In the UK, the Department for Transport (DfT) has helpfully published an ‘FAQ’ to allay any fears anyone may have regarding airliner cabin air quality. On the whole their answers are far from the truth, and in a bid to set the record straight, the Aerotoxic Association has provided its own, more accurate version.

Updated March 2010 by DfT
with missing facts by the Aerotoxic Association.

Concerns have been raised in the media about the possibility of air crew and passengers being exposed to fumes in cabin air.

Exposure to toxic fumes is a “reality”, not a “possibility”.

The Department for Transport (DfT) has received a number of enquiries, and these are our answers to the most Frequently Asked Questions. There is more information on the website of the Committee on Toxicity.

The Aerotoxic Association has numerous reports and testimonies from affected air crew and passengers. This information has never been requested by DfT but can be viewed at www.aerotoxic.org with other inconvenient facts and scientific papers.

Is aircraft cabin air contaminated?

Studies such as the European CabinAir project have shown that normally the levels of chemical and biological contaminants in aircraft are less than in many work environments such as office buildings.

In abnormal conditions toxic gas, often visible as smoke, is pumped into the airliner cabin. Children flying in airliners are not covered by “work” levels for toxic chemicals.

There are, however, occasional bad smells or “fume events” during flights, and these have been reported on a number of aircraft types which are in use around the world. Reports to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) show that sometimes one pilot reports a bad smell and the other detects nothing. An unpleasant smell is undesirable but does not necessarily harm health.

Many aircrew around the world have been prematurely grounded by repeated exposures. A variety of medical tests have proved that toxic oil fumes were the cause. Crews and passengers breathe the same air. Breathing toxic gas is known to be a risk and yet zero risk is acknowledged.

Conversely carbon monoxide has no smell yet kills people in the home every year.

Why are toxic air / carbon monoxide detectors not fitted in passenger airliners if gas is known to kill innocent people in their homes?

Some pilots who have experienced these events report a variety of short or long term symptoms or ill health. But it is not certain that these symptoms are work related.

Many aircrew retire early and die prematurely with cancer, brain tumors and complex undiagnosable neurological diseases. Toxic nerve gas affects the central nervous system giving a range of symptoms. The professional aircrew are certain that the toxic air affected them or they are misdiagnosed by doctors who claim to be unaware of the cause.

The independent Committee on Toxicity (a panel including toxicologists from various universities) completed a substantial review of evidence in September 2007 and concluded that the evidence available did not establish a link between cabin air and pilot ill health, but nor did it rule one out.

The COT is an industry-appointed committee to cover up this issue, it is not independent. COT concluded in 2007 that acute ill health was possible but illogically - repeated exposures could not lead to chronic ill health. The COT also had to cover themselves - by not ruling eventual admission out.

How frequent are fume events?

The Committee on Toxicity estimated in 2007 that fume events occur on roughly 0.05% of flights overall (1 in 2000). The most recent figures show that in 2008 there were 97 contaminated air events reported to the CAA mandatory reporting scheme (MORS) out of 1.2 million passenger and cargo flights by UK carriers. (Not all fume events are reported, but even if the number was doubled or tripled this would still be a very small proportion.)

Maintenance figures report the fume events occur on 1 in 100 flights (see para 69). Only 4% of fume events are ever reported and there is detailed evidence from pilots that fume events can happen to some degree on every flight in certain airliners.

How many passengers have been affected?

There are very few passenger complaints about health issues to airlines or the authorities. According to recent figures from the Air Transport Users Council, out of a total of 36,000 written complaints since January 2001, 65 were categorised as medical. The main issues raised were pregnancy; ski injuries; allergies (typically from peanuts); and infectious diseases.

In 2006 UCL (University College London) reported that 196,000 UK passengers a year (see page 523) may be reporting acute toxicity to their GPs. However, as doctors are generally not trained to link the symptoms, they are mistreated and misdiagnosed.

Passengers are generally told that “they are the only ones to complain” when they lodge a complaint with their airline or the CAA. They are also too ill to complain effectively and soon give up.

What is the Government doing?

Both the Committee on Toxicity and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology have identified a gap in the world's knowledge. We are now trying to fill that gap. No-one has previously captured samples of cabin air during normal conditions and fume events and analysed them to see what substances they contain and in what concentrations.

In 2006 prematurely medically retired airline pilots advised the DfT to test visible oil fumes on the ground in a BAe 146. The fumes are easy to recreate, last for several minutes and are in sufficient concentration to be filmed.

The science is difficult because fume events are unpredictable and can last just a couple of minutes.

The science is very easy - but difficult to face?

• DfT has this work in hand as a priority. To date we have:
• If it were a priority, the answers would be public knowledge by now.
  
  
• commissioned and concluded first functionality tests to identify equipment capable of capturing fume events in real time. The report was published on 21 February 2008. We are confident we have equipment that will do the job.
• In 1943 RAF fighter aircraft were successfully tested for carbon monoxide after pilots lost consciousness in flight, crashed and died.
  
  
• commissioned and concluded an exploratory data analysis study of fume events and operational parameters - especially whether there is any link between “full power take-offs” and fume events. The report was published in December 2009. Its conclusion was that - Data obtained in this way could be used to support engineering discussions about how to anticipate and possibly mitigate event occurrence. It may be that oil pressures, duct temperatures and engine power would merit further investigation.
• Fume events often occur during take-off, full power or otherwise. The full power aspect is a “red herring”.
  
  
• begun a second and more substantive phase of in-flight functionality tests to assemble data on substances in cabin air during fume events. This work builds on the equipment and methodology tested in the first phase. Several airlines have volunteered to take part by allowing an independent scientist to come on board with sampling equipment. Testing began in 2008 and will finish in 2010.
• Airlines such as Ryanair should not be asked to “volunteer” but required by law to demonstrate that their air is safe and fund the work out of profits. The work is due to finish in 2010 – more people should be pushing to understand it. When it is finally published it is expected to be another industry cover up.

The first functionality tests were peer-reviewed by scientists in the UK, Europe and the USA. Future work in this area will be similarly peer–reviewed before publication.

All of this work is kept secret and never “peer-reviewed” by knowledgeable professional pilots who have first-hand experience of fume events. The politicians, media and public are being lied to and misinformed.

Who is doing the research?

The project manager is Professor Helen Muir, an aviation safety expert at Cranfield University, who has support from Cranfield Health and two external laboratories. The research design was overseen by a Steering Group which includes an independent occupational hygiene expert, a pilot nominated by BALPA (the main trade union representing pilots) and the Health Protection Agency.

The IPA (Independent Pilots Association) has been repeatedly refused access meetings and to the data. Meanwhile BALPA concluded in April 2005, after a two day international conference (pdf page 314) that “Story after story, study after study, testimony after testimony from across the world and from other industries with similar exposures, show that chemicals exposures of the type experienced by workers in the aviation industry cause health problems.” In the meantime the problem has not gone away.

Cranfield University has “close commercial partnerships with Airbus, BAE Systems, Boeing and Rolls-Royce, to name just a few” The University is not allowed to find inconvenient evidence.

The project reports to the Aviation Health Working Group which includes the Air Transport Users Council, trade unions, airlines, the Department of Health, Health and Safety Executive and Civil Aviation Authority. Its minutes are published on the DfT website.

Most of the minutes are not made public and access to the information is strictly controlled.

When will the research report?

We cannot give an exact date. Cranfield University is actively engaged on the cabin air sampling programme with the participating airlines. The findings will then need to be written up and peer-reviewed before being published as a whole. It is important that we maintain the integrity of this research; because it is a peer-reviewed study we cannot release the results until the work is completed. Nevertheless, both DfT and Cranfield University agree that it would be proper for DfT to be alerted of any findings out of the ordinary. Should that happen the DfT will consider what action might be appropriate to ensure that people can continue to fly without risk to their health.

No date can be given as measurements have already confirmed serious levels of chemicals in the toxic air; therefore the research will be drawn out for as long as possible and certainly until during or after the General Election in the UK.

Professor Muir has already been quoted in September 2009 as saying that “There will be organophosphates on the flight deck” (4th para from bottom) (and therefore also in the passenger cabin.)

No data about the study has been forthcoming despite various recent Freedom of Information requests.

Why not just fit filters to aircraft?

DfT has discussed this with a major filter manufacturer who said that, to produce an effective filtration system, they would first need to know what particular substance had to be filtered out.

This information is already well-known but it sounds convincing to “not know” but be “finding out”.

That is why it is logical to analyse cabin air first, to identify what remedy might be needed.

This is not logical where human health is concerned. The Government claims that passenger health is their priority but clearly the industry’s “health” is more important.

Compulsory fitting of filters would have to be required by regulators (e.g. the European Aviation Safety Agency) on the basis of evidence that cabin air contains a particular substance in a harmful concentration and that a particular specification of filter could remove that substance. It is important to remember that the same aircraft types are flown world wide.

Most passengers would willingly pay a small premium to have filtered air, “just in case.”

Why do fume events happen?

In any mechanical system malfunctions can occur which result in abnormal operating conditions. The CAA has already taken remedial action to help operators of particular aircraft reduce the incidence of fume events e.g. engine oil servicing procedures and engine sealing modifications.

Fume events happen as a result of a basic design flaw in the bleed air system which has been known since it was designed. It was recognised in the 1970’s by Rolls Royce after aircrew lost consciousness in flight. Charcoal filters were fitted, which solved the problem.

The new Boeing 787 Dreamliner has specifically been designed to not use bleed air – returning to compressing outside air for “passenger comfort”. Boeing has 850 pre - orders for their new design – a world record! Jet lag type symptoms are suspected of actually being chemical poisoning from faulty bleed air systems - on short haul flights.

Should there be a public enquiry?

There have already been 2 public enquiries:

1. In 2006/2007 the Committee on Toxicity - an independent panel of toxicologists - was commissioned to look into the evidence on the subject. They reported in 2007 and found that no connection between pilot ill health and cabin air could be proved or disproved, but that more research was needed. That research is currently in progress.

The COT is not independent but paid by industry to arrive at certain conclusions. However they did manage to conclude that acute ill health was plausible but illogically, that repeated exposure would not cause chronic ill health. The COT always call for more research, whilst ignoring the past research on OPs from the 1950s. They have also neglected to ask the victims for their medical records and testimonies, which would clearly prove the connection.


2. In 2007/7008 the issue was revisited by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Select Committee urged the Government to complete the air sampling research.

In 2007, The House of Lords specifically recommended that “The chemicals and concentrations in a fume event be identified urgently” (see page 17). This work has been done, but as the results are so inconvenient, they can never be made public.

We doubt if a third public enquiry would reach a different conclusion. Rather we favour continuation with the Cranfield research project to reach a result.

If a different conclusion is required, an open, honest independent full third enquiry is urgently required to protect human health. Not yet more testing by universities with vested interests who specialise in covering up existing knowledge and past conclusions.

Is there TCP in cabin air?

DfT has published the results of two functionality tests of sampling equipment, one in the air and one on the ground. A number of compounds were measured in low concentrations including TCP. So we are confident that if there are higher concentrations of TCP during fume events, our methodology would detect these. The methodology is capable of detecting different isomers of TCP. It is the concentration of a substance which determines its health effect.

TCP stands for tricresyl phosphate, an organophosphate and one of the most toxic chemicals ever made by man. There is no safe limit for TCP. Children are particularly vulnerable to OP exposure. It has already been known to cause very serious ill health in sheep farmers and Gulf War veterans.

Why not use engine oil containing no TCP?

TCP is an organophosphate. Organophosphates are anti-wear agents and are used as aviation lubricants to make engines safe. Although there is a lubricant on the market which uses an alternative organophosphate to TCP, according to the manufacturer it is not typically used in civil aviation and research about its health impacts is under way. So we do not know if it would be safer or healthier.

The alternative oil is already being used in military aircraft, and although not widely used in commercial aircraft, it already has approval for most of them.

Does research involve wipe/swab samples?

We are currently planning to commission some swab tests in the UK with control samples taken from both aircraft and non-aircraft locations for comparison. We are going out to tender shortly to find an organisation with the necessary expertise to carry out this research.

Several independent swab samples studies have already been done, including one in Germany where samples were taken on random flights, of which 28 out of 31 tested “highly positive for TCP”.

When will the swab test research report?

We cannot give an exact date as we are in the early stages of the procurement process. However we anticipate that once the contract has been let the work should not take longer than a few months to complete.

As with any other test, no dates are ever given as the results may be inconvenient.

Will you do an epidemiological study?

The logical first step in research is to examine potential exposure as recommended by the Committee on Toxicity (COT). That is what we have under way. The COT said epidemiological research would best be done on an international basis. The scale of pilots and control group needed for reliable results would be large. We are also aware that it could be difficult to recruit pilots, who in the UK would be legally obliged to report any health impairments found (related or not to cabin air) to the CAA who licenses them.

In 2006, 27 airline pilots who had complained of serious ill health were tested by UCL. The majority of the pilots had engine oil and metals in their blood along with measurable cognitive dysfunction.

An independent epidemiological is urgently required and should have been carried out long ago.

Aerotoxic Syndrome.

In 1999 three international scientists, an American, Frenchman and Australian invented the term Aerotoxic Syndrome to describe the ill health arising from breathing oil fumes in the confines of an airliner.

Over 10 years later, this term is still outlawed by Governments, media and airlines, anxious to prevent public knowledge of the cause of their serious illness.

As proven by the above Government document – which presents only one side of a global health scandal and fails to mention Aerotoxic Syndrome – once.

Link to DfT's page: Cabin air quality frequently asked questions