'Toxic' cabin air found in new plane study - Telegraph
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dedicated Toxic fumes section - Aerotoxic?
Iomapaseo,
Why not have a dedicated toxic fumes section - Aerotoxic?
Clearly you have no idea of the scale or significance of this issue, which is exactly why it's kept quiet and continually dismissed - the airline industry gets it - why not you?
Latest:
Learmount
Why not have a dedicated toxic fumes section - Aerotoxic?
Clearly you have no idea of the scale or significance of this issue, which is exactly why it's kept quiet and continually dismissed - the airline industry gets it - why not you?
Latest:
Learmount
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The toxicity levels of engine oil and that of hydraulic fluids are a know without any doubt.
As for long term exposure to these contaminants such as Organophosphates, I would be qurious of the know effects to children of those exposed in the long term such as pilots. How many birth defects are there within people who work in an aircraft or engineers. Are the number of birth defects higher than say for average office worker and is there a link to long term exposure to solar radiation and fumes.
As for long term exposure to these contaminants such as Organophosphates, I would be qurious of the know effects to children of those exposed in the long term such as pilots. How many birth defects are there within people who work in an aircraft or engineers. Are the number of birth defects higher than say for average office worker and is there a link to long term exposure to solar radiation and fumes.
Clearly you have no idea of the scale or significance of this issue, which is exactly why it's kept quiet and continually dismissed - the airline industry gets it - why not you?
I can speak softly and be heard.
I do keep abreast of data that can be compared to measuable problems that can be solved by aviation professionals.
PR release are ignored by me
I'm not about to attack one problem within the industry and create an even bigger problem, so a measured response is always part of solving problems.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The curse of Aerotoxic Syndrome
Iomapaseo,
Plane forced to land over strong chemical smell moments after taking off | Mail Online
Many people are becoming rather sick of their fellow humans being gassed in industrial numbers inside enclosed chambers and then have the cheek to pretend that they don't know why so many are ill.
Boeing absolutely know about it with their 'bleed free' B 787 - ask them. They have already told the House of Lords of the UK in 2007 - as much.
In the meantime, how about filtering the bleed air? - as a precautionary measure.
Which passenger in their right mind would begrudge paying a dollar a seat for clean air, whilst we all wait for 'bleed free' technology to appear?
Meanwhile, pilots aren't even told that 'bleed air is' not filtered.
Filtered or unfiltered Iomapa$eo?
Plane forced to land over strong chemical smell moments after taking off | Mail Online
Many people are becoming rather sick of their fellow humans being gassed in industrial numbers inside enclosed chambers and then have the cheek to pretend that they don't know why so many are ill.
Boeing absolutely know about it with their 'bleed free' B 787 - ask them. They have already told the House of Lords of the UK in 2007 - as much.
In the meantime, how about filtering the bleed air? - as a precautionary measure.
Which passenger in their right mind would begrudge paying a dollar a seat for clean air, whilst we all wait for 'bleed free' technology to appear?
Meanwhile, pilots aren't even told that 'bleed air is' not filtered.
Filtered or unfiltered Iomapa$eo?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DB
I prefer filtered to instant myself.
I apologise for my frivolity. It is just I am sitting drinking a filtered coffee and saw your comment. I saw (see?) the similarities between coffee and air supplies. Filtered is always better (my opinion).
Apologies once again; after all concerns re clean air supplies are valid.
Filtered or unfiltered Iomapa$eo?
I apologise for my frivolity. It is just I am sitting drinking a filtered coffee and saw your comment. I saw (see?) the similarities between coffee and air supplies. Filtered is always better (my opinion).
Apologies once again; after all concerns re clean air supplies are valid.
Last edited by Jetdriver; 22nd Feb 2012 at 16:19.
dream Buster
Mostly true and properly addressed 
Will filtering solve the problem? or is it like using screens in front of engines to stop the birds
What size filter is needed ?
What standard does it have to meet ?
Plane forced to land over strong chemical smell moments after taking off | Mail Online
Many people are becoming rather sick of their fellow humans being gassed in industrial numbers inside enclosed chambers and then have the cheek to pretend that they don't know why so many are ill.
Boeing absolutely know about it with their 'bleed free' B 787 - ask them. They have already told the House of Lords of the UK in 2007 - as much.
In the meantime, how about filtering the bleed air? - as a precautionary measure.
Which passenger in their right mind would begrudge paying a dollar a seat for clean air, whilst we all wait for 'bleed free' technology to appear?
Meanwhile, pilots aren't even told that 'bleed air is' not filtered.
Many people are becoming rather sick of their fellow humans being gassed in industrial numbers inside enclosed chambers and then have the cheek to pretend that they don't know why so many are ill.
Boeing absolutely know about it with their 'bleed free' B 787 - ask them. They have already told the House of Lords of the UK in 2007 - as much.
In the meantime, how about filtering the bleed air? - as a precautionary measure.
Which passenger in their right mind would begrudge paying a dollar a seat for clean air, whilst we all wait for 'bleed free' technology to appear?
Meanwhile, pilots aren't even told that 'bleed air is' not filtered.
Will filtering solve the problem? or is it like using screens in front of engines to stop the birds
What size filter is needed ?
What standard does it have to meet ?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Filter technology
Iomapaseo,
We have a saying in the UK:
Cabin air filtration solutions
I reckon 'a dollar a seat - for clean air' should be enough to start a trend - if only the customers knew what they're breathing.....
We have a saying in the UK:
"Where there's muck - there's bra$$".
I reckon 'a dollar a seat - for clean air' should be enough to start a trend - if only the customers knew what they're breathing.....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday Express
I hate replying to my own post but this was in the Sunday Express yesterday - odd that the rest of the media don't seem to think it's an important issue to report....
Freedom of speech & expression? In your dreams.
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Posts | Breaking news, sport, showbiz, pictures and video from the Daily and Sunday Express newspapers - updated 24/7
Freedom of speech & expression? In your dreams.
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Posts | Breaking news, sport, showbiz, pictures and video from the Daily and Sunday Express newspapers - updated 24/7
EASA has found no reason to change CS 25 (certification specifications for large aeroplanes) to control cabin air quality.
http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measure...2012-001-R.pdf
http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measure...2012-001-R.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extract from the EASA PDF document
No scientific evidence
Yet this same agency wants to change the rules of flight time while scientific studies are in the opposite direction of that agency decisions
This agency takes into account scientific advice only if they are consistent with its interests and so the interests of the industry and airlines
Article 2
According to the existing literature and study reports, the Agency understands that a causal
relationship between the health symptoms reported by some stakeholders (some pilots, cabin
crews or passengers) and oil/hydraulic fluid contamination has not been established. As there
is no conclusive scientific evidence available, the Agency is not able to justify a rulemaking
task to change the existing designs or Certification Specifications.
According to the existing literature and study reports, the Agency understands that a causal
relationship between the health symptoms reported by some stakeholders (some pilots, cabin
crews or passengers) and oil/hydraulic fluid contamination has not been established. As there
is no conclusive scientific evidence available, the Agency is not able to justify a rulemaking
task to change the existing designs or Certification Specifications.
Yet this same agency wants to change the rules of flight time while scientific studies are in the opposite direction of that agency decisions
This agency takes into account scientific advice only if they are consistent with its interests and so the interests of the industry and airlines
That's the way it is supposed to work. That is the fundamental base of a regulatory environment.
One can always argue with the outcome and repetition for a review but the process is not flawed
One can always argue with the outcome and repetition for a review but the process is not flawed
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the way it is supposed to work. That is the fundamental base of a regulatory environment.
What is the (real) purpose of the EASA as regulator ?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Memphis
Age: 58
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toxic Bleed Air
Boeing recently settled a case with an FA for undisclosed amount.
Flight crews (and lawyers) are beginning to understand this is serious.
The FAA commissioned a research paper entitled:
MANAGEMENT OF EXPOSURE TO AIRCRAFT BLEED-AIR CONTAMINANTS AMONG AIRLINE WORKERS A GUIDE FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
A scientist in Seattle has blood samples from 92 people that have experienced symptoms. The suspected culprit chemical is a detergent in the turbine engine oil called tricresylphosphate. A more detailed discussion on the toxicity of
tricresylphosphate engine oil additives can be found in Attachment 1 to the FAA's whitepaper.
Flight crews (and lawyers) are beginning to understand this is serious.
The FAA commissioned a research paper entitled:
MANAGEMENT OF EXPOSURE TO AIRCRAFT BLEED-AIR CONTAMINANTS AMONG AIRLINE WORKERS A GUIDE FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
A scientist in Seattle has blood samples from 92 people that have experienced symptoms. The suspected culprit chemical is a detergent in the turbine engine oil called tricresylphosphate. A more detailed discussion on the toxicity of
tricresylphosphate engine oil additives can be found in Attachment 1 to the FAA's whitepaper.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can read up on the definitive studies of diesel fumes causing lung cancer. Getting that start up whiff on the first flight of the day, times 20,000 hours might not be so healthy.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One has to consider who really controls matters anywhere: follow the money and it is the big guns that pull the switches. Same in politics, same in most industries. When authorities start to tread on rich toes and make life difficult they can be warned/paid off; doesn't matter what the industry is.
Years ago there were studies & reports about cosmic radiation effect on aircraft and personnel. It was tested and some deemed it dangerous. There was no economic solution. Who has heard of those reports and where are they? Buried. For years there have been reports & studies about crew/engineer fatigue and ensuing incidents/accidents. No simple economic solution. Where are those reports? Buried. What has happened to working conditions? Worsened. Aeroplanes fly further = longer = extended FTL's necessary. What has happened? Extended FTL's. The basic human problem has never been addressed. More pax/a.c. flying longer sectors with less crews = more profit. QED! Engineering qualifications diluted. Maintenance schedules massaged. I look back over 38 years and most things have been diluted. Technology has improved enormously, yes, but it is not the saviour of everything. The human is still the root cause of most accidents in most industries. There is no doubt in my mind that company profit is foremost. If all rules were obeyed and crews worked to rule then the air-transport system would collapse. Should it be like that?
But that's another story. Should known dangers be allowed to be brushed under the carpet? Damn it, there is enough nasty stuff under there already. The biggest problem is that if it is agreed that there is a case to answer on health grounds for the crews then what about the zillions of pax who are flying? The industry could not survive such a scenario. The DVT was a scare. It did not include crews, only econ -pax. Why? The pax could at least walk about: we are locked into our box for hours, and for more hours/yr than any pax. Our lively-hood and health were never mentioned. Too inconvenient. That topic has disappeared. The airlines have issued warnings and tips about twiddling your toes. Has the problem disappeared?
I can only say I'm glad it is over; the slippery slope is getting slipperier every year. Many authorities do not seem to be helping reverse the trend. As with most reversals in the ways of managing worldly affairs it will take a major catastrophe for a wake up call. I can think of many aviation crashes that caused wake-up calls and changes. They didn't require too much money. I fear we are at the point where necessary changes in the way you operate and live your lives will require financial investment and greed will win in the short term. In the long term? I wont be around to see it. Bon chance.
Years ago there were studies & reports about cosmic radiation effect on aircraft and personnel. It was tested and some deemed it dangerous. There was no economic solution. Who has heard of those reports and where are they? Buried. For years there have been reports & studies about crew/engineer fatigue and ensuing incidents/accidents. No simple economic solution. Where are those reports? Buried. What has happened to working conditions? Worsened. Aeroplanes fly further = longer = extended FTL's necessary. What has happened? Extended FTL's. The basic human problem has never been addressed. More pax/a.c. flying longer sectors with less crews = more profit. QED! Engineering qualifications diluted. Maintenance schedules massaged. I look back over 38 years and most things have been diluted. Technology has improved enormously, yes, but it is not the saviour of everything. The human is still the root cause of most accidents in most industries. There is no doubt in my mind that company profit is foremost. If all rules were obeyed and crews worked to rule then the air-transport system would collapse. Should it be like that?
But that's another story. Should known dangers be allowed to be brushed under the carpet? Damn it, there is enough nasty stuff under there already. The biggest problem is that if it is agreed that there is a case to answer on health grounds for the crews then what about the zillions of pax who are flying? The industry could not survive such a scenario. The DVT was a scare. It did not include crews, only econ -pax. Why? The pax could at least walk about: we are locked into our box for hours, and for more hours/yr than any pax. Our lively-hood and health were never mentioned. Too inconvenient. That topic has disappeared. The airlines have issued warnings and tips about twiddling your toes. Has the problem disappeared?
I can only say I'm glad it is over; the slippery slope is getting slipperier every year. Many authorities do not seem to be helping reverse the trend. As with most reversals in the ways of managing worldly affairs it will take a major catastrophe for a wake up call. I can think of many aviation crashes that caused wake-up calls and changes. They didn't require too much money. I fear we are at the point where necessary changes in the way you operate and live your lives will require financial investment and greed will win in the short term. In the long term? I wont be around to see it. Bon chance.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any one have any numbers on cabin air recirculation rates? Meaning how long would a cabin at alt have it's air completely replaced with fresh air.
Last edited by Teldorserious; 25th May 2013 at 02:18.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derby UK
Age: 59
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cabin air bleed varies a bit with altitude but assume about 2.5 lbs / second at 40,000 ft.
don't forget also assume a 50 % re-circ and it will vary if AI is on for long.
don't forget also assume a 50 % re-circ and it will vary if AI is on for long.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So EASA found no reason in 2012 to specify in CS25 cabin air problems/solutions?
Let us hope that the EU Commission, having suddenly discovered engine oil is bad for ones health, may talk to EASA and ask them WTF are you lot up to?!
Oh, I forgot, our EU masters are far too busy limiting vacuum cleaner wattages and pondering hairdryers and other bits of domestic energy-consuming widgets for future diktats.
So their hard-pressed schedule will ensure the issue of toxic poisoning of crew and SLF is left on the back burner, pun intended!
Let us hope that the EU Commission, having suddenly discovered engine oil is bad for ones health, may talk to EASA and ask them WTF are you lot up to?!
Oh, I forgot, our EU masters are far too busy limiting vacuum cleaner wattages and pondering hairdryers and other bits of domestic energy-consuming widgets for future diktats.
So their hard-pressed schedule will ensure the issue of toxic poisoning of crew and SLF is left on the back burner, pun intended!
