Latest on toxic cabin air from BALPA - August 2017
 

Latest on toxic cabin air from BALPA August 2017:

A new path in NHS care for pilots affected by fume events | BALPA

From BALPA April 2005:

Proceedings of the BALPA Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality International Aero Industry Conference. Held at Imperial College, London (2005) - Aerotoxic Association

Toxic cabin air is either:

A risk or

Not a risk...

:ugh:

Guardian article from 19th August 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ent-flyers-ill

Knowledge does move on in 12 years

I think that's a bit too extreme, some parts of science are suffering from a reproducibility crisis but it's by no means all-pervasive and - in most cases - is a problem in the 'soft' science subjects.
That sounds like an unbiased and reuptable source.:}
I really wish you could start quoting reputable, evidence based sources rather than sources whose reports are based on anecdotes. It'd do your credibility the world of good.

Bare in mind, its not just exposure to cabin air, its also through skin contacts for ground engineers. I have worked in aviation since 1970, mostly mucking about with turbines. Made a lot of contact with MobilJetII, Shell Aero500 and Exxon 2380. Eventually health and safety got on the scene and I started to wear protection, gloves and barrier creams. Guess what? retired now I suffer from a neurological disease affecting my feet, legs and awful headaches. Although diagnosed they wont make the connections to my aviation background.

David Learmount's latest analysis of bleed air...
 

https://davidlearmount.com/

Don't shoot the messenger.

I appreciate correlation isn't causation - I have a degree in physiology and over 10 years experience in pharma before I became a pilot nearly 10 years ago, so understand clinical evidence.

I maintain a log of the events . I am just looking for others experience of such and the idea we draw in the exhaust gases from start up, with associated oil leakage from further down the engine, into the bleed air system as we turn on the packs .

A less glib response would be more appropriate.

In your log do you include the time spent taxiing behind other aircraft and ingesting their exhaust?
Or even when doing external checks when aircraft are held on the ramp?

Surprised no one has mentioned EasyJet's move regarding toxic cabin air.

EasyJet to filter toxic air in cabins

Snip from the article:-

Pall are the obvious company for the job.
They produced aircraft cabin filters for dealing with tobacco smoke decades ago.
With their vast experience of making all sorts of aircraft and medical filters it is an easy choice

Better now.
 

I have no idea if toxic air is real. But after 30 years of niggling medical problems (stomach and headache) they all mysteriously disappeared after I stopped flying for a number of years. But how am I to prove a correlation?

Many posts hinge on the proof of causal link. All this really demonstrates is that proving a causal link to legal standard for anything is hard. There was a similar rearguard action over agricultural organophosphates in 70's and early 80's relating to near-identical medical issues. Whatever the debate on causality we KNOW aero-engine oil contains OP's. Pushback is where I often experience oily smells. Would it not make sense to delay switching on packs until moving forwards?

I'm not sure I understand the logic of that..stationary or not you are still going to end up breathing air that has come from the Engine Bleed system.

The issue is that even with a perfectly designed and maintained bleed system you'll get a (un)healthy whiff of start-up smoke if the packs are on during/immediately after start-up

Ok..FWIW on the the types I'm most familiar with the packs aren't running during the start process, they are off before start and go on after all engines are running.

Yes, wiggy; which is often while the aircraft is still pushing backwards

Given packs are off for engine start I'm still not sure what the aircraft's movement has to do with it...what would you suggest at airports where the tug does a push and then a pull, and engines are started when you are moving forward or have already moved forward to a release point?

Are you simply saying leave the packs off for a specified time after engines are running, presumably in the hope of burning off any oil, residue or similar that gets into the engine bleed system during engine start?

I think that the primary cause of aerotoxic syndrome is not to do with fumes from outside, but burnt oil that gets into the air conditioning giving the "sweaty sock" smell familiar to many who have operated the types notorious for it.
Having flown such a type for over twenty years and experienced the smell briefly on very many occasions and had "fume events" a few times I now have many of the symptoms described in aerotoxic syndrome.
The symptoms are often the same as those experienced by farming organophosphate exposure, which is unsurprising as the oils contain the same chemicals.
The problem is that all this is very difficult to scientifically prove, though I do remember some measurements being taken many years ago in affected aircraft which must have proved the presence of fumes but which nothing was ever heard of.

There have been numerous studies, none of which (to my knowledge) have seen any meaningful quantities of toxic substances in the cabin air, even during what crews described as fume events.
This report is interesting, for example. The downside is the lack of any control study, which makes the results interesting, but not particularly robust. The conclusion is particularly interesting:
A much more widespread investigation (including controls, airport samples, and home samples) is needed in order to draw meaningful conclusions, though.

In 2014 a Dutch research team also looked at TC(o)P at flight and during fume events.

The link is in Dutch, but the conclusion was both they did not find any significant concentration of TC(o)P, but could not conclude the symptoms were not a result of the few particles that were found.

On the 737, the smell/fumes happen mostly during the first start of the day.
I wonder if it is because of some oil or other contaminants collecting somewhere inside the engine during night stop? They get burned off during start —> smell/fumes?
I find that switching the packs off before start, and keeping them off for a few minutes after engine start, will pretty much eliminate this problem.

EasyJet in forced landing as ‘smell event’ overcomes co‑pilot
 

Sunday Times article about an easyjet fume event flight.

Note that oil fume events are now called 'smell events'...or 'odor events' in the US.

EasyJet in forced landing as ?smell event? overcomes co?pilot - Aerotoxic Association

There are other contaminants that can enter the aircondition system.
Hydraulic and deice fluids to mention two.

Could this be a bit like 'nut allergy'?
Perhaps a vanishingly small percentage of people are allergic to tiny amounts of contamination which have no effect on anyone else.
Or maybe their illness was engendered by something unrelated to aircraft air.

No comment re BAe146.

Have you ever owned a Citroen 2CV or a VW Beetle? How about those sheet metal boxes around the hot bits of the aircooled cylinders and exhaust connections? Yeah, they are a cheap solution to providing heated air to the cabin. Any chance of an exhaust gasket leak, or fumes from seeping oil heated at n degrees on the cylinder head actually being sucked into the cabin. "Slim to none, let's go with it. Otherwise, geez, you're talking a real costly solution."
Bypass air straight to the cabin? What were they/we thinking?

It isn't bypass air; it's bleed air from an compressor stage which supplies an appropriate pressure.
I agree with the risk you mention but there's no such possibility with compressor bleed air. On the ground you can get some re-ingestion of your own and others exhaust gas but airport workers breath that all the time.
The theoretical source of in-flight contamination is a leaking oil seal on the forward fan/compressor bearing.

"airport workers breathe that all the time..." Yes. Including flight crew.

This aircraft situation is nowhere equivalent to the Citroen/Beatle situation. The aircraft uses bleed air bled from the compression section of the engine. Unlike the air in the automobiles you cited, the aircraft air is nowhere exposed to exhaust air nor engine components exposed to combustion. In piston powered aircraft (and even some turbo prop aircraft) cabin air is supplied by an engine driven compressor. On 787 the compressor is driven by an electric motor. Those compressors are functionally no different than the compression section of a turbine engine and no more nor less safe.

I agree it's not the same as Citroen/Beetle analogy. But it's not at all true to say bleed air carries the same risk as air from an electric compressor. Even a minor oil leak from a bearing (or anywhere) upstream of the bleed will result in contamination

Actually, it is very much the same. The design of most turbine engines means that there is generally only one bearing where an oil leak can result in oil into the compressor air upstream of the bleed off take - which is also the case with most electric compressors.
I'm now retired so I no longer see the daily 21.3 reports, but before I retired there was at least one "fume" event on a 787, reportedly due to an issue with the electric air compressor..

The 787 compressors are equipped with air bearings.
Not a single drop of oil in the entire air condition.

That was the original design intent - but they couldn't make it work. It uses the same oil as the engine.

What's the maximum air temperature if the bearings leak oil in this compressor?

That I don't know - I never actually worked the 787 but I do recall reading that they had to abandon the air bearings. But as I noted previously, there's been at least one reported "fume" event on the 787 related to an air cycle machine fault. So it's reasonable to assume it get's hot enough that if there is oil present in can cause a problem.

Oil lubrication for an ACM?Yes,on B737 Classic and Dash-8...

Hi All,

Here is part 1 of ‘Poison in the cockpit’ from 2010 & part 2 from 2013

Part 1: https://zembla.bnnvara.nl/nieuws/gif-in-de-cockpit

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QfhtaXr2Bs

Part 3 will be tomorrow on 8th November 2017

Part 4 will be on 15th November 2017

Poisoning Cover up - finally exposed...:ok:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PW84yS7l-Q Dutch TV 8.11.17

Next programme on 15th November 2017...

Zembla Part 4 'Poison in the cockpit'
 

Uitzending gemist | ZEMBLA, Gif in de cockpit: De belangen op Nederland 3

:ok:

Study necessary, cover up?
 

You tube video removed, why? Not much discussion on this from the airline pilot community ? Another inconvenient truth or....
Is there a cover up? This issues needs to be studied further for hard facts as the fumes affect us, and there´s not enough facts available.
Shouldn't we ask our airlines, manufacturers, unions, authorities to do a serious hard fact study, as it appears it has been kept quiet. Not to alarm, to find solutions

Airline Workers Warn of 'Toxic Fume Events' on Planes From Bleed Air | Fortune

But it's not a problem - after all the German BFU refuse to investigate any and all fume events.

Are you proposing that it gets studied until the hard facts support a specific conclusion that there is enough facts?

Please provide an endpoint as we know that people of all walks of life get sick everyday from unknown causes.

The problem is not the "fume events that happen an estimated 2.6 times a day".
The problem is the non-fume events that happen more frequently and don't smell but you
breath along the years.