Toxic Cabin Air/Aerotoxic Syndrome
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA
BOAC because:
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...20-%20320).pdf
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...005%5B1%5D.pdf
None of which is on the BALPA web site.
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...20-%20320).pdf
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...005%5B1%5D.pdf
None of which is on the BALPA web site.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB - yes, I have seen this repeatedly, but we make little progress in examining the issue.
The message surely is loud and clear - those who may be at risk (possibly all crew) should be demanding action from their representatives if nothing is forthcoming from government. Surely it is ultimately a potential risk to life and health which MUST be as, if not more, important than hotel standards, pay, and any other issues of T&C faced by crews. Probably because it is seen as a long-term risk - "it won't affect me" - over-shadowed by more 'pressing' short-term needs, it has been neglected. Come the day when a crew member might become permanently unfit or worse contract a fatal condition, it will be too late. At least BALPA members should be asking their individual reps how this clarion call for action by the General Secretary has been silenced?
DB - what eventually came of the Australian investigation which appears pretty conclusive? Was any procedural/technical action taken or has it too now 'faded' into obscurity?
The message surely is loud and clear - those who may be at risk (possibly all crew) should be demanding action from their representatives if nothing is forthcoming from government. Surely it is ultimately a potential risk to life and health which MUST be as, if not more, important than hotel standards, pay, and any other issues of T&C faced by crews. Probably because it is seen as a long-term risk - "it won't affect me" - over-shadowed by more 'pressing' short-term needs, it has been neglected. Come the day when a crew member might become permanently unfit or worse contract a fatal condition, it will be too late. At least BALPA members should be asking their individual reps how this clarion call for action by the General Secretary has been silenced?
DB - what eventually came of the Australian investigation which appears pretty conclusive? Was any procedural/technical action taken or has it too now 'faded' into obscurity?
Last edited by BOAC; 17th Feb 2013 at 08:05.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There appears to be a growing awareness of the effects of toxic fumes with the two recent BA diversions. However one group of airline staff must be much more at risk. I refer to pushback crews who spend their working lives on hot fume contaminated aprons. Has there been any analysis of their health problems??
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the emphasis for ground staff is not the organo-phosphate contamination, but combustion products. I saw a post on PPR which detailed a study for ground staff somewhere - Germany I think.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turner 3rd September 2010
BOAC,
The Turner case of 3rd September 2010 in an Australian High Court found 18 years after a fume event flight that "....toxic particles in the cabin air from vaporized engine oil CAUSED long term adverse health effects".
Just be aware that Turner kept winning and 'the other side' kept appealing - so finally the case went to the highest Court in September 2010 where it was finally - WON.
18 years it took.
Here is a legal summary:
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...litigation.pdf
Here are the Judgements:
East West Airlines v Turner - appeal dismissed ... twice
How dare people (including doctors) say now that 'there is no evidence'.
It's contempt of Court and the whole legal system - as I understand it.....
The Turner case of 3rd September 2010 in an Australian High Court found 18 years after a fume event flight that "....toxic particles in the cabin air from vaporized engine oil CAUSED long term adverse health effects".
Just be aware that Turner kept winning and 'the other side' kept appealing - so finally the case went to the highest Court in September 2010 where it was finally - WON.
18 years it took.
Here is a legal summary:
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...litigation.pdf
Here are the Judgements:
East West Airlines v Turner - appeal dismissed ... twice
How dare people (including doctors) say now that 'there is no evidence'.
It's contempt of Court and the whole legal system - as I understand it.....
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB - I finally made contact with my local NHS practice, and fortuitously happened on the practice manager who is a CPL and ex RAF. He has confirmed that he had not been able to find an ounce of information on the subject in any NHS documents - he now has a few documents to circulate and also promised to flag the subject up shortly with a few current airline pilots friends and the local AME who is a part-time doctor at the practice.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian 2000 Senate report
BOAC,
It's incredible that the NHS claim to know so little about this issue - after being told so much about it over the past 13 years by seriously sick pilots.
I remember an AME telling me that 'The jury was still out on aerotoxic...' - This was a DOCTOR!!!
Sadly the NHS also claim to know nothing about OP poisoning, yet this was published by HSE:
Medical aspects of work-related exposures to organophosphates (Guidance Note MS17)
I seem to remember you wanted to see the 2000 Senate report from Australia into the BAe146 fumes - here it is:
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...ticles/bae.pdf
Does anybody else smell foul play?
It's incredible that the NHS claim to know so little about this issue - after being told so much about it over the past 13 years by seriously sick pilots.
I remember an AME telling me that 'The jury was still out on aerotoxic...' - This was a DOCTOR!!!
Sadly the NHS also claim to know nothing about OP poisoning, yet this was published by HSE:
Medical aspects of work-related exposures to organophosphates (Guidance Note MS17)
I seem to remember you wanted to see the 2000 Senate report from Australia into the BAe146 fumes - here it is:
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...ticles/bae.pdf
Does anybody else smell foul play?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foul Play?
Would anyone at BALPA care to comment on the fact that they now employ Dr Rob Hunter (ex CAA CMO) and Dr Mike Bagshaw (ex head of BAHS) as the core of the Op Av Med Committee?
Isn't it strange that since this committee was created the official BALPA line has done a 180 and is now the line taken in the past by - er - the CAA and BA. After using members' money to hold a conference which resulted in the video on this thread, they then used members' money to pay for the 2 Doctors who always argued against these conclusions to come and form BALPA policy. My question is, what on earth was it that made them contemplate this move? I have heard an ugly rumour, but sincerely hope that it is unfounded, and I certainly wouldn't repeat it. I hope it is simply somebody's conclusion, which has then been repeated and gained credibility through lack of context.
Got cornered in the Cave by a Qantas A380 skipper (who is a delegate on IFALPA) who wanted to know "what the hell is BALPA up to?".
I couldn't give him an answer.
Isn't it strange that since this committee was created the official BALPA line has done a 180 and is now the line taken in the past by - er - the CAA and BA. After using members' money to hold a conference which resulted in the video on this thread, they then used members' money to pay for the 2 Doctors who always argued against these conclusions to come and form BALPA policy. My question is, what on earth was it that made them contemplate this move? I have heard an ugly rumour, but sincerely hope that it is unfounded, and I certainly wouldn't repeat it. I hope it is simply somebody's conclusion, which has then been repeated and gained credibility through lack of context.
Got cornered in the Cave by a Qantas A380 skipper (who is a delegate on IFALPA) who wanted to know "what the hell is BALPA up to?".
I couldn't give him an answer.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Professor Bagshaw
Chunky Monkey,
It's not Dr Bagshaw - it's Professor Bagshaw. Here is his latest opinion on exposure to toxic oil fumes in a confined space.
http://www.gapan.org/file/1072/healt...eport-v2.3.pdf
Relax, it's safe.
Be very worried.
It's not Dr Bagshaw - it's Professor Bagshaw. Here is his latest opinion on exposure to toxic oil fumes in a confined space.
http://www.gapan.org/file/1072/healt...eport-v2.3.pdf
Relax, it's safe.
Be very worried.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fumes Affecting Flight Deck Crew
From the Aviation Herald
A Germanwings Airbus A319-100, registration D-AGWK performing flight 4U-825 from Milan Malpensa (Italy) to Cologne/Bonn (Germany), was on approach to Cologne's runway 14L when fumes on board prompted the flight crew to don their oxygen masks until after landing. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 14L. The entire crew subsequently went to the hospital for tests.
Germany's BFU confirmed the incident stating the occurrence was rated a serious incident. An investigation has been opened.
The airline stated the occurrence flight 4U-825 was reported to the relevant authorities in time and promptly after the pilots donned their oxygen masks on approach to Cologne due to fumes in the cockpit.
The aircraft remained on the ground for about 48 hours and resumed service on Dec 12th 2013.
D-AGWK has been involved in two similiar occurrences in the past: Accident: Germanwings A319 at Dublin on May 27th 2008, pressurization problems
and
Accident: Germanwings A319 near Cologne on Dec 19th 2010, smoke in cockpit, both pilots nearly incapacitated.
The investigations by the Irish AAIU and German BFU following the events in Dublin 2008 and the event in Cologne 2010 could not determine the causes of the events on board of D-AGWK.
Is it me or do there seem to be more of these reports in recent years ?
A Germanwings Airbus A319-100, registration D-AGWK performing flight 4U-825 from Milan Malpensa (Italy) to Cologne/Bonn (Germany), was on approach to Cologne's runway 14L when fumes on board prompted the flight crew to don their oxygen masks until after landing. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 14L. The entire crew subsequently went to the hospital for tests.
Germany's BFU confirmed the incident stating the occurrence was rated a serious incident. An investigation has been opened.
The airline stated the occurrence flight 4U-825 was reported to the relevant authorities in time and promptly after the pilots donned their oxygen masks on approach to Cologne due to fumes in the cockpit.
The aircraft remained on the ground for about 48 hours and resumed service on Dec 12th 2013.
D-AGWK has been involved in two similiar occurrences in the past: Accident: Germanwings A319 at Dublin on May 27th 2008, pressurization problems
and
Accident: Germanwings A319 near Cologne on Dec 19th 2010, smoke in cockpit, both pilots nearly incapacitated.
The investigations by the Irish AAIU and German BFU following the events in Dublin 2008 and the event in Cologne 2010 could not determine the causes of the events on board of D-AGWK.
Is it me or do there seem to be more of these reports in recent years ?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the same aircraft has experienced the problem on three seperate occasions and they haven't been able to establish the cause, I'm surprised it hasn't been grounded until they do.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recent TV programmes from The Netherlands and Australia (for those who haven't yet heard that oil fumes are harmful to human health):
Toxic Flyer
It is beyond comprehension in the 21st century how the air in a confined space is not monitored - other than by human eyes and noses.
Toxic Flyer
It is beyond comprehension in the 21st century how the air in a confined space is not monitored - other than by human eyes and noses.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West coast - Fumes are often caused by overheating equipment, or contamination entering the conditioning system. Loss of pressurisation is often caused by holes in the aircraft, dual failure of the packs or the control system to the outflow valve.
Very little cross over IMHO. I don't rule it out, I just think it is unlikely.
Very little cross over IMHO. I don't rule it out, I just think it is unlikely.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Cough, but I wouldn't rule it out either since, as I read it, they didn't determine what caused the two previous events - which is why, IMHO, it all needs a little deeper investigation by the operator/manufacturer.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read the pressurisation problems article on AvHerald fully. The giveaway for me was 'prompted the AAIU to rule out loss of cabin pressure'. So it wasn't pressurisation problems then...
That's my point as well, not to rule it out. If may be statistically insignificant but there are some scenarios that might be the cause. If indeed this is the third time this this has occurred and that investigators have looked at the obvious such as you mention then the outliers become more and more probable.