Is contaminated bleed air harmful? YES...
 

Conclusions of The Contaminated Air Protection Conference, London 20/21 April 2005.

The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) invited every leading airline, aircraft manufacturer, engine manufacturer, lubricant manufacturer, regulators and every person who has ever had an input into the issues of contaminated air, whether independent or from industry to make a presentation at what was a very well organised conference by BALPA. BALPA also sensibly invited experts from issues which appear to have very similar medical effects to those being reported in crews and passengers, issues related to the Gulf War Syndrome and the Sheep Dippers.

Everyone who wished to present a paper was accommodated by the conference organisers BALPA. This only reinforces the conclusions drawn as a result of some 25 presentations made over the two days by the doctors, regulators, scientists, industry representatives and interested parties.

The conclusions were very clear, alarming, simple and included:

‘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’.

‘Fume events are clearly being under reported’.

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

‘Pregnant passengers are probably most at risk’.

'It is most likely the synergistic effect of the chemicals being breathed in by crews and passengers that is causing these medical effects.'

'Filters exist to remove most of these contaminants but airlines have not chosen to fit them'.


www.aopis.org

146 Aircraft
 

WELL DONE TO THE PILOTS FOR THE CONFERENCE BUT WHAT ABOUT US YOUR WAGE PAYERS...THE PASSENGERS?

I often fly to Belfast and back from Gatwick where I work near.

The 146 often sting of dirty socks and other smells due to polluted aircraft air. I feel so sorry for those crew stuck on what can only be called a flying gas chamber. Many times I walk off with a headache & nausea and sometimes tell the cabin crew. They tell me they have the same but are not in a union and can do nothing.

Why does the HSE not do something.

Its a public disgrace.

I have decided to now do the longer journey via Heathrow with Midland rather than be gassed any more.

146 ARCRAFT ARE NOT GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH!

Why does a journalist not get on airplane with some sort of detector like a CO detector and write a front page story!!

GROUND 146 AIRCRAFT NOW OR STOP THE GASSING ITS NOT 1943!

Ater 17 years flying the 146, I can only say "B------s" A pax on the 146 is on one of the safest airliners in this world!

Intertesting opening post by AOPIS.

The report that I got from the conference was just the opposite than he reported.

The scientific data showed that there was little support for claiming a persistant hazardous threat to safety of flight.

With exception of two incidents the complaints were subjective in nature and certainly not in a safety of flight category to affect any immediate action (bottom of the barrel safety concern)

Looks like little will be done on an industry wide basis and probably only affect some problematic aircraft.

lomapaseo.... DIDN'T SEE YOU AT THE CONFERENCE.
 

Dear lomapaseo

Sounds like your sources must have been asleep.

Perhaps you didn't see the document drawn up by BALPA and signed at the conference by so many present with the conclusions we previously reported....Crews are sick from exposures and flight safety is being seriously compromised.

If anyone has any doubts that 'lomapaseo' is trying to protect industry we filmed the whole thing and have copies of all the papers presented by all the speakers.

If you don't trust us as sponsors call BALPA, IPA, T&G, ITF etc... They cover about 2 millions workers, ask them what they think.

If you don't trust them contact Channel 4, BBC radio, Sky, ABC TV etc.. who interviewed many of the presenters who also confirmed the conclusions we previously reported.

I hope you will discontinue your 'misinformation campaign' especially without revelealing your name and who you represent.

From UK. Used long haul for flights to from re-current in US from ME. frequent to and from home for hols, or positioning to from A/C when on maint or long deployement. Have noticed very frequently will pick up infections on these flights. Has been too often for mere co-incidence. Use multiple airlines, different routes only commonality is most sectors in excess of five hours some up to 12-13.
My conclusion has been that I tend to pick up these mainly respiratory or airborn vectored complaints due to the decreased outflow and increased re-circulation of cabin air and close proximity/ exposure of pax to infected people 'sharing' their various sneezes and sniffles.
Son daughter-in-law and another daughter-in-law to be are all in the longhaul business, all have complained similarly.
Not imagination. based on a small pool of regular travellers in the profession.
I would say based on my experience. YES the conclusion that bleed air in modern systems may be harmfull to your health is more than likely.

New book on this subject coming this year...

http://www.chemport.de/sgw/cda/front...9600-0,00.html

Air Quality in Airplane Cabins and Similar Enclosed Spaces
Series : The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry
Vol. 4: Air Pollution , Part H
Hocking, Martin B.; Hocking, Diana (Eds.)
2005, Approx. 254 p. Also available online., Hardcover
ISBN: 3-540-25019-0
Online version available

Due: September 2005

The issue of aircraft air quality is attracting considerable attention of late, as access to public air travel has expanded exponentially. Aircrew and passengers are increasingly concerned about operating and service decisions that could affect their health, comfort, and safety. The editor of this volume invited a wide range of experts to provide an in-depth treatment of virtually all aspects of aircraft cabin air quality. The topics are covered at a level comprehensible to all who fly as well as being of sufficient depth to be informative to decision makers concerned with purchase, design, operation, and servicing of passenger aircraft.
Topics are grouped under: Control of Aircraft Cabin Air Quality; Possible Effects of Low Humidity, Decreased Outside Air Flows; and Effects of Some Aircraft Malfunctions on Cabin Air Quality. The volume concludes with Air Quality Systems for Related Enclosed Spaces, in which chapters cover air quality in buildings, ships, submarines, and spacecraft, which provide novel approaches potentially applicable to aircraft.

Written for:

Scientists, engineers, graduate students in the field of Environmental Sciences, Aerospace Engineering, Risk Assessment and Risk Controlling, Toxicology and Ecology; decision-makers in Government, Industrial and Regulatory Bodies.

Well I won't refute the claim that pilots have tremors and hacking coughs etc. I guess all those that have chronic breathing borne difficulties will be claiming bleed air problems aggravated by the poisonous innards of modern jet engines.

The problem is that one can not provide sound technical data to support other than hearsay or an extremely local sample to support industry wide findings.

This is akin to the cellphonemania that has swept the industry.

If you want sympathy then carry on per usual. Hold news conferences etc. sprinkled with tales of horror and attact the public to your case and I'm sure that they will add even more emotion to the subject.

If you want a specfic corrective action taken than provide the irrefutable technical data that shows a statistically valid comparison of medical illnesses within high time flyers of various age groups, and low time flyers, to clearly show whether or not such medical problems occur for the reasons claimed And correctable by your proposed action.

Lacking that, your industry will continue to priotitize technological advances towards items affecting the greater comfort and safety of its users. Things like more legroom and CFIT etc.

Iomapaseo,

More leg room, more movies are all fine and dandy if you have your Health!

Can I politely suggest then that you make a more concerted effort to conduct all your short haul buisness travels on the BAe146 or MD80 and all your Medium/Long haul on the B757 or A320.

And if your feelin cute and decide to hitch a ride on an EMB 145; Beware! Because there are a lot more reports comming in regarding Contaminated Air on these aircraft now and they are not that old ( Industry wise)


Tick... Tick... Tick... Tick ........

In my first post on this subject I did admit that there were problamatic fleets. However to present this as an industry wide problem in front of the public is a stretch.

And yes I shall continue flying all the aircraft you mentioned, because I have faith in the corrective actions taken to date vs my exposure risk.

I also avoid smoke filled rooms when able and smoggy cities except for very short stays. However I don't expect that the citiy residents will all move out of town.

As an ex-146 pilot, and small contributor to the research that has been ongoing, I hope that a solution is found, especially for those who have lost their licences and careers.

After only 2 years of flying the aircraft, I suffered, in comparison to others, minimal negative effects, but there is no doubt my symptoms were related to the time I spent flying the aircraft. At no time before or since have I had the same problems. I am (relatively) young and healthy and lead a pretty harmless lifestyle - no smoking etc.

I knew nothing, at that time, of the problems others had experienced, and only put two and two together after I had stopped flying the 146, my problems faded away and I came across some documentation, either in The Log or on here.

So, Croqueteer, as a 17 year veteran of flying the 146, I guess you are one of the many fortunate people who have enjoyed a good career flying this aircraft. From what I've read, the problems, which vary from mild to severe, seem to be selective, not affecting everyone, kind of like the ever elusive Gulf War Syndrome, or the effects of organophosphates on farmers. No one else that I worked with complained of any problems, but then, neither did I complain - I just thought I was getting old or something. I ended up in hospital having assorted tests and things stuck in places where they ought'n't to be stuck :uhoh: Nothing was ever found, and now, four years since I stopped flying the 146, I'm fine. Go figure... I'm not a person who suffers from, or enjoys, ill health, something must have caused me to be ill, and if the research helps prevent others suffering the way some people have suffered (I can't imagine what it must be like to be told that due to health problems, you can never fly again), then so much the better.

ps - I'm not Australian, have never been there, nor as far as I'm aware, ever flown an Australian aircraft, so I'm not quite sure what the quip regarding AOPIS's nationality was referring too.

To the skeptics out there, I too say b******s!

As the captain of a regional jet variant (not the 146) which is prone to cabin air quality incidents, I feel well qualified to report first hand to the armchair critics that I have experienced the effects several times. On the most recent occasion I smelt the familiar 'sock' odour just after takeoff and within seconds developed a moderate headache and the sensations of the 'leans' and being out of touch with my surroundings. The smell stopped once we selected climb thrust and my symptoms cleared soon afterwards although the headache remained for an hour or so. The other pilot smelt the odour but did not notice any effect. Interestingly, no sooner had we released the cabin crew and the No1 (who sits close to the flightdeck) called through to say that she felt ill and dizzy.

There is definately a reluctance to report these incidents. There is always the self doubt aspect - am I being overly sensitive, why is it just me that feels ill?, etc. The effects are so difficult to prove after the event that you feel like a fool when you have to answer to the company and the engineers if you Tech the aircraft with nothing solid to back you up. The smell may not reappear for days afterwards - in my experience these faults are not consistent.

You are also faced with a quandry - on the occasion in question it seemed safer to continue to destination once the problem and symptoms had cleared than to immediately return and attempt a landing whilst feeling the full effects. On the turnaround, the fault did not go 'in the book' because (a) no-one wanted an unscheduled nightstop, (b) there would have been hell to pay and (c) we were convinced by the engineers to do some diagnostics and operate back with the 'suspect' a/c pack off. Sure enough, the problem did not reoccur and the aircraft operated single pack for several days.

Foolishly, I did not tech myself. I felt fine by that stage and as I have a medical to protect there was no way I want any history whatsoever logged against me. The No.1 filled in the requisite forms and was required to have a mandatory period off work and a visit to the doctor. Again, people are reluctant to report because of the rigmarole.

I have been on the 146 for 15 years and been following pprune for the last five years but this is the first time I have felt the urge to post a reply.

I remember, about 15 years ago when I started and for the first ten years or so feeling very unwell and it was DEFINITELY caused by the rotten egg odours about which so many people have experienced - mostly from the APU on the ground.

We were being gassed and I guess it's easy to prove a link between gassing people and illness?

I have to say that in the past five years or so the problem does seem to have been sorted out but I am still left feeling exhausted and generally not 100% after a long day on the aeroplane. Wonderful aeroplane in every other respect.

So if things have changed then there MUST have been a problem in the first place, which they have admitted and common sense says that it's still there, but not as much as before?


I just feel sad that in aviation you have to have an actual accident and wipe out a few people before anybody will take any notice. Half doing the job doesn't appear to work. There's too much money at stake and the crews can't possibly take on the manufacturers and airlines until there's irrefutable proof which is rather difficult to gather.

I know my short term meory has been effected; at the end of a long day I can hardly add the times up in the tech log or at least it takes me a few minutes which is a bit scary. It's easy to disguise it though and as somebody else said it doesn't do to go around saying that you can't add up as people will think you're cracking up - which we might well be doing!

It would be interesting to give a crew a real full blown emergency diversion at the end of a long day and monitor the performance, compare it to SOP's and then wonder why there was such a gap in the actual and the expected.

Mind you if the authorities tried this they would be so alarmed by the results they would probably dicontinue the experiment in case it got out to the outside world.

So sorry I haven't come out sooner and said this in public but I guess like everybody else eventually one gets around to it.

I can't imagine anything is going to change without any concrete proof. Perhaps that's why I didn't bother to do anything.

Rant over.

In the past two weeks I have had the pleasure of flying on a 146/RJ twice. Diferent aircraft each time. Both times on entering the cabin the smell of oil was noticable. On the first flight the smell did not go untill we were well into the cruise. In fact the smell was almost un bearable for about 10mins.
On the second flight it was a little better. The cabin crew gave me a "customer satisfaction survey" to fill in. I did the decent thing by the crew but when it came to the "Coments" bit I said I was an aircraft engineer and knew of the problems the 146/RJ have had but I expressed my concern for the long tearm helth of the crews (Crawler!).
The next thing one of the crew came down and said they had read my coments (I thought they were confidential?). She said that they were all concerned about it and she had been suffering from headaches and dizzy spells since joining the RJ fleet.
Not knowing the 146/RJ is there a quick fix for this? or eaven a slow one?

Rgds Dr I.

Air passengers 'risking health'
 

Apologies if this has already been posted.

BBC link here.

Sorry, but the title is characteristic for the press.
Only to catch attention. :yuk:

Tataaaa here comes the major point:
Quote
...The oxygen levels would not be harmful to healthy passengers, we are only talking about people with health problems, such as lung and heart...
/Quote

Ingo

I don't get it dreambuster.... 15 years being gassed????

Why stay on an airplane that is poisoning you? Did the vapours first destroy your capacity for reason??

Health or career.. what's more important....

Air is composed of 78% Nitrogen (N2) 21% Oxygen (O2) and .3% Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Well about that, at sea level, away from big trees and heavy breathers.

There can be major benefits in modifying gas levels to the range of 3-5% oxygen and 3-10% carbon dioxide. These gas levels slow respiration (calming effect) and thereby slow physiological ageing (at a fraction of the price of plastic surgery or those slimming lotions), inhibit enzymatic browning (whatever that is - something to do with tanning?) and slow microbiological growth (they must be nasty little things - always there but you can't see 'em).

Oh sorry, I thought we were talking about flying fruit... :O

Take me home, country roads, to the place, I belong, JetBlast beckons...

Thank you for the excellent advice about changing careers, which I am in the process of doing as I write.

It ain't half challenging changing though, and yes with hindsight I should have got off the 146 a while ago but plan to get out of aviation altogether.

When I started flying the 146 it seemed a really good aircraft and one doesn't necessarilly imagine that it might be doing long term damage and take the correct action.

After all, all the experts said there was nothing to worry about.
They would say that though, wouldn't they?

I am a simple pilot, after all.

Hmmmm....... The "Experts" ( Manufacturers, Regulators etc) were invited to attend the Conference but alas most of them couldn't be bothered.

Shame really.


Quick Fixes? Well yes there are but alas the Industry again can't be bothered.
Most of the solutions have been around for a long time too.:{

The daily mail has an even better story....

Air passengers put at risk by lack of oxygen


:mad: idiots!!!! :yuk:

Maybe BALPA can respond?

It might be scare mongering, it might not be bad for you but perhaps it explains why it sometimes it feels so Claustrophobic and airless. Particularly the period between shutting the doors and pushback/engine start. That can be really dreadful if there is any delay.

I'm sorry but feeling smothered doesn't have a calming effect on me (most people?).

Colin

(A glider pilot)

The reality is, despite the recent conference in London, will anything worthwhile be done to totally eliminate the ongoing problems in various aircraft types? As a former 146 pilot I have experienced firsthand the fume problems, but so far seem to suffer no medical problems myself. Keep in mind that everyone has a different tolerance level to the toxic chemical compounds.
How many more will have their health and careers ruined in the future?
Let us hope the plight and suffering of the Susans, Alysias and countless others will not be once again swept under the carpet by aircraft manufacturers, airlines and the petro-chemical companies who make the offending products.
My thoughts are with the victims, good luck in the future to you all.

This is a really serious subject for all of us in the Industry and warrants more authoritative investigation. The best information that I could find is Here - Links to the DFT website

The research appears to have been carried out on UK BAE146s and B737s and has relevance to this thread.

I think the necessity is for flight crew members to do some methodical air sampling when they believe cabin air quality is inferior.

This can be done with the help of small portable devices that allow drawing environmental air through tiny sample cannisters in a controlled manner. The cannisters can then be sent to a lab for very specific and comprehensive analysis. If observers can take samples at the time they observe - or expect to observe - air contamination, the true facts should be readily ascertainable from these timely samples.

Given the high level of concern about onboard air quality, a modest stream of resources to pay for this type of sampling should be forthcoming from pilots associations, unions, or other "interested parties", including government agencies.

'Methodical' is what makes commercial flying work so well. Same approach will get to the facts for this.

Running packs in "Manual" and "Fully Cold" at the start for a good two minutes before going to "Auto" and then selecting the required temperature works well.

arcniz ,

Good idea about sampling the air; somehow I think this may already have been done.

However there would be nothing to prevent investigators setting up a control experiment where oil is either deliberately put into the packs in various amounts ( with no pax - obviously) and the crew on oxygen and then test the air which has been polluted with harmful oil vapour. It would then be a case of persuading some pet guinea pigs to join the experiment to see how they faired.

I can't see this happening though as the results would be kind of obvious and predictable; it may proove to obvious a link to what is going on.

Then what would the authorities do?, a commercial nightmare or what.

As with all the previous uncomfortable academic research into contentious aviation findings it would be covered up instantly as being too complicated. The only thing the authorities are rather good at is, actual accident investigations.

First, you have to have an accident.

Well it does answer a lot of what-ifs, and could-it-have-beens rather nicely.

Of course in the case of cellphonemania no answers have been discovered this way.

Trying a test with an imaginary scenario is not going to prove much. The one thing coming through loud and clear is that there's no consensus about the origin or the exact nature of the 'bad air'. If actual problems exist, they may well be different ones in the cabin vs the flight deck.

Most suspect, in my view, is the air management hardware. It goes through a great many variations in temperature during the daily cycle, and also comes into contact with various living things be found in the air. One possibility is that relatively stable cultures of mould or bacteria are living on the inner surfaces of individual air systems, especially in temperate climates, producing germs or just noxious byproducts under certain conditions.

The DFT study seems credible enough, but it did not have specific clues or bird-dog assistance to guide the process in a particular direction. That is where flight crew taking samples on the flight deck could prove invaluable, IF they actually captured something that could be used to guide further study.

This is a case for some real diagnostic sleuthing. A couple thousand pounds for supplies and some pro bono analysis could have real effect. It just takes one corroborated "positive" sample to change the problem from "if" to "how". The ideal type of person to assist would be a University researcher with access to analytical equipment.. a chromatograph and a mass spectrometer for starters. Quid pro quo is that researcher gets material for a paper or even a thesis, and the airline industry gets a chance for some tangible evidence of an actual mechanism explaining the recurring complaints.

arcniz,

Of course it wouldn't be an 'imaginary test'.

I'm suggesting that real oil is cooked in the pack in flight and the air is then sampled.

Perhaps University research is the way ahead but they seem to take for ever to reach conclusions and then their findings seem to be quietly ignored in the absense of any actual wreckage.

Politicians always seem to go by 'independent reports' and I guess that's what you've got to do here, try and introduce some independence.

I wouldn't trust the manufacturers one inch.

Lets face it, inconvenient findings would be incredibly damaging for the industry and have enormous repercussions, so they would not be in too much of a rush to find the truth.

Dream Buster, you are absolutely correct. Independant reports need to be presented to the Politicians. They would have a field day with this one. Think of the publicity that they themselves would get if they championed the cause.

The Evidence is there already with Tricresylphosphates being found in Aircraft,
Re-Circ Filters, HEPA Filters, Flight Crew Clothing and Swab Sample taken on various aircraft have also tested positve!

Interestingly, a Re-Circ Filter on one aircraft also tested positive for Cocaine and Amphtamines!

Not surprised really considering the longer hours that we now all work:eek:

Dream Buster - I didn't say "imaginary test", but said "imaginary scenario". The concept was - if you don't know the real cause, and you do not get an infinite number of tries to solve the problem, then go for a broadly inclusive testing method that can identify any of a large number of pollutants in the same process. Then proceed on the facts as observed. This is likely more a persuasive method, when viewed by outsiders, and has greater success of leading to an actual result.

I don't disagree with your observations re oil fumes, since you are there and I am not ( Been there, had that experience, also. ) The necessity, to prompt corrective action, is to create some evidence that will be plausible to outsiders That's my thrust.

Actually, U. Warwick might be a good place to talk it around. A niece of mine studied there; she fared well. You might want to shop it around the med school research dept:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/


SMOKIE - sounds like you have access to some useful monitoring resources and data. Next step is to get the sample source materials into a "chain of evidence" sequence, with known handling procedures and custody by persons between sample location and test lab, so as to make the results credible to authorities, etc.



There's nothing to say we cannot have a dozen different sets of people working this problem in a dozen different places. Objective test results from a distributed group of independent sources are very hard to ignore.

arcniz,

I coundn't agree more. Trying to present the evidence is a little more of a challenge. As no airline would want anyone snooping around with equipment on their aircraft that had not been authorised by themselves.

As far as I know, BA are the only ones prepared to have some sort of monitoring by their crews. The problem is a world wide issue unfortunately.

I for one, would take the results of the DFT survey with a very large pinch of salt.

These were controlled experiments OK, but on fully servicable aircraft, the best the airlines concerned could muster at the time.
Only one sector per aircraft was recorded, with exception of 2 flights that were return flights, so out of the 12 planned flights 14 sets of recordings were actually taken.


The 146 was chosen and quite rightly so.
The 757 should have been the next candidate but for reasons only known to themselves, the 737 was chosen instead.
Hardly a comprehensive survey in my book.

Had the experiment been done on aircraft that had a history of Cabin Air problems, and there are many; then the results would have certainly made a positive contribution.

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?

Mistake or deliberate cover up?

The UK CAA refer exclusively to a report (DERA, June 2001, DERA/FST/CET/CR010527) by the UK female researcher Marshman for BAe Systems. The report is listed as "restricted commercial" (therefore we the public nor the unions can see it!) and this 'classified' report is entitled: "Analysis of the Thermal Degradation Products of a Synthetic Ester Gas Turbine Lubricant".

Just to make sure you get the picture, the UK CAA uses a BAe Systemes "restricted commercial" paper to say air quality is good! No bias there!!!

Now BAE use the UK CAA / AAIB work (which was based on BAE work!) and write to the MP Paul Tyler and say that the AAIB / CAA found nothing wrong with the cabin air and no organophosphates such as TCP or other nasties in the pyrolysis products of heated oil despite Exxon Mobil saying its there!


And why did MARSHMAN (i.e BAE Systems) not find any, well a reliable source who has a copy of the paper says the oil used is chemically nothing like Exxon Mobil Jet Oil II or Shell 2380, the most widely 2 used jet engine oils causing the problems for crews and passengers!

Might as well have been Olive Oil !!

Next the UK CAA / AAIB get BRE to test the air on the 146 and 737 and conclude no Carbon Monoxide (CO) found but in the small print: 'air sampling only done on non fume event flights!!


Well a contact tells me British, Italian and Australian Crews on the 146 are frequently getting high CO readings on the BAE 146.

So why does the UK CAA / AUSTRALIAN CASA etc do nothing ?

It protects its own, BAe.

IF YOU ARE A PASSENGER ON A 146, TAKE A CO MONITOR WITH YOU AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF.

I AM A PASSENGER BUT MY SISTER IS CREW AND SHE CANNOT SPEAK OUT BUT SHE IS GETTING SICK FROM AIR QUALITY ISSUES AS ARE SO MANY OTHERS.

TIME FOR JUSTICE!

Dear Lomapaseo.

"Firstly you have to have an accident".

There has been one, the airline did not report it to AAIB however. (I was hospitalised/incapacitated so could not report it myself). AAIB now refer the matter to the CAA, who refer it to HSE who refer it to AAIB. Not everything gets investigated properly.

My point is to agree with you when you state that the problem is aviation wide. Fume contamination into the cockpit/cabin makes people ill. I am still receiving disability support four years later. My aircraft was not a jet, did not have bleed air/pressurisation. Contamination can come from a range of sources.

Andrew.

What about passengers?
 

I am a cabin crew member with a UK airline and its not all just about tech crews. I cannot talk out on these issues or I will be on benefits! Thankfully my union is on the case and good on them for doing so.

I have often smelt what is clearly an oil / dirty socks smell not exhaust smells (as we were not on the ground!) on Boeing and Embraer aircraft and then developed headaches, nausea, fatigue (and i am a very physically fit EARLY 30s girl), as well as eye, nose and throat irritations.

I have been told by the company nothing to worry about, all normal! I have never been shown the products i am exposed to so I can't seek suitable medical help according to my GP.

On all the flights i have experienced the above symptoms so have 50% of the crews and many passengers, one 3 months pregnant she told me, but passengers are told NOTHING!!

If there is nothing to hide and no doubt Airline Managment will read this then do the following:

1. Issue a notice to crews to tell passengers the truth.
2. Allow us to tell the media the truth.

Let me talk about me! Mobil Jet Oil II!!....
 

Lots of you talk about me behind my back, lets not be shy. My name is Jet Oil II and I live in a nice shinney blue tin. I am a nice synthetic engne oil made by my mum Mobil. My mum got married and now my parents are called Exxon Mobil. Mum and dad are very rich, they made US$ 35 billion last year so i have been spoilt. I have travelled in most jets and been to every country in the world I think.

I like to enter your lungs especially when I am heated in the engine and then able to drift through the cabin and cockpit air.

My favourite game is to get into your brain, I do this by avoiding your defences. I avoid them by travelling up your nose and then into the olfactory nerve and then to your brain where i kill your brain cells slowly. I avoid the blood brain barrier defences.

I make you sick but i dont want to really (grandad says I cause 'Chronic Neurotoxicity') but I don't know what that is, I just want to play, mummy and daddy tell me to stay in the engine but I escape sometimes.

Some nice folk called 'managers' say I am not really bad but even my mum and dad have this label on my back, its called my Material Safety Data Sheet or something like that:

Prolonged or repeated breathing of oil mist, or, or prolonged or repeated skin contact can cause nervous system effects.

and also

This product contains TCP which can cause symptoms associated with cholinesterase inhibition. TCP may also produce neurotoxicity associated with inhibition of neuropathy target esterase (NTE). Effects of cholinesterase inhibition are expected to occur within hours of exposure, but neurotoxicity related to NTE inhibition may not become evident for several days. Treat appropriately.

So please don't be angry with mum and dad, they have told you I am bad!

Take care, see you all soon!!

Two obvious sources of contaminatin/ irritation discussed seem to be those that can be considered as part of the aircraft and it's systems primarily in this case pressurisation and conditioning, the second amongst the passengers themselves being those who will be carrying an infection on board and by virtue of circulation distributing this amongst the other passengers.
The fuel crisis which saw aircraft manufacturers seeking fuel ecomony in the decreased tapping of of engine bleed air and increased use of what was taken by re-circulation and decreased outflow, has been coupled with known maintainance deficiencies in regard to cabin air filtration systems where abuse/misuse in filters not being replaced as often as they should can only excaerbate the problem.
Day to day variations in risk of pax induced infections will alter with the embarkations points types of passenger and the associated diseases connected to those groups and destinations.
Have there been any studies to date with cabin samples taken which might go towards helping us better understand some of the problems in this field.
It may well become of more particular interest in light of the recent Ebola/ Marburg outbreaks in Africa and the potentially disasterous bird flu threat in the far east. The method of rapid worldwide dissemination will be air transport. It behoves governments to turn their attention to this particular vector as a matter of some urgency

BALPA LOG ARTICLE ON FUMES
 

I HAVE JUST BEEN FAXED A COPY OF THE CURRENT BALPA LOG MAGAZINE ARTICLE ON FUMES (PAGE 19 APRIL:MAY 2005) WRITTEN BY A MARTIN ALDER LISTED AS CHAIRMAN - FLIGHT SAFETY GROUP WHAT A DISGRACE TO BALPA.

HOW CAN BALPA SAY SUCH RUBBISH AND MAKE A JOKE OF CREWS WITH GAS MASKS ON WHEN MANY OF THEIR CREWS ARE SICK.

HOW CAN HE SAY THAT 'MOST EVENTS AND SMELLS WILL BE UNLIKELY TO CAUSE A SERIOUS HEALTH RISK OF THE TYPE DISCUSSED AT THE CONFERENCE'

WHO IS THIS GUY ?

I ONLY GOT PAGE 19, DOES ANYONE HAVE A CONTACT AT BALPA TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT TO ?

IS BALPA NOW AN INDUSTRY UNION ?

TOT SIENS

Main UK trade union issues press release on fumes...
 

For immediate release – Wednesday 4th May 2005
Newsdesks: transport correspondents, health and safety specialist media

Cabin crew are suffering from poor air quality on aircraft

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