Telegraph article on "poisoned air"
 

Anyone seen this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...4/nbook124.xml

Makes sobering reading.

'Pilots disabled by poisoned air' - Sunday Telegraph article
 

Christopher Booker's notebook
By Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph 24/06/2007

Pilots disabled by poisoned air

A few years back Susan Michaelis, Tristan Loraine and John Hoyte were successful airline pilots, earning up to £100,000 a year. Last Monday, with health and livelihood destroyed, they joined forces with some 20 other similarly disabled pilots, to launch a campaign to alert the public to what should be seen as one of the most alarming scandals of our time.

Yet two days later came further evidence of how the regulatory authorities, in alliance with the airline industry itself, have stopped at nothing to cover up a health disaster whose financial costs for the industry could run to many billions.

The essence of the problem is that the air supply to the cockpits and cabins of many modern airliners is bled off from their engines, where it becomes contaminated with carcinogens, immunosuppressants and highly toxic organo-phosphorus (OP) chemicals, especially a compound known as tricresyl phosphate (TCP) used as an anti-wear additive. Both crew and passengers are thus exposed to small amounts of OPs and a cocktail of other nasties. OPs, more commonly used as pesticides, cumulatively attack the nervous system, causing disorders ranging from nausea, headaches and dizziness to, eventually, serious mental and physical breakdown.
Although this problem was first identified 30 years ago, following a near-fatal incident in the US, it was kept so quiet that when hundreds of pilots in the 1980s began to experience adverse reactions they had no idea why. One of the first to track down the cause was Susan Michaelis, flying BA146s in Australia, when in 1997 she was permanently grounded by severe illness. Two years later, at her instigation, an official inquiry by the Australian Senate heard enough expert evidence to confirm that the cause of so many pilots and cabin crew suffering ill-health was contamination of cabin air by TCP and other chemicals.

In 2001 the cause was taken up in Britain by Captain Loraine, a senior member of the British Air Line Pilots Association (BALPA), who flew Boeing 757s. But from the industry and regulators, such as the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), they met with a wall of denials. Although more pilots were suffering from "aerotoxic syndrome" every year, there began a cover-up which uncannily parallelled the methods used by government in the 1990s when the health of thousands of farmers was destroyed by OPs in sheep dip.

Ironically, in 2005, just after he had organised a BALPA conference of leading scientists and other experts from all over the world, Captain Loraine himself became seriously affected. Initially doctors for his airline saw no reason why he should not continue flying, but in 2006, following further exposure to contaminated air, he was permanently grounded by the CAA.

The career of Captain Hoyte, an experienced BA146 pilot, ended the same year for the same reason, although he was repeatedly told by doctors for his airline and the CAA that his only problem was "stress".

Tests run on both pilots by the leading medical experts on OP poisoning, including Professor Mohamed Abou-Donia, of Duke University, North Carolina, and neuropsychologist Dr Sarah Mackenzie-Ross of University College, London, confirmed brain cell death, cognitive problems and exposure to TCP, explaining why both had become textbook cases of OP-induced chronic neurotoxicity.

Dr Mackenzie-Ross, who since 2003 has been carrying out an extensive study of sheep farmers and airline pilots, has estimated that, in 2004, 197,000 airline passengers in Britain alone could have been exposed to contaminated fumes. The evidence suggests that a great many people have been made ill while flying without having any idea why. One of the scientists studying this problem, Professor Chris van Netten, a Canadian epidemiologist, has analysed swabs taken from many different airliners, finding traces of TCP in more than 80 per cent of the aircraft tested.

Yet, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence, the regulators and the industry have continued to deny that the TCP problem exists. For three years now, as with the sheep farmers before, the British Government has relied on its Committee on Toxicity (CoT) to conduct a seemingly interminable investigation into "cabin air quality", marked by a conspicuous reluctance to address the problem of TCP.

Last week, Michaelis, Loraine and Hoyte joined forces at Portcullis House, Westminster, to launch the Aerotoxic Association, backed by 110 MPs and many peers, including those veterans of the battle to expose the scandal of OP poisoning, the Countess of Mar and Lord (Paul) Tyler. On Wednesday, however, the CoT produced the minutes of yet another of its meetings. As official obfuscation, they were almost self-parodic. They referred to BALPA submitting "data relating to organo-phosphates", but this was the only reference to OPs in the document. The remaining 20 pages, dealing with anything from carbon monoxide to the need to review pilot-training procedures, showed that the committee had no interest in whether airline crews and passengers were being poisoned by TCP from engine oil. It is high time this particular cover-up was blown wide open.

there was also a report about it on the "you and yours "show on radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainf...o4/youandyours
its about 2 minutes into the program

Neil

Private Eye has been running regular articles about this item for the last year- 18 months...

This thread is also running in the Medical Forum

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=280695

There is a thread on this subject over on the engineers forum:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=239779
What may be of interest is an address where one can be tested for Organophosphate Poisoning.

This really is a safety issue just as much as a medical issue, so it is very relevant that this threat appears in this mainstream forum rather than tucked away in the Medical Forum.
Many obviously regard this as potentially a very serious problem, and the very eminent ‘New Scientist’ magazine have also addressed the issue this month with an article entitled ‘Toxic fumes impairing our ability to fly, says pilots’, see
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ay-pilots.html

Two posts giving this link to the Aerotoxic Association have been deleted from this forum. Lets see how long this one lasts!
Make up your own minds guys, you are an educated bunch!

Well, it's not rocket science- if the link to the Aerotoxic Association gets removed, it CAN be found by simply typing it in Google.

It is important that we keep this thread in the forefront. This is the most worrying development to our industry and potentially our health could be being harmed as we speak.

Dan Air 87
Thanks for pointing out that Private Eye has been keeping an eye out so to speak on this issue.

Do you have any links to any of their articles?

AVOdriver, the only laboratory in the UK able to test is:

Biolab Medical Unit
9 Weymouth Street
London

0207 636 5959/5905
email: [email protected]

Costs of the test are £433, if however you have suffered a fumes incident then you should be able to get the tests done through your medical cover.

New Scientist:
toxic-fumes-impairing-our-ability-to-fly-say-pilots.html

And there's a correction in the works there.

Apparently :O

Agenda of next COT meeting:
http://www.food.gov.uk/science/ourad...apers3july2007

At least someone seems to think that the Food Standards Agency will be more independent than the CAA Aviation Health unit.

Source material:
http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk...statements.htm

OK, but I'm also interested in what's the solution and what will it cost?

Well HT you have hit the nail on the head there, whilst crews of some aircraft types report symptoms more than those of other types, all turbine powered aircraft that take air for their passenger/crew compartment from the aircraft engines are susceptible to allowing engine lubricating oil into the air that we breathe on board.
So the fix, well filters would help but would you trust them with such an important job? Perversely, in todays litigious environment the fitting of filters could be resisted by the manufacturers as evidence of a tacit admittance of guilt.
Removing the TCP from the lubicating oils would require a redesign of the turbine engine as the current specification of the oils is as exacting as the design of the powerplant its self. (Taking the big red hazard warning off the oil tin has helped though!)
The best answer would be not to use engine bleed air as breathing air and that would mean a complete rethink in arcraft design, it is inconceivable that such a system could be retro fitted economically to existing aircraft types.
The clever Mr. Boeing is doing just that with the design of the new B787. This fundamental re design, whilst feasible on the drawing board, will not be cheap, and is in its self an indication of the acceptance of the problem by the aircraft manufacturer.
So if you fly one of the aircraft types recognised as a bad offender what type of a pilot are you, are you one of the lucky ones that is not affected (YET)?
Or do you deny to your self and others that you are affected but have a little doubt in the back of you mind?
Or are you fully aware that your performance is worsening, you are perhaps regularly missing the third instruction in a clearance, wracking your head for words in conversation, sleeping away all of your off duty time, does life seem like a treadmill and nothing is any fun any more? As long as you are passing the OPCs LPCs and LCs you must be ok eh....? With a family to support and a mortgage to pay it is easy to ignore the signs or seek other explanations.
It is very comforting to believe the official denials but if you stop for a moment and think about what is at stake here it may become clear why the authorities are playing the problem down. Like everything else its is about money, it is cheaper for the manufacturers to deny the problem exists than to fix it. The operators, however genuine in their concern for passengers and crews, are stuck in a catch 22 situation.
At the very least you owe it to your crew and passengers (the sequence here is intentional!) to find out all you can about the issue and your place within it. You might even want to go that next step and be tested.
Be warned though, once you start looking, you will be horrified.

" So if you fly one of the aircraft types recognised as a bad offender"

Has anyone come across a report/table listing the bad offenders?

Having personally been involved in a fumes incident of this nature, it is good to hear that more information is being made available. Fortunately for me my tests were ok, but it is a worrying problem.
I believe the current 3 types that have caused the most problems according to BALPA are the 146, 757 & ERJ145

Closely followed by,

MD - 83
737-300
A330.

:{

And the F100
Reference (amongst others) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...ds/3505775.stm

The idea of using non-bleed air is not new VC10 used compressors. Retro fitting bleed engines will not happen it's way too expensive.

Anybody have any 'facts' on these problems as of the a/c types listed one has 2 di fferent manufacturers engines available and the other 3 , cant believe the problem is there on all combinations ???? Or is it ?

BVCU, The problem is known to exist across a wide range of aircraft types. The problem of contaminated bleed air can potentially exist on any aircraft in which the cabin air is supplied using bleed air.

Its interesting that you say 'I can't believe the problem is there on all combinations'. A lot of people have trouble believing that this problem exists at all, especially given that aviation is supposed to be tightly regulated for safety.

There are countless examples of contaminated air events - if you need convincing, simply start searching around on the internet. www.aerotoxic.org is a good place to start

PPD

To bleed or not to bleed
 

Its a long time ago but my recall is that the Viscount, ah Dart, had compressors,leland type, which were engine driven and avoided engine bleed air but I suppose they might have been susceptible to contamination from whatever lubrication the compressors used, cant rember so maybe there was a problem after all

Having flown 737 and F100 following with interest whateverthe subject was

I know Mr Hoyt, good bloke

More Cabin Crew Sick on the 146
 

I thought that Flybe had sorted out these Fume problems on the BAE 146 ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/h...nd/6932735.stm

http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/article2836497.ece


A colleague of mine who works for Flybe told me of an incident in December 2004 where both the Pilots were badly incapacitated on a similar flight into BHD.
The First Officer was barely conscious and the Captain was euphoric.

I wonder how long before the luck runs out ? :hmm:

"The First Officer was barely conscious and the Captain was euphoric"
Yep - I'd recognise that scenario! Just off HK - London slot with a Captain a family man and the First Officer knackered from over indulgence.
I jest - but surely somebody can identify fumes in the flightdeck or cabin.

Flybe, non existent Duty of Care.
 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...xic-gas-p.html

In a statement, Flybe said: "Any incidents involving sickness experienced by cabin crew, flight crew or passengers are taken very seriously by the company, with appropriate medical support always provided."

Yeah rite! If they were that concerned then Flybe would send the crew to a medical facility that could actually detect the chemicals that they have been exposed to, rather than the local A&E which haven't a clue. But that would cost money and then they would be accountable once the level of exposure had been determined.

Convenient then to send them to the local A&E, where a Carboxyhaemoglobin test is administered hours after the event and therefore pretty irrelevant, as by that time all the readings will be pretty much back to normal again.:=

Passengers are "Not Informed", so how are they able to seek the appropriate medical advice?:ugh:

I was once onboard a 757 that suffered a fume event during an engine test on the ground (doors were closed and armed , so no way of exiting a/c).

I am fortunate in that i get a headache about once or twice a year , but the pain i experienced that day was pretty unreal.
I also went 'blank' in efffect, for the length of the engine run and probably 20-30 mins afterwards.

I phoned our occ health centre on reaching base , and was told in no uncertain terms that "there was no way any permanent damage would have been done"

I have flown on the 757 for 20 years now,and luckily we have so few these days i rarely go on it.

It would certainly appear that there is a reluctance by the industry to fully and completely address this matter and that is worrying for the many that work on these a/c types day in day out.

Is there supposed to be an (expensive) filter kit than can prevent this from happening ( i once heard ) ?

If we were reassured that there is a problem and that it can /will be fully rectified, it would make people sleep a little easier knowing that working onboard one of these planes could leave you with an uncertain future.............

Does anyone really expect anything to happen quickly? First there will have to be admission that there is a problem. That will takes years of research going round in circles. The solution will be too catastrophic to profits that it will not happen for a long time.
Consider the debate about cosmic radiation. I heard that the conclusion, years ago, was that flying above 29,000' for more than 400hrs pa was a cumulative dangerous situation. Lufthansa's & Alitalia's unions had conducted raditaion tests in the cockpits years ago. The readings went off the scale and would not be allowed in ground based industries. If that is true, then what has ben done? Zilch. I heard that Lufthansa was considering screening the cockpits, but of course this would be unacceptable to pax, they being exposed. Imagine the cost of screening the whole a/c or flying below 29,000'? Unworkable, so lets ignore the problem.
Consider the known problem with FTL's throughout the world. Ground based crews have improvements in lifestyles worthy of 21st civilised society; airline crews have worsening of lifestyle to increase productivity and profits for the owners of airlnes. No discussion about the health hazzards.

So don't hold your breath about anyhting happening here. It took a longtime to convince the public & politicians that lead in auto fuel was causing health problems to those living beside major roads. The campaign did work, possibly because it was the whole public effected, and once it was a known fact the outcry if nothing was done would have been suicide for anyone in power. Could it also be that the solution was not so expensive and lenghty?

I went to a BALPA conference on contaminated cabin air about three years ago. Leaving aside whether the toxins should be there in the first place, there was some useful info on filters.
The point about filtering the air is that there is currently no practical 'barrier-type' filter which will work 100% without stopping air flow. There are absorbent filters that can be fitted to the sides of the ducts, but by definition they cannot filter everything.
With current technology the best chance we have is with the much-maligned air recirculation system. As well as improving humidity it does have effective filtration capable of removing SARS virus and other small toxins. Obviously the contaminants will already be in the cabin and some damage will already be done, but the recirculation filters should take it out pretty quickly. Unfortunately the minute recirculation is mentioned, the press is full of hysteria about airlines starving passengers of oxygen to save fuel.
For the future the 787 has bleedless engines, so somebody is worried about the problem (and the litigation). From the past, Dart engines had Rootes Blowers which provided air but could also be contaminated with oil.

...... and again!
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6932735.stm
This appeared on the BBC NI news site a couple of days ago.

BBC You and Yours
 

I've treid several times to access the program you and yours, found the program about air contamination, but it looks like after a couple of minutes the progr. gets jammed?

Other programmes aren't anny problem at all. Any body else experiencing the same problems???


greetz