Does anyone know if there is a suitable detector for aircon fumes that we could use, a bit like the CO detectors in puddle jumpers? That way, when our airlines inevitably shut down a report citing a lack of evidence, or worse threaten a crew who diverted with disciplinary action for an event that they can't prove, we'd have some evidence? It really is a common event - I've had many similar experiences to Barkingmad's "altimeter check" at similar altitudes at idle on the 737 (classic and NG alike), despite it being an aircraft with a relatively good reputation (at least compared to the 146 and 75).

What sort of "fumes" are you looking to detect.
Most inadvertently refer to gases and vapors as fumes, but fumes areparticulates.

Though real time measurement is available for fumes it can be utterlyexpensive.

Many gases and vapors are quite easy to detect either specifically or usingcross sensitivity of other types of sensors, but if any accuracy is requiredfrequent calibration must be done.

Some sensors are also pressure sensitive either statically or transientlymaking variable cabin pressures a conflicting issue.

If real time is not required a simple solution for some fumes would be touse an air sampling pump with a collection filter. The filter would have to bereplaced fairly frequently, but cost only a dollar or two. In an event takesplace and become a dispute the collection filter can be sent to a laboratoryfor analysis. This cannot be a catch all an will not pick up gases and vapors.

Again, what compound do you want to detect?

If carbon monoxide could be monitored 70 years ago in WW2 fighter aircraft, so could air contaminated with oil fumes in public transport passenger jets in 2014.

It only needs aircrew and passengers to demand that air in a confined space be monitored.

aerotracer - Airsense Analytics GmbH

:ok:

@ Dream Buster
What are oil fumes?

MrDK,


Are you seriously telling us you don't know what oil fumes are??


Strewth.

Primarily organophosphates I would think.
Real time and inexpensively.

Mr DK,

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcNNgqLcx5A

Read this:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/wp-content/...ocol031909.pdf

Don't worry about not knowing; that's exactly the way the airlines want it.

Oil smoke & fumes on the 146 & 75's were regular occurrences & talking points a while back.
I vaguely remember a university was (about to?) undertake a study to look for contaminants & swabbing surfaces was mentioned ?
Smells/fumes from first engine/APU start of the day are relatively common,which doesn't of course, make it any more acceptable.

Oil fumes are a fundamental design flaw of bleed air and do not just apply to the 146/757.

Example:

Accident: Lufthansa A388 at Frankfurt and San Francisco on Oct 9th 2011, fumes permanently injure flight attendant

Jets which do not use bleed air were B707, DC8 and now the bleedless B787....

QED.

For that compound I know if no electrochemical or collective sensor that would work.
Even using a photo ionization detector (PID) is suspect as an ionization potential has not been established and if it had a lot of other "crap" would be picked up as a false positive, like alcohols and perfumes.

Re: Oil Fumes
 

When thinking of oil fumes from a chemical standpoint it is a valid question, really. "Oil" is a mix of several hydrocarbons, each with its own ignition point. Oil can evapourate, thus "oil vapour" (or, mostly "fuel vapour" in aviation world) and it can burn, thus "oil smoke" but it is hard to define "oil fume" chemically.

Water is not described in the term "water fumes" either. You'd prefer "water vapour" or maybe "mist" or "fog" ;-)

About organophosphates, there is to my knowledge no real time detector but as it is a quite sticky family of compounds, I would suggest bringing a sterile cotton swab into the cockpit. Remove it from its protection layers when starting the flight and put it into a test tube when the flight is over (or when you had enough...) and send it to the closest agricultural lab to analyze. They have a vast experience with organophosphates within the agricultural industry so it is inexpensive but might be scary when you get your results back...

Don't ask if you don't want the answer and so on...

What's oil fume?
 

It might be difficult to define chemically, but it's easy to define physically - it's anything that makes its way from the unpleasantly toxic - but essentially performing - engine lubricant into the lungs and brains onboard, whether burned, toasted or evaporated.

Anything from the white smoke when gathered pools of oil burn, to blue haze from tiny particles, to this "socks" smell.

Agree 99%, except it is easy to define a fume

Oh lord help us

I wouldn't give up just yet.
I can think of 3 potential approaches for detecting engine oil fumes in the cabin and cockpit. (Some development required)

1. Organophosphate poisoning results from exposure to organophosphates which cause the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE). Develop an appropriate biosensor system on a chip to detect AChE inhibition. This technology is in its infancy however.
2. Determine a characteristic absorption spectrum for the Organophosphate bonds and build a narrow frequency spectrometer looking for absorption in a light beam transmitted through an air sample. The P=O double bond coupled with the P-O-H bonds might be sufficient to avoid false alarms and yet give rapid detection. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dimensions.png
3. Add an inactive but distict and easily detected (using present technology) chemical to engine oil. This chemical would be an analog for all the breakdown components of engine oil including the problematic organophosphates.

It is amazing to me that the MSDS for jet engine oil does not reflect the breakdown product hazards we now know to be present. For example :
http://qclubricants.com/msds/ROYCO500.pdf

@MrDK

My point was that all of the suggested forms would be of interest, if "fume" is used generically, rather than technically, for all sorts of airborne and ingestible lubricant-related muck. I understand that "oil fume incident" tends to be used to cover all.

Hence a test will be difficult, since the offending material could be in this wide variety of forms: a gas, a mist of different sized drops with different compositions, as a mantle on solid smoke particles, within the smoke particles…

MrSnuggles' swab traveling along with you sounds like a good start, although the swab is dry and doesn't inhale. You'd also probably be best to run a control with a fresh one, and to try exposing them in other circumstances, far from engine oil. The same goes for your collection sampler, which would be better since it has an airflow.

Another problem would be potential loss of volatile materials from the filter during the hours after exposure, as the level likely isn't at all constant.

I must have come across as lecturing about fumes. Sorry about that. I was just nerdy from a chemist standpoint. A bit tounge-in-cheek too.

Point taken on the dry cotton swab. That is easy to remedy, just add a few drops of water.

Actually, this seems like an experiment I would enjoy to do. Anyone passing ARN just give me a heads up and I will prepare an array of different swabs for you. :-D

Using a collection material for fumes can be quite effective, but it requires additional data.
Sampling rate is one.
Most such monitors flow from 0.5 liters per minute to 5 LPM whereas human breathing rate at a light workload is 40 LPM and at complete rest about 25 LPM. Easy to compensate for that.
Using a collection media presents an accumulative measurement, so for example if a flight is 8 hours in duration it is important to know the duration of exposure (i.e. 30 minutes) or the sample will be diluted by the ratio between the two.
If the collection media is not replaced frequently (between each flight) trace and non-concerning concentrations will be added to sample over time and consequently distort the results.

Install a photoionization detector (PID) with a 9.6eV lamp and a datalogger.
It is cheap (~$2,000) and will pick up countless compounds, though not specifically.
A PID is excellent in detecting long chained HC's like oil, it is real time and can log 100's of hours by the minute.
Down side it should be calibrated at least monthly; a 2 minute and 99% automatic procedure.

More info,
http://ashsd.afacwa.org/docs/HCPfull.pdf
Tricresyl phosphate (?TCP?) :: The Arrows of Truth
Home of the Aerotoxic Association - aerotoxic.org

Grounded 27,are you management? Nothing to see here?!?!

ITF - International Transport Workers Federation video on contaminated air:

Just stating that oil or hydraulic fumes used to be very common in older aircraft W/O a huge reaction. Being a freight dog it was quite normal, if bad enough for us to encounter fumes that were more than a simple discomfort greater than a crew member asking to pull his finger we usually changed the ACM socks as they would accumulate the contaminants. Modern aircraft (have not dealt with this problem for a decade or so) are much cleaner.

The worst case I experienced was on the ground where the ground/flight crew failed to turn off the environmentals during deice. We pressurized and dumped the cabin 3 times before everyone was comfortable in taking the flight. The second was a flight of several hundred pigs that died in flight, I had to was all my clothes 3 times after taking the aircraft after it's fourth leg. Then the Hajj flights, Hell we were expecting the smell and were all used to it after about 3 days.

Point being, fumes and discomfort in smell are a human factor. This thread makes me feel old. Not stating that anyone here is spoiled in comfort, just that the perception of what is acceptable has changed greatly from the above reactions over the years.

Grounded, you just don't get it, do you?

Quote:
For that compound (organophosphates) I know if no electrochemical or collective sensor that would work.
I wouldn't give up just yet.
I can think of 3 potential approaches for detecting engine oil fumes in the cabin and cockpit. (Some development required)

Organophosphate poisoning results from exposure to organophosphates which cause the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE). Develop an appropriate biosensor system on a chip to detect AChE inhibition. This technology is in its infancy however.
Determine a characteristic absorption spectrum for the Organophosphate bonds and build a narrow frequency spectrometer looking for absorption in a light beam transmitted through an air sample. The P=O double bond coupled with the P-O-H bonds might be sufficient to avoid false alarms and yet give rapid detection.
Add an inactive but distict and easily detected (using present technology) chemical to engine oil. This chemical would be an analog for all the breakdown components of engine oil including the problematic organophosphates.

It is amazing to me that the MSDS for jet engine oil does not reflect the breakdown product hazards we now know to be present. For example :
http://qclubricants.com/msds/ROYCO500.pdf

Sorry to be a pedant but that pic is not an organophosphate. You can't do a spec on it as you don't know the organic groups stucture. I could in the lab on a big IR machine, but I wouldn't expect a pilot to interpet it.

Ex cargo clown,

Why the difficulty of detecting poison air in a confined space?

Carbon Monoxide could be monitored in front line RAF Hawker Typhoon fighter aircraft in the middle of WW2. Most light aircraft have CO detectors nowadays.

Surely a basic CCTV system would allow the pilots to see VISIBLE oil fumes in passenger cabins and to turn off bleed air systems pumping unfiltered toxic air into the cockpit and cabin?

At the moment, crew depend entirely upon their sense of smell and vision - all those in favour of Toxic Air Detectors in 'modern' jet aircraft - say: "Aye".

All against say: "Arrrgghhhh"

Film - A Dark Reflection: About the issue of TCP
 

Last year (2013), a drama-documentary film has been made about the TCP issue. Its called "A Dark Reflection" and is due to have its premiere in the UK (Horsham, West Sussex) in April 2014. More information on the film here at [URL="http://http://www.adarkreflection.com"]http://http://www.adarkreflection.com[/URL

There is ongoing research, at least I found this interesting doctorate's degree paper (uh, words?) from Norway.

https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/12729

You can dl the whole paper from that page if you want to. If it does not work, for some reason, just PM me, I have a copy. It is in the public domain (at least in Scandinavia) so don't worry about copyright.

@ Dream Buster
Your dream may just have been busted.
Airborne toxic exposure comes in 4 forms:
Gas, vapor, mist and fume.
The last two may very well be visible and the first two rarely so.
Sometimes an odor may be present, but not always.
Often a reasonable cost sensing device is just not available and they are they are usually not specific and may be pressure sensitive.
I could name at least 10 compounds that would set off a traditional carbon monoxide detector and yet pose no hazard, never mind a detector that is designed to detect more complex compounds.
If the compound is a fume or a mist an inexpensive collection device and a future lab analysis will usually work.
If the compound is a gas or a vapor real-time measurement MAY be an option, but in most cases they are cross sensitive to other compounds and often to the point that such interference could render them practically useless.
There are hopes though, nanotechnology sensors may become commercially available at a reasonable price in this decade.

Mr DK

Not dreaming, just living in the real world.

aerotracer - Airsense Analytics GmbH

It ain't rocket science.

Not dreaming, just living in the real world.
 

That instrument you linked to is a "broadband" detector and is not specific in any.
It will not give you any indication of the actualcompound that it is detecting, just that is detecting something.
That "something" may include cologne
I mentioned options like that much earlier in thethread using PID.
This device will NOT detect any fumes. None, zero,nada.

Instruments like these require frequentcalibration or verification of accuracy (AKA bump test).
The test is easy to do, but require a source of referencegas which is usually supplied in compressed form.
The instrument after calibration should beaccurate in detecting the reference gas, but correction factors must be appliedor other gases and to apply a correction factor you must know the exactcompound being detected and if not known reading can be erroneously high or low.

In the real world it would help to know a little about atmospheric monitoring and sensing technologies and the limitations.

Apparently the fumes were so bad the crew had to wear their masks some of the flight.


"The captain also had to repeatedly ask his passengers to stop smoking marijuana because they were creating so much smoke that it actually began to seep into the pressurized cockpit. The co-pilots were forced to wear oxygen masks in order to prevent themselves from inhaling the smoke and getting high, which would have severely impaired their ability to safely maneuver the aircraft. If the pilots accidentally inhaled the smoke and failed drug tests after the flight, they could have risked losing their licenses."


Justin Bieber And Crew Reportedly Smoke Lots Of Pot, Harass Attendant On Private Flight

A DARK REFLECTION
 

Here is a teaser for a soon to be completed movie on contaminated air - no detection equipment required, just watch it and ask yourself:

Why would so many professional people put in so much effort, if they didn't absolutely know that there is a serious problem that needs - fixing.

Enjoy.

A Dark Reflection - Film - Home

Collect and analyze
 

Why not use a dozen bags on the flight to get snapshots.
Place and seal them in the ventilation airflow at optimal time.
Afterwards the bags can be analysed e.g. mass spec or other detector at a lab to get the full chemical analysis.For a second test they might need to use a solvent to rinse particles attached to the container lining. Very low cost and requires no real-time equipment.

xcitation

This was my intention.

So, if any pilot wants to participate, just holler and I'll hook you up with some nice cotton swabs of different preparations. It'll be a hoot!

I'm betting some activated charcoal will do a nice job of finding stuff too. And, the agricultural industry has tons of equipment to analyse organophosphates rather cheaply, it's just a matter of getting the samples that might be a problem.

I'll see if I could get some chem students for a project.

Did any of you check out that paper I linked to?

A319,320,321 oil fumes in cabin
 

Engine oils should be topped up within 2 hours of shutdown. after 2 hours the oil tends to hide so over servicing happens on start this excess oil pumps out of the breather system.
During APU shutdown one should allow the FADEC to shutdown before turning the batteries off this ensures that the air intake door is fully closed thus preventing oil bleed back into the intake,ground crew should wipe any oil from the APU intake door and surrounds.
Switching batteries off too soon will also give an indication on the APU oil sight glass of low oil quantity do not service with oil unless you are sure the air inlet door is fully closed,over hastie pilots not waiting for FADEC shutdown are causing this aerotoxic problem.

Re Capt Tech
 

Pro:hmm:bably a good idea - but quote? Who actually says so?

Fumes
 

There are evacuated containers that can be used for sampling.It is simply a matter of opening and closing a tap.Maybe worth carrying on subject aircraft??
Used one from Boeing on a 1-11 once upon a time!!

Fumes ???
 

Why do you'll keep referring to gases and vapors as fumes?
From oil or fuel and without combustion there cannot be any fumes.

Employer's Duty of Care
 

Gases and vapours
 

MrDK
Is that better?
However the term "fumes" has been used for many years with respect to actual
(or perceived) unusual gases or vapours in aircraft.

The reason might found in the UK dictionary definition of "fumes":

Amounts of gas or vapour with a strong smell or dangerous to inhale.
Ref Oxford English Dictionary.

Media Coverage

Aerotoxic Syndrome was featured on BBC 5 Live Breakfast this morning. Richard Westgate's lawyer Frank Cannon was interviewed and Professor David Coggart (Coggan?) commented on toxin levels and hazards.

The segment is available via the 'Listen Again' facility, at
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03vcj9g

Scroll forward to 26 minutes. The segment lasts for approx. 4 minutes. Today's programme will be deleted after 7 days.

If you're outside the UK and cannot access the segment, try a web proxy.

The interviewer stated that the BBC TV programme 'Inside Out' will address this issue tonight, at 7:30. This will apply only to the North-West area. Better than nothing, I suppose.