BA's in-flight safety chief warns about toxic cabin fumes
crablab, never assume.
Your assumption could be just as hazardous as the difficulties in taking predetermined positions as clearly outlined in #62.
What if the issue relates to the composition of duct materials, temperature or sensitivity to humidity, deterioration with component age, ...
The problem requires a scientific approach; establish a viable theory, gather information to test the theory, and repeat for a range of circumstances; unfortunately we are lacking in all areas.
With problems, people are most valuable in helping to solve them; however when a problem is a mess, the problem is with the people.
Your assumption could be just as hazardous as the difficulties in taking predetermined positions as clearly outlined in #62.
What if the issue relates to the composition of duct materials, temperature or sensitivity to humidity, deterioration with component age, ...
The problem requires a scientific approach; establish a viable theory, gather information to test the theory, and repeat for a range of circumstances; unfortunately we are lacking in all areas.
With problems, people are most valuable in helping to solve them; however when a problem is a mess, the problem is with the people.
Last edited by safetypee; 23rd Dec 2016 at 15:14. Reason: Typo
crablab
The air cycle machines on the 787 use oil for lubrication, and can also fail in such a way as to introduce oil fumes into the cabin air.
After one of the previous aero-toxic shouting matches on PPRuNe, I started watching the Boeing incoming 21.3 reports for fume events (so all Boeing and Douglas/MacDac commercial aircraft) and continued to do so for over a year (I recently retired so I no longer have access).
What I noticed was, by a wide margin, most reported fume events were galley related - either burned/overcooked food, or electrical smoke from a galley appliance. Most of the rest were also some sort of electrical overheat. Less than ten percent were related to the cabin air system in some way. A few were reported right after an engine water wash (if the people doing the water wash don't do all the correct steps, some of the wash fluid can get into the engine bleed system). A couple others were failures of the ECS packs, and one was the failure of an air cycle machine on a 787. I saw two that were traced to the engine - both Rolls powered 757s. Naturally there were several where no fault was found.
If someone was really serious about investigating aero-toxicity, the first thing they should do is go start sampling the air around the major airports - it's far more polluted than the stuff you're breathing at cruise. Not only is there the exhaust from all those airplanes, turbine engines use differential air pressure to keep the oil where it belongs and consume far more oil at/near idle than they do at power. So all those aircraft with their engines idling are spewing oil fumes out the exhaust.
The air cycle machines on the 787 use oil for lubrication, and can also fail in such a way as to introduce oil fumes into the cabin air.
After one of the previous aero-toxic shouting matches on PPRuNe, I started watching the Boeing incoming 21.3 reports for fume events (so all Boeing and Douglas/MacDac commercial aircraft) and continued to do so for over a year (I recently retired so I no longer have access).
What I noticed was, by a wide margin, most reported fume events were galley related - either burned/overcooked food, or electrical smoke from a galley appliance. Most of the rest were also some sort of electrical overheat. Less than ten percent were related to the cabin air system in some way. A few were reported right after an engine water wash (if the people doing the water wash don't do all the correct steps, some of the wash fluid can get into the engine bleed system). A couple others were failures of the ECS packs, and one was the failure of an air cycle machine on a 787. I saw two that were traced to the engine - both Rolls powered 757s. Naturally there were several where no fault was found.
If someone was really serious about investigating aero-toxicity, the first thing they should do is go start sampling the air around the major airports - it's far more polluted than the stuff you're breathing at cruise. Not only is there the exhaust from all those airplanes, turbine engines use differential air pressure to keep the oil where it belongs and consume far more oil at/near idle than they do at power. So all those aircraft with their engines idling are spewing oil fumes out the exhaust.
I found that in decades of flying RR powered 75s the most pungent moments were shortly after take off and shortly after TOD, consistent with differential pressure changes in the engines.
Topping up oil levels to a less than full level did appear to reduce, but not eliminate the smells. The smell I refer to is the oft quoted "smelly socks".
I think that Airbus may yet come to regret not following the 787 example in that the 380 and 350 still get their bleed air in the "old fashioned" way.
I recently travelled on a 787 and literally found it to be a breath of fresh air.
Topping up oil levels to a less than full level did appear to reduce, but not eliminate the smells. The smell I refer to is the oft quoted "smelly socks".
I think that Airbus may yet come to regret not following the 787 example in that the 380 and 350 still get their bleed air in the "old fashioned" way.
I recently travelled on a 787 and literally found it to be a breath of fresh air.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tdracer, that may well be so; nobody is insisting every fume event is toxic but some undoubtedly DO involve bleed contamination, particularly with certain aircraft and engine types. There is no dispute that the organophosphates contained in aero-engine oil can cause serious harm.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is strange that these toxic substances are still being inflicted on passengers and crew. One day no doubt we will look back and wonder how it was allowed to happen, over the years this has often been the case in industrial poisoning.
What needs to be done is exactly what Safetypee suggests:
The problem requires a scientific approach; establish a viable theory, gather information to test the theory, and repeat for a range of circumstances; unfortunately we are lacking in all areas.
There is no dispute that the organophosphates contained in aero-engine oil can cause serious harm.
https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/defaul...t/cotstate.pdf
Shot one. To the contrary, there IS dispute
too much of anything is worrisome
But this issue is a waste of bandwidth without an agreed process to analyise facts.
And then there is what to do with the analysis results other than wring our hands. publish papers and argue that not enough is being done.
is there anything new here?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem requires a scientific approach;
I would suggest:
1. There has to be agreement there is a problem: that involves some scientific research and analysis.
2. If discovered that cabin air does have toxic ingredients they need to be identified.
3. The source needs to be identified. It has been mentioned various possibilities.
4. If the source is engines then the spotlight falls on the engine manufacturers.
5. If the source is in the fuselage, zircon' ducts, packs, etc. then the spotlight is no the aircraft manufacturers. How ever they are the seller of there final product on toto.
6. The XAA with jurisdiction in the country of manufacturer has to take responsibility for enforcing the process all the way through to solution.
Who is going to enforce that the XAA fulfils its duties? They have a duty of care to pax & crew. Perhaps their government has to hold them to account and ensure they act on their responsibilities. talking about it in the bar, or even the newspapers, will be short term effective at best. Imagine there being an air pollution event in a factory that affects workers. The union would have all the workers outside PDQ until it was solved. Is this another demonstration of the true influence of todays aircrew unions? If their is a problem why are they not protecting the health of their members?
Why do the unions not combine first with the Airline Passengers Association. They are all in the same smelly boat; so to speak.
There are some 'ifs' here, so let's find the truth soonest and so a strategy can be discussed and implemented.
I would suggest:
1. There has to be agreement there is a problem: that involves some scientific research and analysis.
2. If discovered that cabin air does have toxic ingredients they need to be identified.
3. The source needs to be identified. It has been mentioned various possibilities.
4. If the source is engines then the spotlight falls on the engine manufacturers.
5. If the source is in the fuselage, zircon' ducts, packs, etc. then the spotlight is no the aircraft manufacturers. How ever they are the seller of there final product on toto.
6. The XAA with jurisdiction in the country of manufacturer has to take responsibility for enforcing the process all the way through to solution.
Who is going to enforce that the XAA fulfils its duties? They have a duty of care to pax & crew. Perhaps their government has to hold them to account and ensure they act on their responsibilities. talking about it in the bar, or even the newspapers, will be short term effective at best. Imagine there being an air pollution event in a factory that affects workers. The union would have all the workers outside PDQ until it was solved. Is this another demonstration of the true influence of todays aircrew unions? If their is a problem why are they not protecting the health of their members?
Why do the unions not combine first with the Airline Passengers Association. They are all in the same smelly boat; so to speak.
There are some 'ifs' here, so let's find the truth soonest and so a strategy can be discussed and implemented.
Rat 5
You would work fine on a committee since you ask pertinent questions and seem willing to work a process
But do give a thought that not all problems can be worked at their source any more than you can solve heat stroke by turning off the sun.
Many aviation related problems are addressed by mitigation of the problem's results.
If we tackle only one part of the problem that is attributable to the engines, then we can either eliminate the engines, the oil, their function that lets out the bad particles or we can provide a positive shield between the engine and the passengers and crew.
Lacking that we can provide more tolerant passengers and crew and the rest can take surface transportation
The challenge one quickly comes to in all this is the technical capability, the cost and lastly is "how much is needed by validation"
Personally I doubt that anything is going to come out of casual internet discussion boards that address this problem. But I can hope that we can at least support a scientific addressing of these issues without all the arm waving
You would work fine on a committee since you ask pertinent questions and seem willing to work a process
But do give a thought that not all problems can be worked at their source any more than you can solve heat stroke by turning off the sun.
Many aviation related problems are addressed by mitigation of the problem's results.
If we tackle only one part of the problem that is attributable to the engines, then we can either eliminate the engines, the oil, their function that lets out the bad particles or we can provide a positive shield between the engine and the passengers and crew.
Lacking that we can provide more tolerant passengers and crew and the rest can take surface transportation
The challenge one quickly comes to in all this is the technical capability, the cost and lastly is "how much is needed by validation"
Personally I doubt that anything is going to come out of casual internet discussion boards that address this problem. But I can hope that we can at least support a scientific addressing of these issues without all the arm waving
All of you concerned pilots should check out an aircraft when it gets its interior stripped during maintenance. You'll quickly realise the occasional fumes might not be as bad as the amount of crap circulating the cabin.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"To the contrary there is dispute.." Organophosphate are neurotoxins, principally used in herbicides, pesticides and chemical nerve agents. Approximately 200,000 people die worldwide annually as a result of OP poisoning. If you're relying on the long report you posted (113 pages) to prove they are harmless, widger, either you didn't read it or grossly misrepresent it. The report considered only low level exposure, principally in the agricultural context, expressly excluded acute exposure and its authors would no doubt be surprised to find it being used to dispute my statement of "serious harm". But by all means go ahead and sprinkle them on your cornflakes!
Last edited by ShotOne; 24th Jan 2017 at 06:09.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approximately 200,000 people die worldwide annually as a result of OP poisoning.
As I've said before, this is one of the major problems with the cabin air debate: The entire thing is centred upon a bunch of poorly-researched bits-and-pieces without any proper analysis. That really, really, needs to change. Airlines, of course, won't drive that change so it is - unfortunately - up to the crews and other individuals who are worried about their own health.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 200k figure entered the debate purely to refute the earlier assertion that the serious harm that can be caused by organophosphates is somehow the subject of scientific dispute.
Last edited by ShotOne; 24th Jan 2017 at 10:49.
A World total of 56m people died in 2012. Kinda puts it all into perspective.
WHO | The top 10 causes of death
WORLD RANKINGS-TOTAL DEATHS
I flew for forty years and only even heard of two fume/smoke events.
One was smoke in FD and the other was on a freighter on pushback caused by a broken cargo chemical bottle.
Oh, yes, there was one other when an RAF trainer tossed a blazing ball of newspaper into the sim to make it more realistic
I am definitely NOT saying that OP events never happen in aircraft but I think we are becoming a bit polarised.
We humans seem to just love tribal conflict - nature of the beast, I guess.
WHO | The top 10 causes of death
WORLD RANKINGS-TOTAL DEATHS
I flew for forty years and only even heard of two fume/smoke events.
One was smoke in FD and the other was on a freighter on pushback caused by a broken cargo chemical bottle.
Oh, yes, there was one other when an RAF trainer tossed a blazing ball of newspaper into the sim to make it more realistic
I am definitely NOT saying that OP events never happen in aircraft but I think we are becoming a bit polarised.
We humans seem to just love tribal conflict - nature of the beast, I guess.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Previous research showed higher OP levels surrounded the a/c vs in the aircraft. But the 'inside the aircraft' will be taken as the proof of harm. Shouldn't more ground workers be experiencing long term damage from the greater exposure?
Plastic PPRuNer
Well, I've re-read the report that Widger cites: https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/defaul...t/cotstate.pdf
(I've read it before, when the same subject came up previously)
The conclusion (and please read all 113 pages of it before sounding off) is that there is no evidence that occasional exposure to low levels of organophosphates leads to any measurable cognitive impairment, dementia or increased risk of suicide. And there are many many studies.
Cabin fume events do occur, as we all know. How many of these lead to exposure to low levels of organophosphates is unknown, but what evidence there is, suggests not very many. But it is of course impossible to prove a negative case.
As the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, everybody's entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts.
Even if they are called "alternative facts."
[and in case you wonder why a lowly surgeon should have any standing to add his two-bits, it is because he has spent rather a large part of his life in operating theatres, where fume events, both noticeable and unnoticeable are far from uncommon - so he does have a dog in the race]
(I've read it before, when the same subject came up previously)
The conclusion (and please read all 113 pages of it before sounding off) is that there is no evidence that occasional exposure to low levels of organophosphates leads to any measurable cognitive impairment, dementia or increased risk of suicide. And there are many many studies.
Cabin fume events do occur, as we all know. How many of these lead to exposure to low levels of organophosphates is unknown, but what evidence there is, suggests not very many. But it is of course impossible to prove a negative case.
As the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, everybody's entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts.
Even if they are called "alternative facts."
[and in case you wonder why a lowly surgeon should have any standing to add his two-bits, it is because he has spent rather a large part of his life in operating theatres, where fume events, both noticeable and unnoticeable are far from uncommon - so he does have a dog in the race]
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On what grounds have you decided a fume event is a "low level" exposure? The studies used in the report are predominantly agricultural and specifically excludes acute exposures....so even those in that industry acknowledged to have suffered very serious ill effects would not have featured. I agree let's not have alternative facts. But equally, let's not twist genuine facts to "prove" issues widely removed from their context.
Plastic PPRuNer
"On what grounds have you decided a fume event is a "low level" exposure?"
I am not aware of a reported fume event which has resulted in the signs and symptoms of acute or sub-acute organophosphate poisoning.
From Wikipedia: "The effects of organophosphate poisoning on muscarinic receptors are recalled using the mnemonic SLUDGEM (salivation, lacrimation, urination, defecation, gastrointestinal motility, emesis, miosis. An additional mnemonic is MUDDLES: miosis, urination, diarrhea, diaphoresis, lacrimation, excitation, and salivation."
See also: Organophosphate Toxicity: Background, Pathophysiology, Epidemiology
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4238091/
But I do of course stand to be corrected.
Please note that I am NOT denying that this, or lesser events can occur or may have occurred - it is just that I am not aware of them, nor have I been able to find any verifiable accounts in an aviation context.
I believe that a paper was referenced in a a previous thread where wipe/swab tests were done on cabin surfaces to check for organophosphate residues - the results were negative as far as I recall - I'm sorry that I did not make a note of it so that I could include it in our database.
[BTW, chronic a/o low-grade OP poisoning is more commonly seen in agricultural workers and I specifically teach my students to inquire about such exposure in patients who present with odd symptomatology, since this may mimic a confusing number of disorders]
I believe that it is most important to establish the truth or otherwise of these anecdotal reports (I fly [as SLF] too!).
Finally, a little story about the clinical importance of of observation and asking the patient where they come from and what they do or have been doing. In Casualty I was asked en passant to give an opinion on a woman with moderately severe right arm discomfort of subacute onset. Questioning revealed that she was an American tourist who had arrived the day before, and clinical observation showed a right arm that was slightly more swollen than the left and slightly darker/blueish in colour. My presumptive diagnosis of axillary vein thrombosis was confirmed on duplex ultrasound. She was treated and made a good recovery. She had, of course been carrying heavy luggage with that arm. AVT is uncommon (the last one I saw was 26 years ago), but it illustrates the importance of keeping your clinical wits about you and the essential clinical question unde venis? ["Where do you come from?])
I am not aware of a reported fume event which has resulted in the signs and symptoms of acute or sub-acute organophosphate poisoning.
From Wikipedia: "The effects of organophosphate poisoning on muscarinic receptors are recalled using the mnemonic SLUDGEM (salivation, lacrimation, urination, defecation, gastrointestinal motility, emesis, miosis. An additional mnemonic is MUDDLES: miosis, urination, diarrhea, diaphoresis, lacrimation, excitation, and salivation."
See also: Organophosphate Toxicity: Background, Pathophysiology, Epidemiology
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4238091/
But I do of course stand to be corrected.
Please note that I am NOT denying that this, or lesser events can occur or may have occurred - it is just that I am not aware of them, nor have I been able to find any verifiable accounts in an aviation context.
I believe that a paper was referenced in a a previous thread where wipe/swab tests were done on cabin surfaces to check for organophosphate residues - the results were negative as far as I recall - I'm sorry that I did not make a note of it so that I could include it in our database.
[BTW, chronic a/o low-grade OP poisoning is more commonly seen in agricultural workers and I specifically teach my students to inquire about such exposure in patients who present with odd symptomatology, since this may mimic a confusing number of disorders]
I believe that it is most important to establish the truth or otherwise of these anecdotal reports (I fly [as SLF] too!).
Finally, a little story about the clinical importance of of observation and asking the patient where they come from and what they do or have been doing. In Casualty I was asked en passant to give an opinion on a woman with moderately severe right arm discomfort of subacute onset. Questioning revealed that she was an American tourist who had arrived the day before, and clinical observation showed a right arm that was slightly more swollen than the left and slightly darker/blueish in colour. My presumptive diagnosis of axillary vein thrombosis was confirmed on duplex ultrasound. She was treated and made a good recovery. She had, of course been carrying heavy luggage with that arm. AVT is uncommon (the last one I saw was 26 years ago), but it illustrates the importance of keeping your clinical wits about you and the essential clinical question unde venis? ["Where do you come from?])
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The head of in-flight safety for British Airways has admitted that passengers can be 'incapacitated' by toxic fumes on planes.
"Mark Mannering-Smith reportedly wrote on an internal online forum that cabin fumes can be toxic and therefore hurt crew and travellers.
I'm a northern plain thinking guy. I sense the beginning of a never ending debate about scientific analysis & conclusions about this issue, and what the true results are. There seem to be two camps.
Thinking in simple terms, why would the of Head of In-fight Safety at BA make such a statement without some belief that it is true? Either he knows something that the posters on here do not, or he was not thinking clearly. Perhaps even having that belief he should have kept it quiet until more was known and solution found. So, perhaps he's both of my options.
What has been the response of the Airline Passengers Group?
"Mark Mannering-Smith reportedly wrote on an internal online forum that cabin fumes can be toxic and therefore hurt crew and travellers.
I'm a northern plain thinking guy. I sense the beginning of a never ending debate about scientific analysis & conclusions about this issue, and what the true results are. There seem to be two camps.
Thinking in simple terms, why would the of Head of In-fight Safety at BA make such a statement without some belief that it is true? Either he knows something that the posters on here do not, or he was not thinking clearly. Perhaps even having that belief he should have kept it quiet until more was known and solution found. So, perhaps he's both of my options.
What has been the response of the Airline Passengers Group?
Last edited by RAT 5; 26th Jan 2017 at 11:07.
Altering the good manager's alleged comment:
"Basil for our street has admitted that people can be 'incapacitated' by toxic fumes in houses."
Especially if there's a gas leak, fire, CO from a gas appliance, cleaning fluids used without ventilation etc etc.
The CC smoke hoods are just that; to assist CC to remain effective in case of fire.
It seems to me that a small group of people appear to be determined to make an issue of a vanishingly unlikely event.
"Basil for our street has admitted that people can be 'incapacitated' by toxic fumes in houses."
Especially if there's a gas leak, fire, CO from a gas appliance, cleaning fluids used without ventilation etc etc.
The CC smoke hoods are just that; to assist CC to remain effective in case of fire.
It seems to me that a small group of people appear to be determined to make an issue of a vanishingly unlikely event.
