Ryanair B738 near Bremen and Vilnius on Oct 1st 2012, both flight crew partially inca
 

I have taken the liberty to copy/pate the following from avherald. I thought it may be of interest for the readers of this forum.

Not to secondguess the crew, but speaking for myself I am positive that the minute i felt any effect what so ever of an odor while flying I would don my oxygen mask (as per my companys SOP, and not the least from survival instinct). And I would absolutely NOT operate an return flight...:

A Ryanair Boeing 737-800, registration EI-EBP performing flight FR-7602 from Bremen (Germany) to Vilnius (Lithuania), was climbing out of Bremen, when a pungent odour and patches of haze came out of the air conditioning vents in the cockpit. About 5 minutes into the flight both flight crew felt severe headache, the forward portion of the cabin noticed the odour. The haze and odour dissipated during further climb, the crew recovered and continued the flight to Vilnius. During the descent the odour and haze returned causing again severe headache to both pilots. The aircraft continued for a safe landing at Vilnius.

Following sufficient recovery the crew decided to carry out the return flight FR-7601, too. During departure from Vilnius the odour and haze again occurred to a much lesser extent than during departure at Bremen, the crew continued the flight. During the approach to Bremen, while descending through FL060, the odour and haze appeared again causing again severe headache to both pilots, the first officer, pilot monitoring at that time, also suffered from dizziness. The crew continued the landing without donning oxygen masks and landed safely.

Germany's BFU reported that both pilots suffered lasting health problems following the flight and were not fit for flying in the following days.

Based on your excerpt I would say that was extremely unwise. The adverse effects of, for example, oil haze are well documented. I would like to know the RY SOPs for this and if they involve masks, why this was not done.

I hope this crew are receiving thorough medical monitoring.

Noxious Fumes
 

I draw the attention of all to two 737-800 events shown on AvHerald. The first, posted here, seems extremely serious. There is another on AvHerald here on 15/1. I note the 'tech check revealed nothing' on the 15/1. Reminds me of a snag I raised on a BA734 which had fumes at full power. 'Ground tested found satis'. Guess what power they ground ran it at...................?

If these fumes are the known oil haze, possibly carcinogenic, these events need to be taken really seriously.

This was posted on R&N by me but not deemed of sufficient interest to professional pilots to stay there

See Richard Westlake RIP on the Where are They Now forum. I believe he was a BA F/O on the A320 before he got ill.

Indeed - I cannot believe this has been relegated back here. Richard's story should be enough to warrant major interest and caution against fumes.

It would be of interest to follow the medical developments for these crews.

So the crew never donned oxygen? haze in the cockpit, smell, headaches, and no oxygen .... :eek:

Aviation herald, I can only find a recent FR flight. And what exactly is your point?

That it didn't turn out to be an incapacitation? That they continued?

Unless you are more clear I suggest this topic is removed for the second time, cause this is BS!

Low-cost operator incapacitation
 

What 737 JOCK said. Amen

ACG - as you have discovered, the event was relegated from here to the Safety forum. I do urge all professional pilots to read this. I think it is important.

737 Jock...
 

Not BS - not only did they continue, they conducted a further sector with the symptoms occurring 3 more times. They put their PAX at risk, and they've possibly seriously put their own long term health at risk.

This is not BS - if it is true, it is very worrying.

Try2fly: get off the bandwagon and add something constructive.

737Jock - incapacitation is not the same as unconsciousness. It seems you might be confusing the two?

It is actually an inability to perform normally. Feeling nauseous from fumes is a form of incapacitation, even if you *think* you can still continue "normally". That is the stuff accidents are made of. :=

A misunderstanding by the press, perhaps? Who would blithely take an aircraft up for another leg having experienced fumes/haze on both departure and arrival on the previous sector? Any fumes/smell/haze in the cockpit on departure apart from anti-ice bleed pong and one might be a bit concerned, surely.

- I think would describe AvHerald as useful aviation safety facility, not 'the press'?

but was removed by the mods

I don't know what the history is here as the thread has been moved to this forum.

One of our concerns, always, is that we deal fairly in respect of identification of individuals and organisations.

Generally, if a report clearly is in the public domain, reference to it can stand.

However, little is to be gained by identifying individuals and organisations in this forum as the interest ought to be in the problem - ie the old consideration of playing the ball, not the player.

My thought is that, unless an identification is necessarily pertinent to the discussion of the problem, we can do without it ..

Sadly, there is a culture of fear that extends to even the hallowed corridors of PPRuNe. A number, but not all, of the mods here are terrorised by threats from Ryanair about legal action over 'libellous' comments. Generally speaking, Ryanair is extremely sensitive to any suggestion that their operation may have safety lapses or failings. One of the ways that appears to manifest itself is a constant huffing and puffing of their legal department towards popular sites such as Av Herald or PPruNe. Other airlines somehow seem to manage to avoid all that. I cannot remember, for example, the last time that British Airways was in the news over negative safety comments (maybe the C4 drink and flying fiasco), but I certainly know they go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that their aircraft have enough fuel on board and are flown with minimum risk at all times. I can only commend such a safety culture, and am naturally drawn to airlines with so evident a policy. Call me old fashioned, but I am not drawn to airlines who feel the need to constantly engage in litigation to defend their safety record (not naming any names obviously in order to avoid offence among those of a sensitive disposition).

Here, we are concerned with due process and administrative fairness.

Basic rule is that we don't want criticism of a damaging nature unless

(a) it is a simple reference to some other public domain publication, or

(b) it is backed up by factual evidence (which mods, on occasion, will require to be provided) and/or

(c) it is pertinent to flying and, from a technical point of view, reasonable in the circumstances ..

that is to say, idle nastiness is neither wanted, nor welcome, in this Forum.

As to whether this or that particular airline has a specific view of life is not the driver for moderation.