'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
10 years on....
Soddim,
You only need to read this newspaper article from 10 years ago to see how the bean counters have managed to bury this issue.
Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search
Might these be the same bean counters who are presently facing jail for screwing up the rest of the economy?
It seems to me that the first problem is the poisoning of innocent aircrew / customers.
The secondary and slightly worse / more worrying aspect is the joined up and on going cover up.
Who has heard of aerotoxic? Certainly not the people who are suffering from it!
But people aren't THAT stupid. They will work it out, it's just a matter of time.
Perhaps the German people can bring some fresh logic and common sense to the discussion...
Filter bleed air - it is NOT rocket science.
DB
You only need to read this newspaper article from 10 years ago to see how the bean counters have managed to bury this issue.
Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search
Might these be the same bean counters who are presently facing jail for screwing up the rest of the economy?
It seems to me that the first problem is the poisoning of innocent aircrew / customers.
The secondary and slightly worse / more worrying aspect is the joined up and on going cover up.
Who has heard of aerotoxic? Certainly not the people who are suffering from it!
But people aren't THAT stupid. They will work it out, it's just a matter of time.
Perhaps the German people can bring some fresh logic and common sense to the discussion...
Filter bleed air - it is NOT rocket science.
DB
Last edited by Dream Buster; 15th Feb 2009 at 08:58.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Rome
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This telegraph report said that upto 200,000 pax could be affect every year. Sounds like a lot but to put that into context how many people fly per year ??? 500 million - 1 billion i don't know but it must be a lot !!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIGBAD This telegraph report said that upto 200,000 pax could be affect every year. Sounds like a lot but to put that into context how many people fly per year ??? 500 million - 1 billion i don't know but it must be a lot !!
A lot of those "passengers" are business/regular flyers. In my current job I pax on 40 to 70 flights a year.
200,000 passengers affected is a lot and no matter the total of passengers that fly a year, 200,000 is 200,000 too many IMO
A lot of those "passengers" are business/regular flyers. In my current job I pax on 40 to 70 flights a year.
200,000 passengers affected is a lot and no matter the total of passengers that fly a year, 200,000 is 200,000 too many IMO
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple answer.
Like global warming, there are lots of people who have a vested interest in this not being a real issue. Unlike global warming it would be a simple matter for the industry to get serious about some conclusive tests. They don't.
I've never been affected (to my knowledge) but now know a couple of people who are sure they have been & saner more balanced types I've yet to meet. What disturbs me is that there has been stock answer statements put out by those who are charged with our safety & regulation - and this includes manufacturers, pilot's union etc - for a very long time now.
The consequences of there being something serious in this are very big & where big consequences exist you usually find plenty of resources devoted to denial.
There will be many pax who are affected but have no idea how/when/by what or even what they have. Engine oil contains organophosphates - fact. It's a poison - developed by the Nazis to kill people - so go figure. How good are your oil seals??
What does seem to come out if you read these articles or saw Panorama is that most are not affected but some are and very badly. It needs looking at pronto before a crew becomes incap & kills a lot of people.
I've never been affected (to my knowledge) but now know a couple of people who are sure they have been & saner more balanced types I've yet to meet. What disturbs me is that there has been stock answer statements put out by those who are charged with our safety & regulation - and this includes manufacturers, pilot's union etc - for a very long time now.
The consequences of there being something serious in this are very big & where big consequences exist you usually find plenty of resources devoted to denial.
There will be many pax who are affected but have no idea how/when/by what or even what they have. Engine oil contains organophosphates - fact. It's a poison - developed by the Nazis to kill people - so go figure. How good are your oil seals??
What does seem to come out if you read these articles or saw Panorama is that most are not affected but some are and very badly. It needs looking at pronto before a crew becomes incap & kills a lot of people.
Unfortunately, sensible discussion of cabin air contamination was hijacked on this website last year by a group which appeared to have an axe to grind banging on about 'CO contamination', a very unlikely contaminant in a modern jet transport.
As far as I am aware the most likely source of contamination would be lub oil from a leaking forward compressor bearing seal.
I do not believe that I have ever suffered from contaminated cabin air but I did, at one time, have an ongoing lung problem. It was co-incident with spending long periods of time in Hong Kong.
As far as I am aware the most likely source of contamination would be lub oil from a leaking forward compressor bearing seal.
I do not believe that I have ever suffered from contaminated cabin air but I did, at one time, have an ongoing lung problem. It was co-incident with spending long periods of time in Hong Kong.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People banging on
Unfortunately Basil, People tend to "Bang on" because nobody is listening to something they feel is important.
I agree it is often alienating when they do but to suggest that pumping poison round a jet engine whilst separating it from the cabin air by a simple oil seal (designed to work as a wet seal) does seem a little questionable to my simple mind.
so, "banging on" or not they may still have a point.
And no, I do not have any vested interest one way or another.............
I agree it is often alienating when they do but to suggest that pumping poison round a jet engine whilst separating it from the cabin air by a simple oil seal (designed to work as a wet seal) does seem a little questionable to my simple mind.
so, "banging on" or not they may still have a point.
And no, I do not have any vested interest one way or another.............
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm puzzled by this line in the Telegraph article :
"However, these “recirculated air” filters do not remove fumes or vapours from the engine. So if engine oil or hydraulic fuel leaks, toxic chemicals can contaminate the air supply."
The recirc filters (provided they are clean and serviceable) are capable of removing SARS virus and similar, suspended in the cabin air. How can they 'not' remove these chemicals ?
As I understood it from that BALPA Clean Cabin Air conference a few years ago, the much-maligned recirculation system is the only filtration system technically possible at the moment; once TCPs, pyrolytes etc have made it to the cabin the recirc filters will (eventually) remove them. I would have thought they'd catch toxic fumes too.
"However, these “recirculated air” filters do not remove fumes or vapours from the engine. So if engine oil or hydraulic fuel leaks, toxic chemicals can contaminate the air supply."
The recirc filters (provided they are clean and serviceable) are capable of removing SARS virus and similar, suspended in the cabin air. How can they 'not' remove these chemicals ?
As I understood it from that BALPA Clean Cabin Air conference a few years ago, the much-maligned recirculation system is the only filtration system technically possible at the moment; once TCPs, pyrolytes etc have made it to the cabin the recirc filters will (eventually) remove them. I would have thought they'd catch toxic fumes too.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human beings have a remarkable and irritating tendency to latch on to specific issues for dear life, while sweeping other issues under the rug. The level of concern people have for specific issues almost never correlates in any way at all with the actual importance of those issues. Perception is everything, and reality falls by the wayside.
The issue of "toxic" air inside aircraft is one example. Another, which I've encountered more and more recently, is the issue of "chemtrails," that is, the belief that condensation trails contain vile toxic substances in significant quantities, beyond water and carbon dioxide.
Still another example is the disparity in coverage of two recent accidents. After the first accident, the pilot in command was promptly canonized; after the second, much more recent accident, the crew is being posthumously vilified. And these attitudes have virtually nothing at all to do with the actual circumstances of each accident and the probable causes. It's all illusion.
It seems that all you have to do is put an idea into a person's head, and he or she will run with it, improvising and imagining all the other details along the way. Most people will in fact prefer the imaginary details to the real facts, even if you offer to give them the real facts, and the fewer facts that are available, the more intense and detailed the imaginings.
The issue of "toxic" air inside aircraft is one example. Another, which I've encountered more and more recently, is the issue of "chemtrails," that is, the belief that condensation trails contain vile toxic substances in significant quantities, beyond water and carbon dioxide.
Still another example is the disparity in coverage of two recent accidents. After the first accident, the pilot in command was promptly canonized; after the second, much more recent accident, the crew is being posthumously vilified. And these attitudes have virtually nothing at all to do with the actual circumstances of each accident and the probable causes. It's all illusion.
It seems that all you have to do is put an idea into a person's head, and he or she will run with it, improvising and imagining all the other details along the way. Most people will in fact prefer the imaginary details to the real facts, even if you offer to give them the real facts, and the fewer facts that are available, the more intense and detailed the imaginings.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Age: 38
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt this is true, simply because more cabin crew and flight deck officers would be taking time off as they are sick? How many flights do Southwest do each day? And how many times have they been off?
Exactly what is in this toxic air anyway?
I hope I am not breathing in toxic air, mainly as my children would be doing the same. But I have never been ill, nor have them... Nor has anyone I know who flys a lot.
Nikolai.
Exactly what is in this toxic air anyway?
I hope I am not breathing in toxic air, mainly as my children would be doing the same. But I have never been ill, nor have them... Nor has anyone I know who flys a lot.
Nikolai.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human nature
Exactly Moonraker.
Just because you can't see it nor touch it it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Obviously there will always be conspiracy theorists but I don't think this issues falls into that category.
As I already said, the 2 people I know who fear they've been affected are simply not that sort. Asbestos underwent a similar denial phase with huge amounts of corporate resources thrown at denying any health risk meanwhile people continued to contract fatal diseases. It really is simple. The authorities have a duty to investigate ALL health risks that crews or pax may encounter in a pressurized cabin and it can be done fairly easily.
The more it isn't the more I think they have something to hide. There are too many sane people concerned about it now to simply say it's human nature to find single issues to whinge about.
Just because you can't see it nor touch it it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Obviously there will always be conspiracy theorists but I don't think this issues falls into that category.
As I already said, the 2 people I know who fear they've been affected are simply not that sort. Asbestos underwent a similar denial phase with huge amounts of corporate resources thrown at denying any health risk meanwhile people continued to contract fatal diseases. It really is simple. The authorities have a duty to investigate ALL health risks that crews or pax may encounter in a pressurized cabin and it can be done fairly easily.
The more it isn't the more I think they have something to hide. There are too many sane people concerned about it now to simply say it's human nature to find single issues to whinge about.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jshg
The usual filters used in aircraft cabin air systems (made by PALL amongst others Clearing the Air on Airplane Cabin Air ) will not remove what are commonly (and incorrectly) referred to as 'fumes'. This is because the organic chemicals (like TCP/TOCP) are at a molecular level. The filters WILL remove dust and fibres (large particles) and maybe some oil mist which may have TCP dissolved in it or larger particles with TCP adsorbed onto it. Basically they are a micron-sized tea strainer. Organic chemicals and small oil mist particles get through. If you have ever seen a used filter you would see how well these things work (for dust).
The problem that you have with this issue is that not everyone is affected the same way: a proportion of the population are what the toxicologists call 'hypersusceptible', so it is difficult to know what 'acceptable' levels might be.
Pinkman
The problem that you have with this issue is that not everyone is affected the same way: a proportion of the population are what the toxicologists call 'hypersusceptible', so it is difficult to know what 'acceptable' levels might be.
Pinkman
Last edited by Pinkman; 15th Feb 2009 at 22:23.
Re #20 “Filter bleed air - it is NOT rocket science”.
There are many problems: what are you filtering out, what is the contaminant / particle size? - see above.
What happens when the filter is full / blocked, if it subsequently fails do you expose people to a higher risk?
A quick look into many air-conditioning systems reveals a chemistry set consisting of old engine or hydraulic oil, de icing fluid, re circulated dirt/dust/detritus. What are the chemical processes that could occur with change of temperature / pressure / humidity during flight? How many of the serious events have occurred during descent – could there be a clue there?
A natural human reaction is to experience concern when encountering an unknown – the sense of smell can contribute a flee / fight reaction which in high stress situations / personal susceptibility (either personality or situation induced, e.g. fatigue) can contribute to actual or perceived physical deterioration. This is not to dismiss several well documented and as yet unexplained instances of crew incapacitation, but without knowing what the threat is, the range of defences might be restricted to reactive resources – use oxygen masks if smoke / fumes are encountered. Aspects of airmanship require us to control the stress of surprise – assessing the situation, protecting ourselves so that as crew we can fly the aircraft safely – rule 1.
There are many problems: what are you filtering out, what is the contaminant / particle size? - see above.
What happens when the filter is full / blocked, if it subsequently fails do you expose people to a higher risk?
A quick look into many air-conditioning systems reveals a chemistry set consisting of old engine or hydraulic oil, de icing fluid, re circulated dirt/dust/detritus. What are the chemical processes that could occur with change of temperature / pressure / humidity during flight? How many of the serious events have occurred during descent – could there be a clue there?
A natural human reaction is to experience concern when encountering an unknown – the sense of smell can contribute a flee / fight reaction which in high stress situations / personal susceptibility (either personality or situation induced, e.g. fatigue) can contribute to actual or perceived physical deterioration. This is not to dismiss several well documented and as yet unexplained instances of crew incapacitation, but without knowing what the threat is, the range of defences might be restricted to reactive resources – use oxygen masks if smoke / fumes are encountered. Aspects of airmanship require us to control the stress of surprise – assessing the situation, protecting ourselves so that as crew we can fly the aircraft safely – rule 1.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM Aircrew?
PE 3721,
You may be interested to know that there are many ex pilots, cabin crew who are absolutely certain and know 100% what caused their normal good health to alter for the worse whilst flying a certain four engine jet and other bleed air aircraft. Most still find out years later by mistake - NOT auto suggestion.
In contrast, we have various office bound doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats, regulators, politicians 'believing' (hoping) that toxic oil fumes in a confined space are not responsible for serious ill health.
Why do you think that the B 787 is bleed free? How is it that organophosphate deposits are regularly found in jet air conditoning systems and over internal surfaces? Why won't the UK Government tell the ex pilots which chemicals and concentrations are in the visible oil fumes from a cold APU start?
I'm sorry, but all of this is being logged (believe it or not) and when it is finally proved and after the scientists have finished testing Neanderthal man's DNA and other brain numbing equally usesless projects there will be heads rolling - and it won't be the pilots, I can assure you.
Last but not least, would finding oil deposits (including organophosphates) in ones blood / fat be a reasonable indication of a problem? Just like a drunk driver or a competetive athlete? That's what convinced me and many others, along with our serious untimely ill health.
Blood / fat check anybody? What happened to the precautionary principle, anyway?
I hope you agree that this is a black and white issue, no in betweens. Simple choice; Who do you trust - the vested interests or the GM aircrew?
KBO.
DB
You may be interested to know that there are many ex pilots, cabin crew who are absolutely certain and know 100% what caused their normal good health to alter for the worse whilst flying a certain four engine jet and other bleed air aircraft. Most still find out years later by mistake - NOT auto suggestion.
In contrast, we have various office bound doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats, regulators, politicians 'believing' (hoping) that toxic oil fumes in a confined space are not responsible for serious ill health.
Why do you think that the B 787 is bleed free? How is it that organophosphate deposits are regularly found in jet air conditoning systems and over internal surfaces? Why won't the UK Government tell the ex pilots which chemicals and concentrations are in the visible oil fumes from a cold APU start?
I'm sorry, but all of this is being logged (believe it or not) and when it is finally proved and after the scientists have finished testing Neanderthal man's DNA and other brain numbing equally usesless projects there will be heads rolling - and it won't be the pilots, I can assure you.
Last but not least, would finding oil deposits (including organophosphates) in ones blood / fat be a reasonable indication of a problem? Just like a drunk driver or a competetive athlete? That's what convinced me and many others, along with our serious untimely ill health.
Blood / fat check anybody? What happened to the precautionary principle, anyway?
I hope you agree that this is a black and white issue, no in betweens. Simple choice; Who do you trust - the vested interests or the GM aircrew?
KBO.
DB
...there are many ex pilots, cabin crew who are absolutely certain and know 100% what caused their normal good health to alter...
...we have various office bound doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats, regulators, politicians 'believing' (hoping) that toxic oil fumes in a confined space are not responsible...
I fly jets with bleed-driven packs, so I am *very* concerned about air quality from a selfish point-of-view. I also have some sympathy for the technical side of the airline industry in that hard data on this subject seems pretty difficult to come by. I've seen a couple of papers but they effectively say: "more research required". Most of the "facts" I hear quoted are such things as "an engineer told me..." or "did you know that...", etc.
There is a temptation to go for a sort of conspiracy theory but considering that the airlines/regulators/investigators have been formally told of this issue on many occasions (and are running studies), it would be rather foolhardy of them to try and cover up something that is so much in the public domain, IMHO. Now that aeroplanes (in the UK at least) are covered under H&S, the sort of fines and lawsuits that would follow discovery of withholding of this kind of information would be spectacular, to say the least.
Also, I hear "just fit filters". What kind of filters are these and what are they filtering? Do they work or are they just like putting a hanky over your mouth during a nerve gas attack (which is the class of chemicals we're discussing). It'd be ironic if the airlines caved in and rushed out some countermeasures which were found to be ineffective some years later.
If I'm giving the impression that I'm unsympathetic to those who are suffering from ill health in their flying careers (possibly from some sort of nervous poisoning), then nothing could be farther from the truth. What I do feel is that we need less emotion and more hard science, otherwise we're just going round in circles.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contaminated Air Reference Manual
Fullwings,
Good reply and well balanced.
The trouble is that this is not a balanced situation. If you and the previously mentioned vested interests actually took the time to look at the evidence, complete the studies and actually come to some conclusions - then we could all move on.
I take it you are already familiar with the well accepted vested interests tactic of 'never ending studies' to prevent a conclusion being drawn??
Boeing and BALPA know all about it. Boeing worked it out in around 1999 (hence the B787) and BALPA in 2005. It is now 2009 - 'on the balance of probability' Boeing and BALPA are both right. They are not stupid - nor are we.
I regret to say that any emotion stems from professionals losing their jobs, health, relationships as a direct result the ongoing denial. It's tough, I promise you.
David Learmount of FI was a famous non believer two years ago but he took the time to review the evidence of 40 years and called for filters.
Comment - Don't wait to take action over toxic cabin air
Now I don't agree with everything Mr Learmount says especially as I don't believe he has recently operated a Public Transport aircraft BUT he knows a lot about the shennanigans of the industry, he looked at the evidence and published his opinion. He would never have risked his reputation and that of FI unless he was absoultely sure of his facts.
Can I suggest you order the 800 page Contaminated Air Reference Manual and then cast your vote - maybe taking into account the Precautionary Principle.
I showed the manual to my AME and he unhelpfully said it was too long.....
(did I mention that the industry 'doctors' also have vested interests?)
Fullwings, as an ultimate 'stakeholder' Perhaps you would like to review the factual evidence and help come up with a well balanced conclusion?
Take care - in contaminated air. It's NOT good for you.
DB
Good reply and well balanced.
The trouble is that this is not a balanced situation. If you and the previously mentioned vested interests actually took the time to look at the evidence, complete the studies and actually come to some conclusions - then we could all move on.
I take it you are already familiar with the well accepted vested interests tactic of 'never ending studies' to prevent a conclusion being drawn??
Boeing and BALPA know all about it. Boeing worked it out in around 1999 (hence the B787) and BALPA in 2005. It is now 2009 - 'on the balance of probability' Boeing and BALPA are both right. They are not stupid - nor are we.
I regret to say that any emotion stems from professionals losing their jobs, health, relationships as a direct result the ongoing denial. It's tough, I promise you.
David Learmount of FI was a famous non believer two years ago but he took the time to review the evidence of 40 years and called for filters.
Comment - Don't wait to take action over toxic cabin air
Now I don't agree with everything Mr Learmount says especially as I don't believe he has recently operated a Public Transport aircraft BUT he knows a lot about the shennanigans of the industry, he looked at the evidence and published his opinion. He would never have risked his reputation and that of FI unless he was absoultely sure of his facts.
Can I suggest you order the 800 page Contaminated Air Reference Manual and then cast your vote - maybe taking into account the Precautionary Principle.
I showed the manual to my AME and he unhelpfully said it was too long.....
(did I mention that the industry 'doctors' also have vested interests?)Fullwings, as an ultimate 'stakeholder' Perhaps you would like to review the factual evidence and help come up with a well balanced conclusion?
Take care - in contaminated air. It's NOT good for you.
DB
Last edited by Dream Buster; 16th Feb 2009 at 08:10.
Dream Buster, instead of yet another speech, please help share the answer to the reasonable question posed by FullWings: "What kind of filters are these and what are they filtering?"
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spent over ten years as a captain on the older 146 aircraft and although it had many good features one of it's worse ones was the quality of the air in the cabin pressurisation system. During the period I was flying it I suffered more colds and flu-like symptoms than at any other period in my life . I returned to Boeing 737 aircraft after that and almost immediately my health began to improve. Since retiring from flying and taking up simulator instruction about four years ago I virtually never suffer from colds or similar ailments at all! I attribute the extremely poor air quality on the 146 to two factors-
1. The high leakage rate through the engine oil seals into the bleed air.
2.The requirement to recirculate a high proportion of the cabin air to compensate for the inadequate thrust/bleed air from the engines (every 146 pilot knows how underpowered this aircraft is!)
Quite often apon initially starting a day's flying on the 146 it was common to start the APU and then select the highest possible cabin temperature in an attempt to try and "burn off" the residual deposits in the ducts before the rest of the crew and passengers boarded the flight!
Although the 146 and the Boeing 757 were known to be the worst offenders in the "dirty air" club I'm sure that eventually all new large aircraft will follow Boeing's lead and revert to indirect cabin pressurisation-- nothing new really-- the good old DC8 had cabin turbo compressors roaring away in the nose. (The downside of those was that most pilots ended up with with significant hearing loss!)
1. The high leakage rate through the engine oil seals into the bleed air.
2.The requirement to recirculate a high proportion of the cabin air to compensate for the inadequate thrust/bleed air from the engines (every 146 pilot knows how underpowered this aircraft is!)
Quite often apon initially starting a day's flying on the 146 it was common to start the APU and then select the highest possible cabin temperature in an attempt to try and "burn off" the residual deposits in the ducts before the rest of the crew and passengers boarded the flight!
Although the 146 and the Boeing 757 were known to be the worst offenders in the "dirty air" club I'm sure that eventually all new large aircraft will follow Boeing's lead and revert to indirect cabin pressurisation-- nothing new really-- the good old DC8 had cabin turbo compressors roaring away in the nose. (The downside of those was that most pilots ended up with with significant hearing loss!)
Fullwings, as an ultimate 'stakeholder' Perhaps you would like to review the factual evidence and help come up with a well balanced conclusion?
I've just ploughed through some of the reports from the CoT (a distillation of a small amount of what's out there) and it definitely reads like a work in progress. Many small studies of various factors but very little in the way of statistical significance - and that's the main issue, for me.
Are some aviation workers becoming ill with chronic nervous disorders? Yes. Are there 'fume events' occurring on some aircraft? Yes. Is there a causative relationship between the two? Not yet proven/disproved. Are we seeing a much greater incidence of these ailments than you would expect in a general population sample? Wasn't obvious from anything I've read.
'Control group', 'confounding variables', 'selection bias', 'significance level', 'blind trial'... These are the sort of phrases you hope to see when, say, a new drug is being brought to market and is undergoing toxicity testing. At the moment, much of what I'm looking at reads more like a sociological study because of the lack of empirical data.
One thing that did strike me (and others) is the fixation on TOCP synthesised from engine oils as being "the problem". I'd have thought a more holistic view was in order, given that we are operating in a wholly manufactured environment. There are plenty of possibilities for other neurotoxic compounds and vectors which may be being overlooked.
There are striking parallels with "Gulf War Syndrome" and it took long enough to come to some statistically valid conclusions - and that was with a 700,000 person sample with 1 in 4 affected! It was the Uranium shells, then it was the Anthrax vaccinations, etc. In aviation we're looking at something that is hovering around the noise floor: I saw a rough estimate of 3-15 thousand monitored flights on the 146/757 in order to gather appropriate data.
Boeing worked it out in around 1999 (hence the B787)
Radiation, pathogens, nasty fumes, low humidity, epidermal bits floating around... An aircraft is a terrible place to be! But hang on, all these things are around at ground level, sometimes in much higher concentrations. Many have been environmental issues since the start of evolution. You can't take these things in isolation.
Just suppose that filters (activated carbon?) were fitted to all bleed-driven aircraft, 'just in case'. A wise move, in view of the 'precautionary principle', even though we don't fully understand the problem? It would make a lot of people happy and the industry would be seen to be 'doing something'. Imagine now that the problem wasn't what we'd thought it was but something else, equally as nasty, that had been overlooked... How long until that was found because "it's all OK now."?
I don't want to be a 'believer', I want to be convinced. So far I've seen very little that I could file under that heading but a lot from people with a very personal interest in the subject - and they don't generally make the best impartial researchers, it has to be said. No offence intended - just the ways things are.
Vertical Speed:
That is exactly the wrong technique. The smart thing was to start the APU and then run the pack(s) at Fully Cold for several minutes (regardless of how cold it already was in the cockpit/cabin) so that any possible sh*t went overboard before any heat was introduced into the system.
I never had a problem in almost 20 years and I am delighted to report that I am still in the rudest of health (so far anyway).
That is exactly the wrong technique. The smart thing was to start the APU and then run the pack(s) at Fully Cold for several minutes (regardless of how cold it already was in the cockpit/cabin) so that any possible sh*t went overboard before any heat was introduced into the system.
I never had a problem in almost 20 years and I am delighted to report that I am still in the rudest of health (so far anyway).