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 ?

"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."

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

-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!

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

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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,
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.

What a great way to sum up pages and pages of endless context.

Point not proved, time to move on.

Vested Interests
 

For those of you not from the UK you may be interested to learn that Martin Alder who posts as if he is 'BALPA POLICY' is not an elected representative of BALPA, is not the Chairman of their specialsed working group looking into these matters known as the 'AETG' and was a former manager at British Airways.

Therefore please do not take what he says as BALPA policy, but for what it is: The views of one member of BALPA, Chairman of their FSG group who are critised by many BALPA members for their lack of effort on these issues and well known to be a 'non believer' who I am informed did not even bother to attend the BALPA conference.

Some in BALPA have worked very hard on these issues and as a member it disturbs me to see what clearly is alot of infighting within my own association. As I have posted before, a good friend of mine who is now sick from fumes was not given the support BALPA should have given him. This lack of support generated from within the BALPA FSG structure. I suggested he post on PPrune his story but he tells me he would rather not tarnish his union as its does alot of good in other areas.

What is the official BALPA line ?

Not just the brits
 

I think that Pprune is a great tool to help talk things over and as my first posting I commend them.

From this thread it may be implied this is purely a British issue but I fly the seven fifty seven for a large US carrier and I am well aware of the oil smell. (got 8000+ hours on it) Also had it on the C-141


Do I write it up:

Hell No

Do I want my pay check:

Hell Us

Should I write it up:

Hell Yes

Do passengers know didly ..... they are being exposed:

Hell No

Dont ask us to write it up when we have Chapter 11 spreading like the plague in the States. I suggest you fit a contaminated air detection system so the guys and gals can just say, hey the gadget acctivated and sure I smelt it.

We say nothing not because we don't care but because pay is king and those who talk WALK.

-400 heavy, could you forward details, privately if you like, of who your friend is? I did ask a few days ago, but no answer yet, either publicly or privately. I looked at the BALPA Forum and could not find the release you quote, must have looked under the wrong title, so could you tell us all exactly where it is?
No one in the FSG is elected, all volunteers with lots if time spent doing it, who elect their respective group chairman. so some democracy there! I don't make policy, the NEC does and I have not knowingly contradicted any of the policy they have made. The concerns about getting it right are real, for the very reasons that our American contributor mentions, Big scare, no passengers, no jobs, which is a hell of a price to pay for what may not be an issue at all for most I would say.
I am sure that we all do want answers, but we don't want to cause panic that causes jobs lost for no reason either. This is especially so when the evidence is patchy at best and unfortunately, none so far would meet normal standards for such data to be used as a basis for some pretty fundamantal changes. If that evidence turns up after a programme to capture data has captured it, analysed it and identified the risks and solutions, then solutions will be developed or fitted, mods made etc.

Risk is ever present in all activity and it has to be against that one judges whether this is within an acceptable range or not. After all, jumping in your car, flying an aeroplane , cutting the grass and even sex, all involve risk. It is just determining what the acceptable risk is and controlling it that allows society to function at all.

I assume from your comments that you are in contact with members of the CAQTG and thus know of my non-attendance. this was due to leave, booked as you well know some 8 or 9 months before the conference and some 4 months or so before the conference dates were given. No consultation was made outside of the AETG as it was then over dates, so not surprisng that a number of people could not attend. Were you there?

Non -believer is spoken of as if this were some kind of religious crusade. Sorry, but I and others need some hard facts before acting. Whatever my own feelings may be, I doubt that anyone reading this would thank me for following a gut feel and getting it very wrong for BALPA because I went all emotional not logical. Just like flying itself, you sometimes have to suppress gut feel and initial reaction to get to the bottom of the issue and that is all I want.

Martin

You say there is no evidence, you say I looked at the BALPA Forum and could not find the release you quote, must have looked under the wrong title, so could you tell us all exactly where it is?

Now it all makes, sense. You as Chairman of the BALPA FSG say there is no problem but you don't look at the data, do you?

The release is on the BA part of the BALPA forum, it was posted on: May 7th, 2005, 6:44pm, by Tristan Loraine listed as Boeing 757/767 / NEC / Pool Rep / AETG. Are you not also a BA pilot? How can you miss it?

I notice on the 'General' BALPA Forum you posted the following:

As far as that surveyy done on BA 757 crews goes. Is there a table with de-identified id's of the crews, the hulls and dates etc for analysis? It still seems odd that a mere 100 crew members should get 1500 events, that is 15 each and the rest of the fleet seem to get none. I assume that they are are flight deck crew members or were there cabin crew as well ?If someone got 1 then someone else got 30 and that does seem unusual in terms of statistical spread.

Do you know how many flight crew members total were on the fleet during this period? If cabin crew members are included, how many in total were operating on the fleet at this time?

How is it possible for someone in your position to make such errors, clearly showing you have not attempted to read the paper. I read it from our own website about 4 months ago. As it is published surely we as members should expect that the FSG Chairman might have read it.

You say long term research is needed, crews like my flight training buddy flew the 146 back in the 80s and 20 years later are sick, surely thats a long enough study term?

You attack the NGO AOPIS but surely if unions like ours had done the duty we should have on these difficult issues, the sick from around the world would not have started AOPIS.

I have smelt fumes a few times on the -400 but was on the 757 in the past and glad I left the health issues you care little about.

Thankfully not all in BALPA appear to aggree with you. I am sure PPrune did not set up this forum for BALPA failings to be debated so I will refrain from embarrasing you further, I cannot 'not' vote for you as you are not elected. I will simply vote for the elected reps who do care and do the work:

Mr Alder

Perhaps you ignored my post as I'm Cabin Crew!

You want evidence! Then read my post at the bottom of Page 4.

As you will notice the MOR refers to three incidents on the same a/c in 2001 and the investigation progressed under another incident in 2000!

I can assure you that my health has suffered due to this incident.

And I did attend the BALPA Conference!

No one say that failures never occur! Just how often and how bad . The question that keeps coming up is do you get affected when it is a normal operation and you don't notice any contamination. The one you have described you could clearly notice, so falls well within a failure case scenario and inhalation of smoke is not good anytime, no matter what it is , including cigarettes!

Obvious smoke is abnormal, hence the response, checklists etc. Bearing in mind that cabin fires and electrical fires ar far more frequent, the smoke is also toxic, then the probability is then that most will be more likely to have ill effects from that than engine oil. Does not make the effects any less, but you have to put into perspective the risk of smoke at any time on any flight and smoke fumes from engine defects as a percentage of those.

Whether you are cabin crew or not did not enter my mind.
I cannot comment on the state of your health, that is for you and your doctor to discuss. Of great interest generally in these events is what were the effects on the range of people on-board? There frequently seems to be quite a variation between people to an event and getting to the bottom of that is another urgent requirement, as it will probably affcet the solutions needed. Was that the case in your event?

ps -400 have looked , but still can't find it, send me a link

- I did read it some time ago. However, it still begs the question as how on a broad basis why some had a great number of events, which averaged over the numbers who had them is about 15, but why no one else and why such a concentration? If we ask why, then so will someone else. The CAA did try to make sense of the survey, but the data was incomplete such that it was not possible to draw valid conclusions. That is not to say that those people did not have an event or otherwise, merely that the data was unable to be used in any meaningful way to assist. As the number of ASR\'s or MOR\'s fell well short of the 1500 , then it is unfortunate that more of those which would have supported a better analysis were not filed. That is why we have spent some effort in getting people to report things officialy, so as to get data that can support the case.

Hence the desire to get a survey done that does provide the correct data. With that you have a case, without you don't. As this argument is now circular, no more comments from me on this forum. It has hopefully not been too boring for those of you who stumbled on it by mistake! private messages gratefully received and keep on reporting or we don't get the data!

Martin Alder British Airways manger or BALPA spokesman or both, it seems he appears to be all bent on trying to convince us fumes are a rare event and nothing to worry about, nearly as much as an industry spoksman would.

He tells us that Bearing in mind that cabin fires and electrical fires ar far more frequent, he has never had a fume event or that cutting the grass or having sex involve risk.

To me as a a pilot and graduate with a first in psychology these comments WORRY ME!!

NOWHERE have I read anything from Mr Alder and therefore BALPA (as he is the BALPA FSG Chairman and I am certain he would not be posting this if not endorsed by those upstairs in BALPA) on this thread to show that BALPA has any condolences for its sick crew members or the families who now no doubt live daily with the consequences of fumes on their partners, any care for his members health or any support for those who seek change.

He clearly paints a BALPA that does not care, is uninterested in protecting its members health and puts industry profit over health and carrers.

He clearly has not read any of the published data.

THANKFULLY AS IPA / IPF MEMBER AND DON'T HAVE PEOPLE LIKE MR ALDER / BALPA LOOKING AFTER MY WELFARE.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK PHIL!

Dear Tony Bonzo not wishing to leave readers with another assumption about me and a mistaken faith in the acccuracy of your statements etc. Obviously as a phsychology graduate you are aware of how your misquoting and good old political answering one question with a totally different answer can leave readers with an impression of something that was actually never stated, but twisted to suit your needs, not anyone else's!

No one talked about the touchy feely stuff. It was not a debate on whether anyone here actually had any sympathy for or, with somone who is ill from whatever effects. Of course everyone is, but it does not change why they are ill.

The views were mine, if you want a BALPA view join up and go to the BALPA site. If you want to recruit for another association, that is your privilege, but wild accusations about BALPA are unreasonable.

Just the same about my past, I was a flight technical officer, not a manager or even assistant manager. Its a nuts and bolts job for keen techies. No longer exist and if you had checked your facts you would have known that. Done about 16 years work for BALPA over the last 19. BA then actually encouraged BALPA techies activity and it got BALPA techies to places that they would otherwise not have got to. Ask yourself much have you actually done for your fellow aviators and for how long?


I came on to this site because I was made aware of a personal attack on me by persons whose identities seem familiar , as much of the phraseology is fairly familiar. I did not come on here to primarily advertise for BALPA. Thus the views are mine and if you want an official view , go to the BALPA site.

If you wish to continue further, happy to take private messages to avoid boing the hell out of everyone! This will be the last one for sure!

Not too sure how the Math stacks up on this one.
1 Oven Fire verses countless Cabin fumes incidents at Flybe?
Several recent incapacitations? Go figure.

Having just got back from a 3 day trip, some on the 757 and some on the 320, I fail to see why BALPA do nothing on air quality matters. We as cabin crew can't write up fumes we need you people to do it. I approached the F/O and told him the plane (A 757) stank of dirty socks and he simply said 'I know' but then told me the Captain did not want to 'rock the boat'!

IS IT LEGAL FOR PILOTS TO IGNORE WHAT WE TELL THEM ?

I have reported him to the T&G who thankfully are on the case.

Having reread, the complete thread and the AOPIS website data I fail to see how a BALPA official such as Martin Alder can work for BALPA and make comments like:

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 in relationship to AOPIS.

BALPA were happy I understand from my T&G official to take copies of the AOPIS DVD for all their members and their sponsorship money for BALPA's recent conference and now they or Martin Alder (as he appears to be the only voice of BALPA) attack them.

Amazing!

What is clear is that Mr Alder is a non believer, does not care, does not know the facts and seeks to do all possible to bury the truth AND he is head of their safety unit!!!! SCAREY STUFF

What is not clear is why he is the only BALPA voice on this thread. Can a BALPA representative please confirm if his comments are BALPA policy ?

At least we in the T&G have a clear position which is with the government!!



The Transport and General Workers Union, the UK’s leading trade union representing cabin crew on aircraft, today called on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to make it a mandatory requirement for airlines to advise passengers that they have been exposed to contaminated air rather than maintain the current silence. This demand followed the ‘Contaminated Air Protection Conference’ which was organised by the pilots’ union BALPA in London last week. That conference concluded that crews and passengers exposed to contaminated air are getting sick. This conclusion confirmed what the T&G has seen with its crews working in the confines of commercial jet aircraft.
“It’s not maybe our people are being sick or perhaps but they definitely are,” said Oliver Richardson, T&G regional industrial organiser who represents cabin crew members. “How many passengers are also suffering? Who knows? Airlines do not tell passengers when they are exposed to contaminated air.”

Mr. Richardson said the T&G is now calling on the HSE to require that all British registered aircraft have bleed air filtration systems (cabin air supply) fitted on all aircraft used for passenger transportation above a maximum take off weight of 5700kgs so that crews and passengers can be protected from contaminated air as a matter of urgency. He added that the largest inquiry prior to the ‘Contaminated Air Protection Conference’, the 2000 Australian Senate Inquiry, had also called for air supply filtration systems to be mandatory. These systems are estimated to cost less than £15,000 for a typical holiday jet aircraft which costs millions of pounds to manufacture.

“The cost to put these filters on aircraft is a small price to pay to protect the travelling public,” added Mr. Richardson. “That’s why the T&G is now calling on the aviation industry to make the fittings of contaminated air sensors on all aircraft above a maximum take off weight of 5700kgs used for passenger transportation compulsory.”

ENDS

For further information please call Oliver Richardson on 020 8573 9494 or the T&G Press Office on 020 7611 2550/49


http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/Int...p?NodeID=89253

FWIW if you're a BA cabin crew member - all our 757's stink of dirty socks (or fish). Nothing to do with oil, just their natural aroma.


PEL?

Fargoo,

Just because they always smell like that and you're used to it doesn't mean it's their 'natural smell'!

BRITISH AIRWAYS B757
 

THIS IS A GREAT THREAD BUT ITS CLEAR MANY ARE TRYING TO DENY THE TRUTH LIKE WITH TOBACCO, ASPESTOS, ETC...

FARGOO

YOU MUST BE A BRITISH AIRWAYS LAWYER FOR SAYING THE DIRTY SOCKS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL!!

EVERYONE KNOWS THIS IS PART OF THE ENGINE OIL MOBIL JET OIL II SMELL

WE ALL KNOW THAT MANY PILOTS AT BRITISH AIRWAYS SUFFER NEUROLOGICAL LONG TERM PROBLEMS FROM EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED AIR AND ALSO ITS KNOWN EVEN HERE IN WASHINGTON THAT 4 BRITISH AIRWAYS CABIN STAFF ARE SUING BRITISH AIRWAYS FOR THEIR CURRENT CONDITION DUE TO CONTAMINATED AIR (I.E EXPOSURE TO MOBIL JET OIL II). THE FIRST OF MANY NO DOUBT.

HOW MANY PASSENGERS ARE SICK DUE TO AIR QUALITY ON COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT BUT DO NOT KNOW AS AIRLINES DO NOT TELL THEM ?

WE DEMAND TO BE TOLD WHEN WE ARE EXPOSED.

PASSENGER RIGHTS GROUP MEMBER

DIRTY SOCKS
 

Its not only British Airways that owns the dirty socks smell. I fly for Flybe & I get that sock smell most times I go to work on the 146. It\'s just more normal than not.

The industry cover up has gone on long enough & it has to stop NOW. Crews and passengers demand it.

I have obtained a copy of much of the information that was presented at the recent BALPA conference and for those who still want to ignore and say that \'the information is at best patchy\' -your time\'s up!!

The conference I was told presented strong conclusions linking crew short & long-term illness with the contaminated air and raised that the same could be happening to passengers.

Times up for those who dont want or perhaps can\'t read the data available and surely time has got to be up for the jokers in BALPA such as Martin Alder who has posted on this thread.

Come fly with me if you want to be gassed!

Obviously you've been in for your sense of humour bypass :*

Seems every time someone on here says something that's not liked they get accused of being a lawyer or a reporter. I'm neither.

I hope the industry gets to the bottom of this as i am one of the unfortunates who has to spend long periods in the f/d looking for the source of these smells. Invariably they (on the 757) don't re-occur on ground runs but we have in the past replaced engines and APU's. Don't know if the cabin being pressurised has any bearing on how concentrated the smells become.

***Uncle Sam Flies - Step on virtually any BA 757 with just ground power on and you'll get where I was coming from in my last post - they're not exactly a bed of roses!!***

UTP. Word on the apron is that SOU is the in place for a roller coaster of sensual experiences waiting for the unwary punter.

Tense, nervous, headache? Dizzyness? Burning eyes, nose and throat? Think you suddenly caught a cold?
Does that Hostie really smell like that or is the Captain still wearing yesterdays socks?
Why am I feeling so tired?
Can't think straight? Problems doing basic arithmetic at the end of your shift? Can't fill in the techlog properly? Keep getting letters from the Boss complaining about your house keeping/ tech Log ?
Why can everyone else smell it but not me?
Why can I smell it but nobdy else can?
Why does my mouth taste like an Oil Can?
Why is my skin Oily?
Why have I got more Spots and Rashes than normal?

WHY is it still allowed to continue? WHY?


WELCOME TO MY WORLD

MY FINGER, IS ON THE BUTTON......WORLD!

Martin Alder and BALPA post re AOPIS
 

Having been in this industry since the 70s, I have to comment on Mr Alders and BALPA attack on AOPIS of 10th May 2005 10:45. This behaviour would never have been allowed by previous NECs, so why now ?

For an association like BALPA to liken a crew group of sick crews to the Animal Liberation Front is a disgrace.

Having watched their DVD which BALPA (and the IPA) sent me I was grateful that my health is being looked after when BALPA do nothing it appears.

I am sure I am not the only BALPA member who does not support the comments made by Mr Alder.

I agree with 'Dolly with Brains' why is there no BALPA official comment ?

As far as fume occurences go, we used to smoke on the Trident so don't recall from those days, but the 757 frequently stank of oil on my short spell I had on that.

The other consideration here is value for money?

T&G at £2.15/week and lots of action on these issues.

BALPA 1% for denial of the problem and no action!

If I was a 'Nigel' I know where my money would go T&G.

Now here is another possible view of this problem:

I was born in 1941 and went solo in 1957 and have been flying ever since. I have never had a problem with "fumes" or any other associated problems.

I have however met some young pilots who have, in my opinion, become quite seriously ill in the short term with this problem.

I have been told by a good friend in the medical profession that this is a function of age. You youngsters have very little in the way of an immune system. You have been immunised against every bloody disease known to man and have been shielded from every possible bug and infection that your parents could possibly manage.

I can remember having as a child; mumps, measles, German measles, chicken pox and every other known common disease. In fact, we used to be sent by our parents to play with sufferers of the latest disease so that we could all get it out of the way.

When I joined the Air Force we used to clean the exhaust stains off of cowlings with Toluene (which I am now told is lethal) and every morning, the Ops Board was cleaned with gallons of CTC (Carbon Tetracloride).

CTC was banned years ago.

What is my point? Simply put, I have a rattling good immune system and have not taken a single day off work for 18 years now.

If you are a vulnerable youngster then remember my advice:

Start the packs in full manual cold and run them in this way for a good 2 minutes before going to auto.

For those of you out there who do not think this is a problem, then you are probably an old fart like me but your kids are vulnerable because they have so far been protected from everything known to man and you probably did it!