I don't think you would know the truth if it bit you in the ass.

First of all, the figures you come up with are completely meaningless. So what if there are more SB's in relation to the 146 than the Boeing? That could simply indicate a greater willingness on the part of BAe to deal with the same problem than Boeing has shown, and a greater effort to sort it out. You say that more people are sick long-term from working on the 146 than any other aircraft type. Where did you get that gem from? In all the years I was flying the 146, in a company running 17 of them, not one crewmember stopped work for medical reasons linked to fumes on the 146.

The reality is that many pilots have come out of the woodwork since the fumes problem first surfaced, and are claiming all sorts of things now that they have some basis for their claims - in true American fashion. We have you to thank from the present tendency to sue for anything.

So what? One aircraft. I'll bet you could do the same for most types if you selected the right aircraft.

If CASA had any confidence in the report at all, they would have immediately revoked the type certificate in Australia and ground the aircraft. They didn't, and nor has any other national authority. Now why do you think that is? The only possible explanation is that they don't agree with the finding.

I'd be very interested to hear from anybody in flybe who knows of a pilot who has been incapacitated recently, because in the years I have been there I have only ever heard of one - and that pilot was back flying shortly thereafter.

What a load of complete crap. The FAA could ground the 146 in the US tomorrow if they believed it was dangerous, and they have not done so. The fact that ANY 146's are flying in the US indicates that the FAA have no problem with it.

Well I had better go off and start preparing my lawsuit, I spilled my coffee just now and it is clearly due to nervous system damage caused by fumes on a 146 I flew five years ago...

Dear MOR

You posted:

I'd be very interested to hear from anybody in flybe who knows of a pilot who has been incapacitated recently, because in the years I have been there I have only ever heard of one - and that pilot was back flying shortly thereafter.

Everyone in the airline business knows the FlyBe 146 fume problem. AAIB investigated a near crash you had into Birmingham a few years back.

Is that not why 200 pilots have left for cleaner better paid jobs in the last 18 months ? Does FlyBe not have the highest turnover of flight crew in the UK ? Don't hear of many at Virgin pilots leaving!!!

Any person with a portable air measuring device like a Carbon Monoxide detector could probably fly on 4 of your flights and get elevated readings on 75% of these flights. Why don't you invite the media to do it tomorrow if your so convinced they have alpine quality air!!!! You know the day the media take a trip and start measuring the air it will be time up.

I have 4 cabin crew friends in Fly Be who have all been sick with fumes now gone to safer air.

Reference the pilots you asked for, the following may refresh your memory....


SUNDAY TIMES
April 10, 2005

Leaking oil fumes threat to air crews
Dipesh Gadher, Transport Correspondent

THE co-pilot of a British passenger jet had to be put on oxygen in mid-flight after being overcome by a suspected leak of engine fumes into the cockpit, safety records have revealed.

The alert at 26,000ft meant the captain of the Flybe airlines plane had to land single-handedly in Belfast even though the fumes had left him “in a state of euphoria”.

The flight was one of five last year in which pilots are said to have been “incapacitated” after breathing in potentially toxic fumes given off by engine oils leaking into the cabin.

Details of the incident, which is being investigated by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), have emerged amid growing concern about the health risks of such leaks to airline staff and passengers.

The British Air Line Pilots Association is so concerned by the problem it is hosting a conference on contaminated cabin air next week. Symptoms reported by pilots include dizziness, fatigue and memory loss.

The pilots who fell ill on the Flybe flight from Gatwick to Belfast on December 8 last year were at the controls of a BAe 146, an aircraft that has previously experienced fume-related incidents.

A mandatory occurrence report filed by the airline with the CAA says: “During the cruise, the P2 (co-pilot) felt unwell (faint and breathless with shaking hands) and oxygen was administered for the last 20 minutes of the flight. The P1 (captain) also had a headache with flu symptoms and confirmed to be in a state of euphoria, although successfully landed the aircraft.”

The report adds: “Subsequent investigation identified a fault, now rectified, which may have allowed a small amount of APU (auxiliary power unit) exhaust to enter the cabin airstream.”

The incident is believed to be the most serious fumes-related alert on a British plane since another Flybe flight in November 2000. On that occasion — when the airline was known as British European — the captain complained of feeling light-headed and nauseous and had difficulty in judging height as he brought the plane in to land at Birmingham airport.

The oils used to lubricate aircraft engines contain organophosphates, which have been linked to neurological disorders. Where engines have faulty seals, oil fumes can be drawn into the cabin along with fresh air used in the air-conditioning.

You MUST be a tabloid journo... it wasn't even close to a "near crash". Try reading the whole report.

No... the better paid bit, maybe. I know a lot of those guys and I know why they left. It wasn't air quality. If you want to see high crew turnover, have a look at BACX, Eastern, Emerald...

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Extensive tests were done on flybe aircraft a year or two ago, by independent testers... not a single positive result was found. That included some pilots who voluntarily flew on an aircraft that had just had a suspected fumes incident, and submitted to a battery of tests to establish their exposure. All the tests were negative.

You think they haven't already tried? How naive can you be?

Regarding the Sunday Times article (the Sunday Times being the paragon of aviation reporting... yeah right), I know the pilots and I have read the reports into the incident. You should too, unless of course you would rather just go with the paranoia you clearly revel in.

MOR, I have had to sign up to this Forum because I cannot allow you to talk so much bull about the Australian Senate Inquiry into Contaminated Air and your BAe 146. Having sat in on alot of the hearings I think people reading this forum need to know that what your saying is a lie.

I am focusing on your 2 comments:

1. If CASA had any confidence in the report at all, they would have immediately revoked the type certificate in Australia and ground the aircraft. They didn't, and nor has any other national authority. Now why do you think that is? The only possible explanation is that they don't agree with the finding.

2. There are other anomalies too - for example, the Australian Senate investigation was thoroughly alarmist and wasn't supported by CASA. It was considered by many to be a backside-covering exercise with a view to future claims. CASA did nothing to stop the aircraft operating, and neither has any other authority.

If the investigation was such nonsense why did BAe, Mobil etc attend ?

The inquiry never said the aircraft should be grounded it concluded that when the air was being contaminated it was resulting in crews suffering short and medium term medical effects (which were quoted as up to 10 years, more than 10 years was not investigated as nobody had been on it for more than 10 years at the time) and was not therefore compliant with FAA regulations such as FAR 25.831 which had to be complied with to ensure the aircraft continued to be air worthy.

The following quotes best show the CASA and BAe position:

CASA-Hansard 1/11/99
Mr Toller (Head of CASA) p39 - _'One of the problems we have is that this is outside our area of expertise completely.'

Mr Toller p35 - I ' think it is fairly clear that we are not in a position, as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, to recognise that there is a significant aviation safety authority issue here, but we do recognise and have had concerns from the outset about other issues, particularly health issues. '

Mr Toller, p48/49 - 'When you start talking about the general subject of toxins in atmospheres, and specifically in this case in the atmosphere within an aircraft, then it is outside CASA’s area of expertise. We are responsible for aviation safety. I think we are now getting into occupational health and safety issues.'

SO PLEASE DON'T THEN SAY BECAUSE CASA DID NOT GROUND THE AIRCRAFT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM, THEY HAVE NO EXPERTISE AND COULD ONLY ISSUE SBs!!!!

British Aerospace, 2/11/99 , Canberra, 10.35am
Mr. Black, p74 - 'An airworthiness directive is issued by the regulators when they feel sufficiently concerned that a real or potential risk exists to the safe operation of the aircraft.'

Mr. Black, p76 - 'The regulatory bodies, as admitted by CASA yesterday, are not competent to rule on such a highly specialised area. Neither are the airlines or the manufacturers.'

SO BAE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE IS A PROBLEM AND AN AIR WORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS ISSUED SOON AFTER THE INQUIRY BY WAY OF SERVICE BULLETIN 21-150 BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGING CONTAMINATED AIR WAS A PROBLEM.

NATIONAL JET SYSTEMS HERE IN AUSTRALIA FINISHED REPLACING ALL THEIR PROBLEM ENGINE SEALS WITH THE NEW MORE EFFECTIVE SEAL LAST YEAR WHEN FLYBE AND OTHER BRITISH AIRLINES HAD YET TO START!!!!

So MOR continue to put out lies and misinformation and if you REALLY want the truth in your airline which I think you say is Fly Be then do what Ansett did and ask all crews to report all fumes WITHOUT BEING HARRASED AS YOU ARE REPORTED TO DO and see what the results are.

GO AHEAD MAKE MY DAY!!!!

You mention tests done on 146 pilots and air sampling, if you are reffering to the BRE work then read the samll print.....'no fumes repOrted during these flights!!!

Maybe just an Ausie Sheila but been also have a Phd in Aeronautical Engineering and this aircraft is the WORST for air QUALITY trust me. :O

First of all, it isn't MY 146. I am only interested in bringing some balance to what is a highly charged debate.

They had no choice. Non-attendance would have been construed as an admission of guilt. They had to demonstrate good faith with the enquiry.

...which is exactly the same thing. If they found that it was not in compliance with the FARs, the only possible course of action is to ground it until it IS in compliance. If they decide that the aircraft has a problem but is still airworthy, nothing changes other than possibly some ADs. However, the bit you conveniently forget is that any (first world) aviation authority reserves the right to ground an aircraft for whatever reason they like, if they consider it to be a risk to the public or the crews. The fact that they took no action tells you all you need to know about how bad they thought the risk was.

It is also true that CASA (and any other authority) can choose to take advice from other experts, and implement their advice if they think it appropriate. They didn't.

What Mr Toller is saying, inter alia, is that they recognise that there is an issue, but do not consider it sufficiently serious to spend any resources on it, and certainly do not consider it to be a safety issue. The important bit is:

Why not? They were clearly not all that concerned. None of the information they had led them to the conclusion that there was a need for action. Considering how quicky CASA move when they think that there IS a safety issue, their inaction speaks volumes about their perception of the risk.

If you want an example of how quickly authorities can move, even with little concrete information, look at how rapidly the CAA grounded Concorde when there was even a hint of a problem with the aircraft.

Sure, but not the problem that you are making it out to be with your alarmist claptrap.

All airlines were requested by BAe to report, in minute detail, any fumes encounters. I have the form in front of me (all four pages of it), and the memo telling us in no uncertain terms that we were to report ANY fumes incident, and that it had to go in the tech log.

I reported three, and I was never harassed in any way, nor do I know of anyone else being harassed (unless there were other factors, which I am sure there were with one or two reporters). You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have clearly been listening to the worst sort of gossip and innuendo.

The tests done on the flybe aircraft were done on an aircraft THAT HAD JUST HAD A FUMES INCIDENT. It could therefore reasonably be expected to show some level of toxins, as no maintenance work had been done between the two flights. It didn't. Draw your own conclusions.

No, I don't think I will trust you. You say you are a Phd, but frankly your argument is full of holes and doesn't make any logical sense - and you don't seem to be able to spell or use correct grammar. I certainly don't believe that you know what goes on between an airline and its crews.

HEY MOR, AFTER 10 CANS OF XXXX I THINK I DID A GOOD EFFORT MATE.

WHAT YOU NEED IS 10 CANS OF REALITY CHECK.

THE OPENING COMMENT ON THIS THREAD SAYS IT ALL....

BALPA YOUR OWN PILOT UNION HELD A CONFERENCE, INVITED ALL AND SUNDRY TO ATTEND AND CONCLUDED CREWS ARE GETTING SICK.

NEXT TIME YOU TALK TO YOUR MATES AT BAE ASK THEM WHY THEY PAID ANSETT MILLIONS TO STAY QUIET ON THE MATTER. I KNOW AS I HAVE THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF ME ANY MANY OTHER GEMS WAITING FOR THAT BIG DAY IN YOU KNOW WHERE!!!!:ok:

FAIRDINKUM MATE

NITE NITE

If I recall, the 3 Major Fume events in a two week period during November 2000 on:- G- JEAK, G-JEAM and G- JEBD, nearly brought the whole of the UK's 146 operations to a grinding halt!

It was only after major pressure from the CAA insisting on a serious overhaul and preventative maintenance programme that they were let off by the skin of their teeth.

90% of the passengers on one of those aircraft were unconscious on a midday flight!:hmm:

Smokie tells us: You know, that is such an obvious piece of nonsense that it is barely worth responding to. As if that could happen without it being on every TV screen, and in every paper, for days afterwards.

Anyway. I have, sitting in front of me, the flybe ASR/MOR summary for 2000. This document lists all the ASRs and MORs reported during 2000 (on all the fleets).

It is a long document, and in it there are only three fumes incidents, all on the same aircraft, all within a month. Of those, two were on the ground and resulted in no ill effects, and one was in the air. The one in the air resulted in some symptoms, but no difficulty in completing the flight, and no unconscious passengers. In fact, no passengers complained of any symptoms, and none received any medical attention that is known to the airline.

The only other related incident was fuel fumes on a CRJ, sorted out on the ground.

So, nice attempt to smear your employer there Smokie, but like so much of the stuff on this thread, your allegations have no basis in fact.

Drunken Aussies pretending to have Phds, pilots with an axe to grind... what will emerge next from the boiling pit of conspiracy and paranoia...???

Oh, nearly forgot:

If you had it, you'd use it. Grow up. You think you might get a bigger payout if you wait? Because money is eventually what this is all about.

Why not put your documents where your mouth is?

The CAA database says otherwise.:ok:

Well that explains one part of your allegations - it was obviously sub judice until the report was out.

It doesn't explain any of your other allegations though, particularly the stuff about 90% of pax being unconscious during a flight. In fact, the report on the CAA website, regarding the incident to G-JEAK, says the following:

... and that report was last updated in March 2004.

Kind of blows a lot of the allegations here out of the water really...

DEAR READERS

MOR IS FLYBE MANAGER AND NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

HE SAYS ONLY A FEW FUME EVENTS IN 2000....

HERE IS THE TRUTH AND CAA REFERNCE IF KNOWN (OR IF THEY WERE TOLD!!).....

THESE ARE JUST THE ONES WE THE EXETER CREWS KNOW ABOUT AND WE CAN TELL YOU 90% OF EVENTS ARE NOT REPORTED FOR REASONS YOU CAN GUESS.

G-JEBC 04/03/00
G-JEAV 21/04/00
G-JEAK 08/05/00
G-JEBC 08/05/00
G-JEAK 09/05/00
G-JEAM 03/06/00
G-JEBC 11/07/00
G-JEBC 05/09/00 CAA Ref: 200005129
G-JEAV 12/09/00
G-JEBC 20/09/00
G-JEAV 21/09/00
G-JEAV 28/09/00
G-JEAJ 15/10/00 CAA Ref 200007650
G-JEBC 15/11/00 CAA Ref 200007724
G-JEBC 02/11/00 CAA Ref 200008146
G-JEAM 02/11/00
G-JEAK 05/11/00 CAA Ref 200008340
G-JEAK 08/11/00
G-JEBD 09/11/00 CAA Ref 200008834
G-JEAM 23/11/00 CAA Ref 200008697
G-JEBD 19/12/00

SO 'MOR' WAKE UP AND STOP YOUR NONSENSE.

Lol... guess again...

Let's see... just registered today... list of unverified reports... none appear on the CAA list... none appear on the ASR/MOR list... clearly an axe to grind... whole post in caps... hmmm not unlike the drunken Aussie of a few posts back.

Please tell us where you got this from, because it is a complete fabrication as far as I can see. Come up with some verifiable information and I will happily apologise.

Now I wonder what the CAA have to say...

(from http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200221.PDF)

Lots of juicy stuff in there, but let's look at one sentence a bit more closely:

And looking at the list above.. you will note that, according to our brand new poster, G-JEBC has 7 events, G-JEAK has four, and G-JEAV has four also. But hang on... the maximum number of events per individual aircraft in the time period studied was five. Hmmm... and the period of time referred to was 12 years.

So BC managed to fool the CAA completely by having 7 events in one year, and AK and AV have four each in only one year of the 12 years that were looked at.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist, does it?

And before somebody says reports were suppressed or occurences weren't reported... for our new poster to have come up with his or her list, we must assume that the list exists somewhere within flybe organisation. If that were so, it is highly unlikely that the CAA are not aware of it, as there would have to be a paper trail... and if you think this stuff doesn't get picked up during audits, you know nothing about the process.

Nah... you'll have to try harder than that.

Aren't those CAA MOR reference numbers?
Surely they should be reasonably easy to check out if Bona Fidea?

Boeing 777 Fumes
 

Just been told that a British Airways Boeing 777 registered G-YMMB had oil fumes in early August 2005 in Canada and is now subject of a Canadian Air Transport Safety Board Investigation.

Can anybody expand on the details ?

Well what an interesting thread. Im normaly too busy being gassed to read prune but felt I should contribute. I would say its relatively common for us to have minor fume events on the 146. I feel dizzy sometimes but am reluctant to mention it. I often have lots of joint pain, definitely have short term memory loss and even very occasionaly feel slightly sick. My wife suggested a while ago that it could be bleed air as she was concerned about the state I was coming home in. I thought I was just working too hard but maybe there is another explanation? I also have some health issues that are real including a possibility of asthma which I have never suffered previously. I notice it takes about three days before I return to normal depending on how much time I have spent in work.
By the way after flying the 146 for 5 years I can only once remember putting a fume event in the tech log. Time to get my loss of licence insurance sorted. I would also say it wouldnt be the first time that an industry has spent years trying to convince a workforce that their chemicals are safe.

Anybody know about the Easy Jet fume incident last week, crews with headaches, nausea and blurred vision ?

BMI A320 BHD INCIDENT
 

Any details available on the BMI A320 which had a contaminated air event yesterday on landing into Belfast City airport. Many crew and passengers with effects and aircraft stuck in the Shorts area of the airfield?

MOR CAN I SEND A TEAM OF FOLK TO COME OVER TO YOUR COMPANY TO INSPECT YOUR DUCTS AND PUBLISH THE RESULTS?

IF THEY LOOK LIKE THE 727, 757 DUCTS I SEE IN THE HANGAR YOU WILL KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALWAYS SATURATED WITH ENGINE OILS AND OTHER LUBRICANTS WHICH IS NOT SAFE MY FRIEND AND YOU KNOW IT.

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE 146 OR ANY PARTICULAR CARRIER BUT EVERYONES PROBLEM WHICH NEEDS US TO ACCEPT THIS ISSUE AS A PROBLEM TO BE ABLE TO THEN TARGET CHANGES.


WE (CONTINENTAL) HAVE OFTEN HAD FUME EVENTS. WE ACCEPT THIS.

Let's see... registered today... posts in caps... Oh yes it is FlyBe Truth Team /Ausie Chick again! Not obvious at all, are you... :rolleyes:

146 ducts are now inspected regularly for any trace of oil. If found, it is removed before the aircraft flies again.

If you have fumes events and you just live with them, you are irresponsible.

If you have aircraft with oil-saturated ducts and you do nothing about it, you are just plain stupid.

Nobody is saying it isn't a problem, but it needs to be seen in context from a sensible perspective. What we see on display on this thread is a mixture of paranoia, conspiracy theory, and a good old American-style search for somebody to sue.

Finally, if any aviation authority in the world though there was any risk with certain aircraft types, they would ground them immediately. This has happened many times in the past. None of them think there is a risk, as none of them have taken any action.

Meanwhile, pilots groups are preparing the ground for a raft of claims.

I have several years in the 146, and I have yet to meet a pilot with genuine health issues as a result of flying it. There isn't even much agreement on what effect engine oils could have.

Personally I feel a lot safer flying the 146 and living in the nice clean countryside, than living 24/7 in the yellow crap that covers London or Birmingham...

Dear Mr / Miss Ms 'MOR'.

I have to disagree with you. I and my crews all too often get air quality events which we try to report to the TGWU but most dont get reported.

If you are FlyBe head office team then have a look at the increase in FlyBe TGWU membership numbers and ask why. I hear from TGWU head office that lots of FlyBe cabin crew are signing up.

And incase you are as paranoid as you seem, AUSIE CHICK is my sister and the other one is my brother!! Do you check if your being followed alot as well ? (have a laugh you know its funny!!)

My point... Its real, crews are sick its not paranoia, trust us the workers or slaves as it feels sometimes when the call button goes all flight.

The only reason cabin crew sign up with the TGWU is that there is no-one else to represent them. Personally I think cabin crew have had a very raw deal for a long time, but generally speaking few of them stand up for themselves.

I'm not flybe head office, I am but a humble pilot. In my case, any fumes incident goes straight in the tech log (as it ALWAYS should). Do you ask your captain to do so before you run off to the TGWU?

As far as paranoia goes, I'm about the only one here who isn't paranoid.

You may think it is real, however nobody with expert knowledge seems to agree with you. Given the anal retentiveness of the safety nazis we see every day around British airports, don't you think action would have been taken by now if there was any credible evidence?

Show me any evidence that is not anecdotal and I will happily change my tune.

I still can't get over people like Sparticus who apparently suffer symptoms but don't report it. What is that about? He is either winding us up, or he is completely addled. If he really felt the way he says he does, he should at the very least report it to the CAA medical unit (as he is clearly impaired whilst flying), and put the incident in the book.

If you take no action, you can't complain. Unless of course you are just looking for a payout.

I hardly ever make a post on this forum. The reason is a hundred people will then try and make you look like an idiot.

I would have thought it obvious why incidents go unreported. Not to the engineers, not to the doctor and certainly not to the CAA. I really admire people who can stand up for themselves, however, for the majority it is simply easier to vote with ones feet.

You don't need other people to make you look like an idiot... :rolleyes:

Part of being a professional pilot is knowing what constitutes a risk, and then having the backbone to do something about it.

MOR, a good friend of mine who is cabin crew & fly's for British Airways, has told me that this week, a BA 146/RJ100 flight has had a major problem enroute BHX-STR-BHX with 60 passengers unconcious on the return flight. It appears that there was a problem with the airconditioning on the out bound flight which became worse on the return flight inbound to BHX.

I don't believe that for a second. If what you say had happened, it would have been a news story of major significance - more so than the A320 story last week. And yet - nothing! All these unconscious people apparently unwilling to discuss their experience with the Sun. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

That is the reason that this debate is so pointless. Stupid people claiming ridiculous things. Paranoia and conspiracy theories masquerading as facts - and behind it all, greedy people looking for a payout.

Pathetic.

Now please supply some evidence that what you claim actually happened...

Can you please give me some references I can show crew in the galley which specifically relate to toxicology inhalation testing of heated engine oils for the complete spectrum of neurological problems, i.e. chronic neurotoxicity and lung injuries ?

Thank you

'Tea or Coffee ?'

Nope. Neither can you. That is the whole point! Nobody knows FOR SURE either way. There are many assumptions. Some studies have been done, including some good ones by various manufacturers, but of course none of you will believe them, will you?

So I pass it back to you. Prove to me that the actual fumes that I may have experienced in my years on the 146, are in any way harmful to me.

Even in the case of two crew members suffering symptoms at the same time... how do you know that whatever affected them didn't come from a different source? How do you know, for example, that it wasn't some plastic burning somewhere close to them? The fumes from that are highly toxic.

Please understand, I'm not saying that case WASN'T fumes, and I'm not saying fumes aren't dangerous in some way. I'm simply saying that the problem has been massively overstated.

What I am saying is that the problem has now been hijacked by some groups with clear (financial) agendas, not to mention the ones telling bare-faced lies about aircraft arriving with 60-odd unconscious passengers.

Coffee, thanks, milk and no sugar. Oh, better not, how do we know the potable water isn't contaminated? And I shouldn't have milk in it, I mean how do I know the dairy it came from isn't infected with salmonella... and how do we know the cups aren't contaminated with something...??? :rolleyes:

MOR, thats a bit harsh "Bare faced Lies"
I was only relaying info from a colleague.

Don't Shoot The Messenger.:(

Torycanyon

OK, nothing personal - but do you honestly believe that the event you described actually happened? You know as well as I do that the first thing that happens after ANY event - even a minor one - is that all the pax reach for their cellphones and call the various news agencies. Do you seriously believe that an aircraft could land with 60 unconscious pax following a fumes event, and that NOBODY would call a paper or TV station? That is has never been reported in the press? If you DO believe that... well all I can say is that you must be incredibly gullible.

bral

One generalised study does not make the case for the fumes conspiracists. There are many, many things in this world that can harm you - some people who rarely go out in the sun get skin cancer, some people who don't smoke get lung cancer. How many people still believe that living under power pylons can harm your health, or that using a crystal can heal you?

What all the sensible people (you know, government, CAA, manufacturers etc) are doing is trying to find out what the facts are before rushing ahead with some foolish course of action. There are ample precedents in other industries for immediate action to be taken if a direct link is established.

In any case, I am not for a minute suggesting that there CAN'T be a link between organophosphates and health, merely that nobody has proved anything yet, and that the emotional twaddle masquerading as fact that we see from the various pressure groups is not helping.

Hey MOR its your triple personality XXXX drinker wishing you good day mate. I will look over you and check your safe while you sleep.

I had to laugh when you said 'What all the sensible people (you know, government, CAA, manufacturers etc) are doing...'

That a typical pommie thing to say. The CAA are not 'sensible' .....

Quote:

The CAA commissioned research into the make up of the engine oil a few years ago and found that the inhalation of bleed air could cause some short term irritation. But we found no evidence of long-term damage at all

(ref: CAA interview in Heathrow Skyport, May 6, 2005)

and then the contradiction of:

“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.”

(ref: CAA cabin Air Quality Paper - 2004)

A typical pommie government BS to protect BAe.

Why don't you do your own research and do the blood test suggested by BRAL and if you sadly come up positive you can post an exclusive here on the PPrune forum and finally admit we are not lunatics but simply bearers of the truth. Ask your boss to pay for it and post the results here.

I'll bet you a crate of XXXX you too have neurological damage. I hope you don't but if you have been on the flying gas chamber for 5 or so years, you got better chances of being positive for neurological damage than sleeping with Miss World.

(BRAL can you please email me direct the details )

bral

Dr Furlongs paper was non-specific in the sense that it did not look at the particular OPs that are present in aviation oils. He is simply identifying and quantifying markers (or biomarkers in this case). His research could equally be applied to those suffering from exposure to agricultural OPs (which is apparently what sparked the study in the first place).

The second study by Professor Abou-Donia reaches conclusions that could equally apply to other sources of OP/TCP, and doesn't correlate the levels that cause damage to the levels typically found in aircraft.

Some of the studies done by manufacturers indicate that, even in an aircraft that is know to have a fumes problem, the levels of the really nasty toxins (the ones that can cause damage) were insignificant. By insignificant, I mean less harmful to you than the toxins found in a cigarette.

Chances are that you could get a higher dose of OP/TCP if you happened to breathe in the smoke from a smoking tyre at a motor race.

The evidence is not yet compelling.

Ausie Chick

Why is it that so many Australians are simply incapable of having any form of reasoned discussion without becoming abusive?

Your recognition of "truth" is about equal to your ability to spell your name, which isn't great.

The statements you quote are not only not contradictory, they are both out of context.

You don't even understand how to construct a sentence. Just to help you out then, 99.99999% of the population of the world have "got better chances of being positive for neurological damage than sleeping with Miss World."

Didn't really make your case, did it?

Have a few more beers. I'm sure that does you no harm at all. :rolleyes:

MOR
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Even in the case of two crew members suffering symptoms at the same time... how do you know that whatever affected them didn't come from a different source? How do you know, for example, that it wasn't some plastic burning somewhere close to them? The fumes from that are highly toxic.Suppose four people suffer symptoms at the same time after a fume event?

It has happened and the airline admits liability!

Does that help satisfy you?



And how do you know plastic fumes are toxic?

Oh! You believe that research, but not research on OPs?

Where, what aircraft, what airline?


The toxicity of burning plastics has been proven by hundreds of post mortems. The toxicity of the actual OP's found in engine oils, at the concentrations experienced by crews, has been proven by... what, exactly?

MOR

The information for your first question is in this thread. If you read it all you will find it!

The information for your second question can be found at:

http://www.aopis.org/Mobil%20Jet%20Oil%202%20label.html

As you will see; the manufacturers warn of the problems.

It does what it says on the tin!

M1O14

I am perfectly chilled, thank you. It is all the "believers" who are getting hot under the collar.

The precis for the book you have linked to makes no mention of OP or any other cabin contaminants.

US$2 million is peanuts and is highly unlikely to come up with any new information.

In my airline, folks are allowed to speak up (unlike the where you live, it seems), and frequently do. I have done so myself on several occasions.

Exactly, that is what this is really all about. Put your hand back in your pocket.

cabincrew47

You should really try reading this stuff before you quote it. Let me help you out:

The only risks identified in the MSDS for the product are prolonged skin contact, swallowing, and prolonged and repeated breathing of the mist. The mist referred to is that of the raw product, not in it's pyrolised form. The concentrations required to suffer harm (as identified in the MSDS) are many orders higher than anything you will experience in a 146 or whatever.

Quoting an MSDS out of context indicates just how little you know about the issues involved.

MOR

As you will note; your quote was incorrect in that it states "prolonged or repeated breathing" and not and as in your supposed correct statement.

Perhaps this shows who is reading things properly!

I would count an hour of breathing the mist as "prolonged"!

Perhaps you ought to get to know more facts before denegrating people who know more because "they've been there'.

cabincrew47

The mist referred to is oil mist, NOT the pyrolised mist you could find in a cabin. It is also implying a much higher concentration than you would ever get in a cabin.

I read it right the first time...

MOR, why do you not buy a copy pal and then you will read what I read!!

You are so full of nonsense. Have you read the stuff the USAF did on pyrolised oils ? NO, why not ?

The conclusions were....

'Thus, the process of vaporization is causing a change in the compound, resulting in the potential to produce neurotoxicity.'

Also, Wright Patterson who did the work were only looking at OPIDN not chronic neurotoxicity which will be worse.

So cut the bull pal and turn around and look at the guy VERY close behind you, stimulating your senses, he is a manager, not a sick crew member!!

If your such an expert how come I never see your name on any papers, in expert groups like SAE etc ??

Pyrolised synthetic turbine oil IS toxic.
:ok: