The answer is get 787s

typhoonpilot

Well-Known Member
British airlines 'face multiple toxic air claims'
By Jim Reed Reporter, Victoria Derbyshire programme
  • 8 June 2015
Seventeen former and serving cabin crew are planning legal action against British airlines saying they have been poisoned by contaminated cabin air.

The cases are funded by the Unite union which represents 20,000 flight staff.

Workers believe they have fallen sick after breathing in fumes mixed with engine oil and other toxic chemicals.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) says incidents of smoke or fumes on planes are rare and there is no evidence of long-term health effects.

Oxygen masks
The Unite union, which is calling for a public inquiry into contaminated cabin air, has recently opened a dedicated legal unit to record and process claims from its membership.

Its lawyers are now working on 17 "definite" individual personal injury claims against British airlines in the civil courts, although these are still at an early stage.

Uncensored safety reports submitted to the CAA, and obtained by the Victoria Derbyshire programme, show that between April 2014 and May 2015 there were 251 separate incidents of fumes or smoke inside a large passenger jet operated by a British airline.

The BBC has, where possible, chosen not to include cases which could be blamed on an internal fault like a broken toilet or air conditioning system.

The statistics do not include international airlines, such as Lufthansa and Ryanair, even when travelling in British airspace.

An illness was reported in 104 of the 251 cases, and on at least 28 of those flights oxygen was administered.
The programme has also seen first-hand testimony from a pilot working for a major UK airline who believes he was affected by toxic fumes while landing at Birmingham Airport in 2014.

"Almost instantly myself and the captain became very unwell and decided it was bad enough to place our oxygen masks on," he said.

"We didn't declare a mayday - mostly due to not being able to think of the words needed to say - and ended up auto-landing the plane and simply briefing, 'Whoever is alive or conscious, pull back the thrust levels after touchdown.' It was that serious."
_74982321_line976.jpg

Alleged health risks explained
_83423065_aic_cabin_aircon_624_v2.png

Around half the air on board most modern commercial jets is drawn through the engines.

Campaigners say when a fault occurs in the engine seals, a cocktail of potentially poisonous gases can reach the cabin. This includes TCP, an organophosphate known to be dangerous to human health in high enough quantities.

It is repeated exposure to such fume events - combined with long-term, low-level exposure to chemicals - which some cabin crew believe has damaged their long-term health.

The problems are said to affect the central nervous system and brain.

The CAA says there is no evidence that chemicals appear at high enough concentrations to cause harm.
How safe is air quality on planes?
_74982321_line976.jpg

Lawyers and campaigners are closely watching a series of inquests which could influence the outcome of a much larger number of civil cases.

Pilot Richard Westgate died in December 2012, aged 43, after complaining of long-term health problems.
Last February, the coroner in the inquest into his death wrote to British Airways and the CAA saying that examinations of Mr Westgate's body "disclosed symptoms consistent with exposure to organophosphate compounds in aircraft cabin air".
_83282226_134089656.jpg

He asked them to take "urgent action to prevent future deaths".

Both organisations have since replied to the coroner implying he overstepped the mark and had relied on "selective and contentious evidence".

A second inquest is due to open into the case of 34-year-old Matthew Bass who died suddenly in January 2014 after suffering unexplained health problems.

His family says a specialist post-mortem examination found high levels of toxins in his nervous system linked to organophosphates.

British Airways said in a statement: "We would not operate an aircraft if we believed it posed a health or safety risk to our customers or crew.

"There has been substantial research into questions around cabin air quality over the last few years. In summary, the research has found no evidence that exposure to potential chemicals in the cabin causes long-term ill health".

Airbus and Boeing both maintain cabin air is safe to breathe.

'Nocebo effect'
In 2013, an independent group of scientists, the Committee on Toxicity, looked at the evidence of long-term health effects for the government.

It could not establish a link between contaminated cabin air and ill health.

"The levels [of harmful chemicals in planes] were as low or even lower than those in the home or the workplace," said Prof Alan Boobis, current chairman of the committee.

"We can't be sure what the levels are in fume events, which are very rare, but we do have some information which would indicate that even in those circumstances levels are probably below those which would affect health in humans."

The committee believes one explanation could be the so-called "nocebo" effect, a psychological condition where exposure to a harmless substance can lead to nausea, fatigue and other medical symptoms.
_74982321_line976.jpg

Recorded incidents
The following table shows extracts of some of the most critical safety reports submitted by crew to the CAA.
Date Airplane Title Details

12/08/2014 Boeing 767-300 Mayday declared and aircraft returned due to acrid fumes on flight deck. Decision taken to return to departure airport. Fireman on entry stated acrid smell was obvious and strong. Captain made a PA informing customers we would be returning to departure airport due to a technical problem, but he didn't want to give them too much information on the incident... Heathrow.

13/08/2014 Airbus A320 Fumes in the flight deck caused flight crew illness. Two crew members donned portable oxygen as a safety precaution. Cabin crew members suffered stinging eyes, burning on the inside of the nose and a strong metallic taste in the mouth. Crew members attended hospital for the effects of the fumes. Praga/Ruzyne

02/11/2014 Boeing 777-200 Fumes in passenger cabin during cruise. Strong smell of gas in cabin around door area. Had previously felt sick whilst in bunk rest. I got severe headache and pain in sinus. Earlier two other flight crew had both felt nauseous and another had bad headache.

29/02/2015 Boeing 747 Fumes in cabin. Eleven of the cabin crew became unwell during the flight with symptoms of light headedness, nausea and sea sickness. Oxygen administered. During the cruise, SCCM ['Senior Cabin Crew Member] informed the Captain that a number of cabin crew were feeling unwell... One cabin crew member subsequently collapsed and was administered first aid and oxygen... A general view of incapacitation during flight for all operating crew members needs to be undertaken to ensure the existing processes remain relevant.

19/04/2015 Airbus A321 Flight crew and cabin crew illness due to fumes in the flight deck and cabin. On return sector, fumes entered flight deck from unknown origin. Both crew suffered to some degree with headaches, stinging eyes, and debilitation. One crew member remained on portable O2, which helped massively.
 
@typhoonpilot. How does the 787, cabin airflow differ from the tried, and true traditional route?


The 787 does not use engine bleed air for air conditioning and pressurization. It uses Cabin Air Compressors which takes outside air and compresses it prior to it passing through the packs. The lower inlets you see on both side of the fuselage at the wing root are the CAC inlets. The upper ones are Ram Air inlets, which among other things, cools the hot CAC outlet air prior to entry into the packs.


TP
 
The 787 does not use engine bleed air for air conditioning and pressurization. It uses Cabin Air Compressors which takes outside air and compresses it prior to it passing through the packs. The lower inlets you see on both side of the fuselage at the wing root are the CAC inlets. The upper ones are Ram Air inlets, which among other things, cools the hot CAC outlet air prior to entry into the packs.


TP

Is this something uniquely Boeing, or does the A350, have this feature as well?
 
This is a serious deal. I happen to know one US airline that changed engine oil after a bunch of 'fume events' in an attempt to reduce the smell of the misted oil. The entire industry is involved in a huge cover up over this. Airlines, manufacturers, probably even the FAA has been bought off.

Here's what I've learned. The chemical doesn't effect everyone long term. Only a small subset of the population will feel the effects and die from it. That's why you don't see entire airplanes full of crippled people when this happens.

They could easily add a sensor to give instant notification or possibly trip the pack off, yet doing so would essentially admit there's an issue. Nothing is going to change. Either bid the 787 or take your chances that you aren't that 5% of the population that has adverse effects.

Oh, I also hold my breath on walk arounds when going near the engines after shutdown. You can see the smoldering oil being burned off into the air. Same issue.
 
Huh. I know this is just "a thing" on the BAe146/AvroRJ because the engines are so teeny-tiny and they have to bleed from several stages, at relatively high-pressure stages, that there's a whole mess of aerosolized engine oil getting in through the bleed air and packs.

Those "Recorded Incidents," while serious, seem like red herrings. I would imagine whatever damage from chemicals is happening (if any :rolleyes:) is happening predominantly on normal flights.
 
Huh. I know this is just "a thing" on the BAe146/AvroRJ because the engines are so teeny-tiny and they have to bleed from several stages, at relatively high-pressure stages, that there's a whole mess of aerosolized engine oil getting in through the bleed air and packs.

Those "Recorded Incidents," while serious, seem like red herrings. I would imagine whatever damage from chemicals is happening (if any :rolleyes:) is happening predominantly on normal flights.
No. My understanding is seals get blown and oil then leaks into the air stream. Due to the high temps a type of neurotoxin is created by the specific chemical in the oil.

It doesn't happen all the time. When it does, you'll know it. I flew with an FA it happened to. She is totally messed up for life. You should see the pack of drugs she takes just to keep from shaking.
 
The 787 does not use engine bleed air for air conditioning and pressurization. It uses Cabin Air Compressors which takes outside air and compresses it prior to it passing through the packs. The lower inlets you see on both side of the fuselage at the wing root are the CAC inlets. The upper ones are Ram Air inlets, which among other things, cools the hot CAC outlet air prior to entry into the packs.


TP
So what seals/ oil are used in the 787 compressor? I doubt it is significantly different, but I am also completely ignorant of 787 anything.
 
So what seals/ oil are used in the 787 compressor? I doubt it is significantly different, but I am also completely ignorant of 787 anything.


I think maybe you misunderstand. Engine bleed air and it's possible contaminants are much different than a compressor using outside air. The 787 only uses bleed air for engine anti-ice, not for cabin air conditioning and pressurization; not for wing anti-ice; not for APU and engine start; not for pressurizing hydraulic reservoirs or potable water tanks. The concept being that using engine bleed air reduces engine efficiency so that is all eliminated.


TP
 
I think maybe you misunderstand. Engine bleed air and it's possible contaminants are much different than a compressor using outside air. The 787 only uses bleed air for engine anti-ice, not for cabin air conditioning and pressurization; not for wing anti-ice; not for APU and engine start; not for pressurizing hydraulic reservoirs or potable water tanks. The concept being that using engine bleed air reduces engine efficiency so that is all eliminated.


TP
I think you misunderstood, I believe his point was the compressors are probably relying on the same seals and lubricants. There is no free ride, you can't make air, you can compress it. They've gone electric to power the same thing that might've started with a B-29. I have not a dog in the fight regarding the 787.
 
One more reason to admire the 787.
The FAA's CAMI actually produced a report that specifically disagrees with the CAA on some of their studies related to this issue. (Emphases mine.)

The United Kingdom’s Civil Aviation Authority (33) conducted an extensive study on cabin air quality involving oils and fluids. This study examined and analyzed 2 contaminated cabin air supply ducts for the presence of chemical constituents and degradation products of engine oils, hydraulic fluids, and lubricants. These ducts were removed from 2 aircraft, wherein the inner surface of the ducts was found to be coated with black particulate material. Microscopic examination of this carbonaceous material determined that it was rich in various elements, such as aluminum, silicon, sulfur, and phosphorous. These black material deposits can be easily dislodged by gentle pressure. Thus, the material could potentially become part of the cabin and flight deck environment as solid aerosols. The gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric analyses of the airflow samples of the contaminated ducts suggested the presence of various short chain irritants, such as carboxylic acids, aldehydes, and ketones. Analyses of the solvent extracts of the carbonaceous material further indicated the presence of additional high molecular weight chemicals—for example, TCPs, TMPP, trimethylolpropane phosphates, and other associated esters—of relatively low volatility. It appeared that these molecules might have been tightly integrated to the carbonaceous material, suggesting that not all of the chemicals adsorbed onto the carbonaceous material could be desorbed by airflow. It is true that the airflow samples did not contain all the chemicals present in the black solid coating of the ducts, but it does not necessarily mean that only those chemicals found in the airflow samples are responsible for the observed toxicological effects. Other chemical entities adsorbed onto the solid material could also contribute to the toxicity, if the solid material particles become part of the air. There is a strong potential for this type of situation, because the black particulate material present in the ducts can easily be dislodged by applying gentle pressure. ...
Hence, those solid particles could easily become part of the cabin and flight deck environment as solid aerosols. In such scenarios, if the cabin and flight deck occupants inhale those particles, they would be exposed to all the chemicals and associated entities present in the airflow from the ducts, as well as in the solid deposits of the ducts. This exposure to the mixture of chemicals would cause a spectrum of adverse effects—for example, ocular and upper respiratory irritation, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, pulmonary toxicity, and even delayed adverse effects. In this way, the solid particles would actually be more effective in producing localized adverse effects. The nature and extent of such effects would, of course, be dependent upon the types and amounts of chemicals present in the air and the duration and frequency of such exposures, and these parameters would vary from flight to flight. Therefore, the whole episode is a complex set of events. Also, it is not so simple to adjudicate and predict the toxicity caused by the constituents and the pyrolytic products of engine oil, hydraulic fluids, and lubricants. In the Civil Aviation Authority study (33), the smell of the airflow samples was subjectively characterized for the odor. This qualitative approach reconfirmed that the odor originated from the carbonaceous material. However, as discussed in the report, the interrelationship cannot be established between the odor and the toxicity of a chemical. For example, some chemicals produce odor at very low concentrations without causing toxicity, whereas some chemicals have no odor but are extremely toxic. Toxicity of the various substances found in the carbonaceous material is described and discussed in detail with sufficient relevant scientific references. However, it appears from the report that the described toxicity is the toxicity exhibited by individual chemical entities. The resultant of the toxicity of all of the chemicals present in the black solid material is not clearly evident. This aspect is of particular importance, as aircraft travelers would potentially be exposed to chemicals, not a single chemical, from the black material. It is well established that the toxicity of individual substances differ from their mixture(s). Such difference would be because of the interactive effects of chemicals present in the mixture(s). Thus, the overall toxicity would be the result of additive, potentiation, synergistic, and/or antagonistic type of interaction(s) among chemicals present in the mixtures in relation to the toxic effects exerted by the individual components of the chemical mixtures (106). In other words, the chemicals found in the carbonaceous material may not necessarily be individually toxic at the found concentrations, but if they are mixed together at those concentrations, the mixture might be highly toxic. Interaction of chemicals would also play a crucial role in exhibiting characteristic odor, which may not necessarily be consistent with the odor exhibited by an individual chemical itself. The issue of the interaction of chemicals in regard to the toxicity of 29 mixtures has apparently not been fully addressed or emphasized in the report. Because of the complexity, the best approach to resolve this toxicological and aviation safety issue would be preventive (33)—that is, to minimize oil leaks into bleed air and to monitor, clean, and/or replace air ducts. The toxicity of the oil additives that are used in aircraft engines should also be revisited (202).
(From http://dviaviation.com/files/38800966.pdf)

From the CAMI's report, it sounds like there are some serious methodological shortcomings in the CAA's study, which makes the scientist in me sad and the pilot in me angry. Are they sweeping these issues under the rug? Why aren't they pursuing systematic (not only limited to "fume events") studies of issues raised by these toxicological concerns? *sigh*
(Also, I find this hilarious: the CAA actually analyzed the material by smelling it. "Yup, it just smells carbonaceous. Definitely no toxins here." Science weeps.)
 
"There has been substantial research into questions around cabin air quality over the last few years. In summary, the research has found no evidence that exposure to potential chemicals in the cabin causes long-term ill health".

Wow! Scary. Both the situation and the language. I just love this kind of language.
Organophosphates have been known for some time to be among the most toxic classes of chemicals. Just not, apparently, when exposure to them occurs while in the cabin. Reminds me of "100% Florida Squeezed Orange Juice". Well, not really... the actual juice comes from Oranges grown in Brazil where there are few if any regulations on pesticides. However, 100% of those oranges are actually squeezed into juice once they arrive in Florida.
I'd kinda rather see a statement saying, "no organophosphates were detected in any cabins." Better yet, "we're no longer going to buy engines that create organophosphates as a byproduct of their operation", or "we're going to compress our cabin air some other way." (which, btw, would likely make the engine operation more efficient, too.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you misunderstood, I believe his point was the compressors are probably relying on the same seals and lubricants. There is no free ride, you can't make air, you can compress it. They've gone electric to power the same thing that might've started with a B-29. I have not a dog in the fight regarding the 787.


The CACs have air bearings.


TP
 
Back
Top