrict their use of these chemicals as well. For these reasons, we have added BFRs, with particular focus on deca-BDE, as a topic in our evaluation. The detailed grading criteria for this topic can be found in Appendix B.
Polyvinyl Chloride and Interior Cabin Air Quality
Another halogenated substance, PVC, is also of concern in automobile interiors. PVC is a plastic commonly used in many vehicle components, including seats, arm rests, dashboards, trim panels, wiring and sealing. It
contains large amounts of the halogenated vinyl chloride monomer, which is a likely carcinogen, and creates dioxin when heated during production or burned in disposal. In addition to vinyl chloride, PVC also contains
plasticizers called phthalates. These chemicals off-gas from PVC and are deposited on dust particles and windshields, where they cause fogging. When inhaled or ingested by vehicle passengers, phthalates can lead
to a number of health problems, including damage to the liver and testes, reproductive effects, and possibly cancer.
Hmmm... so is it the 146 APU... or is it the pilots new car? Do you know? Can you prove it? Guess not...
Can you see a pattern emerging here?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: no fixed abode ....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Allow me to answer some of your points:
Yes I agree with you that it would be 'interesting'. Perhaps I should have said that last time. My difficulty with this approach is because knowing the reason, if it could be found will still not stop people getting poisoned. The urgent thing is to stop crews and passengers from being poisoned. The cause of the problem needs fixing. Surely you agree with that?
So you have only heard of 2-3 others suffering from the problem in 20 years. So what? I had not heard of any others at all until after my health was wrecked while on the 146. Since then I have come to know of well over a dozen 146 pilots who have been similarly afflicted. Plus plenty of others on Boeing and other fleets. Our ignorance as to the extent of the problem does not make one bit of difference to the numbers affected by it.
A phrase such as ‘I am simply trying to get the problem into perspective’ is fairly non-specific. If you want to talk numbers, Dr Sarah Mackenzie Ross of UCL estimated almost 200,000 passengers in one single year were subjected to contaminated air containing potent neurotoxins. Supposing only a tiny proportion such as 1% of this number was injured. That’s almost 2,000 individuals PER YEAR. And the real figure may be far, far higher.
.
My figures are not ‘spurious’.
.
For your information, I have discovered the survey I mentioned is detailed in the Contaminated Air Reference Manual, chapter 6, page 139:
.
Extract from Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual – page 139
“Initial analysis of the survey data shows that of 359 past and present UK based known BAe 146 qualified pilots, 242 were contacted and responded to the survey request in the form of telephone or written responses to a 2 year survey looking at exposure history to contaminated air and any effects experienced.
.
138 (57%) pilots of the 242 respondents reported adverse effects ranging from short through to long term effects (1 deceased). Of these 82 (34%) reported short term adverse effects only, while 61 (25%) advised medium to long term symptoms, most likely in addition to short term symptoms. 207 (86%) pilots advised that they had been exposed to contaminated air on the BAe 146 with only 8% advising they had not been to such air. 18 pilots (7.4%) advised that they had had their medical certificates withdrawn by the CAA or had taken early retirement with a range of health effects and exposure background. Several other pilots reported having to take between several months to a year off work to recover from adverse effects.
The data presented clearly identifies serious trends that support previous studies and shows a full scale epidemiological survey is urgently required of all crews who flew the BAe 146 as pilots or cabin crew.”
.
By Captain Susan Michaelis. Editor.
Now available from: http://www.susanmichaelis.com/
.
This was an informal survey with absolutely no help from the CAA. So it’s not surprising that some, perhaps many, were left out. I would be very surprised if anyone was left out deliberately. The point is that the sample may be small but the ratios it reveals should be broadly accurate.
.
‘All known’ means exactly that. I never claimed it was ‘all 146 pilots’ So there is nothing invalid about what I wrote.
You’ve made another incorrect assumption there. Individuals were contacted, not companies. I did not personally do the survey so I cannot comment on which individuals were contacted or why.
.
How can you be so sure in assuming that none of your colleagues whom you know was ever asked? People who were asked are hardly likely to tell you about it if their own health was suffering. Those who are suffering but still at work tend to keep very quiet about it as they fear for their position, until things become so bad they have to stop. Those who suffer to the extent that they cannot fly any longer find that their names typically drop off company rosters and are usually forgotten. Companies are hardly likely to shout about the numbers of long-term sick crews as my guess is that they have a pretty shrewd idea whats going on and why. So altogether, crews remain largely ignorant of the problem.
At no stage have I ‘plucked statistics out of the atmosphere’ as my response demonstrates. And your ‘inspection’ seems to me to be little more than a rant punctuated by flawed assumptions. Surely if something is unclear, you would seek to clarify first, rather than assuming that your interpretation is faultless? Is this how you would work a problem in flight?
Actually, as I made clear, it was your tone that lead me to this suggestion, which is redolent of irritation and anger. Your reply seemed to be more of a reaction than a measured, considered response. The tone of your most recent reply merely adds to my suspicion that you are one poisoned pilot. I repeat, with almost 20 years on type it is almost certain that you have had a fair dose of contaminated air toxins.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Allow me to answer some of your points:
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.
.
My figures are not ‘spurious’.
.
For your information, I have discovered the survey I mentioned is detailed in the Contaminated Air Reference Manual, chapter 6, page 139:
.
Extract from Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual – page 139
“Initial analysis of the survey data shows that of 359 past and present UK based known BAe 146 qualified pilots, 242 were contacted and responded to the survey request in the form of telephone or written responses to a 2 year survey looking at exposure history to contaminated air and any effects experienced.
.
138 (57%) pilots of the 242 respondents reported adverse effects ranging from short through to long term effects (1 deceased). Of these 82 (34%) reported short term adverse effects only, while 61 (25%) advised medium to long term symptoms, most likely in addition to short term symptoms. 207 (86%) pilots advised that they had been exposed to contaminated air on the BAe 146 with only 8% advising they had not been to such air. 18 pilots (7.4%) advised that they had had their medical certificates withdrawn by the CAA or had taken early retirement with a range of health effects and exposure background. Several other pilots reported having to take between several months to a year off work to recover from adverse effects.
The data presented clearly identifies serious trends that support previous studies and shows a full scale epidemiological survey is urgently required of all crews who flew the BAe 146 as pilots or cabin crew.”
.
By Captain Susan Michaelis. Editor.
Now available from: http://www.susanmichaelis.com/
.
This was an informal survey with absolutely no help from the CAA. So it’s not surprising that some, perhaps many, were left out. I would be very surprised if anyone was left out deliberately. The point is that the sample may be small but the ratios it reveals should be broadly accurate.
.
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.
"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.
Perhaps you could tell us all exactly which companies were quizzed and which companies responded?
.
How can you be so sure in assuming that none of your colleagues whom you know was ever asked? People who were asked are hardly likely to tell you about it if their own health was suffering. Those who are suffering but still at work tend to keep very quiet about it as they fear for their position, until things become so bad they have to stop. Those who suffer to the extent that they cannot fly any longer find that their names typically drop off company rosters and are usually forgotten. Companies are hardly likely to shout about the numbers of long-term sick crews as my guess is that they have a pretty shrewd idea whats going on and why. So altogether, crews remain largely ignorant of the problem.
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.
You have even suggested that I am suffering from 146 fumes simply because I referred to some of your logic as "b*llocks".
Last edited by pilotpantsdown; 26th Oct 2007 at 20:52.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tri cresyl phosphate in blood / fat
Remoak,
Like you, I was an expert BAe 146 pilot. I started to fly them in 1989 and by 1998 my memory was shot to pieces and my speech not worthy of an airline captain.
I could not imagine learning a new aircraft type, so I stayed with the 146 and changed bases.
I didn't know anything about fumes in those days ,but I felt so ill I thought I had early dementia or cjd. Stupidly I just kept going.
By 2001 I was in real trouble but kept quiet.
I had a bad fume event in 2002.
By 2004 I was ready to quit, so I did. I walked off a particularly challenging flight and drove home to my 400 year old house (with wooden work surfaces in the kithchen - what are you on?).
In 2005 I again had a fume event and quit, completely xxxxxxxered.
I was grounded due to chronic stress in February 2006.
In April 2006 my blood / fat was tested and it was full of abnormal amounts of chemicals, as was 27 other pilots blood / fat.
My sample had Tri cresyl phosphate (TCP) - or engine oil - in it.
I was a big sceptic too until my cognitive ability was measured, along with the other 27 pilots and guess what? We all were around 10% below the poulation average.
Now that for me is quite a powerful amount of evidence.
All we are asking for now is for a much bigger survey to urgently look into this serious problem and for some brave scientist to risk their reputation by measuring what is in those oil fumes, because if the fumes contain TCP I would like to know exactly how they got into me and my mates and stayed there a year after I stopped flying.
For every day that the fumes are not now tested, makes me realise how twisted and political this whole business is!
Please prove me wrong.
Once again, I am so pleased you are not affected but maybe just for once, think of your colleagues who know, with absolute certainty, the cause of their awful ill health.
Can you please also explain why now I feel, more or less, how I did back in 1989?
Take care - in that air! It ain't good for SOME people. That's a fact.
DB
Like you, I was an expert BAe 146 pilot. I started to fly them in 1989 and by 1998 my memory was shot to pieces and my speech not worthy of an airline captain.
I could not imagine learning a new aircraft type, so I stayed with the 146 and changed bases.
I didn't know anything about fumes in those days ,but I felt so ill I thought I had early dementia or cjd. Stupidly I just kept going.
By 2001 I was in real trouble but kept quiet.
I had a bad fume event in 2002.
By 2004 I was ready to quit, so I did. I walked off a particularly challenging flight and drove home to my 400 year old house (with wooden work surfaces in the kithchen - what are you on?).
In 2005 I again had a fume event and quit, completely xxxxxxxered.
I was grounded due to chronic stress in February 2006.
In April 2006 my blood / fat was tested and it was full of abnormal amounts of chemicals, as was 27 other pilots blood / fat.
My sample had Tri cresyl phosphate (TCP) - or engine oil - in it.
I was a big sceptic too until my cognitive ability was measured, along with the other 27 pilots and guess what? We all were around 10% below the poulation average.
Now that for me is quite a powerful amount of evidence.
All we are asking for now is for a much bigger survey to urgently look into this serious problem and for some brave scientist to risk their reputation by measuring what is in those oil fumes, because if the fumes contain TCP I would like to know exactly how they got into me and my mates and stayed there a year after I stopped flying.
For every day that the fumes are not now tested, makes me realise how twisted and political this whole business is!
Please prove me wrong.
Once again, I am so pleased you are not affected but maybe just for once, think of your colleagues who know, with absolute certainty, the cause of their awful ill health.
Can you please also explain why now I feel, more or less, how I did back in 1989?
Take care - in that air! It ain't good for SOME people. That's a fact.
DB
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Buster
As I have said - many times now - I have no issue with pilots having serious problems that are most likely (but not 100%, empirically provable) due to cabin air in the 146 or similar types. I don't doubt that they are ill, and I am perfectly prepared to accept that their problems stem from cabin air, although there appears to be little hard evidence to support that claim, other than the TCP measurement made in some individuals - which could have other sources (see below). That is one of the problems - proving that the chemicals came from engine oil and not some other source.
However, my point (which nobody seems to get - maybe I am affected by fumes after all!) is that it is no good becoming myopically focused on cabin air as being the only possible cause of the problem in every pilot that has reported "symptoms". As I have highlighted above, people who are prone to chemical sensitivity can become afflicted by similar symptoms that stem from a variety of other sources. For you, it might be cabin fumes, for others it might be their new worktop or shiny car. Maybe, for you, it is actually some other external factor that you haven't identified which is causing the problem - something in your home environment perhaps? Do you live in the countryside? Have you ever been exposed to other sources of TCP? It isn't as clear-cut and obvious as some would have you believe - or as some very much want to believe.
By the way, TCP isn't engine oil. Engine oil is simply one of a variety of substances that contain TCP - for example:
Have you been exposed to any of those? Surely you have been around PVC, flame-retardant furniture and petrol?
Nobody has managed to tell my why COT or the Aussie government would deliberately ignore compelling science. What reason is there, given my points made in previous posts? I suggest that the science is not as compelling as some would have you believe - or as some would very much want to believe.
If you or the scientists working on this can establish causal links and clear evidence, across a wide sample, of damage done by cabin air, then I say more power to your arm and you have done us all a great service. I would personally support that work (and have in fact already done so).
However, until that day comes, the cause is not served by muddled thinking and sensationalist conspiracy theories, or the sort of foolish advice proposed by AOPIS. The AOPIS approach is redolent of a union campaign (not surprising considering it's origins). That approach will never work.
If you read through these posts, you will see that I have never denied the problem. I have only questioned the methods by which some seek to solve it.
As I have said - many times now - I have no issue with pilots having serious problems that are most likely (but not 100%, empirically provable) due to cabin air in the 146 or similar types. I don't doubt that they are ill, and I am perfectly prepared to accept that their problems stem from cabin air, although there appears to be little hard evidence to support that claim, other than the TCP measurement made in some individuals - which could have other sources (see below). That is one of the problems - proving that the chemicals came from engine oil and not some other source.
However, my point (which nobody seems to get - maybe I am affected by fumes after all!) is that it is no good becoming myopically focused on cabin air as being the only possible cause of the problem in every pilot that has reported "symptoms". As I have highlighted above, people who are prone to chemical sensitivity can become afflicted by similar symptoms that stem from a variety of other sources. For you, it might be cabin fumes, for others it might be their new worktop or shiny car. Maybe, for you, it is actually some other external factor that you haven't identified which is causing the problem - something in your home environment perhaps? Do you live in the countryside? Have you ever been exposed to other sources of TCP? It isn't as clear-cut and obvious as some would have you believe - or as some very much want to believe.
By the way, TCP isn't engine oil. Engine oil is simply one of a variety of substances that contain TCP - for example:
Tricresyl phosphate is used as a plasticizer in nitrocellulose and acrylate lacquers and varnishes and in polyvinyl chloride, a flame retardant in plastics and rubbers, as a gasoline additive as a lead scavenger for tetra-ethyl lead, in hydraulic fluids, as a heat exchange medium, for waterproofing of materials, as a solvent for extractions, a solvent for nitrocellulose and other polymers, and an intermediate in organic synthesis. It is also used as an AW additive and EP additive in lubricants, and as a hydraulic fluid. As a gasoline additive, it also helps preventing engine misfires.
Nobody has managed to tell my why COT or the Aussie government would deliberately ignore compelling science. What reason is there, given my points made in previous posts? I suggest that the science is not as compelling as some would have you believe - or as some would very much want to believe.
If you or the scientists working on this can establish causal links and clear evidence, across a wide sample, of damage done by cabin air, then I say more power to your arm and you have done us all a great service. I would personally support that work (and have in fact already done so).
However, until that day comes, the cause is not served by muddled thinking and sensationalist conspiracy theories, or the sort of foolish advice proposed by AOPIS. The AOPIS approach is redolent of a union campaign (not surprising considering it's origins). That approach will never work.
If you read through these posts, you will see that I have never denied the problem. I have only questioned the methods by which some seek to solve it.
Last edited by remoak; 26th Oct 2007 at 21:59.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More evidence.
Remoak,
Thanks for 'almost' agreeing. I know in law 'the balance of probability' is all that is required.
I would be fascinated to know just how one proves anything 100% - especially when there is so much money at stake and lets face it, certain people would prefer NOT to prove it, well not yet anyway?
Roll on the B. 787......................................................... .........Bleed air free, can't think why? What caused them to chuck away 40 years worth of technology?
What has truly bothered me is the evidence I have witnessed of other innocent people who have randomly come forward, their families have seen them turn into 'zombies' in 3 years; mild, God fearing gentle pilots turn on their wives; responsible, professional airmen independently give up their dream careers - not because they don't like flying but because they don't feel safe any more; passengers on fume event flights have their lives wrecked for years afterwards and all you ask us to do is to prove that the toxic oil fumes we breathed were NOT responsible.
An urgent independent public enquiry is required here because many people are trying to tell society all is not well and history will not record the apparent indifference very well, when it is indeed proved conclusively that breathing heated engine oil fumes cooks SOME peoples brains.
To not even test or look for that 100% proof is, I hope you will agree, criminal?
I'm OK now - i'm out but I remain deeply concerned for those who can't get out.
Take care, in that air. A sceptic almost 99% agrees it is bad for you.
Whatever happened to the principle of precaution?
DB
Thanks for 'almost' agreeing. I know in law 'the balance of probability' is all that is required.
I would be fascinated to know just how one proves anything 100% - especially when there is so much money at stake and lets face it, certain people would prefer NOT to prove it, well not yet anyway?
Roll on the B. 787......................................................... .........Bleed air free, can't think why? What caused them to chuck away 40 years worth of technology?
What has truly bothered me is the evidence I have witnessed of other innocent people who have randomly come forward, their families have seen them turn into 'zombies' in 3 years; mild, God fearing gentle pilots turn on their wives; responsible, professional airmen independently give up their dream careers - not because they don't like flying but because they don't feel safe any more; passengers on fume event flights have their lives wrecked for years afterwards and all you ask us to do is to prove that the toxic oil fumes we breathed were NOT responsible.
An urgent independent public enquiry is required here because many people are trying to tell society all is not well and history will not record the apparent indifference very well, when it is indeed proved conclusively that breathing heated engine oil fumes cooks SOME peoples brains.
To not even test or look for that 100% proof is, I hope you will agree, criminal?
I'm OK now - i'm out but I remain deeply concerned for those who can't get out.
Take care, in that air. A sceptic almost 99% agrees it is bad for you.
Whatever happened to the principle of precaution?
DB
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak - We get your point. The first thing any decent survey would do is to set up controls. Check 146 pilots and a similar number of non 146 pilots and a similar number of people from other occupations. Run the stats and look for a correlation.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personal Testimony.
I'm a 757/767 pilot for BA. RR 535-E4 engines. On a number of occasions I have smelt the fumes.
On most of those occasions I have found my cognitive functions degraded. I liken the effect to the way one can sometimes make a journey (to work for instance) and one can't remember it. As though I was functioning without long term memory....Thankfully it passes within 12 hours.
The footdragging on this issue by all concerned is quite saddening. A lot of pilots on my fleet avoid the aircraft. As a junior pilot I therefore get a disproportionate amount of 'exposure'.
No doubt the key personel involved are fans of the film "Thankyou for Smoking"
I'm a 757/767 pilot for BA. RR 535-E4 engines. On a number of occasions I have smelt the fumes.
On most of those occasions I have found my cognitive functions degraded. I liken the effect to the way one can sometimes make a journey (to work for instance) and one can't remember it. As though I was functioning without long term memory....Thankfully it passes within 12 hours.
The footdragging on this issue by all concerned is quite saddening. A lot of pilots on my fleet avoid the aircraft. As a junior pilot I therefore get a disproportionate amount of 'exposure'.
No doubt the key personel involved are fans of the film "Thankyou for Smoking"
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early signs
Right Engine,
You appear to have the early signs of being affected as many other people before you have found out. It might appear to only last 12 hours but I think most sufferers would agree that it very slowly creeps up on you and soon lasts longer.
I have found that if you were to have a bad exposure or event one day, your body will take a big hit and your recovery will last a lot longer than a day.
I have found in other pilots that once they have had a bad exposure, their natural defences seem to weaken rapidly and even a small exposure in the future will affect them very badly.
I met a guy the other day who could barely talk and was in no way fit enough to fly; he had his exposure in 2004 and just battled on getting sicker and sicker. Poor fellow. No more flying for him. Join the club.
The worst part is that you know you may be on the way to being permanently brain damaged one day. Bit of a trap really.
I really think that people have to be honest with themselves here, if you think you are losing it, you are, it's not your imagination - do something to stop it, before it's too late.
There is help and advice available out there, now.
DB
You appear to have the early signs of being affected as many other people before you have found out. It might appear to only last 12 hours but I think most sufferers would agree that it very slowly creeps up on you and soon lasts longer.
I have found that if you were to have a bad exposure or event one day, your body will take a big hit and your recovery will last a lot longer than a day.
I have found in other pilots that once they have had a bad exposure, their natural defences seem to weaken rapidly and even a small exposure in the future will affect them very badly.
I met a guy the other day who could barely talk and was in no way fit enough to fly; he had his exposure in 2004 and just battled on getting sicker and sicker. Poor fellow. No more flying for him. Join the club.
The worst part is that you know you may be on the way to being permanently brain damaged one day. Bit of a trap really.
I really think that people have to be honest with themselves here, if you think you are losing it, you are, it's not your imagination - do something to stop it, before it's too late.
There is help and advice available out there, now.
DB
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: no fixed abode ....
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Buster,
.
Absolutely spot-on. I have been informed by an specialist in OPs that with every exposure, the individual's sensitivity to the toxin increases. The consequence of this is that the effect of each subsequent exposure becomes ever more serious, plus, the individual's sensitivity threshold falls.
.
If someone told me they were getting exposed on a regular basis and especially if they knew they were symptomatic, however mildly, my advice would be to get off that fleet and onto another type - and soon, before it was too late. Start the process now, this week.
.
Changing fleets as a response to encountering this problem would of course represent a major career upset and might well not agree with that individual's existing career plans. But remember, if you lose your health to this problem, you have no future career. Its that serious. One point not emphasised enough in my opinion is that for highly sensitised individuals, once they have reached a particular symptom threshold, a full recovery from this problem seems fairly unlikely. Put bluntly, staying on a frequently exposing type is total career suicide for some people.
.
I personally know three BA 757 pilots who are no longer flying on ill health grounds. All believe their problems stem from exposure to toxic cabin air. I dearly wish I had had this advice for myself. I would have wanted it put very bluntly indeed because otherwise the inertia of hoping it would turn out okay would probably have prevailed (it didn't turn out okay).
.
A second piece of advice I would offer is to join the IPA immediately, and of course the Aerotoxic Association. Anecdotal evidence (plus the experience of those known to me) suggests that 'the other one' has a poor track record of helping those who have encountered this problem when they most need assistance. I believe this problem also extends to loss of licence protection.
.
How do you read, Right Engine?
.
PP
.
Absolutely spot-on. I have been informed by an specialist in OPs that with every exposure, the individual's sensitivity to the toxin increases. The consequence of this is that the effect of each subsequent exposure becomes ever more serious, plus, the individual's sensitivity threshold falls.
.
If someone told me they were getting exposed on a regular basis and especially if they knew they were symptomatic, however mildly, my advice would be to get off that fleet and onto another type - and soon, before it was too late. Start the process now, this week.
.
Changing fleets as a response to encountering this problem would of course represent a major career upset and might well not agree with that individual's existing career plans. But remember, if you lose your health to this problem, you have no future career. Its that serious. One point not emphasised enough in my opinion is that for highly sensitised individuals, once they have reached a particular symptom threshold, a full recovery from this problem seems fairly unlikely. Put bluntly, staying on a frequently exposing type is total career suicide for some people.
.
I personally know three BA 757 pilots who are no longer flying on ill health grounds. All believe their problems stem from exposure to toxic cabin air. I dearly wish I had had this advice for myself. I would have wanted it put very bluntly indeed because otherwise the inertia of hoping it would turn out okay would probably have prevailed (it didn't turn out okay).
.
A second piece of advice I would offer is to join the IPA immediately, and of course the Aerotoxic Association. Anecdotal evidence (plus the experience of those known to me) suggests that 'the other one' has a poor track record of helping those who have encountered this problem when they most need assistance. I believe this problem also extends to loss of licence protection.
.
How do you read, Right Engine?
.
PP
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refusing to fly Flybe 146s
I found the following in todays Sunday Telegraph, an article regarding noxious air in flight, by Christopher Booker:
Similar from the BBC
Is this refusal to fly true, or is it a bit of journalistic licence?
Last week, however, thanks to the publicity given to this issue by the pilots – who in June launched the Aerotoxic Association (www.aerotoxic.com) to carry on their campaign, with the backing of 110 MPs and peers – crews of one airline, Flybe, have at last refused to continue operating the BA146.
Some cabin crew are so alarmed that they are boycotting the 146.
One flight attendant said: "I will not get back on the 146 again. I'm angry that my health has been put at risk."
The view is echoed by one of the company's pilots who said that if he was asked to fly the 146 he would say "go take a walk".
One flight attendant said: "I will not get back on the 146 again. I'm angry that my health has been put at risk."
The view is echoed by one of the company's pilots who said that if he was asked to fly the 146 he would say "go take a walk".
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it depends on who you believe. Flybe's PR guy was on Stephen Nolan's Ulster radio show last week and said quite categorically that no Flybe pilot had refused to fly any of the Flybe fleet.
It certainly wouldn't do any good for Flybe to attempt to cover up the problem (if indeed it is proved that there is one) and they don't strike me as the sort of carrier who would do such a thing anyway.
I would say this was 'journo licence' at best - how many times have we seen this sort of exaggeration from the press before?
It certainly wouldn't do any good for Flybe to attempt to cover up the problem (if indeed it is proved that there is one) and they don't strike me as the sort of carrier who would do such a thing anyway.
I would say this was 'journo licence' at best - how many times have we seen this sort of exaggeration from the press before?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, challenges with the 146 that don't want to go away.
Still, cheer up, there are some SAS liveried Q400s looking for new homes!
A quick lick with Exeter's finest paint brush and no-one will ever guess...
Oh dear, oh dear...
Still, cheer up, there are some SAS liveried Q400s looking for new homes!
A quick lick with Exeter's finest paint brush and no-one will ever guess...
Oh dear, oh dear...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what airline insurance companies make of this issue? I mean workplace exposure to asbestos turned out to be a disaster for the insurance industry once the link was proved. I guess they have two choices - a) sponsor their own research and if there is a problem encourage airlines to eliminate it or b) deny a problem exists, ignore it and hope nobody is able to prove it.
Edit: Looks like the DfT are taking a lead...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/s...173858,00.html
"A DfT spokesman said preparations were under way for aircraft cabin tests as a priority."
Edit: Looks like the DfT are taking a lead...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/s...173858,00.html
"A DfT spokesman said preparations were under way for aircraft cabin tests as a priority."
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://angrytoxicologist.com/?p=68
By AngryToxicologist | June 20, 2007
First the air traffic controllers were passing out, now it’s the pilots. Pilots are again making a row about toxic exposures in the cockpit (the article calls them fumes which they are not – see PS). Reading the article, I wasn’t exactly convinced…
>Michaelis, who is currently at the University of New South Wales, Australia,
>carried out a survey of 250 pilots and found that 85% had detected
>contaminated air – which smells like “dirty socks” – while flying. Of these,
>57% reported symptoms of ill health relating to the incident, and 8% had to
>be retired on health grounds.
Um, did anyone check for dirty socks? I was about to go on my merry way until I read that
>Compressed air is routinely drawn off engines and supplied to aircraft
>cabins. If the seal inside the engine is not secure, engine oil can leak into
>the cabin…
That means lubricants like tri-cresyl-o-phosphate, a nasty neurotoxicant, among others. This starts to sound credible. I dug up a study in the Journal of Occupational Safety and Health that found that 88% of those reporting symptoms were doing so after a visible or [smellable? olfactible? –anyone?] leak of fluid. The study is pretty weak as it is mostly self reporting (you can get it free here). A strength of the claims is that many of the symptoms are what you would expect after an exposure to some of these neurotoxicicants.
The UK gov’t is getting to the heart of the matter by installing air-monitors in the cabins to see what’s really there. I’ll reserve judgment until then but it seems plausible to me. In some ways it’s a perception creates reality situation. If pilots feel dizzy after they smell lubricant or hydraulic fluid, I don’t care if it’s toxicological or in their heads, I don’t want that person landing my plane. It seems that getting better air would be job #1.
Whose bright idea was it to siphon off air out of the engine for the cabin?
By AngryToxicologist | June 20, 2007
First the air traffic controllers were passing out, now it’s the pilots. Pilots are again making a row about toxic exposures in the cockpit (the article calls them fumes which they are not – see PS). Reading the article, I wasn’t exactly convinced…
>Michaelis, who is currently at the University of New South Wales, Australia,
>carried out a survey of 250 pilots and found that 85% had detected
>contaminated air – which smells like “dirty socks” – while flying. Of these,
>57% reported symptoms of ill health relating to the incident, and 8% had to
>be retired on health grounds.
Um, did anyone check for dirty socks? I was about to go on my merry way until I read that
>Compressed air is routinely drawn off engines and supplied to aircraft
>cabins. If the seal inside the engine is not secure, engine oil can leak into
>the cabin…
That means lubricants like tri-cresyl-o-phosphate, a nasty neurotoxicant, among others. This starts to sound credible. I dug up a study in the Journal of Occupational Safety and Health that found that 88% of those reporting symptoms were doing so after a visible or [smellable? olfactible? –anyone?] leak of fluid. The study is pretty weak as it is mostly self reporting (you can get it free here). A strength of the claims is that many of the symptoms are what you would expect after an exposure to some of these neurotoxicicants.
The UK gov’t is getting to the heart of the matter by installing air-monitors in the cabins to see what’s really there. I’ll reserve judgment until then but it seems plausible to me. In some ways it’s a perception creates reality situation. If pilots feel dizzy after they smell lubricant or hydraulic fluid, I don’t care if it’s toxicological or in their heads, I don’t want that person landing my plane. It seems that getting better air would be job #1.
Whose bright idea was it to siphon off air out of the engine for the cabin?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t care if it’s toxicological or in their heads, I don’t want that person landing my plane.
No Speed
Try the 146/RJ 757 & ERJ145(from personal experience) as having the most frequent occurrences according to Balpa. But it's possible on all types where bleed air is taken from the engines for air conditioning.
Try the 146/RJ 757 & ERJ145(from personal experience) as having the most frequent occurrences according to Balpa. But it's possible on all types where bleed air is taken from the engines for air conditioning.
