JW411, Some good points well made.

Dolly, ditto.

Hamble boys, I think that someone from BALPA other than Mr Alder ought to make at least some sort of statement, or are they quietly endorsing all that Mr Alder says?

In no particular order, the words, Fence, On, Sitting and The, spring to mind.
BALPA, Pull your fingers out of your collectives!!!:(
Surely MA is not the only voice??

What has happened to the committee set up to deal with this particular problem within BALPA?

I flew with a well known British carrier from Southampton to Bergerac on one of their 146 jets for a long weekend break, and on both flights there was a definate wiff of 'smelly socks' that has been discussed.

I had a bit of a light head, especially on the return journey during the desent where there was a more definate wiff ... pong.

The same thing happened with I flew last month from Istanbul to Heathrow on a 757 jet, but didn't notice this on the outward journey from Heathrow, only on the return about 30 miutes before landing.

Is nothing being done about this, how do these air crews work in these conditions? In the six flights I have taken this year, there has been three flights that I would say I have noticed this. Any other 'passengers' out there find the same problems?

Ian W
--

Ian

The Dirty Socks smell will be the pyrolisis products of the engine oil that contain the organophosphate TCP that is NEURO TOXIC.

I am sure the airline in question offered you medical support! NOT!!

Sadly, the CAA DON'T CARE.

If you want a real laugh read the propoganda paper on Air Quality from 2004 from their website.

WHAT ALOT OF BULL!!

Don't forget the CAA is 100% funded by industry!!

If I was you I would do what crews should do SUE THE AIRLINE!

Tony

Last week I was returning to London from southern France.

The Skip lined up the 73-800 and we were cleared for t/o. The skip spooled up the engines, we set the t/o thrust, and about 85 kts we got a disgusting smell similar to rotten eggs. At this point the aircraft is just slightly pressurising.

Nothing was said in the t/o role. Last night's Madras could have been taking it's toll on one of us.:ooh:

Anyway we had just started the climb and the initial turn on the departure through 2500ft and the cabin crew ding us as they have had a very strong smell throughout the whole aircraft.

There were no birds on the roll, and we checked the engine indications. The smell disappeared and everything looked normal so we returned to London without a problem and had engineering meet us on stand and check everything. :confused:

We came to the assumption that it was a fume event. The engineer didn't want anything put in the tech log and said he would check it out. Obviously nothing heard since.

Apart from a company memo from Boeing that overfilling of the hydraulic reservoirs can lead to fluid ingestion into the air con system.

All a bit on the dodgy side.

:*

ALIBABA

In Australia alone we have had 37 reports of what you describe reported to us from 737-800 crews.

We recommend such defects are always written up and oxygen used when the air is contaminated or you suspect it is contaminated as per common sense & checklist requirements.

We are well aware of the reluctance of crews to write up fume events but call on all pilots, engineers and cabin flight attendants to get fume events written up.

Only by reporting all defects can we progress these serious health and safety issues.

PLEASE REPORT ALL FUME EVENTS IN THE AIRCRAFT TECHNICAL LOG REGARDLESS OF DURATION.

AOPIS

WWW.AOPIS.ORG

Bloody BALPA?

BALPA is made up of pilots and is controlled by pilots. As we all know only too well, pilots - whether BALPA members or not - have lots of opinions on lots of issues. Usually these opinions are different from each other. Sometimes they are the same and when this happens, all involved need to sit down with a medicinal drink in order to cope with the shock.

Any opinion shared on this forum by (someone purporting to be) a senior member of BALPA will be different to the opinions of other members of BALPA.

The driving force behind this issue is another senior member of BALPA.

"What's BALPA doing about contaminated air?" Plenty. Thank goodness and they have my confidence.

Word has it that FlyBe have lost nearly 100 crews from their 4 engined gas chambers better known as the British Aerospace BAe 146.

Well done boys and girls!

If the company and the CAA will do nothing then walk with your feet but sadly the flight attendants and passengers just get gassed some more.

Does the 100th to go get a free bottle of Champagne ?

A mate of mine used to get gassed in Dan Air days and here we are 25+ years later and still it goes on.

What are my rights as a passenger to cancel my reservation off one of these British Aero 146 'gas chambers' in the light of what is happening, or am I to get the usual dribble of no refunds and no changes from the airline. What concerns me is nothing seems to being done, and the problem seems to be more wide spread that what was briefly said in the papers a few weeks ago, are the papers keeping in with the airlines because of their advertising contracts, are the papers afraid of loosing their contracts with them if the public is made fully aware of the health issues? I've notice some expensive looking adverts in the different nationals. Where is the best place to sit on the plane that has the 'freshest' air, or is all contaminated once airbourne. I am beginning to think that flying from my local airport is not always the best choice, and maybe I should be looking at other aircraft types to fly on. What aircraft is the healthest to fly on?

Ian W

Hi guys..I have been flying the Avro and now the 146 for nearly 7 years..just looking for some serious advise on how bad is the problem and what can be done to limit or prevent the effects(beside changing ship).


thanks.
the dude

AOPIS

I totally agree with you in relation to reporting the issue in the tech log. I would have no question in putting it in. That is not my decision of what to put in the tech log though.

But you have to think of the consequences of what will happen to the aeroplane and if it would need to be grounded? The effect on other crew's health etc etc. It is a weighing up exercise.

With referance to oxygen useage and starting to go into the "AIR CONDITIONING SMOKE/ FUMES" checklist. Well I think that is overkill. We talked about it but thought it would be slightly extreme. If you look at the start of the checklist it says to switch recirculation fans OFF. That would compound the situation. Also messing with the isolation valve and packs is not going to help as the aircraft still needs to be pressurised. After that we start talking about removal checks. Slightly extreme. :ugh:

I seen the cd balpa gave out and this is my first encounter of this problem. For what it is worth I now know that there is a problem and that it needs looking at seriouslly.:hmm:

I belive that Paul Tyler, MP Labour,who opened the "Contaminated Air Protection " Conference in London just recently, has just been elected to the House Of Lords.

This is Excellent News considering his recent work and campaigning on Organophosphates issues.

Roll on the next House of Lords Enquiry I say!:ok:

Dear ALIBABA and crews

Over the years crews have failed to take contaminated air events seriously. This has led to low level contaminated air exposures generally seen as a normal working environment.

THIS IS WRONG

All crews must start to log ALL fume events and use oxygen to protect their health and the the safety of the aircraft regardless of duration or severity of the event. Too many crews in the past accepted low level exposures as normal and are sick today.

CREWS MUST USE OXYGEN REGARDLESS OF DURATION OF THE EVENT

This was made very clear in the UK House of Commons in 2004:


Official Report (Commons Hansard), Vol.428, Col. 420W, Tuesday 7th December 2004

Air Passengers (Chemical Exposure)

Mr. Tyler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether UK airline captains experiencing cockpit or cabin air contamination event serious enough for pilots to use emergency oxygen have a responsibility to inform passengers to which chemicals they might have been exposed. [202745]

Charlotte Atkins: Pilots are required to use oxygen as a precautionary measure in all cases of suspected cockpit air abnormalities irrespective of severity of event. Flight crew are not professionally qualified to verify the cause of air contamination or identify what chemicals if any, passengers may have been exposed to. The captain has discretion to inform passengers of an event.


If you do not report fume events, it does not allow the appropriate engineering work to be done and puts the health of your work colleagues and passengers potentially at risk.

REPORT ALL FUME EVENTS TO YOUR EMPLOYER, UNION AND REMEMBER THE FINDINGS OF THE RECENT BALPA CONFERENCE:

CREWS ARE GETTING SICK.

AOPIS
www.aopis.org

I don't see why switching off the recirc fans would compound the problem - quite the opposite in fact as it will pump the contaminated air straight out of the a/c.

Who is AOPIS? Their site gives no details of the organisation. If I was a sceptic I might think that they are involved with the firms manufacturing filters. It seems that only the Australians and the Brits suffer from this problem - the pilot organisations in every other country don't think it's important enough to concern themselves about it. In fact, only a couple of airlines in the UK seem to have a problem. I've been flying 757's for years with no fume events.

If crewmembers are dropping like flies because of exposure to contaminants, where are the multi million pound settlements against the airlines and manufacturers for causing this?

If there is no proof, as I suspect, this thread is in the right place - the rumours section of a rumours site.

On Boeings when the recirc fans are turned off the pack goes to a hi flow mode, allowing more contaminated air in.

Re-Circ does exactly that. Recirculates the already Contaminated Air, and not supplying anymore Fresh Air. The Flow rate is also stronger on the 146 unlike the Boeing in Re-Circ.:{

Must comment on the comments posted by 'POM'.

POM you make 4 industry type comments:

1. Where are the multi million pound settlements against the airlines and manufacturers for causing this?

2. I've been flying 757's for years with no fume events.

3. If there is no proof, as I suspect, this thread is in the right place - the rumours section of a rumours site.

4. Who are AOPIS


COMMENT 1

Many cases are ongoing in court here in OZ but also in the UK and USA, but everyone here in Oz knows that Judy Cullinane got US$2 Million out of court settlement to not put forward the data she had. Also, what about the 50 plus workers compensation claims that have SUCCESFULLY found in the sick crew members favour here ? Most crews know nothing about the health implications and just accept things as a normal working environment but that is changing slowly and passengers, well, they are treated like baggage and told nothing. I was a cabin crew member on the 146 and 320 here in Perth and had hundreds of passengers with paper in front of their noses with fumes over the years and asking for head ache tablets such was the effect of the fumes.

When you have seen colleagues affected for life, then you will take it more seriously.

COMMENT 2

Maybe you haven't and thats great news but do you know what you are looking for? The 757 crews in the USA tell me that when they put the packs on after start they get a whiff on 75% of flights, even though it may be quite low in intensity, but its the low level exposure to these things that is the worry. They also tell me they never write it up as the industry has enough problems so of course their union will not know!! And I know what I am talking about as my brother-in-law is a United 757 pilot and he says they all know!

COMMENT 3

NO proof you say, well you are obviously not a BALPA member as they had a conference in April in London and invited ALL the world experts and concluded:

‘There is a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew)’.

‘Further, we are concerned the passengers may also be suffering from similar symptoms to those exhibited by flight crew’.

‘This, we conclude, is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications’.

COMMENT 4

AOPIS is an Australian non profit group set up some 5 years ago and made up of over 700 affected crew members world wide. I am a member and I believe they have done more for this issue than all other unions put together. They made the DVD which is used by BALPA, the ITF and others in the UK and the RAAF and AFAP etc.. here in Oz along with many other unions. They get my vote.

Bet your brother is that Martin Alder guy!

The above certainly may mislead the readers of this forum.

Yes a conference was held and yes it was the opinion of the conference organizers that the conclusion above should apply and that's why they mostly invited folks with like opinions.

However there was no consensus at the conference even though the organizers tried in vain to convince all attendees of their pre ordained conclusions.

A little bit like the opening title of this thread which attempts to answer its own questions.

So after all these pages of discussions have you yet concluded that your case has not been made?

In the end, if you want something done, you have to convince all stakeholders of its viability.

Iomapaseo,

If you return to the original post of this thread you will see that representatives of all interested parties were invited to make a presentation at the conference.

Please get your facts correct before denegrating the people (BALPA, AOPIS and T&G) who are willing to give up time and money in the interests of flight and cabin crew.

Terraplane blues, I think you agree with me.

I am not an engineer, but common sense dictates that if the contamination is from the bleed air which is what air con is running on, making a higher flow is giving more fumes into the cabin.:confused:

The very point is that it is not fresh air you are putting into the cabin. By switching the recirc fans off, all you are doing is eliminating a possible source of smoke fumes and making a/c units go to high flow. :confused: It is this air that is contaminated. If you are trying to remove the smoke/ fumes you increase the ventilation rate by the outflow valve posistion.

Effectivelly depresurising the aircraft. A bit extreme. That was my point.:ugh:

CAA LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND LIES

Have you read the CAA Cabin Air Quality Paper of 2004 ? What a lot of bull! They never asked anybody in the T&G for our input!

Section 3.5.1 reads.... The tricresyl phosphates are organophosphates and the ortho isomer is an anticholinesterase which can induce “Organophosphate Induced Delayed Neuropathy” (OPIDN). The meta and para isomers of cresyl phosphate are not as toxic as the ortho isomer and are not reported as inducing OPIDN. The delayed peripheral neuropathy is a progressive condition where the peripheral nerves become unable to transmit impulses. This produces a characteristic set of symptoms which are not consistently present in the symptom profiles reported in the cabin air quality incidents.”

The “symptom profiles” is highly selective and conveniently ignores the numerous symptoms being experienced in crews and passengers and is focusing only on the medical condition known as OPIDN. As crews are hardly examined following fumes events by the CAA it appears that important data is being ignored.

The CAA statement in 3.5.1 only looks at OPIDN and conveniently forgets about Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity (OPICN) which comes from repeated low level exposure to organophosphates such as the TCP in the engine oils, as distinct from OPIDN studies which require significantly higher level of exposures to produce that condition. The symptoms being experienced by crews around the world from my research on the web and from chats in the galleys seem very much in line with TCP exposure. A search on Pub Med shows that OPICN is now being linked to engine oil and hydraulic lubricants exposures:

“Furthermore, OPICN induced by low-level inhalation of organophosphates present in jet engine lubricating oils and the hydraulic fluids of aircraft could explain the long-term neurologic deficits consistently reported by crewmembers and passengers, although organophosphate levels may have been too low to produce OPIDN.” - Prof Abou-Donia - Archives of Environmental Health - August 2003 [Vol. 58 (No. 8)]

So perhaps the UK Committee on Toxicity (COT) were on the right path in 1999 when they commisioned research into low level exposure to OPs and Abou-Donia seems to have confirmed this.

Will any industry folk who post their lies on this site please post in their true name / business and under write any future illness to crews from repeated low level exposure to OPs and contaminated air ?

Don't think so as they know their time is running out.

If I get pregnant I know I won't be flying at all whatever more lies the CAA come up with.

A few points of interest.

1. Think the B787/7E7 will not use engine air for air con.???

2. Most airlines now keep 757 eng oil below full.???

3. More understanding of long term exposure to oil fumes.???

I belive that we will have a greater understanding to the effects of exposure to oil fumes in the future.

Do you want a fagg.???????????????????????

During my former job engineer specialized in airconditioning systems I have delt with complaints of crews and passengers smelling dirty socks or suffering from headaches. To be honest I (we) have never found a reasonable explaination (except for one occasion in which it was caused by the ground crew attachting a jet starter to the aircrafts extenal airconditioned air jack, and thereby blowing exhaust air from a small jet engine directly into the cabin). We have taken measuring equipement into the cabin, cleaned entire bleed air systems, replaced filters and had them chemically analysed, cleaned airco ducts but never really found a reason for the dirty sock smell. The next step that I was planning to do was to check the route of the airplane that it flew and see if maybe the smell was caused by the ingestion and compression of polluted air, however I left the company before I could start this part of the investigation.

And with regard to the fact that the problems are only emerging since the beginning of the 80-s, that because the aircraft manufacturers started to introduce re-circulation fans to decrease the amount of bleed air to be taken from the engine and thereby increasing the fuel efficiency of the aircraft but still meet the FAA/JAA required level of "fresh" air to each passenger. This lowered the number of times the air in the cabin was completly refreshed considerably. The filters in the recirc system cleaned the air from airborne particles making it "fresh" again, but since particles that cause air to smell are very small this was not filtered out. The latest HEPA filters are somewhat of an improvement since the mesh size of the filter is such that it filters out more airborne particles cleaning the air even more. However this does introduce a new problem and that is that the filters should be considered medical waste since it also filters out aerolized germs. When following the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) in that case, maintenance personel should wear protective clothing and mouth and nose protection...

So you see when "solving" one thing you introduce another problem.

Cheers

Having read this thread and experienced what is being discussed I thought i would put my bit into the discussion for whats its worth for all sides.

I fly the 757 for a UK Charter airline and YES I have often smelt the dirty sock smell as have many of those I fly with, like nearly all the crews I know we accept this as the normal 757 smell. The smell may be a few seconds, sometimes minutes but who knows how long its there for as its clear we become desensitised. I too have often felt tired, slow and had the other symptoms reported to be linked possibly to contaminated air exposure like headaches, nausea, fatigue etc.. I have made mistakes on the plane I have never made in the simulator when I have smelt the contaminated air, so I do believe the symptoms and errors are linked to the smells. I go home washed out and some hours later feel better so hopefully I am only affected short term but who knows!

My doctor does now!

I agree that contaminated air detection systems should be fitted to make the decision making easier for the crews and this will also protect them from employers and the CAA who have different priorities. Commercial over health.

I think this thread shows a clear difference between believers and non believers. I think it a sad reflection on BALPA that their own FSG Chairman Martin Alder should be a clear non believer when many in BALPA obviously do care as they sent me a DVD on the issue last summer which must have cost alot (and money well spent). This no doubts stops the union progressing the issue as it deserves to be progressed with energy and determination.

Rather than argue, take the logical solutions:

> Fit Detectors
> Fit Filters
> Analyse the oil for toxic effects as crews are exposed to confirm the Chronic Neurotoxic effects suspected to be link to inhalation of the oils.

If the passengers get to know the truth, we will all suffer.

I am alert to this issue now but most are ignorant, BALPA must educate the membership as a matter of urgency

Tony

Tony, some good points there.The most of which are worrying to me, as I have only recently joined FLYBE on the BAE146.
I hear a lot of mumbling in the crewroom when this topic is approached and answers do not seem to be forth coming.:confused:

Aside:

I think companies that fill compressed air bottles for divers and other purposes are aware of a related issue - the possibility of oil mist contamination from the compressor. Perhaps they have done more resarch on this or have access to air quality testing facilities that would be of interest?

AIR QUALITY
 

I fly the 757 for a US Carrier, mostly out of SFO and often smell the smells discussed on this thread.

Before this I flew the 146 for a US Carrier and boy was that a stinker!

Fumes are also real in the States, not just the Uk and Australia.

From thread - Birdstrike at MAN

How did "The only nasty bit was the unpleasant smell of burned bird that drifted through the cabin during the takeoff roll" happen????

Do I take it that the bleed air got contaminated?????

Interesting!

Discuss

What's your point?:confused:

Are you trying to get a discussion about the meaning of thje word contaminated:confused:

It could be that most of the responders to this thread have assumed different meanings.

Are we talking purely olefactory, short term or long term, single flight dibilitating or chronic being influenced by non-flying enviorments as well?

what does it say,
when crews comment on alledged smells,
but do not follow company procedures for such,
do not complete air quality forms....?

most aircraft can be made affected by smells if operated in a certain way,
contrary to operating procedures.

if problems occur, it'll take rational people to help identify the cause, the more information the better.

certain operators have flown with analysers on aircraft alledged to be problematic,
for no abnormal readings to be found.

Those dirty socks smells
 

The thing is everyone knows the 146 has a very unique odour & its just been accepted as normal, but its not Ok anylonger & the manufacturer has to address the leaking oil properly once & for all, no matter what it takes. After all thier own Service bulletin says that the fumes used to be seen as a nuisance & now must be seen as a threat to flight safety!! What about the crews safety, namely their health.

It's time for the regulators to acknowledge they are way out of their depth & start listening to the independent experts & take this seriously. The coverup HAS TO STOP.

Then again I hear its not only the 146, but also the 757, A320, MD80, E145............... Fix the PROBLEM before the passengers make you!

Anyone interested in gas-detection instuments might like to browse here.

Building Research Establishment Ltd - BRE
 

If anybody thought BRE were looking after the workers or passenger welfare, think again. BRE are the industry puppets who did some of the useless air sampling for the UK government a few years back. Useless, because the flights they did were not fume event flights but then that should not surprise anybody, look at page 62 of the full report:

Similarly, we thank BAE Systems, in particular XXX and XXX. They helped us identify and recruit a suitable airline with BAE 146 aircraft and XXX accompanied and helped on each of those flights.

WHAT A SURPRISE!!!!

BRE are in bed with BAE and not to be trusted.

Remember the 2003 BRE air quality conference when they invited everyone who had vested interests to their 'meeting of lies' and forgot to invite the sick crews, unions, scientists or doctors who had the facts they did not want to hear.

How the government can allow such lies is a disgrace.

Congratulations on BALPA for holding the first open and honest conference on air quality.

CAA 2004 Cabin Air Quality paper
 

'Dolly with Brains' I agree, but its not just BRE than cannot be trusted, the CAA are as guilty as sin for their part in the cover up and failure to protect the crews and passengers.

The CAA in their 2004 Cabin Air Quality paper states in section 3.5.2 of their report...

“3.5.2 The occupational exposure limit for tricresylphosphate should be interpreted in the light of the ortho isomer of tricresyl phosphate (TOCP) being the most toxic and the meta and para isomers being listed as relatively non-toxic.”

Tricresylphosphate (TCP) is a generic name for 10 structurally similar isomers. TOCP is one of the isomers that makes up TCP but not the most toxic. MOCP and DOCP are more toxic isomers and present in engine oils at considerably higher levels than TOCP.

Amazingly the CAA paper fails to mention the existence of these more toxic isomers anywhere in their paper. Poor research or cover up?

Interesting thread, with some obvious 'interested parties' posting here. I decided to sign up and post to give you a US perspective having researched this issue for 3 years.

We have 2 main industry players in this game the FAA and UK CAA who have their strings pulled by the rest of the industry.

The FAA are currently researching this issue as the NAS concluded more research was needed. FAA accept crews can get sick, its the 'how' they don't fully understand yet.

I know 7 pilots who now have neurological problems which their occupational history links to fumes in the workplace.

The CAA in the UK say all is well but the British CAA is funded by industry and hence the difference in attitude to the FAA. I believe the CAA is protecting BAe who are in law suits with numerous plaintiffs.

Whats gets me is how the CAA say its all OK when their 2004 Air Quality paper (which reminded me of Pravda such were the number of errors) states clearly: '...Finally, it is important to note that, although some references are made concerning long term health effects, the scope of this research did not include an attempt to determine the extent of any such risk.'

Lets accept crews are sick and protect the industry and passengers from future lawsuits by sorting this matter out as a matter of utmost urgency.

Billy Sampsom
Portland
Oregon

A few weeks ago now there was an article in the Daily Mail about some scientists from a Belfast University who had done some research on lack of oxygen in pax (not pilots!) whilst flying and had found that levels in the blood drop from 97% before flight to 93% at altitude. If this same thing happened to a patient in hospital (who wasn't flying!) they would immediately be given 'extra oxygen'.

Perhaps there is a problem with low O2 and being gassed and that the former problem is the real culprit.

Anybody got a link to that study as I think it's probably relavent.

Just thinking.

:E

Wow! I've been in the low 90% several times without the need for O2. In fact I can't recall any feeling of unwell. Now being in the 80's is a bit more concerning.

Interesting that contamination in the air supply of the 146/RJ, is still an emotive issue, as it should be , after all this time. And it would appear to be still unsolved.
I flew the 146/RJ for 10 years, including Australian registered ones. On some aircraft there was a definite smell of oil or dirty socks if you prefer. The usual fix from the engineers, was " pack cleaned, tested and found servicable" But more often than not, the smell returned.
During the period that I flew the 146/RJ, I cannot recall feeling unwell.
However three years later my medical was withdrawn by the CAA, and that was the end of my flying career. After 34 years of flying all round the world, I was forced to retire, at the tender age of 53. And the reason - I was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease . My PD nurse said it could be that breathing contaminated air, for all those years could have acted as a trigger , to the Parkinson's - who knows. But how to prove it, now that is another matter entirely.

I have flown on many aircraft in my days..and found occasionally an oily smell, usually during take off. The 757 is one of the worst. But neither I , nor anyone I know, has ever had medical side efffects from it.

So, can anyone put scale on it. How many crew, as a percentage of the worldwide crew numbers, have suffered PROVEN side effects from fume inhalation on board an aircraft?

sneezy mornings...
 

Just came across this thread folks, been gone awhile; all I want to do is log my symptoms of 146itis: every morning for about two hours, severe hayfever-like symptoms; went back on the 737, cleared up within a week. Non-smoking free-range country boy, early thirties, no allergies. That airplane was unhealthy.