Sickly week at BA ?
 

Sickly Week at BA ?

This well-supported and strongly worded Change.org petition was in my inbox this am. https://www.change.org/p/stop-contam...aft/u/25158388

Six 'fume events' on Monday, three on Tuesday, seven on Wednesday and fourteen on Thursday. Thirty in four days - All apparently on the shorthaul A320 family.

Shurely shome mishtake ? ... Medical checks for everyone ? ... WIGO ?

So it's not solely a Lufty problem?

Probably a new reporting scheme.
Afaik Lufthansa uses the CFM56 and BA the V2500 so that cannot be a common cause.

LH A319/320 CFM-powered, A321 IAE V2500

Engines? You want to be investigating the APU commonality.

I am beginning to smell a rodent here. I just looked at a couple of the flights mentioned and found:
G-EUUK 1st October Petition claims "fume event" on BA811. History says BA811 was due at 20:35, landed 20:41.
Petition says G-EUPL flew BA839 to Brussels 1st October. It actually flew BA812 to CPH and back as BA813 and again as BA816/7. It did fly to Brussels though on Oct 7th.
According to the petition, G-CIVF diverted to Chicago due to a "fume event" on 17th Sept. It actually diverted due to an electrical fire.
BA861 3rd October (G-EUUM) was due in LHR from Prague at 18:20. Landed at 18:19. For some unknown reason it was delayed departing for Marseille that evening as BA330
G-DBCD allegedly was affected twice on October 3rd, first on BA2622, LGW-NCE. Well, that flight arrived at Nice 3 minutes early, departed for its next "fume flight" BA2623, back to LGW. Departed 10 mins late and arrived at LGW 10 minutes late. No time there for a "fume event". It flew 4 more sectors that day (Turin and back, Glasgow and back). Busy day for a sick aeroplane!

I don't know. Worst LH fume events were in the Germanwings/Eurowings group, and those have (among others) A319-132s powered by V2500 engines.
Given that the V2500 operates at higher oil pressures than the CFM, that may contribute to the issues.
Would have to check what percentage of the fume events happened with which engines.

Anyone else having these problems with their A320 family ?

Cabin air from the APU .... in flight ?

"Ground tested and found Serviceable" - for the next scheduled crew perhaps ?

Packs ON or OFF for takeoff ? Would this make any difference ?

Possible over-filling the engine oil measuring before its properly settled after shutdown ?

Air Safety or Mandatory Occurrence Reports each time, or would a Tech Log entry suffice ?

Thank you for the comments. I suppose someone is working on this at a higher level than petitions ?

BA349
 

It is vital that evidence-based research is urgently carried out on this subject. I and probably the public at large feel that if there were any evidence at all of a health issue to either passengers or crew, then the Authorities would have ordered correction action or aircraft groundings by now surely?

As you can see, same aircraft, BA B-747-400 Reg. G-BYGD had four fume events and one alleged fume event in one month.

​​​​​​https://www.change.org/p/stop-contam...te&utm_term=cs

Correct, as I always say, we (AVH) see only the peak of the iceberg (so, about less than one percent of the occurrences). I also state, that with respect to fume events we get to know about many more occurrences but can not secure sufficient evidence for coverage and thus can not report such occurrences.

Still going on ?
 

Thanks very much Simon, that's understood.

5th October Bari to LGW - Div to Basle - https://avherald.com/h?article=4cda895e&opt=0 - Also reported in the Indy and Sun

14th October LHR to FCO - Return to LHR - https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a9155071.html

I've been doing quite a lot of reading on this lately. It's something that the industry doesn't apparently want to face.

Fume events take many forms. The obvious one is the 'cabin full of smoke' scenario. That one can't be hidden. Sometimes there is the well known 'sweaty sock' or 'wet dog' smell which is usually just an annoyance but has caused sickness in many cases. Usually not many people are taken sick due to different tolerances. Airlines try to spin these things as 'smell events.' This reduces the importance in the eyes of the public. They talk of the 'nocebo effect' in another attempt to play it down. You don't actually need a smell there to be taken sick. It's a function of your 'toxic body burden.' Thats why crew tend to be affected more than passengers. They're loaded with organophosphates. Fortunately most have liver enzymes that can detoxify the system. A few don't.

I think that the Change list is an underestimate of the true extent of the problem. There are many more. Check the AAIB report into G-EUYB (also on the list). Some of those on the list can't be hidden. Take, for example, the case of G-EUUZ on 3rd October. This was a flight from Gatwick to Malaga which diverted to Barcelona. I've seen it described as a fume event and / or a medical emergency. It hit the headlines due to shoddy customer service. No other details available. It seems that we need a leak or whistleblower to make this sort of thing apparent. It's a shame really as there are some seriously nasty particles floating around the cabin when we fly.

Does anyone care about the ground handlers, particularly the refuellers standing in the vicinity of smoking engines during turnrounds. I can assure you, the fumes are very noticeable for some time after the engines are shut down and you can't avoid breathing in this cocktail of poison to the hematopoietic system, lymphatic system, nervous system, and reproductive system. The Benzene component is a known carcinogen.- not the same as being in a pressurised cabin, but very noticeable.

It’s a shame that This thread discussing what is possibly to be the biggest story in aviation was moved into this section from R & N where it had much more exposure. There does seem to be an industry wide cover up of the problem.