Bade Smell in the Aviation Industry.
 

After 9 years on the Bae146, I await with some trepidation the medical effects of operating this quirky aircraft.

Working for an airline which was one of the first to use the type, it was a common pracice to start the APU some time before boarding so that when the packs were initiated we could observe the arrival in the aft cabin of a cloud of blue smoke which gradually dispersed.

Pax then boarded into a supposedly "clean" cabin, though one can only guess at the dosage rate to the unfortunate cabin crew performing their normal preflight checks. The issue was frequently highlighted as a defect in the tech log with the standard Not :mad: Fixed annotation by the engineers.

In the subsequent descents (APU NOT operating), the waft of sweaty socks occurred at around 8,000ft aircraft altitude as reliably as an auto altitude callout. The same "rectification" writeup would be observed.

Try getting hold of a copy of "Toxic Airlines" by Tristan Lorraine if you want a cracking good yarn with a suitable ending for more info on the topic. The book gives a very good explanation as to why we, as actual and potential vicims of this mass poisoning, are being kept in the dark, along with the mushrooms!

I shall now reflect on why I use this posting name..............:confused:

The trouble with all of this is the difficulty of collecting good evidence that will stand up in a court of law.

For example, if I were to be called as a witness, I would have to admit that I flew the Bae146 for nearly 20 years and retired at the age of 65. I am now 70and I am still (thank goodness) enjoying robust health.

As I have said on past threads on this subject, I have met a couple of people who have undoubtedly developed health problems and I sympathise fully with their problems but I think this is going to be a very difficult one to nail down.

The fact of the matter is that there were thousands and thousands of farmers involved in dipping sheep but not so many flying "smelly" aeroplanes.

Cause and effect
 

JW411,

Doubtless you are aware of the visible oil fumes that many 146 pilots repeatedly breathed and know CAUSED their ill serious health - the EFFECT?

We also know that it only affects about 30% of people seriously. This is known science.

I met a top lawyer (who also happens to contest the cause and effect of breathing toxic oil fumes) recently at my house and within minutes he was in tears and had serious respiratory problems. He went to bed very early - by the morning he was in even worse shape and considered going to A&E. He was the only one affected.

The CAUSE? - I have 3 cats and he was allergic to them.

So, whilst I am delighted that you personally have not been affected (yet), could you please understand that everybody has different genes, has had different exposures and experiences different EFFECTS depending on the CAUSE.

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...006.pdf#page=3

Here is a paper from UCL (University College London) which reports that in 2004 OVER 196,000 UK Passengers a year could be presenting their symptoms of acute toxicity to their GP's - who incredibly, are STILL not told that OP's are in the engine oil that their patients regularly breathe. Page 523.

How many aircrew? Do you really think anybody actually cares?

Whatever i$ it about thi$ $ubject, which make$ a $imple cau$al link - $o di££icult?

It would be great if everybody was like you JW411 - but sadly many of my good mates are dying prematurely now and many of us know - exactly why.

Just out of interest - are you allergic to anything? Do you recognise allergies?

Why & how could this be......all made up?

Anybody (especially BALPA members - as we are not allowed to advertise in The Log) wanting to know more should visit: Aerotoxic Association - Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome

Rant over, apologies...

DB :mad:

Dream Buster - thanks for showing (with your cat story) that there are plenty of ways for humans to have adverse reactions to perfectly innocent environmental stimuli and that an over-hyped oil based cause-celeb need no be the X-file conspiracy source.:cool:

"an over-hyped oil based cause-celeb".........................:)

I suspect that individual/obvious fume events might not be to blame. It's well known that regular low levels of exposure to various chemicals can sensitize people so that the reaction they experience gets worse and worse even though exposure levels remain the same. They can also start to react to other similar substances at levels that don't provoke a reaction at all in unsensitized people.

I managed to accidentally sensitize myself to super glue but fortunately it's easy to avoid. Took awhile to work it out but I used it a lot to build a model planes and spotted a pattern. I'd get mild flu like symptoms a day after use. I didn't get that reaction when I was younger or when using other adhesives.

Dictionary - Definition of sensitization

l believe that Bae Systems paid, under it`s previous name, an undisclosed sum to avoid future litigation.

l do have some history, and will dig it out.

Standby.

Can`t find it.

Contact the lndependent Pilot`s Association 00441444441149 for a copy of the infighting.

Serious stuff.

Overun, is this what you were looking for?

British Aerospace / Eastwest / Ansett agreement

I see a comment on the aerotoxic web site that a french company, NYCO, makes a non toxic oil for use in jet/turbine engines.
Does anyone here have experience with using this oil?
Is it an answer to the OP problem?
turbonycoil 600
Nyco, Spcialiste des lubrifiants militaires, lubrifiants synthtiques et esters

I can't stand the smugness of people like BOAC who were fortunate enough to get through a career with health intact, then sit in their leather armchairs and dismiss the cases of those crew who were seriously damaged by a fume incident.

Good for context on this subject: Don't worry, there's only a little bit of poison in the cabin air today - Learmount

I certainly didn't read any facts in the link above, just emotional posturing justifying ignoring of any scientific research because it didn't happen to confirm a theory.

If you want support, then approach the general media and have them write articles like this.

If you want something fixed that is broke then you are going to have to come up with facts based on a scientific method.

Iompaseo, the science is out there, you just can't be bothered to read it.

Not surprising, because there's a lot of it, and it consists of complex biochemistry. The authorities, for some time, have not denied (because they can't) the existence of fume events and their constituents. They are only arguing the legal technicalities of proving the connection between the events and the human consequences, just like the tobacco industry successfully did for years.

But then you probably still argue that there's no proven connection between smoking and lung cancer...

High Court proof
 

East West Airlines v Turner - appeal dismissed ... twice

It took this Australian case 18 years to prove it and that was without a bullet proof blood test which is being developed:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/do...drome_2010.pdf

Do you take bets Iomapaseo?


DB :ugh:

One more on Toxic airports
 

Scientists have recently determined that airports pose a much higher health risk to people than initially calculated. In a recent study, it was found that oil droplets jet engines spew on the runway while running idly can be broken up by sunlight into extremely dangerous particles.

Airports More Dangerous to Health than Thought - Softpedia

Certainly not on juries who don't understand science.

At least you can get some satuisfaction there if you live long enough.

Meanwhile, there is yet nothing for science to fix and that is a fact

Critical thinking skills:

1. Gather complete information - more than one source
2. Understand and define terms (make others define terms, too)
3. Question the methods by which results were derived
4. Question the conclusion: do the facts support it? is there evidence of bias? remember correlation does not equal causation.
5. Uncover assumptions and biases
6. Question the source of information
7. Don't expect all the answers
8. Examine the big picture
9. Look for multiple cause and effect
10. Watch for thought-stopping sensationalism
11. Understand your own biases and values

Just sayin'

Can we all agree?
 

Newspaper and internet news

Can we all agree that there is a problem but the airlines don't want their passengers or crew discussing aerotoxic in public?

I don't bet either but - as with tobacco - one day known fixes will be brought in.

Because it will cost them dear, if they don't.

DB :ok:

If you check out Iomapaseo's posts (most of them are in JetBlast) and you find out what really lights his intellectual fires you won't worry about his opinions again.

shortfinals

maybe we ought to move this thread to JetBlast where your vacuous arguments would fit. :E