BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

 

What is Toxic Cabin Air

We are a website devoted to informing the public, physicians, and flight crew of the hazards of breathing in the air in the cabins of commercial airlines. We are devoted to providing you with facts about TCP, bleed air, and toxic poisoning that can occur from burnt or pyrolyzed hydraulic oil.

INFORMATION ON THE AIR WE BREATHE WHILE IN THE AIR – IS IT TOXIC?
The Skies May Not  Be as Friendly as You Think!

Health problems created by unsafe air conditions in airplanes and especially problems caused by bleed air have been recognized by European governments and organizations, yet they are largely ignored by the airlines and oil companies in the United States. Or, even worse, that serious health problems can be caused by breathing in toxic air from airline cabins has been denied despite strong evidence of it’s effects.

Bleed air is air which comes into an airline cabin through the air conditioning intake. Air passes through the jet engine and generally goes three places. One place is past the engine, hydraulic oil, and then into the cabin to be cooled as cabin air for the crew and passengers. Oil or fluid in the APU can also become hydrolized and cause the same injury.

When there is a hydraulic leak, the oil/fluid is heated dramatically by the engine.  The outside air goes past the hydrolized  oil, which is burned at over 500 degrees, creating a toxic substance called TOCP, with similar charactistics to what was known as agent orange by military personnel.

This heating produces toxic characteristics. This toxic air is introduced into the cabin to be breathed in by passengers and crew alike, or is expelled directly from the engine or APU. Depending on the severity of the leak and a person’s sensitivity or exposure, toxic poisoning can, and does occur in various degrees.

It used to be that you could detect the smell similar to dirty sox and be aware there was a problem.  Oil manufacturers are now manufacturing the oils which do not emit such an odor.  Symptoms to look for include   Immediate symptoms which are  flu like symptoms, difficulty breathing, coughing, light headedness or even giddiness,  and may be accompanied by headaches, and other symptoms.

Other actual physical effects which may not be immediately recognizable, and which may take days or longer to manifest,  can be: permanent or temporary brain injury or damage, neurological damage, vision problems, short term memory loss, uncontrollable intermittent shaking of a hand or body part, numbness in extremities, aching of muscles, and what has been described as Lupus-like or Menier’s like symptoms.  It is now believed that many conditions previously diagnosed as Menier’s or Lupus may actually have been the effects of exposure to toxic cabin air.  Thanks to others who are working diligently to educate the flying public and employees, the condition is now officially recognized and called “Aerotoxic Syndrome”.

The pyrolized, or burnt, oil/fluid (TCP or TOCP) is breathed in and circulated throughout the body. It is stored in the body and it can get into the brain, muscles, and nerves. Small oil leaks can secrete these fumes over time. Long term exposure in flight crew has been shown to cause these symptoms and damage. Because the problem has been ignored or denied, many flight crew and, we are discovering, passengers, have been told they have other diseases or problems which mimic lupus, multiple sclerosis, or menier’s disease, among other disorders.

These leaks are not uncommon. They are in many, many aircraft. Some models have more problems than others. (Refer to the links  on this website ) Recently, it was stated that it would cost $10,000.00 per aircraft to fix the problem, to retrofit filters on planes.  It is not clear is this is a functional remedy, but we are asking the  question: why are the airlines not pursuing that? I think we all know the answer, money. What is more important, a person’s health or the cost? Plus, with the ‘powers that be’ saying that there is no problem, how many more people must get sick, or neurologically damaged before someone acts.  We applaud Boeing for development of the 787, the first airplane to use a system for the cabin air that bypasses the engines. The plane is touted has having clean air, and that passengers will not have that tired effect from flying.  While little is said about the bypassing of the possible toxic exposure, there are reports from the English Parliament from years ago basicly putting airlines on notice that if they do not clean up the toxic issues that their planes may be prevented from using British airports.

Cabin crew, including pilots, have related their individual experiences and health problems from exposure, as well as instances where a pilot almost lost consciousness while piloting a commercial aircraft, all thought to be related to toxic cabin air. These articles and many more are on this website for you to educate yourself and arm yourself with what you need to know for your safety and health.  Please take the time to read the websites which are linked on our pages. These are only a few of the articles and studies available on the web. Because it has been denied and ignored, many doctors are not aware of the possibility of toxic air exposure on planes and, therefore, may not realize what is causing a person’s symptoms. Educate yourself and educate them.  www.aerotoxic.org has a link to a great DVD which explains the problem in detail with personal comments by some people exposed. This is a good starting place for anyone, including professionals, to educate themselves.

We urge you to educate yourself and others to become aware. If you feel you have been exposed to toxic cabin air or know someone who has, please post your information on our “experiences” page so that we can learn, share, gather information, and spread the information to others, as well as the medical community. You may contact us for experts and/or doctors who may be familiar with the TCP exposure.

Please read the article where Boeing responds to the British Parliament that it’s newer planes will eliminate the problem of bleed air fumes. The manufacturers, the airlines, and the oil companies have been aware of these problems for years and have done nothing about it and have done nothing to warn the passenger, or the crews.

Please spread the word. And next time you fly, do not assume the ‘dirty sock’ smell is the passenger next to you. Or if you have breathing problems or feel the flu coming on that it is a coincidence.   If may be, but often in the news articles we read, the crew feels the problems and when they land they are taken to a hospital, but the articles never mention that the passengers are informed of the potential exposure.  In the past, and even presently, many crew members assume that planes are safe or they would not be allowed to fly, many crew are not informed or choose not to be informed.  Passengers who may have been exposed may believe, as many crew members did before the problem was discovered, that they simply have the flu and that the problems they later develop are unrelated.    It is going to take a lot of people— passengers, crew, and the medical community— and, we are afraid, a lot of time to bring this to the forefront.

Why does no one know or seem to care? Please read the attached links, and look for more! The leading medical doctor in this area is Dr. Peter Julu in the UK. A leading researcher is Dr. Christopher Van Netten of the University of British Columbia.  Many more medical professionals have since discovered the issues and help is slowly coming. Search their names and read more on what they have found.

Be aware, be careful, and be safe, for yourself and your future !

Read the real story on the ‘experiences page‘.

Do not assume this can not happen to you!

Article by European Panel on Contamination of aircraft cabin air by bleed air – a review of the evidence

                                                     Expert Panel on Aircraft Air Quality (Expert Panel)

A document reviewing evidence up to September 2009

Cabin air in commercial aircraft can be contaminated with hydraulic fluids, synthetic jet oils or the compounds released when these fluids are heated or pyrolysed. The incidence of contaminated air events and the nature of contaminants within the cabin air are difficult to determine as commercial aircraft do not have air quality monitoring systems on board and under-reporting is common amongst aircrew. The immediate effects of exposure to contaminated air have been well documented but debate continues about causation, diagnosis and treatment of long-term effects.
For more than twenty years, concerns have been expressed in reports from Australia and overseas about a possible relationship between exposure to fumes from heated engine and hydraulic oils contaminating air drawn into aircraft air conditioning systems in certain types of aircraft, and post-exposure acute and chronic symptoms experienced by some cabin occupants. Most reports involve aircrew – both pilots and flight attendants. The term ‘Aerotoxic Syndrome’ has been used by some to describe the symptoms experienced, although this term is not accepted as a recognised medical diagnosis. Although a number of inquiries have been undertaken, both in Australia and internationally, the results have been indeterminate, due in part to the difficulty in finding satisfactory evidence.
In 2007, in response to persisting reports from Australia and overseas about possible links between the contamination of air supplied to the aircraft cabin and descriptions of post-exposure acute and chronic symptoms from those exposed to the contamination, the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) established an Expert Panel on Aircraft Air Quality (EPAAQ).
This Panel comprised members with expertise in aircraft engineering, occupational and environmental health, aviation medicine, toxicology and epidemiology to examine concerns about cabin air contamination.
This Report describes the evidence-based review undertaken by this Expert Panel, together with recommendations for further action.
Research Assistance
The Panel engaged an Occupational and Environmental Medicine consulting group, Rumball Souter Floyd & Associates Ltd (RSF), to undertake a literature search and assist in this investigation. The Panel determined the scope of the literature search, as well as instructing RSF to seek input from a wide range of stakeholders whom RSF contacted, advising them of the Review and requesting provision of information or advice. Respondents were able to submit their documents electronically or post them directly to RSF. The Panel received a large number of personal medical reports submitted following a call from an advocacy group
Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE). These reports were systematically reviewed, but the contents have remained confidential.
The Panel and the research team used a purpose built limited access website known as a “wiki” developed and managed by RSF. The wiki provided the Panel with access to all submissions and references, as well as enabling the Panel to participate in real time development of the report.
The Panel met on eight occasions over the past two years and examined a significant body of information and evidence, including governmental inquiries, expert opinions, incident reports, media reports, in vitro and animal studies and human epidemiology studies, as well as individual testimonies. The Panel recognised the concerns expressed by individuals, and some organisations, that their ill health (which they attributed to exposure to contaminated cabin air) was significant, and in some cases very debilitating. However, throughout this review the Panel adopted an evidence-based approach in assessing a wide range of material; particularly focusing on comprehensive peer reviewed scientific literature wherever possible. In addition, members of the Panel contributed information and data from their own sources to enable the Panel to explore as widely as possible the available evidence.
The detailed literature review was completed in September 2009. Subsequently, RSF has assisted the Panel in developing this report. The Panel acknowledges the ongoing research, presentations at conferences and publication of papers since that date and will seek to have CASA maintain this report as a “living document” to enable updating of the document as and when further evidence becomes available.
Limitation of this review
The Panel limited the scope of this review to cabin air contamination due to internal leakage of chemicals into the air conditioning system.    The review excluded consideration of the health effects of allergens, microorganisms and chemical contamination from external sources.
Acknowledgement
The Panel acknowledges the expertise, skills, patience and diligence of our research team Rumball Souter Floyd & Associates Ltd (RSF), particularly Dr Christopher Rumball and Dr Karen Grant. As chairman, I wish to highlight and acknowledge with gratitude the enormous support, input, advice, expertise and encouragement of all members of the Panel each of whom have willingly given their services diligently, well beyond what would generally be expected of an Expert Panel. Finally I wish to recognise the support and great assistance of Dr Pooshan Navathe, Principal Medical Officer, CASA who has provided me with guidance and support throughout this project.

Michael Bollen AM Chairman of the Expert Panel

Fume event-What is a Fume Event?

Because airliners fly at very high altitudes, the cabin must be pressurised to provide a safe quantity of breathable oxygen to passengers and crew. The cabin is pressurised with bleed air tapped from the jet engine’s compressor sections, which are prior to the combustion sections. Bleed air is very hot and must be cooled by heat exchangers before it is directed into the air conditioning units, which cool it even further.^[2]

To prevent fume events, the Boeing 787 pressurises its air with electrical compressors rather than the engines.^[3]

Handling of fume events

In the event of fumes or smoke in an aircraft, flight deck crew will wear pressurised oxygen masks in order to avoid breathing in irritating fumes. Goggles are also available if necessary. Cabin crew may be able to use portable oxygen masks if they identify the fume event in time. If the fumes do not subside after an attempt is made to diagnose and fix the problem, the flight is diverted to a nearby airport. In a severe fume or smoke event, the aircraft might descend to an altitude of 10,000 feet (3,000 m) or lower where it can safely be depressurised.^[4]

An FAA-funded study found that fume events occur on 1 in 5,000 flights; some planes may have multiple consecutive events if the leak is not fixed.^[3] Sensors that can detect air quality issues are available and the airline Lufthansa has requested their installation, but Boeing declined due to fear of litigation from crew or passengers sickened by detectable fume events.^[3]

Health effects

The human physiological effects of fume events are yet to be fully understood by the medical community. Signs and symptoms of exposure can be misdiagnosed as other common ailments, due particularly to the delay between exposure to fumes and the onset of associated symptoms. While most aeromedical professionals believe no long-term health effects exist from fume events, some consumer and aircrew advocacy groups claim that it can cause a medically-unrecognised condition called aerotoxic syndrome.^[5][6]

Turbine engine oil is an irritant and contains neurotoxic chemicals such as tricresyl phosphate. The aviation industry claims that engine oil does not contain sufficient quantities of such chemicals to cause long-term damage.^[5] However, there is some historical evidence that would seem to contradict this statement; in 1959, over 10,000 people in Morocco were paralyzed or otherwise adversely affected after ingesting small quantities of tricresyl phosphate in their cooking oil.^[7]

Hydraulic fluid, although non-toxic in small quantities, is extremely irritating to the eyes and skin, which creates a hazard to pilots during a fume event but causes no lasting damage.^[8]

Deicing fluid has a strong smell but is not very irritating or toxic if inhaled (though it has significant toxicity when ingested).^{[citation needed]}

It is not mandatory for fume events to be reported in the U.S.^[3]

Many lobbying groups have been set up to advocate for research into this hazard, including the Aviation Organophosphate Information Site (AOPIS) (2001), the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (2006), and the UK-based Aerotoxic Association (2007). Cabin Environment Research is one of many functions of the ACER Group,^[9] but their researchers have not yet established any causal relationship.^[10][11]

Although a study made for the EU in 2014 confirmed that contamination of cabin air could be a problem, the study also stated:

“A lot of reported fume events caused comfort limitations for the occupants but posed no danger. A verification of cabin air contamination with toxic substances (e.g. TCP/TOCP) was not possible with the fume events the BFU investigated.”^[12]

While no scientific evidence to date has found that airliner cabin air has been contaminated to toxic levels (exceeding known safe levels, in ppm, of any dangerous chemical), in March 2010 a court in Australia in ruled in favor of a former airline flight attendant who claimed she suffered chronic respiratory problems after being exposed to oil fumes on a flight in March 1992.^[13] Such testing is infrequent due to Boeing’s refusal to install air quality sensors in its planes, fearing litigation from passengers or crew over fume events. In the U.S., airlines refused to allow flight attendants to carry air samplers after Congress mandated chemical measurements.^[14]

The FAA has revoked the medical certificates of several pilots who developed neurological issues after fume events.^[15]

A Los Angeles Times analysis^[3] of NASA safety reports from January 2018 to December 2019 identified 362 voluntarily-reported fume events, in which almost 400 pilots, flight attendants and passengers received medical attention. On 73 or more of those flights, pilots used emergency oxygen. Four dozen pilots were impaired so far as to be unable to perform their duties. Boeing told the Times that they believe no credible data shows that oil leaks into the bleed air stream can cause serious injuries. By contrast, a judge who awarded workers’ compensation to a pilot who had suffered toxic encephalopathy (brain damage) from a fume event condemned the airline industry’s obstructionism around fume events.^[3]