Toxic Cabin Air/Aerotoxic Syndrome
I’ve been exposed. Caused an OJI issue for two months. If every time an event occurred and an immediate landing ensued, this problem would go away quickly. We (myself included) are our own worst enemy.
FYI...recent event:
“One flight attendant with extreme breathing issues (editorial note: supposedly the flight attendant the flight crew referred to as showing symptoms of a heart attack) was taken to a hospital, a high level of carbon monoxide was found in the blood samples taken by the hospital. “
https://aviationvoice.com/5-flight-a...-201802081147/
“One flight attendant with extreme breathing issues (editorial note: supposedly the flight attendant the flight crew referred to as showing symptoms of a heart attack) was taken to a hospital, a high level of carbon monoxide was found in the blood samples taken by the hospital. “
https://aviationvoice.com/5-flight-a...-201802081147/
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA - Flight Safety Spotlight - Getting the full picture on fume events
BALPA Flight Safety Spotlight - Flight Safety Spotlight February 2018
How DO BALPA members continue to let their 'union' get away with not communicating to them a known cause of human ill health?
Read the evidence BALPA published in 2005, after their Contaminated Air Conference in London:
BALPA?s Flight Safety in the Spotlight ?
How DO BALPA members continue to let their 'union' get away with not communicating to them a known cause of human ill health?
Read the evidence BALPA published in 2005, after their Contaminated Air Conference in London:
BALPA?s Flight Safety in the Spotlight ?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bafanguy
From the article - “. 5 other flight attendants showed symptoms of dizziness, headaches and diarrhea.”
“Poisoned”. But after 90 minutes on the ground the flight departed with the five rapidly unpoisoned f/a’s. An hour is a standard divert ground interrupt. Ninety minutes, in Greenland, is quick work.
From the article - “. 5 other flight attendants showed symptoms of dizziness, headaches and diarrhea.”
“Poisoned”. But after 90 minutes on the ground the flight departed with the five rapidly unpoisoned f/a’s. An hour is a standard divert ground interrupt. Ninety minutes, in Greenland, is quick work.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Herefordshire
Age: 83
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Poisoned”. But after 90 minutes on the ground the flight departed with the five rapidly unpoisoned f/a’s. An hour is a standard divert ground interrupt. Ninety minutes, in Greenland, is quick work.
I recall reading "Air Clues"years ago that exposure to synthetic oil fumes could cause nausea and suicdal tendencies. We found that fumes entered the air conditioning system via worn and incompletly pressurised labyrinth seals,so avoided prolonged peiods of idling,by icreasing revs by 200 or so.
I recall reading "Air Clues"years ago that exposure to synthetic oil fumes could cause nausea and suicdal tendencies. We found that fumes entered the air conditioning system via worn and incompletly pressurised labyrinth seals,so avoided prolonged peiods of idling,by icreasing revs by 200 or so.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nemrytter - ill health caused by exposure to toxic fumes is a known issue from the 1950's to present and publicly documented.
If you do not accept any of this known evidence - what exact missing evidence would it take to make you doubt your personal suspicions.
A gas chamber?
If you do not accept any of this known evidence - what exact missing evidence would it take to make you doubt your personal suspicions.
A gas chamber?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is exactly the problem you present: Anyone who suggests that evidence is needed is accused of having "personal suspicions" and then presented with some hysterical comment about gas chambers. Such comments help no-one.
I have no horse in this race, no benefit on either side, no profit to make. I'm a scientist by profession and that means that I know what proper evidence is. I've not seen any of that presented thus far, only suspicions and suppositions.
If the problem is as significant as you suggest then it should be relatively easy to gather evidence to support this (financial investment aside). You need medical reports and air quality samples from a large number of flights. You do not need vague reports and "is believed" style statements.
Let's assume that 'toxic air' is definitely a thing. How will you force airlines to take it seriously? Forum posts and hysteria? Or cold, hard, facts?
I have no horse in this race, no benefit on either side, no profit to make. I'm a scientist by profession and that means that I know what proper evidence is. I've not seen any of that presented thus far, only suspicions and suppositions.
If the problem is as significant as you suggest then it should be relatively easy to gather evidence to support this (financial investment aside). You need medical reports and air quality samples from a large number of flights. You do not need vague reports and "is believed" style statements.
Let's assume that 'toxic air' is definitely a thing. How will you force airlines to take it seriously? Forum posts and hysteria? Or cold, hard, facts?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evidence
Here is some of the early evidence from 1955 with overwhelming evidence ever since - but only for those scientists who can read.
https://www.aerotoxic.org/pdfs/redda...of-engine1.pdf
Easyjet wisely changed their engine oil in 2017 to Nyco, a safer formulation and deciding to fit 'bleed air' filters & poison detectors in 2018 is the absolute evidence, but only due to criminal proceedings in a Paris criminal Court.
Get informed and read about the 'Precautionary principle' and don't get hysterical over a past legal win in a public High Court. Turner v's East West airlines. (2010).
East West Airlines Ltd v Turner [2010] Australian High Court Judgement
https://www.aerotoxic.org/pdfs/redda...of-engine1.pdf
Easyjet wisely changed their engine oil in 2017 to Nyco, a safer formulation and deciding to fit 'bleed air' filters & poison detectors in 2018 is the absolute evidence, but only due to criminal proceedings in a Paris criminal Court.
Get informed and read about the 'Precautionary principle' and don't get hysterical over a past legal win in a public High Court. Turner v's East West airlines. (2010).
East West Airlines Ltd v Turner [2010] Australian High Court Judgement
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand Airbus operated a flying laboratory that studied cabin air quality starting in 2012. The results were kept secret.
This is what is behind many US farming and food processing chemicals and techniques being banned in the UK and the EU. As long as manufacturers, regulators, and the airlines can "sow the seeds of doubt" into the debate, progress towards a solution will remain mired in the political muck.
Proof of the stalemate is easily illustrated by the fact that despite scientific findings of central nervous system damage by organophosphates, the industry remains unchanged. Even the mere suggestion by a regulating authority or industry representative that aircraft cabin air is potentially dangerous across the fleet would wreak havoc and is the most likely explanation for why TCP/TOCP oils remain in use, despite their proven toxicity.
The elimination of TEL (tetra ethyl lead) as a motor gasoline additive was a long time coming, despite knowledge of the substance's toxicity in humans since the inception of its use. It wasn't until over a half century later that something was done.
It has been nearly three decades since the WHO had this to say about regulation and the differing physical responses to the toxins:
Get informed and read about the 'Precautionary principle'
Proof of the stalemate is easily illustrated by the fact that despite scientific findings of central nervous system damage by organophosphates, the industry remains unchanged. Even the mere suggestion by a regulating authority or industry representative that aircraft cabin air is potentially dangerous across the fleet would wreak havoc and is the most likely explanation for why TCP/TOCP oils remain in use, despite their proven toxicity.
The elimination of TEL (tetra ethyl lead) as a motor gasoline additive was a long time coming, despite knowledge of the substance's toxicity in humans since the inception of its use. It wasn't until over a half century later that something was done.
It has been nearly three decades since the WHO had this to say about regulation and the differing physical responses to the toxins:
Because of considerable variation among individuals in sensitivity to TOCP, it is not possible to establish a safe level of exposure" and "TOCP are therefore considered major hazards to human health"
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: wales
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm writing a dissertation on this very topic at the moment and while there is evidence of toxic fumes present, and cases of illness due to exposure i think that it is a minor issue for passengers but maybe more of a concern for flight crew and cabin crew due to the frequency and exposure time leading to an increased probability of experiencing a "fume event".
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: wales
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sb sfo,
Maybe I should have said the risks are minimal rather than it is a minor issue, for this I apologise because it is a major issue when it happens, and I'm sure a "snootful of hot organophosphate" would not feel minor.
But an average passenger, lets say, taking 2 return flights of around 2-3 hours each year then yes I believe the "risk" will be low and as suggested in my post, the more frequently an individual flies then the risk of exposure to fumes that may or may not contain hazardous levels of tricresyl phosphate will also increase. I am not saying that toxic fumes are not present and serious fume events do not take place, or that when they occur they are not serious but I do believe that for the average passenger they are rare.
Maybe I should have said the risks are minimal rather than it is a minor issue, for this I apologise because it is a major issue when it happens, and I'm sure a "snootful of hot organophosphate" would not feel minor.
But an average passenger, lets say, taking 2 return flights of around 2-3 hours each year then yes I believe the "risk" will be low and as suggested in my post, the more frequently an individual flies then the risk of exposure to fumes that may or may not contain hazardous levels of tricresyl phosphate will also increase. I am not saying that toxic fumes are not present and serious fume events do not take place, or that when they occur they are not serious but I do believe that for the average passenger they are rare.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAeS article on Toxic Cabin Air - March 2018.
Dazarland,
We all drive but few people suffer fatal accidents - equally we all fly and officially there is 'No positive evidence' of ANY injuries caused by toxic air exposure.
But the actual evidence is such that countless people's testimonies report injuries after exposure.
An example of a US passenger from 2000:
http://aerotoxic.org/pdfs/RMontmayeur-testimony.pdf
As as pilot of 16 years flying the BAe 146 - it nearly killed me.
You need to do some research and find out why the airlines are now urgently putting in the known solutions.
Plus there is an article in this month's Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) Journal on toxic cabin air by aviation journalist David Learmount.
Please get informed of the evidence, not what you think is happening on the precautionary principle.
A cover up of the actual data is far more likely.
If anyone can publish the RAeS article here, i'm sure it would be most interesting to read.
There either is a problem or there isn't?
We all drive but few people suffer fatal accidents - equally we all fly and officially there is 'No positive evidence' of ANY injuries caused by toxic air exposure.
But the actual evidence is such that countless people's testimonies report injuries after exposure.
An example of a US passenger from 2000:
http://aerotoxic.org/pdfs/RMontmayeur-testimony.pdf
As as pilot of 16 years flying the BAe 146 - it nearly killed me.
You need to do some research and find out why the airlines are now urgently putting in the known solutions.
Plus there is an article in this month's Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) Journal on toxic cabin air by aviation journalist David Learmount.
Please get informed of the evidence, not what you think is happening on the precautionary principle.
A cover up of the actual data is far more likely.
If anyone can publish the RAeS article here, i'm sure it would be most interesting to read.
There either is a problem or there isn't?
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: At home
Age: 64
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is real! I am sitting at gate T12 in KATL with very sick A319. Maintenance says that the APU was overserviced. They have to do a “burn out” procedure. It is a terrible smell that makes you dizzy. We deplaned and are waiting on a new airplane as that one will be out of service for a while.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is staggering is that the airlines themselves will be sitting on data.
A well structured study could easily show a statistically significant correlation between the health impact of continued exposure to toxic air by looking at sickness rates in the flying crew population and the broader population. There is research into the likely presence of carcinogens and the diagnosis rates for flight and cabin crew. If this rate is statistically different to the rate in the broader population then it is possible to establish a prima facie link between the repeated exposure to the air and illness (cancers in particular)
What is suprising is that a union as a 'welfare' or health and safety investigation do not launch a structured plaintiff driven case to discover this data (held by airlines).
Given a balance of probability standard is a lower threshold, it is likely any well constructed law suit would never get to the court steps...
A well structured study could easily show a statistically significant correlation between the health impact of continued exposure to toxic air by looking at sickness rates in the flying crew population and the broader population. There is research into the likely presence of carcinogens and the diagnosis rates for flight and cabin crew. If this rate is statistically different to the rate in the broader population then it is possible to establish a prima facie link between the repeated exposure to the air and illness (cancers in particular)
What is suprising is that a union as a 'welfare' or health and safety investigation do not launch a structured plaintiff driven case to discover this data (held by airlines).
Given a balance of probability standard is a lower threshold, it is likely any well constructed law suit would never get to the court steps...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Law suit...
This recent law suit from the US demonstrates the cover up between the guilty parties - it was also a nearly new B.737.
http://aerotoxic.org/pdfs/court-pape...o-v-Boeing.pdf
No evidence = Huge cover up.
http://aerotoxic.org/pdfs/court-pape...o-v-Boeing.pdf
No evidence = Huge cover up.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which evidence?
Nemrytter - exactly which evidence would convince you that human exposure to toxic oil fumes in a confined space causes ill health?
Please do tell us - exactly.
Please do tell us - exactly.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More evidence?
This is not a reply - just some more evidence from hysterical professional pilots.
https://www.alliedpilots.org/Committ...d0ba1f17ebc75c
https://www.alliedpilots.org/Committ...d0ba1f17ebc75c