Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Cabin Air Contamination

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Cabin Air Contamination

Old 30th May 2008, 10:19
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
..On the whole, these incidents will occur from time to time but they are probably sporadic in nature when compared to a few years ago...
It's not sporadic if tomorrow you queue up someone else's jet pipe for the Cat III hold for half an hour on the first sector of the day same as you did yesterday. You do that again tomorrow and you just know what you are gonna get up your nostrils, and if you are flying 146/757 then by now you just know more than the rest of us
slip and turn is offline  
Old 30th May 2008, 10:26
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: England
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cranfield "research"

As has already been mentioned, itís a question of individual genetic makeup. As I understand it in simple terms, if you have a lower level of the enzyme Paraoxonase (PON1), youíre less able to detoxify organophosphates, so they build up to a level which start to make problems in the nervous system. JW411 Ė it has nothing to do with youngsters being inoculated!

This DfT-commisioned Cranfield research is flawed, and is unlikely to come to any meaningful conclusions, much as previous government studies. Many independent studies of sick crew have already clearly shown OPs in their blood and neurological damage, but these have been ignored by the DfT. Why do we need these fancy air sampling machines, when it has already been shown that these toxins get into the cabin, and people are getting sick?
wbble is offline  
Old 30th May 2008, 14:59
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Jersey
Age: 65
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
787

Interestingly, the 787 does not have a bleedair pressurisation system and is being promoted by Boeing as the first civilian airliner not to have one. Does Boeing know something we don't?
Sprogster is offline  
Old 30th May 2008, 15:50
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 42
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe (i trust pprune cranky members to correct me if I'm wrong ) the first jet liner ever -Comet- didn't use bleed air. The next ones started to, for economical considerations (current bleed air system seems to be cheaper).

I think the 787 will go back to the first system not because it's cheaper, but probably because they kind of feel the wind turning, the problem will be mediatised more, and whatever the real occurences of fumes event, once the crowds of passengers will hear about it, you know how it goes, mass hysteria, act offended, nag and finally ask for change. It's just a matter of time prolly and Boeing prefears to change it now.
I foresee a lot of busy courts and suits when this comes out.
maabaa is offline  
Old 31st May 2008, 10:29
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cabin air

without going too tech here mobil jet 2 when burnt shows phosphoresce in the dark ...years ago when ANSETT was a major carrier in AUSSIE [we wont go there]their 146's were used as cargo on the red eye and they were very oily smell on their return so a black light was used to show what was on the inside and the whole cabin was illuminated ...ie covered in a oil mist,this is what people are breathing in.... the investeragition must go on....i know that several samples were taken on different carries and different a/c type then sent to the US as part of this invest. all showed positive for oil presence......hope we will get some answers at some stage as people are dying of something and it could very well be this...??????
the rim is offline  
Old 31st May 2008, 14:03
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southeast U K
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bleeding smelly air.

Sprogster, you may be right about the 787 not using bleed-air into
the cabin, and the Comet didn't use it directly either.
I seem to recall that the glorious DC 8 also only used engine bleed
air to drive cabin turbo-compressors and to heat externally sourced
air for the pressurization. May be wrong though, but I never ever
smelt oil in the DC 8.
Storminnorm is offline  
Old 31st May 2008, 14:42
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We could all guess or we could simply read what Boeing has to say on the matter. BBC also guessed wrong on this too in their Panorama show.

Here is a link to Aero magazine where the 787's no-bleed system is fully explained. It is for reasons of energy efficiency and saving on weight and maintenance costs only. There is no mention of keeping the air cleaner.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...7_article2.pdf
Frangible is offline  
Old 31st May 2008, 15:02
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Test the BAe 146 on the ground - it's easier!

Many former BAe 146 pilots have been asking the DfT to test the visible oil fumes from the APU on the ground for both chemical content and concentration - even a video film of the fumes would confirm the awful effect.

They won't do it as it would provide a quick answer to how poiosnonous the fumes actually are - they prefer to do it 'in flight', as this air is known to be reasonably unlikely to provide a fume event and will allow the truth to be disguised for as long as possible.

They don't want to find the answer; they prefer to ignore the pilots recommendations but one day they will be asked to account for the deadly slow progress and deliberate mistakes made.

It's called 'PLANNED PROCRASTINATION' - how do they get away with it?

It stinks.

DB
Dream Buster is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2008, 11:06
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Here and there
Age: 49
Posts: 646
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
question, i am aware that the problems have been reported on the 146, have there been any reports on the updated RJ series?
is it excatley the same systems or did they get modified with the uprated engines?
Serenity is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2008, 20:26
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JW411 I was a sceptic like you, however 6weeks ago I had a sudden and total kidney failure due "Good Pastures Syndrome". The consultant looking after me asked if I had been in contact with oil or solvents. He also said although it was a rare disease (1000000 against) it probobaly was genetic but waiting for a trigger. I last flew the 146 4 years ago after 17 years on it, before that the Viscount which of course was not bleed air. I think I'll pass my info to Cranfield. Anyone know of an NPPL on dialysis? I don't think it is a prob.
Croqueteer is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2008, 21:19
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 550 steps from the airport pub
Age: 41
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wait! When I'm breathing the jet fumes after combustion isnt that bad oil safer? people dont seem to moan here about sitting outside the airport pub
modelcuirstudios is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2008, 21:51
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BAe 146 air conditioning - stinks.

I've just found an article from AIRWAYS, it's about the BAe 146 and this is what the writer thought of the air conditioning.

'The pneumatics worked fine, it was the air conditioning system that gave rookie first officers nightmares. The Brits told us when we power the airplane up in the morning, just take the cockpit and cabin temperature controllers and "set them to twelve o'clock and forget about them". Well, if you did that you would fill the cabin with acrid smoke that not only burned your eyes, but smelled downright carcinogenic. Passengers would take one whiff and refuse to board. Weepy, red-eyed sniffling cabin attendants could not persuade them that all was well.'

Perhaps all was not well and repeated involuntary exposures to these visible fumes is now known to be the cause of serious ill health in many aircrew.

Hence the DfT's enthusiasm for checking the air at altitude and not the visible smoke on the ground.

It's mad when the answer is under their noses - ON THE GROUND, CHAPS!

If I were a DfT tester, I would demand danger money and a full BA (not British Airways)

DB
Dream Buster is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2008, 01:36
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's not sporadic if tomorrow you queue up someone else's jet pipe for the Cat III hold for half an hour on the first sector of the day same as you did yesterday. You do that again tomorrow and you just know what you are gonna get up your nostrils, and if you are flying 146/757 then by now you just know more than the rest of us
Slip and turn... I don't see what your point is with that post... sorry!
Mister Geezer is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2008, 02:05
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ban Rollers?
Ok then, about a quarter (perhaps more) of jet airliners now flying could be parked in the desert.
L1011's never had a problem...and they have a cabin air change once every three minutes, or so.
757's? Likely no problem there, either.

Avro 146's? Oh yes, many folks have complained, so there is definitely a problem with these.

Now, someone mentioned DC-8's.
Yes, they used turbocompressors, as did the 'ole B707.
Not a problem, except....IF (on B707's so equipped) turbocompressors were switched OFF and direct engine bleed air used for pressurisation, it most definitely got, ahhh....smelly.
NOT good.
Worse than all three on the FD smoking Havana's.
411A is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2008, 08:01
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@Mister Geezer...you didn't see the point of my last post?

Well the grammar was not the best, and I could concede that in the last quoted sentence I mixed two problems, one inherent to queueing up someone else's jetpipe and one seemingly inherent to type. Both examples infer everyday occurrence, not sporadicity.

Can we agree that much?
slip and turn is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2008, 09:57
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: England
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cranfield "Research"

Daily Telegraph about the flawed Cranfield research
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...awed'.html
wbble is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2008, 11:09
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 896
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think there's some confusion from posters on here.

This thread is to do with contaminated air from engine oil getting into the bleed air system supplying the air conditioning packs, whether this be from the engines or the APU. The oil contains a nasty substance called TCP which is thought to be causing the health problems in crews. The three main aircraft that have had the most problems with this are the 146, 757 and Embraer145.

Sitting behind another aircraft at the hold breathing in the exhaust fumes from burnt fuel is a separate issue.
FlyboyUK is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2008, 16:55
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think we should get things into perspective. Lets look at the facts.
1. The cabin air quality issue has been around since the late 1990's
2. All turbine oils use TCP in their formulations and have done since the first five centistoke oils came on the market back in the late 1960's, over 40 years ago. Can you try and imagine the number of flights hours accumulated on these oils in that time.
3. The oils do contain an organophosphate in the form of tri-cresyl phosphate (TCP) which is included in the lubricant formulation to provide anti-wear properties.
4. TCP is not a single chemical substance but a mixture of three isomers (ortho, para and meta), one of which, the ortho (TOCP), is a neurotoxin.
5. The concentration of the ortho isomer is less than 0.1% of the total amount of TCP in the oil and is barely detectable.
6. The problem appears to be confined to the BAe 146 and B757 and then only if a seal problem occurs which allows hot oil into the bleed air.
Gaspasser is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2008, 07:14
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: west
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Telegraph Report

The Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE), which represents 500,000 air workers over this issue
How do they justify this claim? Do you have to sign up to join this executive body?
tocamak is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2008, 15:19
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GCAQE

"The Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE), established in 2006, is the leading organization representing air crew (pilots, cabin crew and engineers), that deals specifically with contaminated air issues and cabin air quality. We represent over 20 organizations, almost half a million aviation workers around the world.

GCAQE members have been actively involved in working with crews, global experts, scientists, doctors and the aviation industry for many years on this subject, including being members of several international committees such as the FAA OHCRA project, ITF, SAE and ASHRAE committees.

Unions include:Teamsters CANADA, CUPE, AFA, T&G, AIPA, SNPC, SNPL, IPA, APFA and others.

For further: http://www.gcaqe.org/

DB
Dream Buster is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.