This thread is amazing.

Lets sort the facts from fiction:[list=1]
The oil sometimes contaminates the bleed air supply - FACT.
Synthetic jet engine oils have NEVER been tested for chronic neurotoxic effects via inhalation - FACT.
Crews report a selection of neurological effects that have only occured following repeated exposure to contaminated air - FACT.
Operating crews have become incapacitated during a contaminated air event - FACT.
Sampling of the air supply by BRE for the CAA was NOT done during a reported contaminated air event and therefore only sampled air during non contaminated air events. BRE stated: '“The intentions of the study was not to monitor the air quality during any ‘unusual circumstances’ rather emphasis being on obtaining data from scheduled flights.” Therefore the air during a contaminated air event is unkown - FACT.
BALPA conference in 2005 concluded crews are sick long term - FACT.
CAA DON'T know if there are or are not any long term effects from exposure to contaminated air as they acknowledged in their 2004 Cabin Air quality paper by their comment: ' “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.” - FACT
Exposure standards do not apply for commercial aviation - FACT
BAe 146 has 3 ADs related to contaminated air - FACT
'Bleed Air' could be filtered if airlines wanted to - FACT
T&G have called for filtration systems to be fitted to ALL commercial jet aircraft above a MTOW of 5700 Kgs - FACT
T&G cabin crew in legal action against their employer for neurological problems following a contaminated air event - FACT [/list=1]
SOLUTION IS SIMPLE, ACCEPT CREWS ARE GETTING SICK AND FIT FILTERS - ITS A COMMON SENSE SOLUTION TO A 30 YEAR OLD PROBLEM!

Never Trust A Manage

Seems to be more supposition than fact here. Maybe that is why a fix to a as yet unidentified problem has not been incorporated yet.

Mach1October14

Let's talk about full of nonsense, shall we? Nonsense being what your argument is.

Please note the word "potential" in that sentence - in other words, "we think it might be possible, but we don't know".

Well since you don't know what my name is, how do you know you haven't seen my name on any papers? Are you sure you aren't on some sort of mind-altering substance?

Prove it.

Never Trust A Manage

lomapaseo is right, your list is largely supposition.

But just for some sunday fun, let's look at a few of your "facts" -

You don't know what caused the neurological effects in those crews - the link has yet to be established scientifically.

No, they suffered "some degree of incapacitation". If they had been incapacitated, everybody would be dead.

Sampling was carried out on an aircraft that had just had a fumes event, and had not been touched between the two flights (with respect to the air con system). Other than monitor every flight, there is no better way to carry out research. By the way, this "fact" compromises your previous "facts".

Well they would, wouldn't they, they are a pilots union which smells massive payouts, under significant pressure from their major customer (BA pilots).

The rest of your "facts" come under the heading of "so what?"

MOR have you seen a doctor recently ? You may be suffering from the sometimes reported physiological problems associated with exposure to organophosphates.

When you say rubbish like:
No, they suffered "some degree of incapacitation". If they had been incapacitated, everybody would be dead.

The point I think 'Never Trust A Manage' was making and he is correct is that some of the crew have become incapacitated.

So far we think we have been lucky but who knows?

I think the dig at BALPA is unfounded especially as BA is the minority within the membership. Are you a member ?

I fly the -400 and it is not for BA but know many crews who have been affected, some for ever.

Get a life man and help the issue rather than talk rubbish

Well I think s/he was overstating the case wildly in true "oh my god we're all going to die" fashion.

It is only recently that BA has had a minority membership in BALPA, it has long been known, quite rightly, as the "British Airways Line Pilots Association". I know from experience that, good as BALPA can be for the little guy, they are driven by BA membership. A cursory glance at The Log will confirm that.

And yes, I am a member. Have been for over 20 years. When I joined, BA were far and away the majority membership.

What will help the issue more than anything, is some clear thinking and proper research, not the crap maquerading as fact that so many posters here would prefer to indulge in.

I have to agree with MOR on the points about scientific research. It is all very well expounding on this or other forums about second hand experiences or even first hand experiences where there was no conclusive proof as to the source of the experience in the first place.

Until there is proper research into the suspected problems no one is going to admit to anything, especially if they may be liable in some way.

Dramatic statements on here and infuriating responses to people like MOR who are pointing out to you the flaws in your arguments only serve to show you up as over sensitive drama queens. You may not agree but that is how it appears to those of us who have not had any experience of contaminated air events and have flown some of the types that are supposedly more likely to have them.

I think that it is agreed that there should be more research into the problem. However, you first have to convince someone to part with the money to fund the research. Ranting on here without acceptable evidence is a waste of time and effort. If you can agree that it hasn't been proven but there MAY be a problem, then you are at least one step nearer to finding out, one way or another, as to what all the fuss was about.

This may be of interest; and believe it or not, it was written in 1977!!!


Clin Toxicol. 1977;11(4):423-6. Related Articles, Links


Human intoxication following inhalation exposure to synthetic jet lubricating oil.

Montgomery MR, Wier GT, Zieve FJ, Anders MW.

A previously healthy member of an aircraft flight crew was acutely incapacitated during flight with neurologic impairment and gastrointestinal distress. His clinical status returned to normal within 24 hr. The etiology of his symptoms was related to an inhalation exposure to aerosolized or vaporized synthetic lubricating oil arising from a jet engine of his aircraft.

Publication Types:
Case Reports

PMID: 589955 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...str&query_hl=6

Look at me! Look at me! I can use Google!

No idea what the article says, or where it can be found, or what's in it... but that doesn't matter, does it? After all, it (might) support my case! :rolleyes:

Danny

I agree more research would be very sensible but as long as it is free of industry influence and not more of the past 'hired gun' type of research such as BRE work in the UK.

Let universities do it as they have nothing to gain from the answers is my suggestion.

Thanks

I believe that The University of Oregon and the Imperial College London, are curretly undertaking studies into contaminated air in aircraft cabins and cockpits.

As a concerned passenger I asked the pilot today what information she had about fumes in the aircraft. She (pretty as well) kindly told me to look at the pilot union website and gave me the internet address.

For those wanting more information, the pilots have some good informative stuff. I have pasted the internet address below as it took me a while to find it. Just click on the link.

http://www.balpa.org./intranet/BALPA...rcra/index.htm

Thanks for the info 'Jippo'. BALPA should be congratulated for being the first pilot labour group to take these matters seriously.

Come folks here in the US, WAKE UP!

This needs to be approached with the same energy.

Looks like a post was deleted. I had an e-mail alert that a "Mister Geezer" had replied to This Topic that I contributed towards recently. Dated 25/10/2005.

Where is this reply.
And No I can't find it on "Tech Log " forum either???????:confused:

T&G says government should come clean on contaminated air on commercial aircraft
 

T&G says government should come clean on contaminated air on commercial aircraft

The Transport and General Workers Union today called on the government to tell the millions of people who fly on commercial airlines that they are sometimes being exposed to contaminated air on jet aircraft. Union officials representing cabin crew said these risks have been present for over thirty years but successive governments, as well as the airlines, have not told passengers what they have been exposed to nor have they spelt out the risks of exposure.

Oliver Richardson, T&G regional industrial organiser, said when air is contaminated on commercial jet aircraft this results in a slightly chemical, wet dog, vomit, dirty sock type smell in the cabin. He added that the T&G has been advised that contamination means crew and passengers breathe air which will contain volatile organic compounds such as benzene, the organophosphate TCP and possibly carbon monoxide as these would be present due to the air being contaminated with pyrolised engine oils and hydraulic fluids.

“Exposure to contaminated air results in crews having symptoms which include headaches, nausea, respiratory, gastro-intestinal, temporary mild flu-like symptoms and such like in the short term and a selection of neurological type problems in the long term,” he explained. “The chronic neurotoxicity of inhaling these heated compounds has never been tested. Only extreme medical conditions such as the medical condition OPIDN has been investigated in hens. This is very different to the neurological and other injuries consistently being reported by crews and passengers following these events.”

A report last week by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on ‘Crop Spraying and the Health of Residents and Bystanders’ was cited in support of the union’s concerns. Section 5.47 of that report said: “We recommend that in consultations and in dialogue with the public concerning pesticides, as in other areas of uncertainty, science should not be positioned without argument as being beyond doubt. It should be presented in a manner that is open about the level of risk and uncertainty involved.”

Mr. Richardson said union representatives were calling on the government to:

• Stop the denial that there is a serious health and safety issue linked to contaminated air on commercial jet aircraft both in the UK and worldwide.
• Tell airlines that they must inform passengers and crew they have been exposed rather than the current silence.
• Advise passengers and crews of the fact that they are sometimes being exposed to these toxic compounds and the neurotoxicity of inhaling these heated oils and hydraulic fluids has never been tested.
• Recommend to all airlines to fit bleed air filtration systems to commercial jet aircraft as currently the air being supplied from the engines is not filtered for contaminants.
• Fit contaminated air detection systems on commercial aircraft.
• Set up a proper medical protocol for dealing with passengers and crews exposed to contaminated air.

For further information please call the T&G Press Office on 020 7611 2550

Spare me. :yuk:

.......a slightly chemical, wet dog, vomit, dirty sock type smell in the cabin.

A pretty accurate description of many BAe146/Avro RJ85 cabins, in my opinion.

.......a slightly chemical, wet dog, vomit, dirty sock type smell in the cabin....

Hmm, about like a Lockheed tri-motor, with one pack OTS, during the Hadj, in the rear cabin.

Phew....!:yuk:

No wonder the CC complain.

Hmmm , not quite too sure what's going on here :confused:
The above post was nowhere to be seen on this site yesterday and the post from " Mister Geezer" is Still missing :hmm:

Danny and others ask for proof as if the Australian Senate concluding crews were getting sick is not enough but now all you have to do is light the fire, get a nice cup of tea and read these 2 new publications which clearly show passengers and crews are sick from exposure to contaminated air.

1. Air Quality in Airplane Cabins and Similar Enclosed Spaces. ISBN 3-540-25019-0

2. Proceedings of the BALPA Air safety and cabin Air Quality Aero Industry Conference. Held at Imperial Colleg, London, 20-21 April 2005. ISBN 0-7334-2282-9

Happy Christmas

Dolly

It is about time there were some decent publications on this subject.

Because Comtaminated Air is coming to an Auto-Immune System near you... NOW!

Yes, I'm still waiting for some, that are above reproach.

research/publications on the subject?
 

CAA and Professor Boobis named in shaming document. “Dozens of the Government's most influential advisers on critical health and environmental issues, including cabin air, have close links to biotech and drug corporations, according to a dossier of Whitehall documents obtained by The Observer.
“Internal papers from the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) reveal for the first time the extent of the close connections between big business and scientists hired to give independent advice to Ministers. Many work as consultants for the firms, own shares in the companies or enjoy lucrative research grants from them.
Confidential documents disclose that former Environment Minister Michael Meacher and Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty, were deeply concerned that scientists with industry links were dominating committees on everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of GM crops. Both Meacher and Whitty were alarmed that the scientists' commercial links jeopardised the independence of the advice they gave.” Antony Barnett and Mark Townsend Sunday July 13, 2003 The Observer



Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: 'It is now crystal clear how big business is setting the agenda right at the heart of government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made transparent. How can the public trust what Ministers say if their advice is coming from those with vested interest in the biotech or pharmaceutical industry.'
A Defra spokesman said the committees publish their members' interests.
He went on: 'Defra has full confidence in the capability of independent advisory committees across the range of issues the department deals with to provide high-quality, well-informed advice and support.'
The Observer contacted many of the Government's scientific advisers, who denied that their links to industry compromised the impartiality of their advice.
Professor Boobis, who took legal advice on which interests he should declare, summed up their view: 'It is almost inevitable that any scientists of international repute will have some current or past links with industry.
'To say we would risk our professional integrity because we own a few shares in a company is ridiculous.'

However, The Countess of Mar in a speech to the House of Lords highlighted how “filters could be put on aircraft to filter the air supply and protect the travelling public from exposure to known neurotoxins at the cost of ‘peanuts’ in aviation terms but the CAA and airlines had done nothing.”

The Countess of Mar highlighted how “the government in its attempt to bury this issue have passed the vast volume of data supplied to them by the pilot union BALPA ,to a team under the leadership of Professor Alan Boobis. Professor Alan Boobis is a well known advocate that chemical exposures are all safe, despite this be a differing view to that held by the Royal Commission.”

Discredited or what?

It sure makes you wonder about our government decision making accomodating the lack of scientific knowledge of their subjects.

Do we want scientists in the govenment who understand the problem well enough to cover it up, or do we want Doctor Quack with an elixir for whatever bothers us?

contaminated scientists
 

Hi CALIFORNIAN BABE (posted 30th April 2005)

QUOTE:

Governments covering up air quality issues.
I got this from a good source, its amazing how much the governments B/S everyone to protect their own, in this case British Aerospace.___The UK AAIB and the UK CAA published reports last year saying Cabin Air Quality was OK. Part of their report was supported by work looking at the pyrolysis products of heated engine oil which the UK CAA / AAIB said despite Exxon Mobil saying its in the oil, contained none of the Organophosphate known as TCP in any pyrolysis products during their testing. This goes completely against the TCP being found in filters, swab tests and on pilots clothes reported recently at the BALPA Contaminated Air Protection Conference in London, so how can this be?PRUNE


You may be interested in the following:

8 Dec 2005 These are excerpts from a speech in the House of Lords by the Countess of Mar:-

Dr Ruge, a member of the AHWG, in referring to the UK Government and CAA-initiated and sponsored research paper Cabin Air Quality published in
2004,stated:

"The results did not suggest that there is a health risk for passengers, including infants, and crew".

A look at that paper reveals that:

"The research described in this report addresses the effect of cabin air contamination on the pilot's ability to safely fly and land an aircraft.

The CAA decided to conduct this research following a small number of events where flight crew effectiveness was reduced, possibly due to oil products present in the cabin air. Although some references are made concerning long term health effects, the scope of this research did not attempt to determine the extent of any such risk".

It makes no reference to passengers or infants. The research paper relies heavily on a BAe "Commercial—in confidence" paper by Marshman and neither
paper has been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal, and yet they seem to be accepted as gospel.

Just prior to the publication of the recent Royal Commission report on environmental exposure to chemicals, there appeared in the Observer of 18
September an article that with a began:

"Britain's leading poison experts united last week to denounce pressure groups for mounting a 'hysterical, scaremongering' campaign about dangerous
chemicals in the environment".

The report includes a quotation from Professor Alan Boobis who, as a member of the Committee on Toxicity, will be reviewing a great deal of the evidence submitted by BALPA to the AHWG. In relation to a recent statement by the WWF, he stated:

"These compounds can cause diseases but not at the levels found in these [blood] tests".

As for the chemical cocktail effect, he stated:

"There is simply no evidence it exists".

There is an ever increasing body of scientific literature from around the world that indicates that some chemicals are giving rise to adverse health
effects.

Even the royal commission accepts that there is clear evidence of
ill-health which may be attributable to exposure to small quantities of toxic
chemicals. I remind the Committee that Toyber said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I continue to find it extraordinary that our so-called experts exhibit so little scientific curiosity. Their objective seems to be to maintain the status quo and dismiss out of hand any hypotheses others
may propose. Their pronouncements in the face of so much contrary evidence do not tend to engender public confidence.

I could go on giving examples. I could comment on the complacency of Written Answers that I have received in recent weeks to my Questions about cabin air quality. I could be justifiably angry that sick people are being ignored—as long as they are fit enough to fly an aeroplane, no one is responsible for how they feel or the conditions under which they are expected to work.

Neither the aviation regulators nor the airlines seem to consider that occupational health and safety are their business. They are currently using the excuse of waiting for the Government's advisory committee to report after the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity has reported to them and then, presumably they will be waiting for legislation or regulation. I have seen it all before.

John Woodley, the Australian former Senator who chaired his government's
inquiry into this subject is reported to have said:

"Some people in the industry and some of the regulators seem to think they are God and so can take risks with the lives of their employees and
customers, but they are not God and this is not a joke. It is time they got serious, stopped mucking about and started to play the game seriously".

I most earnestly ask the COT to heed his words.

The Minister knows what I think about stand-alone epidemiological studies.
As another eminent scientist whom I know said to one of my correspondents just the other day:

"In the final analysis data trumps models. Why on earth won't they measure?"

The answer that he gave is that they really do not want to know"

Channel 4 report on the subject here (text summary) and here (streaming video).

I/C

I watched that. Very interesting. Hopefully the commission will authorize a full investigation but as both aircraft (B757, BAe 146) are now out of production I don't know what good it will do.

Just to add a little more fuel....
 

OK, I know it's not bleed air... but....

If an apu is u/s, gse can privide air con on the ground..... Ok so doors are open.... but what are they pumping into the cabin???

~~ not read the whole thread so sorry if it's been mentioned!! ~~