Sky News
The airline industry is under scrutiny after some pilots have reported experiencing dizziness and double vision while flying.
It is claimed this has been caused by toxic fumes contaminating the air – but aeroplane manufacturers and airlines insist there are no dangers.
A House of Lords peer, the Countess of Mar, is calling for urgent research into the quality of air inside planes.
The problem, which has allegedly been occurring since the late 1970s, is being covered up by the industry, it has been claimed.
And according to The Observer at the weekend, there is anecdotal evidence the fumes are entering cockpits and cabins and causing nausea, headaches, breathing distress and dizziness.
The newspaper reported that one pilot was forced to hand over the plane’s controls after smelling a strange odour that made his throat dry and his eyes burn.
He became confused and the flight had to be grounded within minutes.
In another reported case, a pilot taking off suffered chest pains and breathing difficulties. His co-pilot took control but within seconds he was suffering similar problems. Both men were forced to use oxygen masks.
The paper said it had seen claims of more than 100 incidents in the past three years and it alleged that in more than 40 of these events, one or more pilots were impaired in a way that could have affected their ability to fly.
Airlines say there is no scientific evidence it is happening and BA issued a statement saying: “We would never operate an aircraft that we believed posed a health or safety risk.”
An independent review is being carried out and results are expected within the next few months.
By: Moondance - 9th March 2006 at 14:06
From what I’ve read 146s are particularly bad when it comes to this problem?
146, B757 (and I think the MD80s) are the chief culprits. The problem has been around for years and possibly the reason it is making the news now is BALPA’s campaign.
http://www.balpa.org./intranet/BALPA-Camp/The-Aircra/Cabin-Air/index.htm
By: RIPConcorde - 9th March 2006 at 13:50
Andrewman, It wasn’t a ‘bus or a Boeing it was a 146/RJ. I assumed that the crew were switching off the engine bleed air in turn trying to isolate the offending engine. With four of the blessed things it took longer than they thought!
B.T.W. I thought that you were slightly pressurized when you took off to keep the doors shut and prevent the pressurization “bump” on rotation?
(On rotation the outflow valve, if open is faced into the airflow by the rotation of the fuselage. It is turned into a ram air duct that will slightly pressurize the cabin causing a sudden pressure rise, i.e. a bump. For this reason the cabim is slightly pressurized during the taxi out. Also it stops the fools trying to jump out!)
Since you are our man at Airbus and what I have just said was told to me on a B737 course perhaps there is a difference between Airbus and Boeing operating proceedures?Rgds Cking
From what I’ve read 146s are particularly bad when it comes to this problem?
By: Cking - 9th March 2006 at 12:31
Andrewman, It wasn’t a ‘bus or a Boeing it was a 146/RJ. I assumed that the crew were switching off the engine bleed air in turn trying to isolate the offending engine. With four of the blessed things it took longer than they thought!
B.T.W. I thought that you were slightly pressurized when you took off to keep the doors shut and prevent the pressurization “bump” on rotation?
(On rotation the outflow valve, if open is faced into the airflow by the rotation of the fuselage. It is turned into a ram air duct that will slightly pressurize the cabin causing a sudden pressure rise, i.e. a bump. For this reason the cabim is slightly pressurized during the taxi out. Also it stops the fools trying to jump out!)
Since you are our man at Airbus and what I have just said was told to me on a B737 course perhaps there is a difference between Airbus and Boeing operating proceedures?
Rgds Cking
By: andrewm - 9th March 2006 at 11:43
Is it not Airbus procedure to switch off packs until after take off? If you were on an airbus cking, that could explain why it went away?
By: Cking - 9th March 2006 at 11:37
This story has been doing the rounds for a number of years now. With any aircraft that uses bleed air for pressurization the is a risk of atomized engine oil getting into the cabin air supply if an internal engine oil seal fails. The 787 by the way will be presurized by electrcaly powered compressors useing external air so this will not be a problem.
The terms “Allegedly, Anecdotal and cover up” are a bit strong as this information has been in the public domain for years. The airlines have very strict proceedures to deal with this, both in the air and on the ground and work very closly with the manufacturers to develop long term fixes.
Last year I had the un-fortunate experience of having this happed to me TWICE in TWO WEEKS!!!. I got on the first aircraft and noticed immediatly that it smelled like a back street garage. We took off and the smell got worse, to the point that I had a “tight” chest and my eyes were watering. In fact I thought that I was going to have to ask for help. Then for no apparent reason the smell just went away.
The next week I was on the same trip, same airline same type of aircraft but different registration. I got onboard and it had the same oily smell. This time though the smell went as soon as the aircraft pessurized. I got chatting to one of the cabin crew and mentioned the oil smell and she said that a month previously she had been so badly affected by the smell she had to go onto emergency oxygen and was unfitt for work for a week after.
Rgds Cking
By: andrewm - 9th March 2006 at 10:41
Maybe its the Mistrons from Captain Scarlet?
Sign In
March 9, 2006 at 6:14 am