Notices

Fume Events

Old 04-16-2019, 04:14 PM
  #101  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 315
Default

Originally Posted by BeatNavy View Post
And one more published today:
https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/s...nd-cabin-crew/

Don’t worry. It’s all fine. Std Deviation says it’s no worse than pumping your own gas.
This study is particularly concerning. I wonder if the “healthy” people he studied were of the same age.

Also, it mentions he examined only former pilots and cabin crew who “experienced complaints.” What about the pilots/FAs who did not experience complaints? Shouldn’t they be tested as well to check their brain activity?

Perhaps the brain issues in the selected group is not due to chronic exposure to fumes, but rather some other neuro issue. If they were retired flight crew they must be high in age. One can hope.
localizer is offline  
Old 04-16-2019, 09:43 PM
  #102  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,132
Default

Originally Posted by BeatNavy View Post
And one more published today:
https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/s...nd-cabin-crew/

Don’t worry. It’s all fine. Std Deviation says it’s no worse than pumping your own gas.
Here's something else... in the USA, you won't even find TCP in the MSDS. You have to look at foreign MSDS-equivalents to find that Type II turbine oil has TCP. At least last time I checked.... one of the biggest problems in the USA is that manufacturers do not have to publish chemistry because it could compromise their intellectual property. Companies are creating new products every day of which we have no idea of their chemical composition. We may only get vague references to "petroleum distillates". This is partly why the EPA and FAA are so ineffective at enforcing safety, besides the notion that safety is not their primary mandate.
queue is offline  
Old 04-16-2019, 10:00 PM
  #103  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,132
Default

Originally Posted by localizer View Post
This study is particularly concerning. I wonder if the “healthy” people he studied were of the same age.

Also, it mentions he examined only former pilots and cabin crew who “experienced complaints.” What about the pilots/FAs who did not experience complaints? Shouldn’t they be tested as well to check their brain activity?

Perhaps the brain issues in the selected group is not due to chronic exposure to fumes, but rather some other neuro issue. If they were retired flight crew they must be high in age. One can hope.
The problem with aerotoxic syndrome is that it is a secondary or tertiary level problem. You cannot easily design an experiment where you have a variable group and a control group. This methodology only looks at singular effects.

Instead of assuming that something is safe until proven otherwise, we should assume it us unsafe until proven safe. Every fume we encounter should be treated as a pollutant which we are not normally subjected to in a healthy lifestyle, in nature. So every sweet smell (deice fluid) or baking bread smell (oil) should be treated as a pollutant by default. From recent company statements, we can clearly see they are attempting to "normalize" common pollutants such as APU exhaust ingestion. We should not allow this. All of these things are bad even if we have been experiencing them for years. It just shows they have done nothing to fix the problem, not that it's an acceptable part of the job.

Furthermore, we must redefine was "safe" means. To regulators, this means the opposite of death. So if it gives you great illness, it may not necessarily be considered "unsafe". Nomenclature matters. Unsafe should be defined as anything which has a persistent stasis of any length starting at the removal of the exposure source. It's funny how Illegal drugs are considered unsafe, even if it has a minor effect on health, but aerotoxic syndrome is not given an eye wink by the government.
queue is offline  
Old 04-17-2019, 06:10 AM
  #104  
The REAL Bluedriver
 
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,860
Default

Originally Posted by queue View Post
The problem with aerotoxic syndrome is that it is a secondary or tertiary level problem. You cannot easily design an experiment where you have a variable group and a control group. This methodology only looks at singular effects.

Instead of assuming that something is safe until proven otherwise, we should assume it us unsafe until proven safe. Every fume we encounter should be treated as a pollutant which we are not normally subjected to in a healthy lifestyle, in nature. So every sweet smell (deice fluid) or baking bread smell (oil) should be treated as a pollutant by default. From recent company statements, we can clearly see they are attempting to "normalize" common pollutants such as APU exhaust ingestion. We should not allow this. All of these things are bad even if we have been experiencing them for years. It just shows they have done nothing to fix the problem, not that it's an acceptable part of the job.

Furthermore, we must redefine was "safe" means. To regulators, this means the opposite of death. So if it gives you great illness, it may not necessarily be considered "unsafe". Nomenclature matters. Unsafe should be defined as anything which has a persistent stasis of any length starting at the removal of the exposure source. It's funny how Illegal drugs are considered unsafe, even if it has a minor effect on health, but aerotoxic syndrome is not given an eye wink by the government.
Great posts Q.
Bluedriver is offline  
Old 04-17-2019, 11:17 AM
  #105  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 610
Default

There are currently 24 papers published on this topic:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...91417,12017442
f10a is offline  
Old 04-17-2019, 09:32 PM
  #106  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,132
Default

Originally Posted by f10a View Post
There are currently 24 papers published on this topic:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...91417,12017442
Not to mention countless USAF publications since the 1950's.
queue is offline  
Old 04-18-2019, 05:58 AM
  #107  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 610
Default

It's interesting that pilot loss of medical license insurance excludes neurological disorders! Read the fine print!
f10a is offline  
Old 04-18-2019, 06:19 AM
  #108  
The REAL Bluedriver
 
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,860
Default

Originally Posted by f10a View Post
It's interesting that pilot loss of medical license insurance excludes neurological disorders! Read the fine print!
Interesting isn't the word I would use. Nefarious. Diabolical. Criminal.
Bluedriver is offline  
Old 04-18-2019, 08:59 AM
  #109  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 610
Default

Is there a website that lists reported events?
f10a is offline  
Old 04-18-2019, 10:48 AM
  #110  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,445
Default

Originally Posted by Bluedriver View Post
Interesting isn't the word I would use. Nefarious. Diabolical. Criminal.
That's why you develop back pain.
PasserOGas is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Av8tr1
Safety
9
02-05-2019 06:58 PM
69boeing
FedEx
7
11-20-2018 04:00 PM
Lostboys97
Regional
23
01-08-2008 01:43 PM
MetJet23
Career Questions
4
01-02-2008 07:47 AM
KingAirPIC
Regional
12
05-02-2007 11:57 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices