Is contaminated bleed air harmful? YES...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in between
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The daily mail has an even better story....
Air passengers put at risk by lack of oxygen
idiots!!!! 
Maybe BALPA can respond?
Air passengers put at risk by lack of oxygen
idiots!!!! Maybe BALPA can respond?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be scare mongering, it might not be bad for you but perhaps it explains why it sometimes it feels so Claustrophobic and airless. Particularly the period between shutting the doors and pushback/engine start. That can be really dreadful if there is any delay.
I'm sorry but feeling smothered doesn't have a calming effect on me (most people?).
Colin
(A glider pilot)
There can be major benefits in modifying gas levels to the range of 3-5% oxygen and 3-10% carbon dioxide. These gas levels slow respiration (calming effect)
Colin
(A glider pilot)
The reality is, despite the recent conference in London, will anything worthwhile be done to totally eliminate the ongoing problems in various aircraft types? As a former 146 pilot I have experienced firsthand the fume problems, but so far seem to suffer no medical problems myself. Keep in mind that everyone has a different tolerance level to the toxic chemical compounds.
How many more will have their health and careers ruined in the future?
Let us hope the plight and suffering of the Susans, Alysias and countless others will not be once again swept under the carpet by aircraft manufacturers, airlines and the petro-chemical companies who make the offending products.
My thoughts are with the victims, good luck in the future to you all.
How many more will have their health and careers ruined in the future?
Let us hope the plight and suffering of the Susans, Alysias and countless others will not be once again swept under the carpet by aircraft manufacturers, airlines and the petro-chemical companies who make the offending products.
My thoughts are with the victims, good luck in the future to you all.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South of the border
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a really serious subject for all of us in the Industry and warrants more authoritative investigation. The best information that I could find is Here - Links to the DFT website
The research appears to have been carried out on UK BAE146s and B737s and has relevance to this thread.
The research appears to have been carried out on UK BAE146s and B737s and has relevance to this thread.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the necessity is for flight crew members to do some methodical air sampling when they believe cabin air quality is inferior.
This can be done with the help of small portable devices that allow drawing environmental air through tiny sample cannisters in a controlled manner. The cannisters can then be sent to a lab for very specific and comprehensive analysis. If observers can take samples at the time they observe - or expect to observe - air contamination, the true facts should be readily ascertainable from these timely samples.
Given the high level of concern about onboard air quality, a modest stream of resources to pay for this type of sampling should be forthcoming from pilots associations, unions, or other "interested parties", including government agencies.
'Methodical' is what makes commercial flying work so well. Same approach will get to the facts for this.
This can be done with the help of small portable devices that allow drawing environmental air through tiny sample cannisters in a controlled manner. The cannisters can then be sent to a lab for very specific and comprehensive analysis. If observers can take samples at the time they observe - or expect to observe - air contamination, the true facts should be readily ascertainable from these timely samples.
Given the high level of concern about onboard air quality, a modest stream of resources to pay for this type of sampling should be forthcoming from pilots associations, unions, or other "interested parties", including government agencies.
'Methodical' is what makes commercial flying work so well. Same approach will get to the facts for this.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arcniz ,
Good idea about sampling the air; somehow I think this may already have been done.
However there would be nothing to prevent investigators setting up a control experiment where oil is either deliberately put into the packs in various amounts ( with no pax - obviously) and the crew on oxygen and then test the air which has been polluted with harmful oil vapour. It would then be a case of persuading some pet guinea pigs to join the experiment to see how they faired.
I can't see this happening though as the results would be kind of obvious and predictable; it may proove to obvious a link to what is going on.
Then what would the authorities do?, a commercial nightmare or what.
As with all the previous uncomfortable academic research into contentious aviation findings it would be covered up instantly as being too complicated. The only thing the authorities are rather good at is, actual accident investigations.
First, you have to have an accident.
Good idea about sampling the air; somehow I think this may already have been done.
However there would be nothing to prevent investigators setting up a control experiment where oil is either deliberately put into the packs in various amounts ( with no pax - obviously) and the crew on oxygen and then test the air which has been polluted with harmful oil vapour. It would then be a case of persuading some pet guinea pigs to join the experiment to see how they faired.
I can't see this happening though as the results would be kind of obvious and predictable; it may proove to obvious a link to what is going on.
Then what would the authorities do?, a commercial nightmare or what.
As with all the previous uncomfortable academic research into contentious aviation findings it would be covered up instantly as being too complicated. The only thing the authorities are rather good at is, actual accident investigations.
First, you have to have an accident.
As with all the previous uncomfortable academic research into contentious aviation findings it would be covered up instantly as being too complicated. The only thing the authorities are rather good at is, actual accident investigations.
First, you have to have an accident.
First, you have to have an accident.
Of course in the case of cellphonemania no answers have been discovered this way.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying a test with an imaginary scenario is not going to prove much. The one thing coming through loud and clear is that there's no consensus about the origin or the exact nature of the 'bad air'. If actual problems exist, they may well be different ones in the cabin vs the flight deck.
Most suspect, in my view, is the air management hardware. It goes through a great many variations in temperature during the daily cycle, and also comes into contact with various living things be found in the air. One possibility is that relatively stable cultures of mould or bacteria are living on the inner surfaces of individual air systems, especially in temperate climates, producing germs or just noxious byproducts under certain conditions.
The DFT study seems credible enough, but it did not have specific clues or bird-dog assistance to guide the process in a particular direction. That is where flight crew taking samples on the flight deck could prove invaluable, IF they actually captured something that could be used to guide further study.
This is a case for some real diagnostic sleuthing. A couple thousand pounds for supplies and some pro bono analysis could have real effect. It just takes one corroborated "positive" sample to change the problem from "if" to "how". The ideal type of person to assist would be a University researcher with access to analytical equipment.. a chromatograph and a mass spectrometer for starters. Quid pro quo is that researcher gets material for a paper or even a thesis, and the airline industry gets a chance for some tangible evidence of an actual mechanism explaining the recurring complaints.
Most suspect, in my view, is the air management hardware. It goes through a great many variations in temperature during the daily cycle, and also comes into contact with various living things be found in the air. One possibility is that relatively stable cultures of mould or bacteria are living on the inner surfaces of individual air systems, especially in temperate climates, producing germs or just noxious byproducts under certain conditions.
The DFT study seems credible enough, but it did not have specific clues or bird-dog assistance to guide the process in a particular direction. That is where flight crew taking samples on the flight deck could prove invaluable, IF they actually captured something that could be used to guide further study.
This is a case for some real diagnostic sleuthing. A couple thousand pounds for supplies and some pro bono analysis could have real effect. It just takes one corroborated "positive" sample to change the problem from "if" to "how". The ideal type of person to assist would be a University researcher with access to analytical equipment.. a chromatograph and a mass spectrometer for starters. Quid pro quo is that researcher gets material for a paper or even a thesis, and the airline industry gets a chance for some tangible evidence of an actual mechanism explaining the recurring complaints.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arcniz,
Of course it wouldn't be an 'imaginary test'.
I'm suggesting that real oil is cooked in the pack in flight and the air is then sampled.
Perhaps University research is the way ahead but they seem to take for ever to reach conclusions and then their findings seem to be quietly ignored in the absense of any actual wreckage.
Politicians always seem to go by 'independent reports' and I guess that's what you've got to do here, try and introduce some independence.
I wouldn't trust the manufacturers one inch.
Lets face it, inconvenient findings would be incredibly damaging for the industry and have enormous repercussions, so they would not be in too much of a rush to find the truth.
Of course it wouldn't be an 'imaginary test'.
I'm suggesting that real oil is cooked in the pack in flight and the air is then sampled.
Perhaps University research is the way ahead but they seem to take for ever to reach conclusions and then their findings seem to be quietly ignored in the absense of any actual wreckage.
Politicians always seem to go by 'independent reports' and I guess that's what you've got to do here, try and introduce some independence.
I wouldn't trust the manufacturers one inch.
Lets face it, inconvenient findings would be incredibly damaging for the industry and have enormous repercussions, so they would not be in too much of a rush to find the truth.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Buster, you are absolutely correct. Independant reports need to be presented to the Politicians. They would have a field day with this one. Think of the publicity that they themselves would get if they championed the cause.
The Evidence is there already with Tricresylphosphates being found in Aircraft,
Re-Circ Filters, HEPA Filters, Flight Crew Clothing and Swab Sample taken on various aircraft have also tested positve!
Interestingly, a Re-Circ Filter on one aircraft also tested positive for Cocaine and Amphtamines!
Not surprised really considering the longer hours that we now all work
The Evidence is there already with Tricresylphosphates being found in Aircraft,
Re-Circ Filters, HEPA Filters, Flight Crew Clothing and Swab Sample taken on various aircraft have also tested positve!
Interestingly, a Re-Circ Filter on one aircraft also tested positive for Cocaine and Amphtamines!
Not surprised really considering the longer hours that we now all work
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Buster - I didn't say "imaginary test", but said "imaginary scenario". The concept was - if you don't know the real cause, and you do not get an infinite number of tries to solve the problem, then go for a broadly inclusive testing method that can identify any of a large number of pollutants in the same process. Then proceed on the facts as observed. This is likely more a persuasive method, when viewed by outsiders, and has greater success of leading to an actual result.
I don't disagree with your observations re oil fumes, since you are there and I am not ( Been there, had that experience, also. ) The necessity, to prompt corrective action, is to create some evidence that will be plausible to outsiders That's my thrust.
Actually, U. Warwick might be a good place to talk it around. A niece of mine studied there; she fared well. You might want to shop it around the med school research dept:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/
SMOKIE - sounds like you have access to some useful monitoring resources and data. Next step is to get the sample source materials into a "chain of evidence" sequence, with known handling procedures and custody by persons between sample location and test lab, so as to make the results credible to authorities, etc.
There's nothing to say we cannot have a dozen different sets of people working this problem in a dozen different places. Objective test results from a distributed group of independent sources are very hard to ignore.
I don't disagree with your observations re oil fumes, since you are there and I am not ( Been there, had that experience, also. ) The necessity, to prompt corrective action, is to create some evidence that will be plausible to outsiders That's my thrust.
Actually, U. Warwick might be a good place to talk it around. A niece of mine studied there; she fared well. You might want to shop it around the med school research dept:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/
SMOKIE - sounds like you have access to some useful monitoring resources and data. Next step is to get the sample source materials into a "chain of evidence" sequence, with known handling procedures and custody by persons between sample location and test lab, so as to make the results credible to authorities, etc.
There's nothing to say we cannot have a dozen different sets of people working this problem in a dozen different places. Objective test results from a distributed group of independent sources are very hard to ignore.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arcniz,
I coundn't agree more. Trying to present the evidence is a little more of a challenge. As no airline would want anyone snooping around with equipment on their aircraft that had not been authorised by themselves.
As far as I know, BA are the only ones prepared to have some sort of monitoring by their crews. The problem is a world wide issue unfortunately.
I for one, would take the results of the DFT survey with a very large pinch of salt.
These were controlled experiments OK, but on fully servicable aircraft, the best the airlines concerned could muster at the time.
Only one sector per aircraft was recorded, with exception of 2 flights that were return flights, so out of the 12 planned flights 14 sets of recordings were actually taken.
The 146 was chosen and quite rightly so.
The 757 should have been the next candidate but for reasons only known to themselves, the 737 was chosen instead.
Hardly a comprehensive survey in my book.
Had the experiment been done on aircraft that had a history of Cabin Air problems, and there are many; then the results would have certainly made a positive contribution.
I coundn't agree more. Trying to present the evidence is a little more of a challenge. As no airline would want anyone snooping around with equipment on their aircraft that had not been authorised by themselves.
As far as I know, BA are the only ones prepared to have some sort of monitoring by their crews. The problem is a world wide issue unfortunately.
I for one, would take the results of the DFT survey with a very large pinch of salt.
These were controlled experiments OK, but on fully servicable aircraft, the best the airlines concerned could muster at the time.
Only one sector per aircraft was recorded, with exception of 2 flights that were return flights, so out of the 12 planned flights 14 sets of recordings were actually taken.
The 146 was chosen and quite rightly so.
The 757 should have been the next candidate but for reasons only known to themselves, the 737 was chosen instead.
Hardly a comprehensive survey in my book.
Had the experiment been done on aircraft that had a history of Cabin Air problems, and there are many; then the results would have certainly made a positive contribution.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Governments covering up air quality issues..
I got this from a good source, its amazing how much the governments B/S everyone to protect their own, in this case British Aerospace.
The UK AAIB and the UK CAA published reports last year saying Cabin Air Quality was OK. Part of their report was supported by work looking at the pyrolysis products of heated engine oil which the UK CAA / AAIB said despite Exxon Mobil saying its in the oil, contained none of the Organophosphate known as TCP in any pyrolysis products during their testing. This goes completely against the TCP being found in filters, swab tests and on pilots clothes reported recently at the BALPA Contaminated Air Protection Conference in London, so how can this be?
Mistake or deliberate cover up?
The UK CAA refer exclusively to a report (DERA, June 2001, DERA/FST/CET/CR010527) by the UK female researcher Marshman for BAe Systems. The report is listed as "restricted commercial" (therefore we the public nor the unions can see it!) and this 'classified' report is entitled: "Analysis of the Thermal Degradation Products of a Synthetic Ester Gas Turbine Lubricant".
Just to make sure you get the picture, the UK CAA uses a BAe Systemes "restricted commercial" paper to say air quality is good! No bias there!!!
Now BAE use the UK CAA / AAIB work (which was based on BAE work!) and write to the MP Paul Tyler and say that the AAIB / CAA found nothing wrong with the cabin air and no organophosphates such as TCP or other nasties in the pyrolysis products of heated oil despite Exxon Mobil saying its there!
And why did MARSHMAN (i.e BAE Systems) not find any, well a reliable source who has a copy of the paper says the oil used is chemically nothing like Exxon Mobil Jet Oil II or Shell 2380, the most widely 2 used jet engine oils causing the problems for crews and passengers!
Might as well have been Olive Oil !!
Next the UK CAA / AAIB get BRE to test the air on the 146 and 737 and conclude no Carbon Monoxide (CO) found but in the small print: 'air sampling only done on non fume event flights!!
Well a contact tells me British, Italian and Australian Crews on the 146 are frequently getting high CO readings on the BAE 146.
So why does the UK CAA / AUSTRALIAN CASA etc do nothing ?
It protects its own, BAe.
IF YOU ARE A PASSENGER ON A 146, TAKE A CO MONITOR WITH YOU AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF.
I AM A PASSENGER BUT MY SISTER IS CREW AND SHE CANNOT SPEAK OUT BUT SHE IS GETTING SICK FROM AIR QUALITY ISSUES AS ARE SO MANY OTHERS.
TIME FOR JUSTICE!
The UK AAIB and the UK CAA published reports last year saying Cabin Air Quality was OK. Part of their report was supported by work looking at the pyrolysis products of heated engine oil which the UK CAA / AAIB said despite Exxon Mobil saying its in the oil, contained none of the Organophosphate known as TCP in any pyrolysis products during their testing. This goes completely against the TCP being found in filters, swab tests and on pilots clothes reported recently at the BALPA Contaminated Air Protection Conference in London, so how can this be?
Mistake or deliberate cover up?
The UK CAA refer exclusively to a report (DERA, June 2001, DERA/FST/CET/CR010527) by the UK female researcher Marshman for BAe Systems. The report is listed as "restricted commercial" (therefore we the public nor the unions can see it!) and this 'classified' report is entitled: "Analysis of the Thermal Degradation Products of a Synthetic Ester Gas Turbine Lubricant".
Just to make sure you get the picture, the UK CAA uses a BAe Systemes "restricted commercial" paper to say air quality is good! No bias there!!!
Now BAE use the UK CAA / AAIB work (which was based on BAE work!) and write to the MP Paul Tyler and say that the AAIB / CAA found nothing wrong with the cabin air and no organophosphates such as TCP or other nasties in the pyrolysis products of heated oil despite Exxon Mobil saying its there!
And why did MARSHMAN (i.e BAE Systems) not find any, well a reliable source who has a copy of the paper says the oil used is chemically nothing like Exxon Mobil Jet Oil II or Shell 2380, the most widely 2 used jet engine oils causing the problems for crews and passengers!
Might as well have been Olive Oil !!
Next the UK CAA / AAIB get BRE to test the air on the 146 and 737 and conclude no Carbon Monoxide (CO) found but in the small print: 'air sampling only done on non fume event flights!!
Well a contact tells me British, Italian and Australian Crews on the 146 are frequently getting high CO readings on the BAE 146.
So why does the UK CAA / AUSTRALIAN CASA etc do nothing ?
It protects its own, BAe.
IF YOU ARE A PASSENGER ON A 146, TAKE A CO MONITOR WITH YOU AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF.
I AM A PASSENGER BUT MY SISTER IS CREW AND SHE CANNOT SPEAK OUT BUT SHE IS GETTING SICK FROM AIR QUALITY ISSUES AS ARE SO MANY OTHERS.
TIME FOR JUSTICE!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Lomapaseo.
"Firstly you have to have an accident".
There has been one, the airline did not report it to AAIB however. (I was hospitalised/incapacitated so could not report it myself). AAIB now refer the matter to the CAA, who refer it to HSE who refer it to AAIB. Not everything gets investigated properly.
My point is to agree with you when you state that the problem is aviation wide. Fume contamination into the cockpit/cabin makes people ill. I am still receiving disability support four years later. My aircraft was not a jet, did not have bleed air/pressurisation. Contamination can come from a range of sources.
Andrew.
"Firstly you have to have an accident".
There has been one, the airline did not report it to AAIB however. (I was hospitalised/incapacitated so could not report it myself). AAIB now refer the matter to the CAA, who refer it to HSE who refer it to AAIB. Not everything gets investigated properly.
My point is to agree with you when you state that the problem is aviation wide. Fume contamination into the cockpit/cabin makes people ill. I am still receiving disability support four years later. My aircraft was not a jet, did not have bleed air/pressurisation. Contamination can come from a range of sources.
Andrew.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about passengers?
I am a cabin crew member with a UK airline and its not all just about tech crews. I cannot talk out on these issues or I will be on benefits! Thankfully my union is on the case and good on them for doing so.
I have often smelt what is clearly an oil / dirty socks smell not exhaust smells (as we were not on the ground!) on Boeing and Embraer aircraft and then developed headaches, nausea, fatigue (and i am a very physically fit EARLY 30s girl), as well as eye, nose and throat irritations.
I have been told by the company nothing to worry about, all normal! I have never been shown the products i am exposed to so I can't seek suitable medical help according to my GP.
On all the flights i have experienced the above symptoms so have 50% of the crews and many passengers, one 3 months pregnant she told me, but passengers are told NOTHING!!
If there is nothing to hide and no doubt Airline Managment will read this then do the following:
1. Issue a notice to crews to tell passengers the truth.
2. Allow us to tell the media the truth.
I have often smelt what is clearly an oil / dirty socks smell not exhaust smells (as we were not on the ground!) on Boeing and Embraer aircraft and then developed headaches, nausea, fatigue (and i am a very physically fit EARLY 30s girl), as well as eye, nose and throat irritations.
I have been told by the company nothing to worry about, all normal! I have never been shown the products i am exposed to so I can't seek suitable medical help according to my GP.
On all the flights i have experienced the above symptoms so have 50% of the crews and many passengers, one 3 months pregnant she told me, but passengers are told NOTHING!!
If there is nothing to hide and no doubt Airline Managment will read this then do the following:
1. Issue a notice to crews to tell passengers the truth.
2. Allow us to tell the media the truth.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me talk about me! Mobil Jet Oil II!!....
Lots of you talk about me behind my back, lets not be shy. My name is Jet Oil II and I live in a nice shinney blue tin. I am a nice synthetic engne oil made by my mum Mobil. My mum got married and now my parents are called Exxon Mobil. Mum and dad are very rich, they made US$ 35 billion last year so i have been spoilt. I have travelled in most jets and been to every country in the world I think.
I like to enter your lungs especially when I am heated in the engine and then able to drift through the cabin and cockpit air.
My favourite game is to get into your brain, I do this by avoiding your defences. I avoid them by travelling up your nose and then into the olfactory nerve and then to your brain where i kill your brain cells slowly. I avoid the blood brain barrier defences.
I make you sick but i dont want to really (grandad says I cause 'Chronic Neurotoxicity') but I don't know what that is, I just want to play, mummy and daddy tell me to stay in the engine but I escape sometimes.
Some nice folk called 'managers' say I am not really bad but even my mum and dad have this label on my back, its called my Material Safety Data Sheet or something like that:
Prolonged or repeated breathing of oil mist, or, or prolonged or repeated skin contact can cause nervous system effects.
and also
This product contains TCP which can cause symptoms associated with cholinesterase inhibition. TCP may also produce neurotoxicity associated with inhibition of neuropathy target esterase (NTE). Effects of cholinesterase inhibition are expected to occur within hours of exposure, but neurotoxicity related to NTE inhibition may not become evident for several days. Treat appropriately.
So please don't be angry with mum and dad, they have told you I am bad!
Take care, see you all soon!!
I like to enter your lungs especially when I am heated in the engine and then able to drift through the cabin and cockpit air.
My favourite game is to get into your brain, I do this by avoiding your defences. I avoid them by travelling up your nose and then into the olfactory nerve and then to your brain where i kill your brain cells slowly. I avoid the blood brain barrier defences.
I make you sick but i dont want to really (grandad says I cause 'Chronic Neurotoxicity') but I don't know what that is, I just want to play, mummy and daddy tell me to stay in the engine but I escape sometimes.
Some nice folk called 'managers' say I am not really bad but even my mum and dad have this label on my back, its called my Material Safety Data Sheet or something like that:
Prolonged or repeated breathing of oil mist, or, or prolonged or repeated skin contact can cause nervous system effects.
and also
This product contains TCP which can cause symptoms associated with cholinesterase inhibition. TCP may also produce neurotoxicity associated with inhibition of neuropathy target esterase (NTE). Effects of cholinesterase inhibition are expected to occur within hours of exposure, but neurotoxicity related to NTE inhibition may not become evident for several days. Treat appropriately.
So please don't be angry with mum and dad, they have told you I am bad!
Take care, see you all soon!!
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two obvious sources of contaminatin/ irritation discussed seem to be those that can be considered as part of the aircraft and it's systems primarily in this case pressurisation and conditioning, the second amongst the passengers themselves being those who will be carrying an infection on board and by virtue of circulation distributing this amongst the other passengers.
The fuel crisis which saw aircraft manufacturers seeking fuel ecomony in the decreased tapping of of engine bleed air and increased use of what was taken by re-circulation and decreased outflow, has been coupled with known maintainance deficiencies in regard to cabin air filtration systems where abuse/misuse in filters not being replaced as often as they should can only excaerbate the problem.
Day to day variations in risk of pax induced infections will alter with the embarkations points types of passenger and the associated diseases connected to those groups and destinations.
Have there been any studies to date with cabin samples taken which might go towards helping us better understand some of the problems in this field.
It may well become of more particular interest in light of the recent Ebola/ Marburg outbreaks in Africa and the potentially disasterous bird flu threat in the far east. The method of rapid worldwide dissemination will be air transport. It behoves governments to turn their attention to this particular vector as a matter of some urgency
The fuel crisis which saw aircraft manufacturers seeking fuel ecomony in the decreased tapping of of engine bleed air and increased use of what was taken by re-circulation and decreased outflow, has been coupled with known maintainance deficiencies in regard to cabin air filtration systems where abuse/misuse in filters not being replaced as often as they should can only excaerbate the problem.
Day to day variations in risk of pax induced infections will alter with the embarkations points types of passenger and the associated diseases connected to those groups and destinations.
Have there been any studies to date with cabin samples taken which might go towards helping us better understand some of the problems in this field.
It may well become of more particular interest in light of the recent Ebola/ Marburg outbreaks in Africa and the potentially disasterous bird flu threat in the far east. The method of rapid worldwide dissemination will be air transport. It behoves governments to turn their attention to this particular vector as a matter of some urgency
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London,Cape Town
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA LOG ARTICLE ON FUMES
I HAVE JUST BEEN FAXED A COPY OF THE CURRENT BALPA LOG MAGAZINE ARTICLE ON FUMES (PAGE 19 APRIL:MAY 2005) WRITTEN BY A MARTIN ALDER LISTED AS CHAIRMAN - FLIGHT SAFETY GROUP WHAT A DISGRACE TO BALPA.
HOW CAN BALPA SAY SUCH RUBBISH AND MAKE A JOKE OF CREWS WITH GAS MASKS ON WHEN MANY OF THEIR CREWS ARE SICK.
HOW CAN HE SAY THAT 'MOST EVENTS AND SMELLS WILL BE UNLIKELY TO CAUSE A SERIOUS HEALTH RISK OF THE TYPE DISCUSSED AT THE CONFERENCE'
WHO IS THIS GUY ?
I ONLY GOT PAGE 19, DOES ANYONE HAVE A CONTACT AT BALPA TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT TO ?
IS BALPA NOW AN INDUSTRY UNION ?
TOT SIENS
HOW CAN BALPA SAY SUCH RUBBISH AND MAKE A JOKE OF CREWS WITH GAS MASKS ON WHEN MANY OF THEIR CREWS ARE SICK.
HOW CAN HE SAY THAT 'MOST EVENTS AND SMELLS WILL BE UNLIKELY TO CAUSE A SERIOUS HEALTH RISK OF THE TYPE DISCUSSED AT THE CONFERENCE'
WHO IS THIS GUY ?
I ONLY GOT PAGE 19, DOES ANYONE HAVE A CONTACT AT BALPA TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT TO ?
IS BALPA NOW AN INDUSTRY UNION ?
TOT SIENS
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Main UK trade union issues press release on fumes...
For immediate release – Wednesday 4th May 2005
Newsdesks: transport correspondents, health and safety specialist media
Cabin crew are suffering from poor air quality on aircraft
The Transport and General Workers Union, the UK’s leading trade union representing cabin crew on aircraft, today called on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to make it a mandatory requirement for airlines to advise passengers that they have been exposed to contaminated air rather than maintain the current silence. This demand followed the ‘Contaminated Air Protection Conference’ which was organised by the pilots’ union BALPA in London last week. That conference concluded that crews and passengers exposed to contaminated air are getting sick. This conclusion confirmed what the T&G has seen with its crews working in the confines of commercial jet aircraft.
“It’s not maybe our people are being sick or perhaps but they definitely are,” said Oliver Richardson, T&G regional industrial organiser who represents cabin crew members. “How many passengers are also suffering? Who knows? Airlines do not tell passengers when they are exposed to contaminated air.”
Mr. Richardson said the T&G is now calling on the HSE to require that all British registered aircraft have bleed air filtration systems (cabin air supply) fitted on all aircraft used for passenger transportation above a maximum take off weight of 5700kgs so that crews and passengers can be protected from contaminated air as a matter of urgency. He added that the largest inquiry prior to the ‘Contaminated Air Protection Conference’, the 2000 Australian Senate Inquiry, had also called for air supply filtration systems to be mandatory. These systems are estimated to cost less than £15,000 for a typical holiday jet aircraft which costs millions of pounds to manufacture.
“The cost to put these filters on aircraft is a small price to pay to protect the travelling public,” added Mr. Richardson. “That’s why the T&G is now calling on the aviation industry to make the fittings of contaminated air sensors on all aircraft above a maximum take off weight of 5700kgs used for passenger transportation compulsory.”
ENDS
For further information please call Oliver Richardson on 020 8573 9494 or the T&G Press Office on 020 7611 2550/49
Newsdesks: transport correspondents, health and safety specialist media
Cabin crew are suffering from poor air quality on aircraft
The Transport and General Workers Union, the UK’s leading trade union representing cabin crew on aircraft, today called on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to make it a mandatory requirement for airlines to advise passengers that they have been exposed to contaminated air rather than maintain the current silence. This demand followed the ‘Contaminated Air Protection Conference’ which was organised by the pilots’ union BALPA in London last week. That conference concluded that crews and passengers exposed to contaminated air are getting sick. This conclusion confirmed what the T&G has seen with its crews working in the confines of commercial jet aircraft.
“It’s not maybe our people are being sick or perhaps but they definitely are,” said Oliver Richardson, T&G regional industrial organiser who represents cabin crew members. “How many passengers are also suffering? Who knows? Airlines do not tell passengers when they are exposed to contaminated air.”
Mr. Richardson said the T&G is now calling on the HSE to require that all British registered aircraft have bleed air filtration systems (cabin air supply) fitted on all aircraft used for passenger transportation above a maximum take off weight of 5700kgs so that crews and passengers can be protected from contaminated air as a matter of urgency. He added that the largest inquiry prior to the ‘Contaminated Air Protection Conference’, the 2000 Australian Senate Inquiry, had also called for air supply filtration systems to be mandatory. These systems are estimated to cost less than £15,000 for a typical holiday jet aircraft which costs millions of pounds to manufacture.
“The cost to put these filters on aircraft is a small price to pay to protect the travelling public,” added Mr. Richardson. “That’s why the T&G is now calling on the aviation industry to make the fittings of contaminated air sensors on all aircraft above a maximum take off weight of 5700kgs used for passenger transportation compulsory.”
ENDS
For further information please call Oliver Richardson on 020 8573 9494 or the T&G Press Office on 020 7611 2550/49