Is contaminated bleed air harmful? YES...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA LOG ARTICLE ON FUMES
Dear Voyager
Martin Alder of BALPA is a former British Airways manager and now BALPA FSG chairman, who is an unelected rep.
Probably explains why BALPA FSG has such an uninterested view.
Is this BALPA policy ?
Martin Alder of BALPA is a former British Airways manager and now BALPA FSG chairman, who is an unelected rep.
Probably explains why BALPA FSG has such an uninterested view.
Is this BALPA policy ?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: On the approach to EGLL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Aircraft manufacturers design their aircraft to meet the regulatory standards, including those for cabin air, and airlines operate the aircraft in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
Studies of cabin air quality have consistently shown that the cabin air on commercial aircraft meets all regulatory standards and is as good as or better than that of typical offices or homes. There is no evidence to suggest that crew or passengers are exposed to levels of contaminants that could be harmful to health.
Incidents of smoke or fumes do occur occasionally as a result of minor malfunctions, such as electrical faults or oil leaks. Flight and cabin crew are trained in the procedures to follow in such events, as recommended by the regulatory authorities to all airlines. Research into such incidents carried out by and on behalf of the CAA has found no evidence that exposure to fumes in these circumstances has any persisting health effects."
Studies of cabin air quality have consistently shown that the cabin air on commercial aircraft meets all regulatory standards and is as good as or better than that of typical offices or homes. There is no evidence to suggest that crew or passengers are exposed to levels of contaminants that could be harmful to health.
Incidents of smoke or fumes do occur occasionally as a result of minor malfunctions, such as electrical faults or oil leaks. Flight and cabin crew are trained in the procedures to follow in such events, as recommended by the regulatory authorities to all airlines. Research into such incidents carried out by and on behalf of the CAA has found no evidence that exposure to fumes in these circumstances has any persisting health effects."
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preppy ..... CAA Dr ?
Preppy
You possibly need to make an effort to read all the postings rather than post such inaccuracies.
I will agree that on most flights the air quality appears to be good but as far as the CAA testing goes give me a break. Have you read it? Did you read the posting by Californian Babe?
Please tell me what paper you are reffering to where the CAA or anybody has studied the effects of exposure to Exxon Mobil Jet Oil II for Chronic Neurotoxicity via inhalation.
You won't be able to present a paper because it has not been done so stop wasting readers time with lies and nonsense PLEASE.
When the testing is completed then the industry will thank those who currently have the solutions and you will thank the crews and organiosations like AOPIS who pushed them to make these solutions!
You possibly need to make an effort to read all the postings rather than post such inaccuracies.
I will agree that on most flights the air quality appears to be good but as far as the CAA testing goes give me a break. Have you read it? Did you read the posting by Californian Babe?
Please tell me what paper you are reffering to where the CAA or anybody has studied the effects of exposure to Exxon Mobil Jet Oil II for Chronic Neurotoxicity via inhalation.
You won't be able to present a paper because it has not been done so stop wasting readers time with lies and nonsense PLEASE.
When the testing is completed then the industry will thank those who currently have the solutions and you will thank the crews and organiosations like AOPIS who pushed them to make these solutions!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Twyford
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the personal attack on me. Nice to know that one is the receiving end of a mature and logicaly expressed viewpoint that is so well justified, that in order to sustain the argument one needs to destroy any differing views!
I don't choose BALPA cartoons, the editors do that and as explained to someone earlier today, the article was written well before the conference, so could not reflect anything said at the conference.
Having completed over 15 years of un-elected and voluntary work within BALPA I am also pleased to see how much some have appreciated my contributions in both time, lost earnings and work!
Whoever wrote it , you might like to state exactly how much time etc and in what role you have put it in consistently over the past 19 years for BALPA as a comparison.
As to the cabin air issue, BALPA has a policy and strategy concernng this issue I will not discuss it here, as it would not be appropriate to do so. BALPA members can communicate via the usual BALPA channels to find out what is happening.
Thanks
I don't choose BALPA cartoons, the editors do that and as explained to someone earlier today, the article was written well before the conference, so could not reflect anything said at the conference.
Having completed over 15 years of un-elected and voluntary work within BALPA I am also pleased to see how much some have appreciated my contributions in both time, lost earnings and work!
Whoever wrote it , you might like to state exactly how much time etc and in what role you have put it in consistently over the past 19 years for BALPA as a comparison.
As to the cabin air issue, BALPA has a policy and strategy concernng this issue I will not discuss it here, as it would not be appropriate to do so. BALPA members can communicate via the usual BALPA channels to find out what is happening.
Thanks
Last edited by Martin Alder; 6th May 2005 at 14:02.
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps Voyager65 and Bonzo would care to make their criticisms of Mr Alders efforts face to face? If not face to face then perhaps they would at least have the conviction of their beliefs to put their real names to their complaints.
It never ceases to amaze how vociferous a few people become when it comes to complaining about someone trying to do something about a known problem. Invariably, we only get to read non-constructive complaints which goes to show that it is far easier to moan than to get up of your backside and actually try and do something about the problem.
At least BALPA are taking part in the organisation and research into the problem. Also, knowing how much time and effort Martin Alder puts in to the BALPA FSG only goes to show how ignorant many people are about what exactly BALPA do aside from provide a collective back up to individuals. There lies the real problem for BALPA, educating the large number of pilots who know very little about the association.
It never ceases to amaze how vociferous a few people become when it comes to complaining about someone trying to do something about a known problem. Invariably, we only get to read non-constructive complaints which goes to show that it is far easier to moan than to get up of your backside and actually try and do something about the problem.
At least BALPA are taking part in the organisation and research into the problem. Also, knowing how much time and effort Martin Alder puts in to the BALPA FSG only goes to show how ignorant many people are about what exactly BALPA do aside from provide a collective back up to individuals. There lies the real problem for BALPA, educating the large number of pilots who know very little about the association.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Henley
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA Position
I dont agree with all that CARGO BOY implies about the BALPA FSG but agree at least as a union they seem to be doing something albeit a bit late for a chap I went through flight training with, a victim to air quality.
The following was posted on the BALPA forum by one of the NEC reps yesterday and may be of interest.......
Dear All
BALPA has been pursuing the issue of contamination of the cabin air supply for some time now and is currently the leading pilot union authority on these matters worldwide. Our research led to the recent BALPA Contaminated Air Protection Conference held in London in April. All interested parties were offered the opportunity to speak such as airlines, engine and aircraft manufacturers, industry representatives etc.. and all those who responded were accommodated, including representatives of the FAA, the RAAF, and medical and academic authorities from the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia. Unions, doctors, lawyers and air system manufacturers also presented papers.
The conference conclusions were:
There is a workplce problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew).
The workplace in which these illnessses are being induced is the aircraft cabin environment.
This, we conclude is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications.
Of some concern was whether crews were:
1. identifying the presence of fumes,
2. correctly carrying out the drills developed by manufactures and operators to minimise the health risk to crews and the risk of incapacitation of the crew,
3. accuracy of reporting of both serious and less serious occurrences of cabin air contamination.
The need to consider and act on the first two aspects mentioned above should be obvious to all, so should require little further explanation except to say that whilst BALPA works with ASHRAE and others to develop contaminated air detection equipment, everyone has a different sense of smell and crews are not tested at medical renewal for their ability to smell, so do not expect both crews to perceive the amount or level of contamination equally. Also, please remember that several incidents have clearly shown that crews quickly become de-sensitised, i.e. can no longer tell that contaminats are still present. The third item, the accuracy of reporting should be of interest to all if issues related to air contamination are to be minimised. Without accurate reports there can be no rectification of the problem, be it an intermittent one or, one needing a service bulletin or modification to correct.
Thus, we would urge you to follow the drills that have been provided for you diligently to ensure the immediate safety of the aircraft and occupants as well as to protect your health. To ensure the safety of future operations, record accurately the details needed both to solve the problem and to avoid unnecessary costs due to inappropriate response to a poorly recorded event.
Further information is available from the UK CAA in the FODCOMs 17/2000, 14/2001 and 21/2002. These three FODCOMS give more extensive guidance and information on this subject. FODCOM 17/2000 details incapacitation procedures. FODCOM 14/2001 gives details on the use of oxygen masks. FODCOM 21/2002 details smoke and fume occurrences in some detail and is a very good read. Very clear guidance includes the statement:
These should at least include the necessity to use oxygen masks at 100% whenever contamination is present or suspected and the need to establish communications by the appropriate switch selections.
It is also worth mentioning in these difficult times for airlines globally that filter manufacturers advised at the conference that hot bleed air filtration exists and would cost less than £15,000 to fit on a twin engine jet such as the Boeing 757.
The following was posted on the BALPA forum by one of the NEC reps yesterday and may be of interest.......
Dear All
BALPA has been pursuing the issue of contamination of the cabin air supply for some time now and is currently the leading pilot union authority on these matters worldwide. Our research led to the recent BALPA Contaminated Air Protection Conference held in London in April. All interested parties were offered the opportunity to speak such as airlines, engine and aircraft manufacturers, industry representatives etc.. and all those who responded were accommodated, including representatives of the FAA, the RAAF, and medical and academic authorities from the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia. Unions, doctors, lawyers and air system manufacturers also presented papers.
The conference conclusions were:
There is a workplce problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew).
The workplace in which these illnessses are being induced is the aircraft cabin environment.
This, we conclude is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications.
Of some concern was whether crews were:
1. identifying the presence of fumes,
2. correctly carrying out the drills developed by manufactures and operators to minimise the health risk to crews and the risk of incapacitation of the crew,
3. accuracy of reporting of both serious and less serious occurrences of cabin air contamination.
The need to consider and act on the first two aspects mentioned above should be obvious to all, so should require little further explanation except to say that whilst BALPA works with ASHRAE and others to develop contaminated air detection equipment, everyone has a different sense of smell and crews are not tested at medical renewal for their ability to smell, so do not expect both crews to perceive the amount or level of contamination equally. Also, please remember that several incidents have clearly shown that crews quickly become de-sensitised, i.e. can no longer tell that contaminats are still present. The third item, the accuracy of reporting should be of interest to all if issues related to air contamination are to be minimised. Without accurate reports there can be no rectification of the problem, be it an intermittent one or, one needing a service bulletin or modification to correct.
Thus, we would urge you to follow the drills that have been provided for you diligently to ensure the immediate safety of the aircraft and occupants as well as to protect your health. To ensure the safety of future operations, record accurately the details needed both to solve the problem and to avoid unnecessary costs due to inappropriate response to a poorly recorded event.
Further information is available from the UK CAA in the FODCOMs 17/2000, 14/2001 and 21/2002. These three FODCOMS give more extensive guidance and information on this subject. FODCOM 17/2000 details incapacitation procedures. FODCOM 14/2001 gives details on the use of oxygen masks. FODCOM 21/2002 details smoke and fume occurrences in some detail and is a very good read. Very clear guidance includes the statement:
These should at least include the necessity to use oxygen masks at 100% whenever contamination is present or suspected and the need to establish communications by the appropriate switch selections.
It is also worth mentioning in these difficult times for airlines globally that filter manufacturers advised at the conference that hot bleed air filtration exists and would cost less than £15,000 to fit on a twin engine jet such as the Boeing 757.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: On the approach to EGLL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Bonzo
You make the serious accusation that my posting was "lies, nonsense and innacurate".
Where is the evidence to support to support your rhetoric?
Personal attacks don't win scientific debates or encourage the authorities to change their regulations.
You make the serious accusation that my posting was "lies, nonsense and innacurate".
Where is the evidence to support to support your rhetoric?
Personal attacks don't win scientific debates or encourage the authorities to change their regulations.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not an aircraft engineer or professional pilot so apologies if this question has an obvious answer. From the side of engine fumes etc. (leaving aside airborn diseases from other passengers within the cabin), am I right in thinking that air enters the aircraft through the engies in most aircraft. The risks of this are fairly obvious. It doesn't take much for engine fumes to get to the air supply so why not change the point at which air enters the aircraft? Lord knows the manufacturers have had long enough to come up with a new way of pressurising the aircraft, even if it is less convenient.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rupert, you may want to do a bit of research into 'turbine' engines as opposed to 'reciprocating' engines. The air that is 'bled' off the compressors (hence the name 'bleed air') is taken out before the combustion stage. Any fumes being mentioned here are due to leaks from the bearing seals of the oil used to lubricate them. We are not talking about carbon monoxide associated with combusted fuel.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I suppose it's a problem that would be associated with most methods you use to compress the air. Do pressurised light aircraft use the same system or do they have separate compressors?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Twyford
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-400 heavy , I am interested in your mates problem. Do you have any details? If so, please forward them. By the way, if no one contacts BALPA FSG we do not know of a problem whatever it is and cannot do anything about it either, we are not mind readers!
Last edited by Martin Alder; 9th May 2005 at 11:13.
www.aopis.org
(Aviation Organophoshate Information Site)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A FEW POINTS
We started this thread and are pleased at the mostly constructive replies and open debate that has followed.
We would like to make a couple of observations.
Point 1.
Danny stated: We are not talking about carbon monoxide associated with combusted fuel.
This may be correct but we are talking about carbon monoxide associated with the pyrolisis of engine oil especially on the BAe 146. I am aware as is BALPA of many UK crews flying the 146 with elevated Carbon Monoxide readings on many flights with good quality CO detectors.
Point 2.
Martin Alder of BALPA states: no one contacts BALPA FSG we do not know of a problem whatever it is and cannot do anything about it either, we are not mind readers!
We at AOPIS are aware of at least 14 BALPA members who now suffer long term the effects of contaminated air exposures as well as several hundred who have suffered short term in the UK. I have evidence that many of the long term sick members did contact BALPA so it is unfair to imply no one has contacted the FSG.
An AOPIS member gave a talk to the BALPA Medical Study Group some years ago and highlighted this very fact.
Perhaps someone from BALPA could confirm the exact number of crews who have suffered short term and long term symptoms to get a scale of the issues within BALPA.
Further details of UK crew effects by way of the BALPA B757 survey available at:
http://www.aopis.org/BALPA757SURVEYp253-262.pdf
We would like to make a couple of observations.
Point 1.
Danny stated: We are not talking about carbon monoxide associated with combusted fuel.
This may be correct but we are talking about carbon monoxide associated with the pyrolisis of engine oil especially on the BAe 146. I am aware as is BALPA of many UK crews flying the 146 with elevated Carbon Monoxide readings on many flights with good quality CO detectors.
Point 2.
Martin Alder of BALPA states: no one contacts BALPA FSG we do not know of a problem whatever it is and cannot do anything about it either, we are not mind readers!
We at AOPIS are aware of at least 14 BALPA members who now suffer long term the effects of contaminated air exposures as well as several hundred who have suffered short term in the UK. I have evidence that many of the long term sick members did contact BALPA so it is unfair to imply no one has contacted the FSG.
An AOPIS member gave a talk to the BALPA Medical Study Group some years ago and highlighted this very fact.
Perhaps someone from BALPA could confirm the exact number of crews who have suffered short term and long term symptoms to get a scale of the issues within BALPA.
Further details of UK crew effects by way of the BALPA B757 survey available at:
http://www.aopis.org/BALPA757SURVEYp253-262.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AH! Mobil Jet 2. I belive that I have recently met your borthers and sisters, the TOCP, DOCP and MOCP's.
I have also met your more insidious cousins the Metas and the Paras.
A very unhealthy Familiy group if ever I met one.
Unfortunately you do everything that it says on the TIN!
I have also met your more insidious cousins the Metas and the Paras.
A very unhealthy Familiy group if ever I met one.
Unfortunately you do everything that it says on the TIN!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learnt the other day (Can't remember where - memory still not brilliant) that the A 380 does not use engine bleed air for any air conditioning purposes.
Can anybody confirm this, the info. shouldn't be that difficult to come by...........
If it's not, perhaps the manufacturers finally know something about the effects of using bleed air for conditioning, but are hardly likely to admit to.
Just thinking.
Can anybody confirm this, the info. shouldn't be that difficult to come by...........
If it's not, perhaps the manufacturers finally know something about the effects of using bleed air for conditioning, but are hardly likely to admit to.
Just thinking.
www.aopis.org
(Aviation Organophoshate Information Site)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 BLEED AIR
Hi Dreambuster
Hope the following helps
The Airbus A380 uses the standard bleed air system design.
However the Boeing B787 is going to be BLEED FREE
In the past the B707, DC8, Comet, VC10 did not allow the bleed air (bleed air is the air supply from the engines for the passenger cabin) to directly enter the cabin and used compressors etc...
The late 60s early 70s saw the introduction of the current bleed air technology but as smoking was present until the later part of the last century, people were slow to pick up on the contaminated air issue.
First contaminated air reports we have on file date to late 70s early 80s
Although the technology is there, virtually no current airliner has any filtration system to remove contaminants in the bleed air supply. If the bleed air becomes contaminated then passengers and crews WILL be exposed.
Hope the following helps
The Airbus A380 uses the standard bleed air system design.
However the Boeing B787 is going to be BLEED FREE
In the past the B707, DC8, Comet, VC10 did not allow the bleed air (bleed air is the air supply from the engines for the passenger cabin) to directly enter the cabin and used compressors etc...
The late 60s early 70s saw the introduction of the current bleed air technology but as smoking was present until the later part of the last century, people were slow to pick up on the contaminated air issue.
First contaminated air reports we have on file date to late 70s early 80s
Although the technology is there, virtually no current airliner has any filtration system to remove contaminants in the bleed air supply. If the bleed air becomes contaminated then passengers and crews WILL be exposed.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Twyford
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear AOPIS,
I think that you are somewhat overstating the case on Carbon Monoxide. The fact that ONE person had one detector for some flights and the detector sometimes detected CO, does not constitute many persons for many flights. Neither does it say why CO was present, after all, ground running is notorious for ingesting other exhaust plumes and in flight , who knows what state the local external air is in, power station plumes, etc.
If you overstate your case in this manner your error will be revealed and undermine any serious attempt to resolve this issue, which hardly helps BALPA members , or anyone else for that matter.
Before anyone gets all nostalgic, turbo compressors failed and filled cabins with smoke and fumes, especially if bearings failed. Read an old BA flight safety magazine or two of that era. The industry ditched turbo compressors for good reason, weight, complexity and reliability. The modern system with pressure regulating valves and compressor bleed off-takes is light and reliable, with few moving parts. Some smaller engines with sonic nozzles have none other than open and shut valves. The system has been in use since the Spey engine at least, dated about 1962, so well before the 1970s.
On small engines and aircraft of smaller than the long range 4 jet 707 and VC-10 it was not economic to have turbo compressors. So, if no modern light weight bleed systems had been developed, no small aircraft and if that was the case possibly no jobs either!
The 787 will use electric compressors, so not engine bleed, but not yet sure of failure modes, so will there be a bit of smoke if the electric motor goes phut? Perhaps someone from Boeing can answer that?
I think that you are somewhat overstating the case on Carbon Monoxide. The fact that ONE person had one detector for some flights and the detector sometimes detected CO, does not constitute many persons for many flights. Neither does it say why CO was present, after all, ground running is notorious for ingesting other exhaust plumes and in flight , who knows what state the local external air is in, power station plumes, etc.
If you overstate your case in this manner your error will be revealed and undermine any serious attempt to resolve this issue, which hardly helps BALPA members , or anyone else for that matter.
Before anyone gets all nostalgic, turbo compressors failed and filled cabins with smoke and fumes, especially if bearings failed. Read an old BA flight safety magazine or two of that era. The industry ditched turbo compressors for good reason, weight, complexity and reliability. The modern system with pressure regulating valves and compressor bleed off-takes is light and reliable, with few moving parts. Some smaller engines with sonic nozzles have none other than open and shut valves. The system has been in use since the Spey engine at least, dated about 1962, so well before the 1970s.
On small engines and aircraft of smaller than the long range 4 jet 707 and VC-10 it was not economic to have turbo compressors. So, if no modern light weight bleed systems had been developed, no small aircraft and if that was the case possibly no jobs either!
The 787 will use electric compressors, so not engine bleed, but not yet sure of failure modes, so will there be a bit of smoke if the electric motor goes phut? Perhaps someone from Boeing can answer that?
Last edited by Martin Alder; 9th May 2005 at 21:20.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Penzance, Penzance.
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that there are several operatives around and have been for over a year now collecting data with several Airlines.
The sooner the figures are published the better.
Trial by media is the only way to get things done these days.
Get the politicians involved.
Get them to embarrass the authorities and manufacturer's.
Get UK PLC to pull it's finger out.
The sooner the figures are published the better.
Trial by media is the only way to get things done these days.
Get the politicians involved.
Get them to embarrass the authorities and manufacturer's.
Get UK PLC to pull it's finger out.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who don't believe it happens.................or is a problem..........read on>>>>>>>>>>>
Date A/C Type Location Occ Num
05.09.2001 B757 Trent (TNT) 200106194
Flt Phase Location Info
CRUISE 8nm S
Occ Classification Event(s)
Occurrences Smoke / Fumes (not engine)
Crew Illness / Incapacitation
Emergency Call
Diversion /Return
Engine Malfunction
PAN declared following smoke on flight deck due contamination of air conditioning system. Adverse reactions felt by some crew members. A/c returned.
In climb, oily smell noticed on flight deck which then steadily worsened and became apparent in mid cabin. Adverse reactions felt by some crew members. Air conditioning was identified as source of smell and QRH actioned for both air conditioning fumes and fume removal. PAN declared and a/c returned. Windows opened after landing but fumes/haze remained and were noted by both fire personnel and engineers on entry onto a/c.
LH and RH engine spinner/anti ice tubes removed, cleaned and refitted iaw Rolls-Royce Troubleshooting Procedure and FIM 71-05-00. APU inspected and no evidence of cracking or oil contamination/leaks - APU oil level checked and found correct. Fault recurred during subsequent airtest, therefore, ADDs raised for LH engine/APU/air conditioning pack component changes. See also 2001/03044 and 2001/03661 (same a/c).
CAA Closure: Investigation progressed under 2000/08363.
Date A/C Type Location Occ Num
05.09.2001 B757 Trent (TNT) 200106194
Flt Phase Location Info
CRUISE 8nm S
Occ Classification Event(s)
Occurrences Smoke / Fumes (not engine)
Crew Illness / Incapacitation
Emergency Call
Diversion /Return
Engine Malfunction
PAN declared following smoke on flight deck due contamination of air conditioning system. Adverse reactions felt by some crew members. A/c returned.
In climb, oily smell noticed on flight deck which then steadily worsened and became apparent in mid cabin. Adverse reactions felt by some crew members. Air conditioning was identified as source of smell and QRH actioned for both air conditioning fumes and fume removal. PAN declared and a/c returned. Windows opened after landing but fumes/haze remained and were noted by both fire personnel and engineers on entry onto a/c.
LH and RH engine spinner/anti ice tubes removed, cleaned and refitted iaw Rolls-Royce Troubleshooting Procedure and FIM 71-05-00. APU inspected and no evidence of cracking or oil contamination/leaks - APU oil level checked and found correct. Fault recurred during subsequent airtest, therefore, ADDs raised for LH engine/APU/air conditioning pack component changes. See also 2001/03044 and 2001/03661 (same a/c).
CAA Closure: Investigation progressed under 2000/08363.
www.aopis.org
(Aviation Organophoshate Information Site)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments by Martin Alder / BALPA
Ref the comment by Martin Alder, Chairman of the BALPA FSG
Dear AOPIS,
I think that you are somewhat overstating the case on Carbon Monoxide. The fact that ONE person had one detector for some flights and the detector sometimes detected CO, does not constitute many persons for many flights.
Mr Alder
You are mistaken and in doing so are misleading readers at PPrune of the facts.
The facts are as follows:
You say that one person had one detector for some flights. Your comment is incorrect.
BALPA members took many readings of Carbon Monoxide in flight and this data was even presented to the ASHRAE SPC-161 Committee last year.
To date 7 BALPA members and 4 cabin crew members have provided us directly with CO data from the 146 in the UK, all of whom had elevated readings on some flights. Not from ingested ground sources that you refer to, as these were taken in flight. We also have many other recordings from around the world taken on the 146 so this is not just a UK issue.
Therefore when the UK CAA publish a paper on air quality (CAA PAPER 2004/04 - Cabin Air Quality) stating it was OK but was not done during fume event flights, we see this as a deliberate attempt to misinform the public and crews.
As you are a representative of a trade union, we would rather hope your focus would not be the same as industry but rather attempting to provide a duty and care to protecting your members. As you know BALPA has over a dozen sick crew members due to fumes.
The recent BALPA conference conclusions signed by Jim McAuslan the BALPA General Secretary and many others stated that:
There is a workplce problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew).
The workplace in which these illnessses are being induced is the aircraft cabin environment.
This, we conclude is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications.
Now that it has been finally agreed within BALPA that crews are sick, lets hope that the BALPA focus is now on stopping more crews and passengers from getting sick short and long term both in the cockpit and in the cabin. We hope that BALPA will work with other unions campaigning these issues in the UK like the IPA / IPF, T&G, ITF.
We will as always work with your association and many others to progress these issues.
Dear AOPIS,
I think that you are somewhat overstating the case on Carbon Monoxide. The fact that ONE person had one detector for some flights and the detector sometimes detected CO, does not constitute many persons for many flights.
Mr Alder
You are mistaken and in doing so are misleading readers at PPrune of the facts.
The facts are as follows:
You say that one person had one detector for some flights. Your comment is incorrect.
BALPA members took many readings of Carbon Monoxide in flight and this data was even presented to the ASHRAE SPC-161 Committee last year.
To date 7 BALPA members and 4 cabin crew members have provided us directly with CO data from the 146 in the UK, all of whom had elevated readings on some flights. Not from ingested ground sources that you refer to, as these were taken in flight. We also have many other recordings from around the world taken on the 146 so this is not just a UK issue.
Therefore when the UK CAA publish a paper on air quality (CAA PAPER 2004/04 - Cabin Air Quality) stating it was OK but was not done during fume event flights, we see this as a deliberate attempt to misinform the public and crews.
As you are a representative of a trade union, we would rather hope your focus would not be the same as industry but rather attempting to provide a duty and care to protecting your members. As you know BALPA has over a dozen sick crew members due to fumes.
The recent BALPA conference conclusions signed by Jim McAuslan the BALPA General Secretary and many others stated that:
There is a workplce problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew).
The workplace in which these illnessses are being induced is the aircraft cabin environment.
This, we conclude is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications.
Now that it has been finally agreed within BALPA that crews are sick, lets hope that the BALPA focus is now on stopping more crews and passengers from getting sick short and long term both in the cockpit and in the cabin. We hope that BALPA will work with other unions campaigning these issues in the UK like the IPA / IPF, T&G, ITF.
We will as always work with your association and many others to progress these issues.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Twyford
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear AOPIS,
As far as BALPA were aware, only one person from one operator was involved, at their own initiative and not in a manner with which I would consider the most effective for a number of reasons. If other persons undertook activity for your organisation, then it is for them to decide. Any activity by other trade unions and their members are for them to deal with, not BALPA. Similarly, BALPA is not responsible for actions of AOPIS members, of which there seems to be no information published as to constitution or, membership numbers , election process and officers.
There seems to be clear discrepancy in the AOPIS numbers of confirmed sick pilots due to this cause and the numbers of which BALPA is aware. One would need full medical information to do this. I understand that eminent specialists within the UK are far from agreement over the whole range of issues associated with OP poisoning. Thus to claim the numbers you do that are confirmed sick due to this cause, would seem somewhat less than precise in scientific and medical terms, to say the least. Suspected may be reasonable, but confirmed is rather stronger than the agreed science and medicine would seem to justify!
BALPA has made a statement about the conference and taking part of the statement out of context is pretty poor journalism and in the best traditions of spin, of which many now have experience due to the UK political landscape! The full statement includes a need to work with all of industry to find out what is happening and how to solve it. BALPA is a part of industry and as such works with it to get solutions that fix problems and don't loose people their jobs in doing so. Behaving in a confrontational manner akin the Animal Liberation Front or such , as seems to be the case with the rather personal slurs on me in this thread, is hardly compatible with that approach. It is the only way to get the issues resolved, as it is unlikely that an organisation such as AOPIS will have the resources or, authorisations to gain access to a substantial amount of very personal data on individuals or, the sensitive commercial information on equipment to gain a complete picture of events and solutions that suit each circumstance, whatever that might be. The implication of a legal motive driving the AOPIS stance is hardly likely to help open up the doors for full frank and open discussions with all of the players.
Loosing your job because of an economic hit on your employer as a result of a scare story, can cause death, as I know that as a result of the death of a friend when he lost his job. Hence another reason for a cautious approach.
The short term flight safety issues are well covered by the application of normal smoke fumes procedures that all of us have for our aircraft types. Longer term health problems need to be separated from these issues. Long term means just that and requires long term research to prove it. Immediate and permanent damage may be clearer in some cases, scientist and clinicians who specialise in the field will no doubt provide us with answers.
As far as BALPA were aware, only one person from one operator was involved, at their own initiative and not in a manner with which I would consider the most effective for a number of reasons. If other persons undertook activity for your organisation, then it is for them to decide. Any activity by other trade unions and their members are for them to deal with, not BALPA. Similarly, BALPA is not responsible for actions of AOPIS members, of which there seems to be no information published as to constitution or, membership numbers , election process and officers.
There seems to be clear discrepancy in the AOPIS numbers of confirmed sick pilots due to this cause and the numbers of which BALPA is aware. One would need full medical information to do this. I understand that eminent specialists within the UK are far from agreement over the whole range of issues associated with OP poisoning. Thus to claim the numbers you do that are confirmed sick due to this cause, would seem somewhat less than precise in scientific and medical terms, to say the least. Suspected may be reasonable, but confirmed is rather stronger than the agreed science and medicine would seem to justify!
BALPA has made a statement about the conference and taking part of the statement out of context is pretty poor journalism and in the best traditions of spin, of which many now have experience due to the UK political landscape! The full statement includes a need to work with all of industry to find out what is happening and how to solve it. BALPA is a part of industry and as such works with it to get solutions that fix problems and don't loose people their jobs in doing so. Behaving in a confrontational manner akin the Animal Liberation Front or such , as seems to be the case with the rather personal slurs on me in this thread, is hardly compatible with that approach. It is the only way to get the issues resolved, as it is unlikely that an organisation such as AOPIS will have the resources or, authorisations to gain access to a substantial amount of very personal data on individuals or, the sensitive commercial information on equipment to gain a complete picture of events and solutions that suit each circumstance, whatever that might be. The implication of a legal motive driving the AOPIS stance is hardly likely to help open up the doors for full frank and open discussions with all of the players.
Loosing your job because of an economic hit on your employer as a result of a scare story, can cause death, as I know that as a result of the death of a friend when he lost his job. Hence another reason for a cautious approach.
The short term flight safety issues are well covered by the application of normal smoke fumes procedures that all of us have for our aircraft types. Longer term health problems need to be separated from these issues. Long term means just that and requires long term research to prove it. Immediate and permanent damage may be clearer in some cases, scientist and clinicians who specialise in the field will no doubt provide us with answers.