These are only the latest published fume event reports, there will be many more which have not made it to press due to the strict requirements of publishing. There will also be many which have not been reported at all.
So this is what’s considered as ‘the tip of the iceberg from the past couple of months:
09 October 2022
Eastern Airways
Incident: Eastern Airways AT72 at Leeds on Oct 9th 2022, fumes in cockpit
http://avherald.com/h?article=4ffee9bd&opt=0
10 October 2022
Swiss
Incident: Swiss BCS3 at Zurich on Oct 10th 2022, oil-fumes in cockpit
http://avherald.com/h?article=4ff84fce&opt=0
12 October 2022
Spicejet
Incident: Spicejet DH8D at Hyderabad on Oct 12th 2022, smoke in cabin
http://avherald.com/h?article=4ff98775&opt=0
12 October 2022
British Airways
Incident: British Airways A320 near Munich on Oct 12th 2022, smoke in cabin
http://avherald.com/h?article=4ff91fed&opt=0
26 October 2022
SUN Scandinavia
Incident: Sun Scandinavia J328 at Gothenburg on Oct 26th 2022, smoke in cabin
http://avherald.com/h?article=5002ed75&opt=0
30 October 2022
Air France
Incident: France A318 at Paris on Oct 30th 2022, smell on board
https://avherald.com/h?article=500838ad&opt=0
31 October 2022
FedEx
Incident: Fedex B763 near Las Vegas on Oct 31st 2022, fumes on board
http://avherald.com/h?article=5006ac6c&opt=0
01 November 2022
Delta Airlines
Incident: Delta B752 near Albuquerque on Nov 1st 2022, engine problem and smoke in cabin
http://avherald.com/h?article=500751b8&opt=0
05 November 2022
Alaska Airlines
Accident: Alaska B738 over Pacific on Nov 5th 2022, two flight attendants incapacitated due to fumes
https://avherald.com/h?article=5009dcee&opt=0
05 November 2022
Swiss
Incident: Swiss BCS3 at Zurich on Nov 5th 2022, acrid odour in cockpit
https://avherald.com/h?article=500d9287&opt=0
06 November 2022
Incident: Batik A320 at Perth on Nov 6th 2022, rejected takeoff due to smoke in cabin
https://avherald.com/h?article=500a8bc0&opt=0
08 November 2022
Are Lingus UK
Incident: Lingus UK A333 near Daytona Beach on Nov 8th 2022, smoke in cockpit
https://avherald.com/h?article=500cd263&opt=0
17 November 2022
Air Malta
Incident: Malta A320 at Malta on Nov 17th 2022, smoke in flight deck
http://avherald.com/h?article=5012a6f1&opt=0
22 November 2022
Air France
Incident: France B773 over Hungary on Nov 22nd 2022, smoke on board
https://avherald.com/h?article=5016a1fc&opt=0
23 November 2022
Delta Airlines
Incident: Delta A319 at Rochester on Nov 23rd 2022, fumes in cockpit and cabin
23 November 2022
Spirit Airlines
Incident: Spirit A319 near Kansas City on Nov 23rd 2022, unusual odour in cockpit
http://avherald.com/h?article=50175fd6&opt=0
23 November 2022
Air France
Incident: France B773 at Miami on Nov 23rd 2022, smell of smoke on board
http://avherald.com/h?article=501801c6&opt=0
25 November 2022
United Airlines
Incident: United B764 near St. John's on Nov 25th 2022, smoke in cabin
http://avherald.com/h?article=501922a3&opt=0
03 December 2022
Delta Airlines
Incident: Delta A319 near Austin on Dec 3rd 2022, oil fumes on the flight deck
http://avherald.com/h?article=501e88b0&opt=0
10 November 2022
AAIB Report -
Report: British Airways A320 at London on Jun 14th 2022, fumes in cockpit affect flight crew
https://avherald.com/h?article=500d6cfb&opt=0
This is the full AAIB Report:
‘There have been a significant number of suspected fumes events in the operator’s A320 fleet, but no decisive technical findings have been made. The awareness of such events has been raised by the campaigning conducted by pilot and cabin crew Unions, and the CAA indicates the possibility of a psychological response to the perceived problem of aircraft fumes events. That cannot be discounted but neither can the occurrence of toxic fumes.’
Does the CAA have evidence of toxic substances being present in the air onboard aircrafts?
The answer is yes, they do.
The question follows: Why don't they install calibrated sensors in aircraft cockpits and cabins to determine which substances are present in order to conduct a proper double-blind randomised study to determine whether the symptoms experienced by those exposed are psychological, as they frequently claim, or an actual physiological response to toxins, and put an end to this nonsense?
‘The co-pilot felt anxious but was reassured by the paramedics and it was not judged that he required any further medical checks. Due to elevated blood pressure and pulse rate, the paramedics took the commander to hospital for further assessment. During that assessment the commander had a blood test for exposure to toxic gases which gave a negative result. The commander was released from hospital following the medical checks.’
In the U.K. there is no official protocol for medical professionals advising how to identify the toxic substances used in aircraft oil or hydraulic fluid in blood.
We can only assume that the test performed on the Captain of the aircraft was a carboxyhemoglobin test which is used to determine exposure to carbon monoxide (CO).
A negative CO test can only confirm on exposure to CO, not to any of the other substances that were also present. This is due to the above mentioned non-existence of an official protocol which should inform medical professionals of how many and which toxic chemical substances can be present in the fumes (300+) and which to test for especially. These substances are present as ultra fine particles (UFP) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) which are capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier (BBB).
Health effects may not manifest for days, weeks or even months after a significant exposure.
Effects from exposure, even at a low level, are entirely dependent on an individual’s genetic make-up concerning the ability to detoxify, which determines their ability to completely remove toxins from their body effectively and efficiently.
However, repeated or prolonged exposure to fumes onboard aircraft, particularly in the case of air crew and frequent flyers, can be cumulative, even at low levels.
There are now over 300 substances determined in aircraft oil, but sadly, due to a lack of interest by the government and a lack of research, no one can confirm the synergistic effects or the health hazards of breathing such a combination of toxic fumes in aircraft.
https://www.unfiltered.vip/unfiltered---contents-of-fumes.html
What we do know is that exposure can make people ill, and sometimes cause lifelong and debilitating injuries and death.
Health professionals in A&E Departments and GP surgeries generally in the U.K. are unaware of the possible health effects or possible health consequences of exposure to the toxic chemicals used in aircraft oil, hydraulic fluid, exhaust from other aircraft and ground service vehicles, and de-icing fluids because the U.K. government, via the National Health Service (NHS), has not informed them.
Aircraft oil - Exxon-Mobil Jet II
https://sds.exxonmobil.com/IntApps/psims/Download.aspx?ID=743589
Fuel - A1/JP8 (exhaust from other aircraft)
https://www.shell-moh.com/uploads/media_items/msds-in-english.original.pdf
Hydraulic fluid (Skydrol)
http://www.aviaoil.com.ua/pdf/skydrol.ld-4.msds.eng.pdf
De-icing fluids
https://nationalenvironmentalpro.com/hazards-deicing-chemicals/
The point is, there should be NO toxic fumes at all entering aircraft cockpits and cabins through the environmental control system/air conditioning system (ECS).
The bleed-air (ECS) system used on all commercial aircraft (excluding B787) is a faulty design which should have been rectified decades ago.
But instead of admitting there is a problem and fixing it, the serious risk to flight safety and the health effects on those who were exposed and hurt as a result have been continually denied and covered up.
"Psychological responses" and the "perceived problem of aircraft fume events," as stated by the CAA, really don’t cut it. It's time for them to back up their unproven claims about psychological effects with evidence and require onboard sensors for all UK-registered aircraft cockpits and cabins so that pilots and cabin crew know when and to what they are being exposed and can take immediate and appropriate action.
Former Chief Medical Officer, British Airways, Consultant to Airbus and professor of Aviation Medicine at King’s College Hospital, London, Dr. Michael Bagshaw stated the following in 2003:
“Following a number of recent incidents in which oily smells have been detected in the aircraft cabin, it is recognised that there is understandable concern about the possible toxicity of these fumes. The preferred oil on the [Boeing] 757/767 fleet is Mobil Jet Oil II. This contains synthetic hydrocarbons and additives, including an organophosphate known as Tricresyl Phosphate (TCP), which acts as a high-pressure lubricant. Engine lubricating oil contains around 3% TCP. TCP is a toxic mixture that can cause a wide array of transitory or permanent neurological dysfunctions when swallowed. However, there have been no recorded cases of neurological harm in humans following dermal or inhalation exposure. This means that the substance can be potentially harmful if swallowed in a large enough quantity, but is not harmful if absorbed through the skin or breathed in. Exposure to large doses of some organophosphates by skin contact, inhalation, or swallowing may cause adverse effects on the nervous system. However, not every organophosphate compound will cause these problems, including those used in jet engine oil.” (Source ©British Airways Cabin Crew News - 24 October 2003)
A publication in the “Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine” in 1983 by R B Rayman, G B McNaughton states the following (from abstract)
Smoke/fumes in the cockpit
‘During the period 1970-80, there were reported in USAF 89 incidents of smoke/fumes in the cockpit during flight. The origin of the fumes in most cases was organic petroleum derivatives, which caused a multitude of symptoms including CNS dysfunction and mucous membrane irritation. Flight surgeons should be well-read in aerospace toxicology because of the threat to flying safety posed by the many fluids and substances necessary for the operation of today's modern aircraft.’
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6626083/
It seems that Professor Dr. Bagshaw was not as ‘well read in aerospace toxicology’ as he should have been because he did not know or understand the threat to flight safety nor the possible health effects.
Incidentally, the only information held on the subject by the U.K.’s Department for Work and Pensions in respect of claims for Industrial Injury Disablement related to exposure to toxic chemicals onboard aircraft including tricresyl phosphate (TCP), are publications mostly by Professor Dr. Michael Bagshaw which of course deny the possibility of any injury. The Department of Work and Pensions (via their contracted doctors at Maximus U.K.) regularly use these incorrect publications to deny claims of injury. They too, state that any injuries are caused by psychological responses (“nocebo effects”), dismissing diagnoses and opinions on causation from other specialists.
They have all areas very well covered within the U.K. Government.
Excerpts from an internal Boeing email - 26 October 2007:
‘Hydraulic mist is another toxic product I refuse to get involved with, even though our recirculation filters have the capability to coalesce the mist ... I will add that the propulsion folks do not account or certify the bleed air quality they feed to us. John Klym was the most recent to try to get the propulsion folks to step up to owning their system by-products. All he got was the run-around like I got in 2000 for the 747-400. ... The engine specs are the hole no one has addressed ... Given the number of [contamination] events for the 757/RB211-535C and 535E engines resulting from failed Fan and Forward IFC Bearing Seals allowing oil by-products in the bleed ducts, I would have thought that the FAA would have forced the issue ... With all the diversions (about 1 every 2 weeks) and return to base events due to Haze in the Cabin, I would have thought the FAA would have made the Engine Manufacturers address this by now. Some of the 757 events have been pretty significant in that the crew reported blue smoke with defined waves in the smoke. The visibility was limited so that the attendants in the aft galley could not see to the mid-cabin over-wing exits. This is more than a light haze that we debate endlessly about for smoke evacuation. Who knows what the by-products are in hot synthetic Turbine Oil. The Material Data Sheet has warnings about skin contact and breathing the fumes of the oil, let alone the partial combustion products ... Bottom line is I think we are looking for a tombstone before anyone with any horsepower is going to take interest.’(signature: George Bates, Senior Boeing Engineer - Environmental Controls Department.)
Inappropriate Use of Risk Assessment in Addressing Health Hazards Posed by Civil Aircraft Cabin Air - Professor C V Howard (Toxicologist) February 2020:
https://juniperpublishers.com/oajt/pdf/OAJT.MS.ID.555634.pdf
For further information on Contaminated Air In Aircraft, Fume Events, Medical Protocol, Scientific Studies and much more, please visit UNFILTERED -
Please sign and share this petition. It is very important that more airline pilots, crew and passengers are made aware of the possible risks to both safety and their health.
Thank you.