Even more Dash 8 antics
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even more Dash 8 antics
Guys,
I've been reading an AAIB report on another Dash 8 incident at CDG which led to damage on the underside of the fuselage - I'm very surprised that noone at PPrune seems to have picked up on it.
Firstly a question - it says that the skipper did a walkaround after landing to inspect the damage and then reported to ATC. What does that mean? Why is he reporting it to them?
Also, any more details on the incident would be great. The speed dropped below VREF, and the captain admits to not reacting properly to the situation. BUT:
the skipper was ill previously to the flight, and:
My main question: HOW THE HELL was this man allowed to fly a public transport aeroplane in his condition? I'm not blaming him at all - but someone should certainly have intervened on his behalf. Surely it cannot be acceptable to have pilots susceptible to "intermittent fatigue" flying public transport aircraft?
If you can answer any of my queries, I'd be v grateful
1234
I've been reading an AAIB report on another Dash 8 incident at CDG which led to damage on the underside of the fuselage - I'm very surprised that noone at PPrune seems to have picked up on it.
Firstly a question - it says that the skipper did a walkaround after landing to inspect the damage and then reported to ATC. What does that mean? Why is he reporting it to them?
Also, any more details on the incident would be great. The speed dropped below VREF, and the captain admits to not reacting properly to the situation. BUT:
the skipper was ill previously to the flight, and:
The CAA Aeromedical Section stated that an effect of the illness experienced by the commander could be an intermittent fatigue that can last for 6 weeks after the main symptoms of the illness have disappeared
If you can answer any of my queries, I'd be v grateful
1234
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it cannot be acceptable to have pilots susceptible to "intermittent fatigue" flying public transport aircraft?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere In The South China Sea
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ
Are you another reporter sniffing around to write another nonsensical story?
I know the captain in question, so I'll say this, are you in receipt of all the facts surrounding this? The tone of your post would suggest not, if this is the case then why have you even bothered to post? Unless of course my first comment was correct.
Are you another reporter sniffing around to write another nonsensical story?
I know the captain in question, so I'll say this, are you in receipt of all the facts surrounding this? The tone of your post would suggest not, if this is the case then why have you even bothered to post? Unless of course my first comment was correct.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “....are you in receipt of all the facts surrounding this?........then why have you even bothered to post?”
Might it be to find out the facts? If so, it would be helpful to give the enquirer the facts. Being evasive gives the impression of having something to hide.
By the way, how can somebody with 576 posts and more than five and a half years on PPRuNe still be a “Probationary" PPRuNer?
Might it be to find out the facts? If so, it would be helpful to give the enquirer the facts. Being evasive gives the impression of having something to hide.
By the way, how can somebody with 576 posts and more than five and a half years on PPRuNe still be a “Probationary" PPRuNer?
Last edited by Carrier; 19th Dec 2008 at 03:18. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB & Pilot fatigue
Cj1234,
Perhaps these previous AAIB reports (shown below) of other pilots descriptions of their mysterious ill health symtoms (aerotoxic syndrome) which are clearly linked to breathing oil fumes in a confined space are relevant here?
The question is, why didn't the AAIB and CAA AME's consider this well known cause of pilot fatigue? "Post infectious fatigue..." but WHY?
Because officially - aerotoxic syndrome doesn't exist!
This is yet another example of gross denial of an inconvenient subject
Just imagine all the incidents that never get officially reported.
DB
Extracts from actual UK AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch) reports.
All of these official statements are from different actual flying incidents and give an idea of the effect of the fumes on the flight crews.
• 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.
• After a normal departure, and during the climb, the co pilot noticed a smell described as being similar to that of a central heating boiler. The commander, when asked by the co pilot, did not discern the odour.
Subsequently, the c o pilot complained of a dry throat and burning eyes. Control was handed over to the commander, shortly after which the co pilot experienced a tingling sensation in his fingers as well as complaining of being hot and sweating. The co pilot was placed on oxygen and the commander elected to return to Belfast. The co pilot slid his seat back and took no further part in the flight. The oxygen did not appear to be helping in the relief of the co pilot’s symptoms, although he remained conscious.
After an uneventful descent, approach and landing at Belfast, the co pilot was given first aid and began to recover. He was taken to hospital for further checks, including the taking of blood samples for later tests. Throughout the flight the commander did not suffer any ill effects and did not notice any smoke, fumes or odour.
Perhaps these previous AAIB reports (shown below) of other pilots descriptions of their mysterious ill health symtoms (aerotoxic syndrome) which are clearly linked to breathing oil fumes in a confined space are relevant here?
The question is, why didn't the AAIB and CAA AME's consider this well known cause of pilot fatigue? "Post infectious fatigue..." but WHY?
Because officially - aerotoxic syndrome doesn't exist!
This is yet another example of gross denial of an inconvenient subject
Just imagine all the incidents that never get officially reported.
DB
Extracts from actual UK AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch) reports.
All of these official statements are from different actual flying incidents and give an idea of the effect of the fumes on the flight crews.
• 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.
• After a normal departure, and during the climb, the co pilot noticed a smell described as being similar to that of a central heating boiler. The commander, when asked by the co pilot, did not discern the odour.
Subsequently, the c o pilot complained of a dry throat and burning eyes. Control was handed over to the commander, shortly after which the co pilot experienced a tingling sensation in his fingers as well as complaining of being hot and sweating. The co pilot was placed on oxygen and the commander elected to return to Belfast. The co pilot slid his seat back and took no further part in the flight. The oxygen did not appear to be helping in the relief of the co pilot’s symptoms, although he remained conscious.
After an uneventful descent, approach and landing at Belfast, the co pilot was given first aid and began to recover. He was taken to hospital for further checks, including the taking of blood samples for later tests. Throughout the flight the commander did not suffer any ill effects and did not notice any smoke, fumes or odour.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Buster,
thanks for your excellent posting, I hope it survives long enough to be widely read.
The previous thread on here relating to BALPA's fecklessness on this subject has mysteriously "dissapeared", and when checking my own posts my contribution has also vanished into the ether.
Ther seems to be a hidden agenda here as regards this subject, which is pretty much what I said in my post. Perhaps the mods might like to explain why the thread appears to have been removed, or why they appear not to want any discussion of this subject on PPRuNe.
thanks for your excellent posting, I hope it survives long enough to be widely read.
The previous thread on here relating to BALPA's fecklessness on this subject has mysteriously "dissapeared", and when checking my own posts my contribution has also vanished into the ether.
Ther seems to be a hidden agenda here as regards this subject, which is pretty much what I said in my post. Perhaps the mods might like to explain why the thread appears to have been removed, or why they appear not to want any discussion of this subject on PPRuNe.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ1234. You start a thread with the deliberately provocative title of "Even more Dash 8 antics" and you expect serious answers?
Are you a commercial pilot? Because if you are, I seriously doubt you'd come out with a question like:
And if you're not, why are you throwing around terms like "antics" to describe an incident you clearly have very little knowledge of?
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.
Indeed.
Are you a commercial pilot? Because if you are, I seriously doubt you'd come out with a question like:
Surely it cannot be acceptable to have pilots susceptible to "intermittent fatigue" flying public transport aircraft?
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.
Indeed.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a clarification . . . . . . . .
The question is, why didn't the AAIB and CAA AME's consider this well known cause of pilot fatigue? "Post infectious fatigue" but WHY?
Because officially - aerotoxic syndrome doesn't exist!
Because officially - aerotoxic syndrome doesn't exist!
But, and let's be quite clear about this, "post infection fatigue" has NOTHING AT ALL to do with contaminated air events. Sadly, the latter do occur from time to time, and I'm afraid that bandwagons get jumped upon with great gusto, as we have seen above.
Once again, contaminated air and infection are DIFFERENT things. Period.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerotoxic Syndrome
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Any pilot who has had an unexplained fatigue issue and then a related incident may be a good candidate for aerotoxic syndrome and it's consequences as described in the AAIB reports posted earlier.
It would be very simple to check his blood / fat for organo phosphates as has happened for many pilots and if present would suggest a direct link, just as if he had alcohol in his blood.
Odd that NHS medics prefer not to do this - why?
I flew for 16 years on the BAe 146 with no knowledge of this subject at all and yet my memory went to pot, I had chronic fatigue, my speech became slurred, I couldn't recall words, I became very anxious and under confident BUT I have now recovered all of the above frightening medical symptoms and gone back to 'normal' - I stopped flying in mid 2005.
We are only trying to help, we know that many pilots (70%) do not have a problem (lucky you) but if you breathe visible oil fumes for years, it may well cause some real health issues in 30% of people.
Prof Zuckerman worked it all out in 1951 in his report for those who can be bothered to read it.
If you chose not to read it, you will never understand this subject.
It's quite extraordinary that many of us are still suffering in 2008 - from the same poisoning.
Good luck to the pilot by the way - whatever caused his problems.
DB
Any pilot who has had an unexplained fatigue issue and then a related incident may be a good candidate for aerotoxic syndrome and it's consequences as described in the AAIB reports posted earlier.
It would be very simple to check his blood / fat for organo phosphates as has happened for many pilots and if present would suggest a direct link, just as if he had alcohol in his blood.
Odd that NHS medics prefer not to do this - why?
I flew for 16 years on the BAe 146 with no knowledge of this subject at all and yet my memory went to pot, I had chronic fatigue, my speech became slurred, I couldn't recall words, I became very anxious and under confident BUT I have now recovered all of the above frightening medical symptoms and gone back to 'normal' - I stopped flying in mid 2005.
We are only trying to help, we know that many pilots (70%) do not have a problem (lucky you) but if you breathe visible oil fumes for years, it may well cause some real health issues in 30% of people.
Prof Zuckerman worked it all out in 1951 in his report for those who can be bothered to read it.
If you chose not to read it, you will never understand this subject.
It's quite extraordinary that many of us are still suffering in 2008 - from the same poisoning.
Good luck to the pilot by the way - whatever caused his problems.
DB
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Castle
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Buster
I do not doubt your extensive knowledge/experience of aerotoxic syndrome.
What I do know is the pilot and the illness from which he suffers.
I would not expect anybody to divulge anything of a medical nature about anybody else but I can assure you that in this case it is NOT aerotoxic syndrome.
The cause of his fatigue was an unknown issue at the time but not now.
I do not doubt your extensive knowledge/experience of aerotoxic syndrome.
What I do know is the pilot and the illness from which he suffers.
I would not expect anybody to divulge anything of a medical nature about anybody else but I can assure you that in this case it is NOT aerotoxic syndrome.
The cause of his fatigue was an unknown issue at the time but not now.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grizzle,
Thanks for your assurance, which I do appreciate and accept.
Unfortunately, because aerotoxic syndrome is not officially accepted or even known about, many people are misdiagnosed and have no idea what is fundamentally causing their ill health. Please read the earlier AAIB official quotes.
We have many, many aircrew who can testify this exact scenario. Just yesterday a foreign cabin crew contacted me as her sudden two year ill health jig - saw suddenly all clicked into place. You would have to agree that Aerotoxic syndrome is still (deliberately) not well known about?
I speak from bitter experience and only really believed it when tricresyl phosphate (TCP), a unique engine oil additive, was found in my fat - a year after i'd stopped flying.
I'm glad this particular pilot has apparently never been exposed or been affected by oil fumes in his lengthy flying career.....
TCP does exactly what it says on the tin.
It is a nerve agent and any pilot with mysterious ill health related fatigue symptoms would be wise to find out about it. Especially after a fume event.
DB
Thanks for your assurance, which I do appreciate and accept.
Unfortunately, because aerotoxic syndrome is not officially accepted or even known about, many people are misdiagnosed and have no idea what is fundamentally causing their ill health. Please read the earlier AAIB official quotes.
We have many, many aircrew who can testify this exact scenario. Just yesterday a foreign cabin crew contacted me as her sudden two year ill health jig - saw suddenly all clicked into place. You would have to agree that Aerotoxic syndrome is still (deliberately) not well known about?
I speak from bitter experience and only really believed it when tricresyl phosphate (TCP), a unique engine oil additive, was found in my fat - a year after i'd stopped flying.
I'm glad this particular pilot has apparently never been exposed or been affected by oil fumes in his lengthy flying career.....
TCP does exactly what it says on the tin.
It is a nerve agent and any pilot with mysterious ill health related fatigue symptoms would be wise to find out about it. Especially after a fume event.
DB
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no lets debate this
My line being .. I work hard on some of the aircraft concerned, and value my time away from them conducting what I might term as the rest of my life !
Without playing "pin the tail on the donkey" same aircraft, great engineers, very similar roster I can observe .. with one operator of the type I felt consistently tired bordering in disorientated on occasions, with another, clear mind all day every day.
There appear to be subtleties to this issue.
Without playing "pin the tail on the donkey" same aircraft, great engineers, very similar roster I can observe .. with one operator of the type I felt consistently tired bordering in disorientated on occasions, with another, clear mind all day every day.
There appear to be subtleties to this issue.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere In The South China Sea
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Carrier
Might it be to find out the facts? If so, it would be helpful to give the enquirer the facts. Being evasive gives the impression of having something to hide.
Originally Posted by Carrier
By the way, how can somebody with 576 posts and more than five and a half years on PPRuNe still be a “Probationary" PPRuNer
Where does PPRuNe get these people from?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry,
Just slf here but whilst there may be a lively argument in all directions about aerotoxicty it would seem the place for this discussion would not be on this thread but one in a diffect forum section as we do not need to speculate on this as I believe we have established a medical reason (whatever it was) was found for the fatigue.
Might I suggest this thread be closed and an appropriate thread opened in the correct location regarding aerotoxity.
Oh well trod on a few toe's - best get me coat and boarding card.
Just slf here but whilst there may be a lively argument in all directions about aerotoxicty it would seem the place for this discussion would not be on this thread but one in a diffect forum section as we do not need to speculate on this as I believe we have established a medical reason (whatever it was) was found for the fatigue.
Might I suggest this thread be closed and an appropriate thread opened in the correct location regarding aerotoxity.
Oh well trod on a few toe's - best get me coat and boarding card.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
curiouser and curiouser . . . . . !
with one operator of the type I felt consistently tired bordering on disorientated on occasions, with another, clear mind all day every day
Merely having a different operator (ie company, airline, etc) could not possibly consistently alter the internal environment of the aircraft (air quality and composition). Or, would anyone claim otherwise ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know from operating 737's that some operators go the extra mile to clean out things like temperature sensors more regularly than stipulated, which gives the flight crew an easier time trying to control cabin temperature. Maybe same applies on 146's to filters or whatever ? There is a difference between done correctly and done well in many of these maintenance procedures.