Toxic fumes kill Captain and FO Permanently incapacitated ?

I'm not buying these stories. They sound like fake news. Show me an article from JAMA or Lancet that specifically addresses these claims and then I'll be a believer. Otherwise, these are just stories someone cooked up to get people worked up.

Welp, there you have it folks. Case closed.

:sarcasm:
 
I work on airplanes with "100%" fresh air, I have never bought into that idea. I'm well aware that the bleed air is removed from the engine before the combustion cycle, but the machinations it's subject to before it is used for pressurization should disallow the fresh air moniker. An APU with a faulty oil seal in the compressor section is going to contaminate the entire ECS, not just the cooling turbine, the entire ECS. I can see swapping an APU and kicking the airplane out the door after a smokey smell in the cabin, but there is likely still residual oil in the ducts, cooling turbines that you might not smell but are still probably a hazard. This is why I want a Cub, none of this mumbo-jumbo, possibly just carbon monoxide poisoning to worry about.
 
Personally, I don't know the exact truth/answer, but I do know that the claims should not just be summarily dismissed and more serious research is obviously needed.

That's why i say find a way to autopsy the jet in question, or any other particular tail number showing a trend. In the case of the jet in question here, it's in storage at VCV. May not be a bad idea to find a way to have its ECS/bleed/APU/engine systems and shared lines inspected with a fine tooth comb. Hopefully before that jet potentially gets scrapped, or sold elsewhere and flying again.
 
That's why i say find a way to autopsy the jet in question, or any other particular tail number showing a trend. In the case of the jet in question here, it's in storage at VCV. May not be a bad idea to find a way to have its ECS/bleed/APU/engine systems and shared lines inspected with a fine tooth comb. Hopefully before that jet potentially gets scrapped, or sold elsewhere and flying again.
That's really not a bad idea, but I doubt that somehow this will happen. Airlines are not even to the point of admitting the possibility of pax or crews breathing toxic fumes and perhaps being medically affected by such exposure long term, let alone any culpability on their part. I don't even know if those trying to prove this case have the funds to even take on such an endeavor or have thought of it.
 
Last edited:
Until it suddenly isn't. If I flew an airplane with a gasoline fired BBQ in the nose I don't think I'd be brave enough to actually start that fire.
Everyday life up here. Eventually you get over the idea of being scared of it and just get pissed off when it flames out on a cold day and won't relight.
 
Everyday life up here. Eventually you get over the idea of being scared of it and just get pissed off when it flames out on a cold day and won't relight.
Nope, more socks and three jackets please. Those things have always scared me. But to get us back on track we should discuss the merits of the GTCP36-100 versus the -150. We could also comment on the RE-220 but those are only for really fancy people so I don't want to talk about them.
 
Nope, more socks and three jackets please. Those things have always scared me. But to get us back on track we should discuss the merits of the GTCP36-100 versus the -150. We could also comment on the RE-220 but those are only for really fancy people so I don't want to talk about them.

Heh, where I taught it was a mandatory return to field if the heater quit in flight.
 
I don't like the idea of using bleed air, the only plane that I'm aware of that separates the pressurization from the engines is the 787, electric compressors pump up the cabin.
 
I'm not buying these stories. They sound like fake news. Show me an article from JAMA or Lancet that specifically addresses these claims and then I'll be a believer. Otherwise, these are just stories someone cooked up to get people worked up.
I've rarely found AVHerald to cite inaccurate information, the few times I've seen any pointed out, the info was corrected. I'm not familiar with the LH or US incidents, but the BA incident is written in line with what I was told. I cleared the plane for push back and coordinated a possible emergency return for it then got an update from BA staff a few days later. Good enough for me to be concerned.
 
I work on airplanes with "100%" fresh air, I have never bought into that idea. I'm well aware that the bleed air is removed from the engine before the combustion cycle, but the machinations it's subject to before it is used for pressurization should disallow the fresh air moniker. An APU with a faulty oil seal in the compressor section is going to contaminate the entire ECS, not just the cooling turbine, the entire ECS. I can see swapping an APU and kicking the airplane out the door after a smokey smell in the cabin, but there is likely still residual oil in the ducts, cooling turbines that you might not smell but are still probably a hazard. This is why I want a Cub, none of this mumbo-jumbo, possibly just carbon monoxide poisoning to worry about.

^^^This, very much this ^^^

Fume events are a real threat to anyone that operates an aircraft who's cabin environmental are delivered via an engine bleed air system. It's a real problem, and one that's slowly gaining momentum in being addressed.
As you may imagine, there's quite a bit of finger pointing and denial at the upper levels of engine and aircraft manufacturing, insisting they don't have a problem. The same can be said of airline managements, although some are actually being proactive and trying to learn as much as they can and change procedures to mitigate fume occurrences from happening. That said, and I'll repeat this again, as long as your aircraft delivers cabin air through an engine bleed system, you're vulnerable to exposure.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top