Is contaminated bleed air harmful? YES...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr / Miss Ms 'MOR'.
I have to disagree with you. I and my crews all too often get air quality events which we try to report to the TGWU but most dont get reported.
If you are FlyBe head office team then have a look at the increase in FlyBe TGWU membership numbers and ask why. I hear from TGWU head office that lots of FlyBe cabin crew are signing up.
And incase you are as paranoid as you seem, AUSIE CHICK is my sister and the other one is my brother!! Do you check if your being followed alot as well ? (have a laugh you know its funny!!)
My point... Its real, crews are sick its not paranoia, trust us the workers or slaves as it feels sometimes when the call button goes all flight.
I have to disagree with you. I and my crews all too often get air quality events which we try to report to the TGWU but most dont get reported.
If you are FlyBe head office team then have a look at the increase in FlyBe TGWU membership numbers and ask why. I hear from TGWU head office that lots of FlyBe cabin crew are signing up.
And incase you are as paranoid as you seem, AUSIE CHICK is my sister and the other one is my brother!! Do you check if your being followed alot as well ? (have a laugh you know its funny!!)
My point... Its real, crews are sick its not paranoia, trust us the workers or slaves as it feels sometimes when the call button goes all flight.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason cabin crew sign up with the TGWU is that there is no-one else to represent them. Personally I think cabin crew have had a very raw deal for a long time, but generally speaking few of them stand up for themselves.
I'm not flybe head office, I am but a humble pilot. In my case, any fumes incident goes straight in the tech log (as it ALWAYS should). Do you ask your captain to do so before you run off to the TGWU?
As far as paranoia goes, I'm about the only one here who isn't paranoid.
You may think it is real, however nobody with expert knowledge seems to agree with you. Given the anal retentiveness of the safety nazis we see every day around British airports, don't you think action would have been taken by now if there was any credible evidence?
Show me any evidence that is not anecdotal and I will happily change my tune.
I still can't get over people like Sparticus who apparently suffer symptoms but don't report it. What is that about? He is either winding us up, or he is completely addled. If he really felt the way he says he does, he should at the very least report it to the CAA medical unit (as he is clearly impaired whilst flying), and put the incident in the book.
If you take no action, you can't complain. Unless of course you are just looking for a payout.
I'm not flybe head office, I am but a humble pilot. In my case, any fumes incident goes straight in the tech log (as it ALWAYS should). Do you ask your captain to do so before you run off to the TGWU?
As far as paranoia goes, I'm about the only one here who isn't paranoid.
You may think it is real, however nobody with expert knowledge seems to agree with you. Given the anal retentiveness of the safety nazis we see every day around British airports, don't you think action would have been taken by now if there was any credible evidence?
Show me any evidence that is not anecdotal and I will happily change my tune.
I still can't get over people like Sparticus who apparently suffer symptoms but don't report it. What is that about? He is either winding us up, or he is completely addled. If he really felt the way he says he does, he should at the very least report it to the CAA medical unit (as he is clearly impaired whilst flying), and put the incident in the book.
If you take no action, you can't complain. Unless of course you are just looking for a payout.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: manchester
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hardly ever make a post on this forum. The reason is a hundred people will then try and make you look like an idiot.
I would have thought it obvious why incidents go unreported. Not to the engineers, not to the doctor and certainly not to the CAA. I really admire people who can stand up for themselves, however, for the majority it is simply easier to vote with ones feet.
I would have thought it obvious why incidents go unreported. Not to the engineers, not to the doctor and certainly not to the CAA. I really admire people who can stand up for themselves, however, for the majority it is simply easier to vote with ones feet.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't need other people to make you look like an idiot... 
Part of being a professional pilot is knowing what constitutes a risk, and then having the backbone to do something about it.
Part of being a professional pilot is knowing what constitutes a risk, and then having the backbone to do something about it.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Penzance, Penzance.
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR, a good friend of mine who is cabin crew & fly's for British Airways, has told me that this week, a BA 146/RJ100 flight has had a major problem enroute BHX-STR-BHX with 60 passengers unconcious on the return flight. It appears that there was a problem with the airconditioning on the out bound flight which became worse on the return flight inbound to BHX.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe that for a second. If what you say had happened, it would have been a news story of major significance - more so than the A320 story last week. And yet - nothing! All these unconscious people apparently unwilling to discuss their experience with the Sun. Yeah, right.
That is the reason that this debate is so pointless. Stupid people claiming ridiculous things. Paranoia and conspiracy theories masquerading as facts - and behind it all, greedy people looking for a payout.
Pathetic.
Now please supply some evidence that what you claim actually happened...
That is the reason that this debate is so pointless. Stupid people claiming ridiculous things. Paranoia and conspiracy theories masquerading as facts - and behind it all, greedy people looking for a payout.
Pathetic.
Now please supply some evidence that what you claim actually happened...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you please give me some references I can show crew in the galley which specifically relate to toxicology inhalation testing of heated engine oils for the complete spectrum of neurological problems, i.e. chronic neurotoxicity and lung injuries ?
Thank you
'Tea or Coffee ?'
Thank you
'Tea or Coffee ?'
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you please give me some references I can show crew in the galley which specifically relate to toxicology inhalation testing of heated engine oils for the complete spectrum of neurological problems, i.e. chronic neurotoxicity and lung injuries ?
So I pass it back to you. Prove to me that the actual fumes that I may have experienced in my years on the 146, are in any way harmful to me.
Even in the case of two crew members suffering symptoms at the same time... how do you know that whatever affected them didn't come from a different source? How do you know, for example, that it wasn't some plastic burning somewhere close to them? The fumes from that are highly toxic.
Please understand, I'm not saying that case WASN'T fumes, and I'm not saying fumes aren't dangerous in some way. I'm simply saying that the problem has been massively overstated.
What I am saying is that the problem has now been hijacked by some groups with clear (financial) agendas, not to mention the ones telling bare-faced lies about aircraft arriving with 60-odd unconscious passengers.
'Tea or Coffee ?'
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torycanyon
OK, nothing personal - but do you honestly believe that the event you described actually happened? You know as well as I do that the first thing that happens after ANY event - even a minor one - is that all the pax reach for their cellphones and call the various news agencies. Do you seriously believe that an aircraft could land with 60 unconscious pax following a fumes event, and that NOBODY would call a paper or TV station? That is has never been reported in the press? If you DO believe that... well all I can say is that you must be incredibly gullible.
bral
One generalised study does not make the case for the fumes conspiracists. There are many, many things in this world that can harm you - some people who rarely go out in the sun get skin cancer, some people who don't smoke get lung cancer. How many people still believe that living under power pylons can harm your health, or that using a crystal can heal you?
What all the sensible people (you know, government, CAA, manufacturers etc) are doing is trying to find out what the facts are before rushing ahead with some foolish course of action. There are ample precedents in other industries for immediate action to be taken if a direct link is established.
In any case, I am not for a minute suggesting that there CAN'T be a link between organophosphates and health, merely that nobody has proved anything yet, and that the emotional twaddle masquerading as fact that we see from the various pressure groups is not helping.
OK, nothing personal - but do you honestly believe that the event you described actually happened? You know as well as I do that the first thing that happens after ANY event - even a minor one - is that all the pax reach for their cellphones and call the various news agencies. Do you seriously believe that an aircraft could land with 60 unconscious pax following a fumes event, and that NOBODY would call a paper or TV station? That is has never been reported in the press? If you DO believe that... well all I can say is that you must be incredibly gullible.
bral
One generalised study does not make the case for the fumes conspiracists. There are many, many things in this world that can harm you - some people who rarely go out in the sun get skin cancer, some people who don't smoke get lung cancer. How many people still believe that living under power pylons can harm your health, or that using a crystal can heal you?
What all the sensible people (you know, government, CAA, manufacturers etc) are doing is trying to find out what the facts are before rushing ahead with some foolish course of action. There are ample precedents in other industries for immediate action to be taken if a direct link is established.
In any case, I am not for a minute suggesting that there CAN'T be a link between organophosphates and health, merely that nobody has proved anything yet, and that the emotional twaddle masquerading as fact that we see from the various pressure groups is not helping.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bendigo, Victoria
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey MOR its your triple personality XXXX drinker wishing you good day mate. I will look over you and check your safe while you sleep.
I had to laugh when you said 'What all the sensible people (you know, government, CAA, manufacturers etc) are doing...'
That a typical pommie thing to say. The CAA are not 'sensible' .....
Quote:
The CAA commissioned research into the make up of the engine oil a few years ago and found that the inhalation of bleed air could cause some short term irritation. But we found no evidence of long-term damage at all
(ref: CAA interview in Heathrow Skyport, May 6, 2005)
and then the contradiction of:
“Although some references are made concerning long-term health effects, the scope of this research did not include an attempt to determine the extent of any such risk.”
(ref: CAA cabin Air Quality Paper - 2004)
A typical pommie government BS to protect BAe.
Why don't you do your own research and do the blood test suggested by BRAL and if you sadly come up positive you can post an exclusive here on the PPrune forum and finally admit we are not lunatics but simply bearers of the truth. Ask your boss to pay for it and post the results here.
I'll bet you a crate of XXXX you too have neurological damage. I hope you don't but if you have been on the flying gas chamber for 5 or so years, you got better chances of being positive for neurological damage than sleeping with Miss World.
(BRAL can you please email me direct the details )
I had to laugh when you said 'What all the sensible people (you know, government, CAA, manufacturers etc) are doing...'
That a typical pommie thing to say. The CAA are not 'sensible' .....
Quote:
The CAA commissioned research into the make up of the engine oil a few years ago and found that the inhalation of bleed air could cause some short term irritation. But we found no evidence of long-term damage at all
(ref: CAA interview in Heathrow Skyport, May 6, 2005)
and then the contradiction of:
“Although some references are made concerning long-term health effects, the scope of this research did not include an attempt to determine the extent of any such risk.”
(ref: CAA cabin Air Quality Paper - 2004)
A typical pommie government BS to protect BAe.
Why don't you do your own research and do the blood test suggested by BRAL and if you sadly come up positive you can post an exclusive here on the PPrune forum and finally admit we are not lunatics but simply bearers of the truth. Ask your boss to pay for it and post the results here.
I'll bet you a crate of XXXX you too have neurological damage. I hope you don't but if you have been on the flying gas chamber for 5 or so years, you got better chances of being positive for neurological damage than sleeping with Miss World.
(BRAL can you please email me direct the details )
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bral
Dr Furlongs paper was non-specific in the sense that it did not look at the particular OPs that are present in aviation oils. He is simply identifying and quantifying markers (or biomarkers in this case). His research could equally be applied to those suffering from exposure to agricultural OPs (which is apparently what sparked the study in the first place).
The second study by Professor Abou-Donia reaches conclusions that could equally apply to other sources of OP/TCP, and doesn't correlate the levels that cause damage to the levels typically found in aircraft.
Some of the studies done by manufacturers indicate that, even in an aircraft that is know to have a fumes problem, the levels of the really nasty toxins (the ones that can cause damage) were insignificant. By insignificant, I mean less harmful to you than the toxins found in a cigarette.
Chances are that you could get a higher dose of OP/TCP if you happened to breathe in the smoke from a smoking tyre at a motor race.
The evidence is not yet compelling.
Ausie Chick
Why is it that so many Australians are simply incapable of having any form of reasoned discussion without becoming abusive?
Your recognition of "truth" is about equal to your ability to spell your name, which isn't great.
The statements you quote are not only not contradictory, they are both out of context.
You don't even understand how to construct a sentence. Just to help you out then, 99.99999% of the population of the world have "got better chances of being positive for neurological damage than sleeping with Miss World."
Didn't really make your case, did it?
Have a few more beers. I'm sure that does you no harm at all.
Dr Furlongs paper was non-specific in the sense that it did not look at the particular OPs that are present in aviation oils. He is simply identifying and quantifying markers (or biomarkers in this case). His research could equally be applied to those suffering from exposure to agricultural OPs (which is apparently what sparked the study in the first place).
The second study by Professor Abou-Donia reaches conclusions that could equally apply to other sources of OP/TCP, and doesn't correlate the levels that cause damage to the levels typically found in aircraft.
Some of the studies done by manufacturers indicate that, even in an aircraft that is know to have a fumes problem, the levels of the really nasty toxins (the ones that can cause damage) were insignificant. By insignificant, I mean less harmful to you than the toxins found in a cigarette.
Chances are that you could get a higher dose of OP/TCP if you happened to breathe in the smoke from a smoking tyre at a motor race.
The evidence is not yet compelling.
Ausie Chick
Why is it that so many Australians are simply incapable of having any form of reasoned discussion without becoming abusive?
Your recognition of "truth" is about equal to your ability to spell your name, which isn't great.
The statements you quote are not only not contradictory, they are both out of context.
You don't even understand how to construct a sentence. Just to help you out then, 99.99999% of the population of the world have "got better chances of being positive for neurological damage than sleeping with Miss World."
Didn't really make your case, did it?
Have a few more beers. I'm sure that does you no harm at all.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Even in the case of two crew members suffering symptoms at the same time... how do you know that whatever affected them didn't come from a different source? How do you know, for example, that it wasn't some plastic burning somewhere close to them? The fumes from that are highly toxic.Suppose four people suffer symptoms at the same time after a fume event?
It has happened and the airline admits liability!
Does that help satisfy you?
And how do you know plastic fumes are toxic?
Oh! You believe that research, but not research on OPs?
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Even in the case of two crew members suffering symptoms at the same time... how do you know that whatever affected them didn't come from a different source? How do you know, for example, that it wasn't some plastic burning somewhere close to them? The fumes from that are highly toxic.Suppose four people suffer symptoms at the same time after a fume event?
It has happened and the airline admits liability!
Does that help satisfy you?
And how do you know plastic fumes are toxic?
Oh! You believe that research, but not research on OPs?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has happened and the airline admits liability!
You believe that research, but not research on OPs?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR buddy you want to learn to chill out dude. Crews are getting sick and thats why congress is paying US$ 2 million bucks to get to the bottom of this matter.
If your airline has no problem then ask its pilot union representatives to do a joint reporting initiative and see what happens when folk feel they are alllowed to speak up. You need to get real pal and realise folk want paid as well.
The answers to many of your questions are available at: http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cd...9600-0,00.html
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
The information for your first question is in this thread. If you read it all you will find it!
The information for your second question can be found at:
http://www.aopis.org/Mobil%20Jet%20Oil%202%20label.html
As you will see; the manufacturers warn of the problems.
It does what it says on the tin!
The information for your first question is in this thread. If you read it all you will find it!
The information for your second question can be found at:
http://www.aopis.org/Mobil%20Jet%20Oil%202%20label.html
As you will see; the manufacturers warn of the problems.
It does what it says on the tin!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M1O14
I am perfectly chilled, thank you. It is all the "believers" who are getting hot under the collar.
The precis for the book you have linked to makes no mention of OP or any other cabin contaminants.
US$2 million is peanuts and is highly unlikely to come up with any new information.
In my airline, folks are allowed to speak up (unlike the where you live, it seems), and frequently do. I have done so myself on several occasions.
Exactly, that is what this is really all about. Put your hand back in your pocket.
cabincrew47
You should really try reading this stuff before you quote it. Let me help you out:
The only risks identified in the MSDS for the product are prolonged skin contact, swallowing, and prolonged and repeated breathing of the mist. The mist referred to is that of the raw product, not in it's pyrolised form. The concentrations required to suffer harm (as identified in the MSDS) are many orders higher than anything you will experience in a 146 or whatever.
Quoting an MSDS out of context indicates just how little you know about the issues involved.
I am perfectly chilled, thank you. It is all the "believers" who are getting hot under the collar.
The precis for the book you have linked to makes no mention of OP or any other cabin contaminants.
US$2 million is peanuts and is highly unlikely to come up with any new information.
In my airline, folks are allowed to speak up (unlike the where you live, it seems), and frequently do. I have done so myself on several occasions.
folk want paid as well.
cabincrew47
You should really try reading this stuff before you quote it. Let me help you out:
"Hazards Identification. Effects of overexposure: This product is not expected to produce these effects under normal conditions of use and appropriate personal hygiene practices.
Quoting an MSDS out of context indicates just how little you know about the issues involved.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
As you will note; your quote was incorrect in that it states "prolonged or repeated breathing" and not and as in your supposed correct statement.
Perhaps this shows who is reading things properly!
I would count an hour of breathing the mist as "prolonged"!
Perhaps you ought to get to know more facts before denegrating people who know more because "they've been there'.
Overexposure to TCP by swallowing, prolonged or repeated breathing of oil mist, or prolonged or repeated skin contact may produce nervous system disorders including gastrointestinal disturbances, numbness, muscular cramps, weakness and paralysis.....".
Perhaps this shows who is reading things properly!
I would count an hour of breathing the mist as "prolonged"!
Perhaps you ought to get to know more facts before denegrating people who know more because "they've been there'.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cabincrew47
The mist referred to is oil mist, NOT the pyrolised mist you could find in a cabin. It is also implying a much higher concentration than you would ever get in a cabin.
I read it right the first time...
The mist referred to is oil mist, NOT the pyrolised mist you could find in a cabin. It is also implying a much higher concentration than you would ever get in a cabin.
I read it right the first time...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR, why do you not buy a copy pal and then you will read what I read!!
You are so full of nonsense. Have you read the stuff the USAF did on pyrolised oils ? NO, why not ?
The conclusions were....
'Thus, the process of vaporization is causing a change in the compound, resulting in the potential to produce neurotoxicity.'
Also, Wright Patterson who did the work were only looking at OPIDN not chronic neurotoxicity which will be worse.
So cut the bull pal and turn around and look at the guy VERY close behind you, stimulating your senses, he is a manager, not a sick crew member!!
If your such an expert how come I never see your name on any papers, in expert groups like SAE etc ??
Pyrolised synthetic turbine oil IS toxic.
You are so full of nonsense. Have you read the stuff the USAF did on pyrolised oils ? NO, why not ?
The conclusions were....
'Thus, the process of vaporization is causing a change in the compound, resulting in the potential to produce neurotoxicity.'
Also, Wright Patterson who did the work were only looking at OPIDN not chronic neurotoxicity which will be worse.
So cut the bull pal and turn around and look at the guy VERY close behind you, stimulating your senses, he is a manager, not a sick crew member!!
If your such an expert how come I never see your name on any papers, in expert groups like SAE etc ??
Pyrolised synthetic turbine oil IS toxic.