Is contaminated bleed air harmful? YES...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND LIES
Have you read the CAA Cabin Air Quality Paper of 2004 ? What a lot of bull! They never asked anybody in the T&G for our input!
Section 3.5.1 reads.... The tricresyl phosphates are organophosphates and the ortho isomer is an anticholinesterase which can induce “Organophosphate Induced Delayed Neuropathy” (OPIDN). The meta and para isomers of cresyl phosphate are not as toxic as the ortho isomer and are not reported as inducing OPIDN. The delayed peripheral neuropathy is a progressive condition where the peripheral nerves become unable to transmit impulses. This produces a characteristic set of symptoms which are not consistently present in the symptom profiles reported in the cabin air quality incidents.”
The “symptom profiles” is highly selective and conveniently ignores the numerous symptoms being experienced in crews and passengers and is focusing only on the medical condition known as OPIDN. As crews are hardly examined following fumes events by the CAA it appears that important data is being ignored.
The CAA statement in 3.5.1 only looks at OPIDN and conveniently forgets about Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity (OPICN) which comes from repeated low level exposure to organophosphates such as the TCP in the engine oils, as distinct from OPIDN studies which require significantly higher level of exposures to produce that condition. The symptoms being experienced by crews around the world from my research on the web and from chats in the galleys seem very much in line with TCP exposure. A search on Pub Med shows that OPICN is now being linked to engine oil and hydraulic lubricants exposures:
“Furthermore, OPICN induced by low-level inhalation of organophosphates present in jet engine lubricating oils and the hydraulic fluids of aircraft could explain the long-term neurologic deficits consistently reported by crewmembers and passengers, although organophosphate levels may have been too low to produce OPIDN.” - Prof Abou-Donia - Archives of Environmental Health - August 2003 [Vol. 58 (No. 8)]
So perhaps the UK Committee on Toxicity (COT) were on the right path in 1999 when they commisioned research into low level exposure to OPs and Abou-Donia seems to have confirmed this.
Will any industry folk who post their lies on this site please post in their true name / business and under write any future illness to crews from repeated low level exposure to OPs and contaminated air ?
Don't think so as they know their time is running out.
If I get pregnant I know I won't be flying at all whatever more lies the CAA come up with.
Have you read the CAA Cabin Air Quality Paper of 2004 ? What a lot of bull! They never asked anybody in the T&G for our input!
Section 3.5.1 reads.... The tricresyl phosphates are organophosphates and the ortho isomer is an anticholinesterase which can induce “Organophosphate Induced Delayed Neuropathy” (OPIDN). The meta and para isomers of cresyl phosphate are not as toxic as the ortho isomer and are not reported as inducing OPIDN. The delayed peripheral neuropathy is a progressive condition where the peripheral nerves become unable to transmit impulses. This produces a characteristic set of symptoms which are not consistently present in the symptom profiles reported in the cabin air quality incidents.”
The “symptom profiles” is highly selective and conveniently ignores the numerous symptoms being experienced in crews and passengers and is focusing only on the medical condition known as OPIDN. As crews are hardly examined following fumes events by the CAA it appears that important data is being ignored.
The CAA statement in 3.5.1 only looks at OPIDN and conveniently forgets about Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity (OPICN) which comes from repeated low level exposure to organophosphates such as the TCP in the engine oils, as distinct from OPIDN studies which require significantly higher level of exposures to produce that condition. The symptoms being experienced by crews around the world from my research on the web and from chats in the galleys seem very much in line with TCP exposure. A search on Pub Med shows that OPICN is now being linked to engine oil and hydraulic lubricants exposures:
“Furthermore, OPICN induced by low-level inhalation of organophosphates present in jet engine lubricating oils and the hydraulic fluids of aircraft could explain the long-term neurologic deficits consistently reported by crewmembers and passengers, although organophosphate levels may have been too low to produce OPIDN.” - Prof Abou-Donia - Archives of Environmental Health - August 2003 [Vol. 58 (No. 8)]
So perhaps the UK Committee on Toxicity (COT) were on the right path in 1999 when they commisioned research into low level exposure to OPs and Abou-Donia seems to have confirmed this.
Will any industry folk who post their lies on this site please post in their true name / business and under write any future illness to crews from repeated low level exposure to OPs and contaminated air ?
Don't think so as they know their time is running out.
If I get pregnant I know I won't be flying at all whatever more lies the CAA come up with.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few points of interest.
1. Think the B787/7E7 will not use engine air for air con.???
2. Most airlines now keep 757 eng oil below full.???
3. More understanding of long term exposure to oil fumes.???
I belive that we will have a greater understanding to the effects of exposure to oil fumes in the future.
Do you want a fagg.???????????????????????
1. Think the B787/7E7 will not use engine air for air con.???
2. Most airlines now keep 757 eng oil below full.???
3. More understanding of long term exposure to oil fumes.???
I belive that we will have a greater understanding to the effects of exposure to oil fumes in the future.
Do you want a fagg.???????????????????????
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During my former job engineer specialized in airconditioning systems I have delt with complaints of crews and passengers smelling dirty socks or suffering from headaches. To be honest I (we) have never found a reasonable explaination (except for one occasion in which it was caused by the ground crew attachting a jet starter to the aircrafts extenal airconditioned air jack, and thereby blowing exhaust air from a small jet engine directly into the cabin). We have taken measuring equipement into the cabin, cleaned entire bleed air systems, replaced filters and had them chemically analysed, cleaned airco ducts but never really found a reason for the dirty sock smell. The next step that I was planning to do was to check the route of the airplane that it flew and see if maybe the smell was caused by the ingestion and compression of polluted air, however I left the company before I could start this part of the investigation.
And with regard to the fact that the problems are only emerging since the beginning of the 80-s, that because the aircraft manufacturers started to introduce re-circulation fans to decrease the amount of bleed air to be taken from the engine and thereby increasing the fuel efficiency of the aircraft but still meet the FAA/JAA required level of "fresh" air to each passenger. This lowered the number of times the air in the cabin was completly refreshed considerably. The filters in the recirc system cleaned the air from airborne particles making it "fresh" again, but since particles that cause air to smell are very small this was not filtered out. The latest HEPA filters are somewhat of an improvement since the mesh size of the filter is such that it filters out more airborne particles cleaning the air even more. However this does introduce a new problem and that is that the filters should be considered medical waste since it also filters out aerolized germs. When following the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) in that case, maintenance personel should wear protective clothing and mouth and nose protection...
So you see when "solving" one thing you introduce another problem.
Cheers
And with regard to the fact that the problems are only emerging since the beginning of the 80-s, that because the aircraft manufacturers started to introduce re-circulation fans to decrease the amount of bleed air to be taken from the engine and thereby increasing the fuel efficiency of the aircraft but still meet the FAA/JAA required level of "fresh" air to each passenger. This lowered the number of times the air in the cabin was completly refreshed considerably. The filters in the recirc system cleaned the air from airborne particles making it "fresh" again, but since particles that cause air to smell are very small this was not filtered out. The latest HEPA filters are somewhat of an improvement since the mesh size of the filter is such that it filters out more airborne particles cleaning the air even more. However this does introduce a new problem and that is that the filters should be considered medical waste since it also filters out aerolized germs. When following the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) in that case, maintenance personel should wear protective clothing and mouth and nose protection...
So you see when "solving" one thing you introduce another problem.
Cheers
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read this thread and experienced what is being discussed I thought i would put my bit into the discussion for whats its worth for all sides.
I fly the 757 for a UK Charter airline and YES I have often smelt the dirty sock smell as have many of those I fly with, like nearly all the crews I know we accept this as the normal 757 smell. The smell may be a few seconds, sometimes minutes but who knows how long its there for as its clear we become desensitised. I too have often felt tired, slow and had the other symptoms reported to be linked possibly to contaminated air exposure like headaches, nausea, fatigue etc.. I have made mistakes on the plane I have never made in the simulator when I have smelt the contaminated air, so I do believe the symptoms and errors are linked to the smells. I go home washed out and some hours later feel better so hopefully I am only affected short term but who knows!
My doctor does now!
I agree that contaminated air detection systems should be fitted to make the decision making easier for the crews and this will also protect them from employers and the CAA who have different priorities. Commercial over health.
I think this thread shows a clear difference between believers and non believers. I think it a sad reflection on BALPA that their own FSG Chairman Martin Alder should be a clear non believer when many in BALPA obviously do care as they sent me a DVD on the issue last summer which must have cost alot (and money well spent). This no doubts stops the union progressing the issue as it deserves to be progressed with energy and determination.
Rather than argue, take the logical solutions:
> Fit Detectors
> Fit Filters
> Analyse the oil for toxic effects as crews are exposed to confirm the Chronic Neurotoxic effects suspected to be link to inhalation of the oils.
If the passengers get to know the truth, we will all suffer.
I am alert to this issue now but most are ignorant, BALPA must educate the membership as a matter of urgency
Tony
I fly the 757 for a UK Charter airline and YES I have often smelt the dirty sock smell as have many of those I fly with, like nearly all the crews I know we accept this as the normal 757 smell. The smell may be a few seconds, sometimes minutes but who knows how long its there for as its clear we become desensitised. I too have often felt tired, slow and had the other symptoms reported to be linked possibly to contaminated air exposure like headaches, nausea, fatigue etc.. I have made mistakes on the plane I have never made in the simulator when I have smelt the contaminated air, so I do believe the symptoms and errors are linked to the smells. I go home washed out and some hours later feel better so hopefully I am only affected short term but who knows!
My doctor does now!
I agree that contaminated air detection systems should be fitted to make the decision making easier for the crews and this will also protect them from employers and the CAA who have different priorities. Commercial over health.
I think this thread shows a clear difference between believers and non believers. I think it a sad reflection on BALPA that their own FSG Chairman Martin Alder should be a clear non believer when many in BALPA obviously do care as they sent me a DVD on the issue last summer which must have cost alot (and money well spent). This no doubts stops the union progressing the issue as it deserves to be progressed with energy and determination.
Rather than argue, take the logical solutions:
> Fit Detectors
> Fit Filters
> Analyse the oil for toxic effects as crews are exposed to confirm the Chronic Neurotoxic effects suspected to be link to inhalation of the oils.
If the passengers get to know the truth, we will all suffer.
I am alert to this issue now but most are ignorant, BALPA must educate the membership as a matter of urgency
Tony
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Penzance, Penzance.
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony, some good points there.The most of which are worrying to me, as I have only recently joined FLYBE on the BAE146.
I hear a lot of mumbling in the crewroom when this topic is approached and answers do not seem to be forth coming.
I hear a lot of mumbling in the crewroom when this topic is approached and answers do not seem to be forth coming.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside:
I think companies that fill compressed air bottles for divers and other purposes are aware of a related issue - the possibility of oil mist contamination from the compressor. Perhaps they have done more resarch on this or have access to air quality testing facilities that would be of interest?
I think companies that fill compressed air bottles for divers and other purposes are aware of a related issue - the possibility of oil mist contamination from the compressor. Perhaps they have done more resarch on this or have access to air quality testing facilities that would be of interest?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SFO
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIR QUALITY
I fly the 757 for a US Carrier, mostly out of SFO and often smell the smells discussed on this thread.
Before this I flew the 146 for a US Carrier and boy was that a stinker!
Fumes are also real in the States, not just the Uk and Australia.
Before this I flew the 146 for a US Carrier and boy was that a stinker!
Fumes are also real in the States, not just the Uk and Australia.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From thread - Birdstrike at MAN
How did "The only nasty bit was the unpleasant smell of burned bird that drifted through the cabin during the takeoff roll" happen????
Do I take it that the bleed air got contaminated?????
Interesting!
Discuss
Yep, twas a Monarch A300 bound for CHQ. I know. I was on it. Takeoff was pretty
noisy down the back where I was, but the noise and vibration declined to
something close to normal once power was reduced. The only nasty
bit was the unpleasant smell of burned bird that drifted through the cabin during
the takeoff roll. Return to MAN was uneventful and nicely handled by all
concerned.
Thanks are due to the folks who turned out on their days off to fly us to HER
that night on a replacement A330. Boos and hisses are due to Swissport for checking
in the same two pax twice throwing out the tally and delaying our eventual departure
by a further two hours over the 12 already incurred
noisy down the back where I was, but the noise and vibration declined to
something close to normal once power was reduced. The only nasty
bit was the unpleasant smell of burned bird that drifted through the cabin during
the takeoff roll. Return to MAN was uneventful and nicely handled by all
concerned.
Thanks are due to the folks who turned out on their days off to fly us to HER
that night on a replacement A330. Boos and hisses are due to Swissport for checking
in the same two pax twice throwing out the tally and delaying our eventual departure
by a further two hours over the 12 already incurred
Do I take it that the bleed air got contaminated?????
Interesting!
Discuss
How did "The only nasty bit was the unpleasant smell of burned bird that drifted through the cabin during the takeoff roll" happen????
Do I take it that the bleed air got contaminated?????
Do I take it that the bleed air got contaminated?????
Are you trying to get a discussion about the meaning of thje word contaminated
It could be that most of the responders to this thread have assumed different meanings.
Are we talking purely olefactory, short term or long term, single flight dibilitating or chronic being influenced by non-flying enviorments as well?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: here and there mostly
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what does it say,
when crews comment on alledged smells,
but do not follow company procedures for such,
do not complete air quality forms....?
most aircraft can be made affected by smells if operated in a certain way,
contrary to operating procedures.
if problems occur, it'll take rational people to help identify the cause, the more information the better.
certain operators have flown with analysers on aircraft alledged to be problematic,
for no abnormal readings to be found.
when crews comment on alledged smells,
but do not follow company procedures for such,
do not complete air quality forms....?
most aircraft can be made affected by smells if operated in a certain way,
contrary to operating procedures.
if problems occur, it'll take rational people to help identify the cause, the more information the better.
certain operators have flown with analysers on aircraft alledged to be problematic,
for no abnormal readings to be found.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those dirty socks smells
The thing is everyone knows the 146 has a very unique odour & its just been accepted as normal, but its not Ok anylonger & the manufacturer has to address the leaking oil properly once & for all, no matter what it takes. After all thier own Service bulletin says that the fumes used to be seen as a nuisance & now must be seen as a threat to flight safety!! What about the crews safety, namely their health.
It's time for the regulators to acknowledge they are way out of their depth & start listening to the independent experts & take this seriously. The coverup HAS TO STOP.
Then again I hear its not only the 146, but also the 757, A320, MD80, E145............... Fix the PROBLEM before the passengers make you!
It's time for the regulators to acknowledge they are way out of their depth & start listening to the independent experts & take this seriously. The coverup HAS TO STOP.
Then again I hear its not only the 146, but also the 757, A320, MD80, E145............... Fix the PROBLEM before the passengers make you!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Building Research Establishment Ltd - BRE
If anybody thought BRE were looking after the workers or passenger welfare, think again. BRE are the industry puppets who did some of the useless air sampling for the UK government a few years back. Useless, because the flights they did were not fume event flights but then that should not surprise anybody, look at page 62 of the full report:
Similarly, we thank BAE Systems, in particular XXX and XXX. They helped us identify and recruit a suitable airline with BAE 146 aircraft and XXX accompanied and helped on each of those flights.
WHAT A SURPRISE!!!!
BRE are in bed with BAE and not to be trusted.
Remember the 2003 BRE air quality conference when they invited everyone who had vested interests to their 'meeting of lies' and forgot to invite the sick crews, unions, scientists or doctors who had the facts they did not want to hear.
How the government can allow such lies is a disgrace.
Congratulations on BALPA for holding the first open and honest conference on air quality.
Similarly, we thank BAE Systems, in particular XXX and XXX. They helped us identify and recruit a suitable airline with BAE 146 aircraft and XXX accompanied and helped on each of those flights.
WHAT A SURPRISE!!!!
BRE are in bed with BAE and not to be trusted.
Remember the 2003 BRE air quality conference when they invited everyone who had vested interests to their 'meeting of lies' and forgot to invite the sick crews, unions, scientists or doctors who had the facts they did not want to hear.
How the government can allow such lies is a disgrace.
Congratulations on BALPA for holding the first open and honest conference on air quality.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA 2004 Cabin Air Quality paper
'Dolly with Brains' I agree, but its not just BRE than cannot be trusted, the CAA are as guilty as sin for their part in the cover up and failure to protect the crews and passengers.
The CAA in their 2004 Cabin Air Quality paper states in section 3.5.2 of their report...
“3.5.2 The occupational exposure limit for tricresylphosphate should be interpreted in the light of the ortho isomer of tricresyl phosphate (TOCP) being the most toxic and the meta and para isomers being listed as relatively non-toxic.”
Tricresylphosphate (TCP) is a generic name for 10 structurally similar isomers. TOCP is one of the isomers that makes up TCP but not the most toxic. MOCP and DOCP are more toxic isomers and present in engine oils at considerably higher levels than TOCP.
Amazingly the CAA paper fails to mention the existence of these more toxic isomers anywhere in their paper. Poor research or cover up?
The CAA in their 2004 Cabin Air Quality paper states in section 3.5.2 of their report...
“3.5.2 The occupational exposure limit for tricresylphosphate should be interpreted in the light of the ortho isomer of tricresyl phosphate (TOCP) being the most toxic and the meta and para isomers being listed as relatively non-toxic.”
Tricresylphosphate (TCP) is a generic name for 10 structurally similar isomers. TOCP is one of the isomers that makes up TCP but not the most toxic. MOCP and DOCP are more toxic isomers and present in engine oils at considerably higher levels than TOCP.
Amazingly the CAA paper fails to mention the existence of these more toxic isomers anywhere in their paper. Poor research or cover up?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread, with some obvious 'interested parties' posting here. I decided to sign up and post to give you a US perspective having researched this issue for 3 years.
We have 2 main industry players in this game the FAA and UK CAA who have their strings pulled by the rest of the industry.
The FAA are currently researching this issue as the NAS concluded more research was needed. FAA accept crews can get sick, its the 'how' they don't fully understand yet.
I know 7 pilots who now have neurological problems which their occupational history links to fumes in the workplace.
The CAA in the UK say all is well but the British CAA is funded by industry and hence the difference in attitude to the FAA. I believe the CAA is protecting BAe who are in law suits with numerous plaintiffs.
Whats gets me is how the CAA say its all OK when their 2004 Air Quality paper (which reminded me of Pravda such were the number of errors) states clearly: '...Finally, it is important to note that, 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.'
Lets accept crews are sick and protect the industry and passengers from future lawsuits by sorting this matter out as a matter of utmost urgency.
Billy Sampsom
Portland
Oregon
We have 2 main industry players in this game the FAA and UK CAA who have their strings pulled by the rest of the industry.
The FAA are currently researching this issue as the NAS concluded more research was needed. FAA accept crews can get sick, its the 'how' they don't fully understand yet.
I know 7 pilots who now have neurological problems which their occupational history links to fumes in the workplace.
The CAA in the UK say all is well but the British CAA is funded by industry and hence the difference in attitude to the FAA. I believe the CAA is protecting BAe who are in law suits with numerous plaintiffs.
Whats gets me is how the CAA say its all OK when their 2004 Air Quality paper (which reminded me of Pravda such were the number of errors) states clearly: '...Finally, it is important to note that, 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.'
Lets accept crews are sick and protect the industry and passengers from future lawsuits by sorting this matter out as a matter of utmost urgency.
Billy Sampsom
Portland
Oregon
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few weeks ago now there was an article in the Daily Mail about some scientists from a Belfast University who had done some research on lack of oxygen in pax (not pilots!) whilst flying and had found that levels in the blood drop from 97% before flight to 93% at altitude. If this same thing happened to a patient in hospital (who wasn't flying!) they would immediately be given 'extra oxygen'.
Perhaps there is a problem with low O2 and being gassed and that the former problem is the real culprit.
Anybody got a link to that study as I think it's probably relavent.
Just thinking.
Perhaps there is a problem with low O2 and being gassed and that the former problem is the real culprit.
Anybody got a link to that study as I think it's probably relavent.
Just thinking.
A few weeks ago now there was an article in the Daily Mail about some scientists from a Belfast University who had done some research on lack of oxygen in pax (not pilots!) whilst flying and had found that levels in the blood drop from 97% before flight to 93% at altitude. If this same thing happened to a patient in hospital (who wasn't flying!) they would immediately be given 'extra oxygen'.
Perhaps there is a problem with low O2 and being gassed and that the former problem is the real culprit.
Anybody got a link to that study as I think it's probably relavent.
Just thinking.
Perhaps there is a problem with low O2 and being gassed and that the former problem is the real culprit.
Anybody got a link to that study as I think it's probably relavent.
Just thinking.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Herts
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that contamination in the air supply of the 146/RJ, is still an emotive issue, as it should be , after all this time. And it would appear to be still unsolved.
I flew the 146/RJ for 10 years, including Australian registered ones. On some aircraft there was a definite smell of oil or dirty socks if you prefer. The usual fix from the engineers, was " pack cleaned, tested and found servicable" But more often than not, the smell returned.
During the period that I flew the 146/RJ, I cannot recall feeling unwell.
However three years later my medical was withdrawn by the CAA, and that was the end of my flying career. After 34 years of flying all round the world, I was forced to retire, at the tender age of 53. And the reason - I was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease . My PD nurse said it could be that breathing contaminated air, for all those years could have acted as a trigger , to the Parkinson's - who knows. But how to prove it, now that is another matter entirely.
I flew the 146/RJ for 10 years, including Australian registered ones. On some aircraft there was a definite smell of oil or dirty socks if you prefer. The usual fix from the engineers, was " pack cleaned, tested and found servicable" But more often than not, the smell returned.
During the period that I flew the 146/RJ, I cannot recall feeling unwell.
However three years later my medical was withdrawn by the CAA, and that was the end of my flying career. After 34 years of flying all round the world, I was forced to retire, at the tender age of 53. And the reason - I was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease . My PD nurse said it could be that breathing contaminated air, for all those years could have acted as a trigger , to the Parkinson's - who knows. But how to prove it, now that is another matter entirely.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Crawley UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown on many aircraft in my days..and found occasionally an oily smell, usually during take off. The 757 is one of the worst. But neither I , nor anyone I know, has ever had medical side efffects from it.
So, can anyone put scale on it. How many crew, as a percentage of the worldwide crew numbers, have suffered PROVEN side effects from fume inhalation on board an aircraft?
So, can anyone put scale on it. How many crew, as a percentage of the worldwide crew numbers, have suffered PROVEN side effects from fume inhalation on board an aircraft?
Last edited by Trol E Doll; 24th Jun 2005 at 21:18.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: location location
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sneezy mornings...
Just came across this thread folks, been gone awhile; all I want to do is log my symptoms of 146itis: every morning for about two hours, severe hayfever-like symptoms; went back on the 737, cleared up within a week. Non-smoking free-range country boy, early thirties, no allergies. That airplane was unhealthy.