Toxic Air SyndromeBack to Forum
Tagged: Aerotoxic Syndrome, Airbus, Airlines, Aviation, bad science, Boeing, Cabin Air Quality, Chemical Exposure, CoverUp, Documentary, Espose, Flight Attendants, Frequent Fliers, Fume Event, Passengers, Pilots, research, science fraud
Hi Lugano Pirate
If only it were the case … whilst the Boeing 787 has seperate compressors for cabin air the AB 350 that has only just taken its maiden flight utilises the ‘bleed air’ technology so it will be a few years before it gets into production.
Meanwhile every jet other than the Boeing 787 uses the bleed air intakes, so the potential for contamination is there on every flight and will be with us for at least another 30 years until the current generation of aircaft are retired. That is unless the airlines use different engine oils that do not use Tri Crsyl Phosphate (TCP- Google this for its components and properties: a neuro toxin originally developed by the Nazis) or they fit special oil filters to every jet aircraft to remove the chemicals in the airconditioning!
It all costs money thus they do not want to change now!
and the engine manufacturers (especailly the one from Derby) will not guarantee the engines without the TCP component as it has special lubricant properties.
If you can fly exclusively on Boeing 787’s you will be doing well! I have no commercial interest in which aircraft manufacturer has a solution but it is needed to protect passengers and crew alike while flying!16 Jun 2013
This is a typical incident which may be related to contaminated fumes in the cabin as the reports are not as staright-forward as being smoke from a flame , rather a fine mist with accompanying sweet nauseous smell like sweaty socks or wet dog.
http://avherald.com/h?article=463a816c&opt=25616 Jun 2013
Accident: Lufthansa A321 enroute on Jun 7th 2013, smell sickens three cabin crew
By Simon Hradecky, created Monday, Jun 10th 2013 20:44Z, last updated Monday, Jun 10th 2013 20:45Z
A Lufthansa Airbus A321-200, registration D-AISB performing flight LH-182 from Frankfurt/Main to Berlin Tegel (Germany), was enroute at FL280, cabin crew had just started service, when cabin crew noticed a very strong bad smell on board. Three flight attendants quickly developed symptoms like concentration problems described as “brain fog”, tickling and irritation in the throat combined with a metallic taste, headache, dizziness and weakness of legs. The aircraft continued to Berlin for a safe landing about 45 minutes after departure from Frankfurt. The three flight attendants were taken to a hospital, one flight attendant remained without symptoms.
The flight crew positioned the aircraft back to Frankfurt as (scheduled) flight LH-189, however without cabin crew and without passengers. The aircraft remained on the ground in Frankfurt for about 14 hours resuming service the following morning.
The hospital took blood and urin samples of the affected flight attendants and performed tests for blood oxygen levels, calcium, haemoglobin and other substances as well as tests for organophospates, however, no markers were identified. The flight attendants were discharged 24 hours later.16 Jun 2013
“The hospital took blood and urin samples of the affected flight attendants and performed tests for blood oxygen levels, calcium, haemoglobin and other substances as well as tests for organophospates, however, no markers were identified. The flight attendants were discharged 24 hours later.”
So in other words there was nothing wrong with them.16 Jun 2013
Thanks ToxicAir. btw, if you add a line between your text and a web link, it will automatically open in another page. Don’t know why you need the line but you do!16 Jun 2013
Report: Thomas Cook B752 at Glasgow and near Manchester on Oct 11th 2012 and Oct 12th 2012, smoke/fumes on board
By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Mar 14th 2013 11:56Z, last updated Thursday, Mar 14th 2013 11:56Z
A Thomas Cook Boeing 757-200, registration G-FCLA performing flight MT-3549 from Dalaman (Turkey) to Glasgow,SC (UK) with 231 passengers and 8 crew, had safely landed and had reached the gate, passengers were disembarking via the jetway attached to the L2 door. While approaching the gate the crew had activated the APU, the APU started normally without any anomaly and without smells, the crew subsequently focussed on post flight activities when some time during disembarkation the captain became aware of a strong smell and some blue haze in the cockpit. The captain (57, ATPL, 16,000 hours total, 12,000 hours on type) left the cockpit, discovered thick smoke in the cabin, the front section of the cabin was already empty however there were still passengers in the rear section of the cabin, the commander therefore went to the next intercom and ordered the immediate evacuation of the aircraft. The doors L4 and R4 were re-armed then opened, the slides deployed and passengers evacuated onto the apron, the door R3 was also re-armed and opened with passengers using that exit, the door L3 remained closed due to obstacles outside, doors L1/R1 were not used because the front section of the cabin was already empty. One of about 60 passengers using the slides received a very minor injury in the evacuation.
Maintenance identified the APU as source of the smoke and scheduled the APU to be replaced three days later, in the meantime the APU was deactivated under minimum equipment list requirements and the aircraft returned to service.
The following day the aircraft departed Glasgow for flight MT-3212 to Tenerife Sur Sofia Reina,CI (Spain) with 241 passengers and 8 crew. Following engine start the aircraft taxied out to the runway without any obvious smells, however, when engine thrust was increased for takeoff a strong fuel/oil smell became obvious. The crew, aware of the previous day’s events, were not concerned and continued the takeoff, the smell seemed to subside during the climb. The aircraft had reached FL350 about 50nm northwest of Manchester,EN (UK) when both pilots started to feel unwell with light headedness and dizziness. Both pilots donned their oxygen masks, declared PAN and initiated a diversion to Manchester and began to action the fumes and smoke checklists. The pilots improved, there seemed to be no fumes or smell in the cabin, the pilots thus stopped at the first completion point of the checklist. Some time later, while on approach to land, a lavatory smoke detector activated. The crew continued for a safe landing on Manchester’s runway 23L about 30 minutes after leaving FL350.
The British Air Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) released their bulletin into both events reporting that following the first event maintenance decided to replace the APU, however deferred the replacement until three days later, deactivated the APU and released the aircraft to service under minimum equipment list requirements. There was one very minor injury as result of the evacuation of about 60 passengers.
The following day after landing both flight crew were taken to a hospital for checks, both were released the same day. The aircraft underwent engineering checks and engine ground runs were conducted with no anomaly identified. It was suspected that residual oil may have remained in the air conditioning or equipment cooling systems as result of the previous day’s events and engineering activities. The aircraft departed for its next flight about 9 hours after landing and resumed service the following day.17 Jun 2013
Turbo-Prop providing the problem this time….
Incident: LIAT DH8C near Pointe a Pitre on May 26th 2013, smoke in cabin
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Jun 4th 2013 21:37Z, last updated Tuesday, Jun 4th 2013 21:37Z
A LIAT de Havilland Dash 8-300, flight LI-512 from Bridgetown (Barbados) to Antigua (Antigua), was enroute about 10nm from Pointe a Pitre (Guadeloupe) when the flight attendant reported smoke in the cabin prompting the crew to divert to Pointe a Pitre for a safe landing.
On Jun 4th The airline confirmed the incident reporting a replacement aircraft delivered the passengers to Antigua the same day. The incident aircraft underwent a series of checks according to the manufacturer’s maintenance procedures however no fault was identified and the aircraft returned to service. It is believed that a transient fault in the air conditioning system caused the smoke.17 Jun 2013
If other readers feel that my posts are here to irritate rather than educate I draw your attention to the article that the BT itself published back in 2008 on this very subject … perhaps it is time that there was a follow up article ?17 Jun 2013
Hello. If you have had a moment to check out the recommended website http://www.aerotoxic.org ( and there are more similar ones, also in German ) – you will read hundreds and hundreds of fume reports with people suffering during and after a flight/flights and chronically with ill health. Crew members, pilots, passengers! It is too much to post here regarding the medical details that lead to the differences in reaction of people, with which I am referring to the gentleman who said he has been flying for 20 years and no bother ! Lucky you ! yes, that is of course possible ! Some develop cancer, some dont! On the other hand there’s those, like myself, who also flew 20plus years, and became sicker and sicker, and we can now proof that cabin air is contaminated not only from jet engine oil cocktails containing neurotoxic and cancerous gents, but also from other contaminants, like i.e. pesticide sprays etc, and that our health issues are due to inhaling neurotoxic chemicals through analyzing samples which show the typical and unique ” fingerprint” of the jet engine oils in use. Practically all aircraft models are affected, some worse than others – some flights will be fine, others not. The problem is known to be chronically under reported ! Many passengers de-board feeling sick and just put it down to having eaten something or jet-lag! You can also watch a documentary by the Dutch TV Zembla which was released last month on the subject.17 Jun 2013
Dear Henkel.trocken: regarding the mentioned blood and urine tests: sadly not all necessary correct blood tests were done – plus the fact that the actual VOC’s, like organophosphates / neurotoxic and other toxic agents incl the unique fingerprint of the oil fumes cannot be determined by “any” , but only by specialized laboratories. Being discharged 24 hours later does not mean they don’t have symptoms, which can increase, further develop and even get worse days if not weeks and more later !17 Jun 2013
Tobacco smoke is now known to kill and so does oil smoke.
As with any health issue, some get it some don’t – but as an ex airline pilot I suffered for around 16 years as a zombie, my speech, memory thought processing and a list of other neurological problems which started on flying the BA e 146 in 1989 and slowly disappeared after being forced to stop flying. What a coincidence.
I know of countless aircrew and passengers who have been poisoned and the sad part is that only a few Courts have had the opportunity to judge the issue.
The 2010 Australian High Court case took 18 years from fume event to win, which gives people some idea of how hard it is for sick people to get justice.
The fact that TCP (an organophosphate) is now being found even on normal flights should be sufficient worry – it’s nerve gas.
Watch the Dutch TV programme. ‘Poison in cockpit’17 Jun 2013
I would like to draw your attention to this very up-to-date researcher-journalist David Learmount who ( February 6, 2012) commented
Detail is emerging that the copilot of the Air Berlin/Germania 737-700 was not the only crew member to have tested positive for the neurotoxin tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate after the flight (see the blog entry before this one)
All the flight and cabin crew have needed sick leave. I suspect we will hear more from the BFU which is still investigating this incident. I also suspect that the Bundestag – the German Parliament – will show a renewed interest in this subject. A Bundestag committee heard evidence on the issue in September last year.
Watch this space for the results of laboratory tests on crew uniform shirts, and for more incidents on other flights.
I have been reporting this issue for several years now, but there has been a marked difference in the general reaction to this particular report. The Learmount blog has recently had an unusually high number of visitors, but the sceptics are not bothering to respond or to append their statements about what invented nonsense it all is.
All we need now is for Europe’s ultimate aviation safety authority, the EASA, to take an interest. So far they have shown none.18 Jun 2013
And in case you need a study , heres one of many ! (Abstract) “The cabin of an airplane is a specialised working environment and should be considered as such. The oils and hydraulics used in airplane engines are toxic, and specific ingredients of such materials are irritating, sensitising and neurotoxic. If oil or hydraulic fluids leak out of engines, this contamination may be in the form of unchanged oil/fluid, degraded oil/fluid from long use in the engine, combusted oil/fluid or pyrolised oil/fluid, in the form of gases, vapours, mists and particulate matter. If leak incidents occur and the oil/fluid is ingested into bleed air and is passed to the flight deck and passenger cabins of airplanes in flight, aircrew and passengers may be exposed to contaminants that can affect their health and safety. Where contamination of air in the flight deck and passenger cabin occurs that is sufficient to cause symptoms of discomfort, fatigue, irritation or toxicity, this contravenes the air quality provisions of Federal Aviation Regulations, most notably FAR 25.831. Symptoms of immediate or short-term nature and reported by exposed staff in single or few leak incidents are consistent with the development of irritation and discomfort. Symptoms of a long-term nature (that is, sustained symptoms for at least six months) reported by some exposed staff following small to moderate numbers of leak incidents are consistent with the development of an irreversible discrete occupational health condition, termed aerotoxic syndrome. Features of this syndrome are that it is associated with air crew exposure at altitude to atmospheric contaminants from engine oil or other aircraft fluids, temporarily juxtaposed by the development of a consistent symptomology including short-term skin, gastro-intestinal, respiratory and nervous system effects, and long-term central nervous and immunological effects. ” http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/b10724618 Jun 2013