IFALPA Update - (International Federation Of Air Line Pilots’ Associations) 05 December 2018 - for their female members regarding flying during Pregnancy. With regards to contaminated air onboard aircraft, their advice for female pilots on flying while pregnant is:
‘Cabin Air Quality
Although cabin air is normally of acceptable quality, fume events may cause quality of cabin air to deteriorate. Fume events may pose a risk to passengers and crew in general and this would include to a pregnant woman and the unborn fetus.’
The full update can be read from this link:
https://www.ifalpa.org/media/3142/18hupbl02-pregnancy-and-flying.pdf

Unions are working to protect their members (and their members unborn babies) from harm - including the risk of possible harm from fumes onboard aircraft.
This is the advice offered by the CAA in their section ‘Am I Fit To Fly’ on the CAA Website regarding Pregnancy:
‘Advice for Passengers
The key focus when considering the pregnant traveller is the health and wellbeing of the mother and the baby.
Delivery in flight, or diversion in flight to a location, which may not have high quality obstetric services, is undesirable and for this reason, most airlines do not allow travel after 36 weeks for a single pregnancy and after 32 weeks for multiple pregnancies.
Most airlines require a certificate after 28 weeks, confirming that the pregnancy is progressing normally, that there are no complications and the expected date of delivery.’
There is no information or advice for passengers (or health professionals) from the CAA to indicate any possible risk from fumes/contaminated air to pregnant passengers and the unborn foetus.
The CAA is not funded by the U.K. Government but by other means, including funding in statutory charges from the very airlines it regulates. The Airlines are the CAA’s customers and contribute toward the financial stability of this organisation. £84.5 million (Of £190.7 million total CAA income) was generated in statutory charges to airlines last year.
From the CAA Annual Financial Report 2017/18:
‘We are funded directly by charges paid by those we regulate’
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1671_Annual%20Report_201718(WEB).pdf

When the industry is the main funding source for the regulator of that industry is it not understandable that that the regulator is not going to bite the hand that feeds it?
This is particularly relevant when key positions within the regulator are consistently filled by senior figures from the industry. For instance - the Head of Health Services from one of the U.K.’s largest airlines is now Head of the CAA’s Aviation Health Unit. Is this why the CAA continue to deny that Contaminated Air Onboard Aircraft causes harm?
The CAA state:
‘Engine bleed air
We recognise that there is strong interest in fume events, particularly those that relate to 'engine bleed air', which some people have suggested could impact on people’s health. Based on the available data, occurrences relating to engine bleed air are very rare and confirmed incidents form five per cent of the total number of fume event reports we receive each year.
It is acknowledged that people who experience a fume event (of any type) may report symptoms such as irritation to the eyes, nose and throat. These symptoms usually resolve, however, once the fumes or smell have disappeared.
A number of studies have been carried out in this area, including Government-commissioned research. Long term ill health due to any toxic effect from cabin air is understood to be unlikely, although such a link cannot be ruled out.’
NOTE: ‘available data’, ‘very rare’, ‘usually resolve’, ‘Government-commissioned research’ (one flawed study of 100 flights), ‘such a link cannot be ruled out’.
From the Government Funded Research (The Cranfield Study) the CAA state:
“Levels observed in the flights that formed part of the study were comparable to those typically experienced in domestic settings.”
The Cranfield Study (100 flights) ALSO states that in respect of some of the substances found during the studies and their levels:
“These are appropriate for the protection of the health of a working adult exposed in a workplace and are not applicable to other groups such as children or elderly persons or to environments that are not workplaces”.
This is clear statement that exposure at the levels found during the study are not appropriate for the protection of health for other groups such as elderly persons or children. Is the environment onboard an aircraft a regular workplace? It is not. Working in a pressurised environment has many impacts on the body.
The statement above can be found on page 46 of The Cranfield Study:
https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/5305
It is important to add the view of Professor Ramsden of Cranfield University regarding this study as it is interesting to see how the results have been ‘cherry picked’ by both the Government and the CAA:
No one actually knows the levels of contamination people are exposed to on an aircraft particularly during Fume Events. There are no sensors (only the human nose) there are no filters (only the body’s ability to process and eliminate the toxins).
Airlines, the CAA and the U.K. Government continue to deny there is a problem and are failing to protect crew and passengers - including pregnant passengers and their unborn babies.
Contamination onboard bleed-air aircraft is a REAL problem that needs fixing RIGHT NOW.