User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 18835
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:17 am

747Whale wrote:
The APU has no hydraulics attached. And yes, I do know the MD11 well.

In fact, on engines, which do drive hydraulic pumps, there is no way for hydraulic fluid to get into the engine and thus bleed air, either.

The MD11 is strictly a cargo aircraft. Are you aware of a single cargo crew claiming "aerotoxic syndrome?"

Other than the Cathay "crew member" in the video, the one sitting in the captain's seat while wearing two stripes...or the falsified report in the video inferring "fumes" brought down Helios 737...now we're inferring that hydraulic fluid magically migrates to the APU and enters the aircraft, or somehow gets into engine oil, which then works backward against labyrinth seals under pressurization, and is ingested to produce toxic "fumes" that destroy pilots and kill passengers?

This is a conspiracy theory, especially given that it's not remotely an issue to crew that fly the aircraft their entire lives...perhaps we're all keeping it a secret, in fear for our jobs? That kind of a conspiracy?


I won't speak to the rest of the topic but I will address the "sitting in the captain's seat while wearing two stripes" remark. The picture with the CX pilot sitting in the left seat shows him in civvies, and judging by the lack of anything but black outside the windows, this is probably a simulator. The picture of him in flight with his two-bar epaulettes is in the right seat, which would be the normal operating seat for a Junior First Officer.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
stratclub
Posts: 703
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:57 am

True. However, Bypass bleed air is a fraction of the bleed air coming from the core compressor. It's named like this because it doesn't cross the air cycle machine of the packs as does the regular bleed air.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... n-aircraft
Image
 
747Whale
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:24 am

Starlionblue wrote:

I won't speak to the rest of the topic but I will address the "sitting in the captain's seat while wearing two stripes" remark. The picture with the CX pilot sitting in the left seat shows him in civvies, and judging by the lack of anything but black outside the windows, this is probably a simulator. The picture of him in flight with his two-bar epaulettes is in the right seat, which would be the normal operating seat for a Junior First Officer.


That's somewhat the point; two stripes is typically a flight attendant. Junior first officer is a foreign concept, mostly applicable to cadets, but the video attempts to hold him out as an experienced and knowledgeable international pilot who has been overcome by career of chronic exposure to "aerotoxic" cabin "fumes." In reality, he comes across as a scared kid who didn't make it very far in his career, and not because of "toxic fumes."
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 18835
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:55 am

747Whale wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:

I won't speak to the rest of the topic but I will address the "sitting in the captain's seat while wearing two stripes" remark. The picture with the CX pilot sitting in the left seat shows him in civvies, and judging by the lack of anything but black outside the windows, this is probably a simulator. The picture of him in flight with his two-bar epaulettes is in the right seat, which would be the normal operating seat for a Junior First Officer.


That's somewhat the point; two stripes is typically a flight attendant. Junior first officer is a foreign concept, mostly applicable to cadets, but the video attempts to hold him out as an experienced and knowledgeable international pilot who has been overcome by career of chronic exposure to "aerotoxic" cabin "fumes." In reality, he comes across as a scared kid who didn't make it very far in his career, and not because of "toxic fumes."


I do take your point about the impression the report is trying to give to the viewer, about that and other things. Notwithstanding the validity or not of any claims made, the whole thing is cringeworthy.

"Typically a flight attendant". I wouldn't say "typically". At many airlines, flight attendants wear no stripes at all. While four stripes for Captain and three for First Officer is a universal convention, two and even one stripe for pilots can be found around the world. It is only a foreign concept from a certain point of view.

A Junior First Officer at CX has typically done 4-5 years at the company, and many have airline experience prior to that. Not exactly super experienced, but not a complete novice either.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Balerit
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:33 am

Horstroad wrote:
stratclub wrote:
Then, the air usually will pass through a water separator coalescer or the sock. The sock retains the dirt and oil from the engine bleed air to keep the cabin air cleaner.

The coalescer is not a proper filter. It is just a piece of cloth. Its function is to collect condensed water, not to filter the air.
It certainly will filter out some "bigger" particles. You can see that as they are always very black when you replace them.
They might be able to filter oil mist. But certainly not vaporized oil.

Also trim air does not run through these socks


In all my years of working on aircraft, I have never seen aircon ducting dripping with your so called oil mist, they're all bone dry. This whole see series of post smacks of amateur sensationalism and the remarks by people who have actually worked on aircraft is being belittled.
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (retired).
 
User avatar
Balerit
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:37 am

Horstroad wrote:
747Whale wrote:
Horstroad wrote:
I have the feeling that these events happen more often on A320 aircraft.


There you go. We've gone from conspiracy sites and videos full of lies and misdirection to what you "feel" might be the case.

Glad it's science based, because a scary feeling trumps all. Maybe rather than pushing the all-transport category lie, just focus on frightening the airbus crowd, then. The crews, after all, are dropping like flies.


Image


But the AviationHerald is probably just a conspiracy website.


Your list contains 25 incidents out of millions of flights, rather inconsequential I'd say.
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (retired).
 
747Whale
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:22 pm

greendot wrote:
Whale, I'm highly educated in science, with multiple degrees in science. I also studied this problem while in the USAF, which I assure you spends more money on these things than any cargo outfit. I also fly big airplanes like you might. The difference is that I can intelligently read scientific literature and see strong empirical correlations and understand the chemical equations. You really should educate yourself substantially more on the topic before being in flat denial. And, if you don't want to do that, then study how corporations have done all kinds of reprehensible things to people over the years from things like this. Study pollution in general.


Well there, educated scientist, you must be inches from death yourself, then, this chronic problem that is propped up with lies, melodrama, insinuation, half-quotes, and lack of citation. Under which banner do you stand?

You studied "aerotoxic syndrome" in the USAF? Under which program?
 
User avatar
Horstroad
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:19 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:07 pm

Balerit wrote:
Horstroad wrote:
stratclub wrote:
Then, the air usually will pass through a water separator coalescer or the sock. The sock retains the dirt and oil from the engine bleed air to keep the cabin air cleaner.

The coalescer is not a proper filter. It is just a piece of cloth. Its function is to collect condensed water, not to filter the air.
It certainly will filter out some "bigger" particles. You can see that as they are always very black when you replace them.
They might be able to filter oil mist. But certainly not vaporized oil.

Also trim air does not run through these socks


In all my years of working on aircraft, I have never seen aircon ducting dripping with your so called oil mist, they're all bone dry. This whole see series of post smacks of amateur sensationalism and the remarks by people who have actually worked on aircraft is being belittled.

You misunderstood me. Or maybe I didn't express myself clear enough. If there was oil mist the coalescer bags would be able to filter it out. Anything else not a chance. Of course there is no oil mist. If there is oil in the pneumatic system it is vaporized
 
User avatar
Horstroad
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:19 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:35 am

Balerit wrote:
Horstroad wrote:
stratclub wrote:
Then, the air usually will pass through a water separator coalescer or the sock. The sock retains the dirt and oil from the engine bleed air to keep the cabin air cleaner.

The coalescer is not a proper filter. It is just a piece of cloth. Its function is to collect condensed water, not to filter the air.
It certainly will filter out some "bigger" particles. You can see that as they are always very black when you replace them.
They might be able to filter oil mist. But certainly not vaporized oil.

Also trim air does not run through these socks


In all my years of working on aircraft, I have never seen aircon ducting dripping with your so called oil mist, they're all bone dry. This whole see series of post smacks of amateur sensationalism and the remarks by people who have actually worked on aircraft is being belittled.

You misunderstood me. Or maybe I didn't express myself clear enough. If there was oil mist the coalescer bags would be able to filter it out. Anything else, not a chance. Of course there is no oil mist in the pneumatic system. If there is oil in the system it is vaporized.


Balerit wrote:
Horstroad wrote:
747Whale wrote:

There you go. We've gone from conspiracy sites and videos full of lies and misdirection to what you "feel" might be the case.

Glad it's science based, because a scary feeling trumps all. Maybe rather than pushing the all-transport category lie, just focus on frightening the airbus crowd, then. The crews, after all, are dropping like flies.


Image


But the AviationHerald is probably just a conspiracy website.


Your list contains 25 incidents out of millions of flights, rather inconsequential I'd say.

Are you serious? I just posted the first thirty something results of searching for "fume" to show that there is a disproportionately high amount of A320 among them. How did you get the impression that I wanted to show a complete list of all fume events?
 
747Whale
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:32 pm

greendot wrote:


You're right... it's TOTAL conspiracy theory....

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/p ... om_ENG.pdf


Shall we spend the next few pages of thread dissecting all the holes in that report?

It appears sound. It is not.

Horstroad wrote:
You misunderstood me. Or maybe I didn't express myself clear enough. If there was oil mist the coalescer bags would be able to filter it out. Anything else, not a chance. Of course there is no oil mist in the pneumatic system. If there is oil in the system it is vaporized.


Vaporized oil, from those labyrinth seals that are designed to be a "controlled leak?" That oil? Or hydraulic oil that mysteriously becomes a chronic problem because of an occasional spill or overservice...or just the scent of what some perceive to be oil turned into a melodramatic "chronic syndrome?"

Which oil is that?

Horstroad wrote:

Are you serious?


Quite. You plagiarized half a screen shot with no citation, no reference, and nothing more than a partial picture of a partial list by which you jump to far reaching conclusions of what you *think* to be the case. Brilliant. We can all go home now.

Horstroad wrote:
You misunderstood me. Or maybe I didn't express myself clear enough. If there was oil mist the coalescer bags would be able to filter it out. Anything else, not a chance. Of course there is no oil mist in the pneumatic system. If there is oil in the system it is vaporized.


Balerit wrote:
Horstroad wrote:

I just posted the first thirty something results of searching for "fume" to show that there is a disproportionately high amount of A320 among them.


Yes, you did, didn't you?

"Fume events" is about as unprofessional and non-descript as you can get. Why not simply call it a "funky smell?" When someone reports "fumes," what exactly is it that they're reporting? That they think they smell something, or that they've performed an analysis of the air in the cabin and determined exactly what it has and how many parts per million, and exactly what chronic level of exposure has occurred by determining that it wasn't a one-off event, isolated, or pertained to a particular bleed, filter, or system or engine? That it existed for the duration of the flight, or that it was anything more verifiable and scientific than a whiff of something perceived to be something?

Fumes. Simply a way of saying "we don't know what it is, but we have to call it something, if indeed there's anything at all." Could even be imagination. Much like the two-stripe captain, an experienced aviator to be sure.

Horstroad wrote:

How did you get the impression that I wanted to show a complete list of all fume events?


If you hope to have any semblance of credibility, do something other than plagiarize half a screen shot that says nothing, and certainly don't try to support it by saying you "feel" that the A320 is somehow to blame. You could come off as more half-baked, but it would be quite a struggle.

Anything to support the big lie though, right? After all, everything else has been so very credible.
 
stratclub
Posts: 703
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:25 am

Come on guys. Everyone knows that in that state of California, anything that is matter or energy is a carcinogen or has the potential of causing birth defects even if there is no proof of that. Even looking at an oil streak from the vent of an engine has the potential of causing cancer or birth defects in the state of California.

And that's the great thing about cherry picking facts. Eventually you might even have a bowl of cherries that support your preconceived notion.

Great example of the mindset:

Image
 
User avatar
Horstroad
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:19 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:36 pm

747Whale wrote:
Horstroad wrote:
You misunderstood me. Or maybe I didn't express myself clear enough. If there was oil mist the coalescer bags would be able to filter it out. Anything else, not a chance. Of course there is no oil mist in the pneumatic system. If there is oil in the system it is vaporized.


Vaporized oil, from those labyrinth seals that are designed to be a "controlled leak?" That oil? Or hydraulic oil that mysteriously becomes a chronic problem because of an occasional spill or overservice...or just the scent of what some perceive to be oil turned into a melodramatic "chronic syndrome?"

Which oil is that?

Labyrinth seals are not an issue if they work as designed. But anything that contains liquids (or gases ) can leak. Just this week I have seen a leaking oil tube going to the A bearing sump, leaking inside/behind the fan disk. Where do you think this oil goes? It dripped into the compressor/inlet and produced oil smell.

Have I ever said that this is a chronic problem? No. Some people think it is, I don't.
I contributed to this discussion because some people say it's not a problem at all, which is just wrong.
Leaks to the pneumatic system can happen in several ways. It's not a regular thing, but it happens.

Contaminated cabin air is a health issue. I did not say cabin air is always contaminated or a health issue in general.

747Whale wrote:
Horstroad wrote:

Are you serious?


Quite. You plagiarized half a screen shot with no citation, no reference, and nothing more than a partial picture of a partial list by which you jump to far reaching conclusions of what you *think* to be the case. Brilliant. We can all go home now.
[...]
If you hope to have any semblance of credibility, do something other than plagiarize half a screen shot that says nothing, and certainly don't try to support it by saying you "feel" that the A320 is somehow to blame. You could come off as more half-baked, but it would be quite a struggle.

Anything to support the big lie though, right? After all, everything else has been so very credible.

Why do you get so hung up on that screenshot? I wasn't supposed to prove anything. All it was intended to do was to show that these events happen more often on one particular aircraft type than on others.
Referring to
Horstroad wrote:
747Whale wrote:
and in most aircraft, there's no path from hydraulics to pneumatics.
On most aircraft this might not be a problem. But on some it very well might be.


Here is the source, if it makes you happy: avherald.com
I changed the search to "oil smell" instead of "fume" to filter out other smells.
 
User avatar
Balerit
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:20 pm

@horstroad, have you read any of the so called events with respect to the Airbus aircraft? A lot of the occurrences were with Lufthansa. Some of the incidents had no relation to oil smells. Airbus concluded that incorrect maintenance was the cause of some events. Again the number of incidents versus the number of flights is inconsequential.
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (retired).
 
greendot
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:58 am

stratclub wrote:
Come on guys. Everyone knows that in that state of California, anything that is matter or energy is a carcinogen or has the potential of causing birth defects even if there is no proof of that. Even looking at an oil streak from the vent of an engine has the potential of causing cancer or birth defects in the state of California.

And that's the great thing about cherry picking facts. Eventually you might even have a bowl of cherries that support your preconceived notion.

Great example of the mindset:

Image


The beauty of science is that it can be reproduced. Fire retardents on furniture are known carcinogens. Perhaps you should run your own controlled experiment to disprove it.
 
greendot
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:05 am

747Whale wrote:
greendot wrote:
Whale, I'm highly educated in science, with multiple degrees in science. I also studied this problem while in the USAF, which I assure you spends more money on these things than any cargo outfit. I also fly big airplanes like you might. The difference is that I can intelligently read scientific literature and see strong empirical correlations and understand the chemical equations. You really should educate yourself substantially more on the topic before being in flat denial. And, if you don't want to do that, then study how corporations have done all kinds of reprehensible things to people over the years from things like this. Study pollution in general.


Well there, educated scientist, you must be inches from death yourself, then, this chronic problem that is propped up with lies, melodrama, insinuation, half-quotes, and lack of citation. Under which banner do you stand?

You studied "aerotoxic syndrome" in the USAF? Under which program?


I will never prove anything to you. But I will tell you that volatile organic compounds are of grrat concern to the USAF. There have been many groundings and many physiological incidents, most of which you will never hear about. Sorry but your cargo outfit is minimizing the science. You just need to research it a lot more. There's a lot out there for you to read. You can't speak intelligently on this by scratching the surface. For example, you won't find TCP on Mobile Type II turbine oil's MSDS. You have to go to the EU's MSDS equivalent.
 
greendot
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:07 am

Balerit wrote:
Horstroad wrote:
stratclub wrote:
Then, the air usually will pass through a water separator coalescer or the sock. The sock retains the dirt and oil from the engine bleed air to keep the cabin air cleaner.

The coalescer is not a proper filter. It is just a piece of cloth. Its function is to collect condensed water, not to filter the air.
It certainly will filter out some "bigger" particles. You can see that as they are always very black when you replace them.
They might be able to filter oil mist. But certainly not vaporized oil.

Also trim air does not run through these socks


In all my years of working on aircraft, I have never seen aircon ducting dripping with your so called oil mist, they're all bone dry. This whole see series of post smacks of amateur sensationalism and the remarks by people who have actually worked on aircraft is being belittled.


You won't see pyrolized oil dripping like that.
 
747Whale
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:16 am

greendot wrote:
I will never prove anything to you.


Of course you won't. You can't.

greendot wrote:
Sorry but your cargo outfit is minimizing the science.


I said nothing about "my cargo outfit," nor did I say anything about minimizing science. This is your lie.

Also your arrogance, or chutzpah, if you prefer.

I've been listening to these ridiculous claims for a very long time, and through the eyes of mechanic, inspector, investigator, pilot, yada, yada, yada. Nothing new under the sun, and there's no "aerotoxic syndrome," no chronic condition causing airmen, flight attendants, loadmasters, mechanics, passengers, or others, to drop like flies, nor the concern that all this scare mongering purports.

While isolated instances of pneumatic pathway contamination have occurred, there's nothing endemic about bleed air or pressurized cabins to support the conspiracy-minded claptrap that's published, insinuated, or tossed about here or elsewhere. An instance of smoke in the cockpit, or even vapors caused by a hydraulic leak do not amount to the wildly inaccurate and inflated melodrama about dangerous "aerotoxic" cabin air.

I've experienced a C-130 flooded and misted with H5606, and the same with a large four engine airplane; completely filled with the red mist of H5606, both occasions due to a pinhole leak in a 3,000 PSI hydraulic line. I know a crew that got lipoid pneumonia that way; very different than the insinuation of "aerotoxic cabin air."

Secret squirrel programs, can't talk about it, nobody will ever know...of course you can't prove anything, nor will you.

It's so hard to prove a negative.
 
stratclub
Posts: 703
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:34 am

Haters gotta hate. If you can gin up a conspirator theory all the better. I don't care what the facts are, even though my opinion has no basis in reality, I will force it upon you. Dovetails nicely with the assumption that anything energy or mineral causes cancer even if there is no scientific proof of the assumption.
 
User avatar
BalkanBoy
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:53 pm

It seems like the guys at APC are taking these "fume events" very seriously and many of them are claiming to have experienced it first hand. It doesn't really seem like a conspiracy to me.

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/majo ... ell-2.html
 
747Whale
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:45 pm

Airline Pilot Central? You might as well reference wikipedia. Whining about nothing, and moreover, by those who know nothing about the nothing they're discussing.
 
User avatar
BalkanBoy
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:28 pm

747Whale wrote:
Airline Pilot Central? You might as well reference wikipedia. Whining about nothing, and moreover, by those who know nothing about the nothing they're discussing.


With all due respect sir, those are actual line pilots, some being captains with tens of thousands of hours. I don't think its accurate to say they "know nothing."
 
747Whale
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:40 pm

Not really relevant. There are those participating here who have such qualifications and experience and decades on the line flying (myself, for example), plus a very long history in maintenance, inspection, safety, etc, who have dealt with this topic and other associated subjects for a long, long time. Most of those participating on APC are cockpit monkeys and little more; they fly, but wouldn't know one end of a wrench or engine from the other, any more than basic systems knowledge as part of a type rating. That does not qualify them to have more than a wild guess when it comes to "aerotoxic syndrome," a conspiracy theory that's poorly represented, poorly presented, and amounts to most as little more than a "smell." Moreover, the link you provided is about the "old sock smell," with some wandering around on the subject, mostly blindly and in the dark.

Quite like here, really.
 
greendot
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:34 am

747Whale wrote:
Not really relevant. There are those participating here who have such qualifications and experience and decades on the line flying (myself, for example), plus a very long history in maintenance, inspection, safety, etc, who have dealt with this topic and other associated subjects for a long, long time. Most of those participating on APC are cockpit monkeys and little more; they fly, but wouldn't know one end of a wrench or engine from the other, any more than basic systems knowledge as part of a type rating. That does not qualify them to have more than a wild guess when it comes to "aerotoxic syndrome," a conspiracy theory that's poorly represented, poorly presented, and amounts to most as little more than a "smell." Moreover, the link you provided is about the "old sock smell," with some wandering around on the subject, mostly blindly and in the dark.

Quite like here, really.


Cockpit monkeys? Perhaps. Aren't you a wrench monkey? Last time I checked, you're just an operator.

So what does that make people like me with lots of science / engineering education with actual design experience? You know... the kind of people that created the aircraft you work on? The kind of people that wrote your manuals? Your anecdotal experience means little, no matter how long you've been at the job. Just because you can disassemble the engine doesn't mean you understand how it works beyond an elementary level. Unless you can calculate things like heat transfer gradients with differential equations or you can understand the Euler equations in the software the runs many of the software functions, you don't know squat. You are just as much a checklist monkey as the average pilot.

Also, you clearly you don't seem to know biology because you seem to minimize the effects of cancer. Many of the materials you work on as a wrench monkey are carcinogenic, whether or not you personally have cancer or know people who have. Sure you can mock California's labeling proposition but it doesn't negate the truth of the science. Why advocate for an environment where toxins increase rather than shape our technology to be less toxic? Do you want to put lead back in gasoline? Do you want radium to be used in toys again? You keep trying to deny that aviation has workplace toxicity but to what end? The tobacco industry tried dismissing the effects of cigarettes also claiming it was conspiracy theory along with many other clever rhetorical devices. In the end, they were wrong, just as you are.

And as for what I said earlier about this being a big concern for the USAF, it is. There are no special program names or secret squirrel stuff (that I know of). I won't talk about incidents because that could be another kind of issue but, if you're in the military, you have access to redacted reports to verify for yourself. Of course, that doesn't include actual scientific studies sponsored by the government, which speak the opposite of your attempts to minimize this problem.

Perhaps instead of dismissing aerotoxic syndrome with tired and predictable polarizing buzzwords, you should instead go educate yourself in many aspects of science, medicine, and engineering. It may take you a few years but at least you would be much stronger with truth on your side rather than that of an uncritical denier.
 
747Whale
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Are toxic cabin fumes an underestimated risk, or not?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:11 pm

greendot wrote:
Aren't you a wrench monkey? Last time I checked, you're just an operator.


Really? What did you check?

greendot wrote:
Sure you can mock California's labeling proposition but it doesn't negate the truth of the science.


I didn't. You have a reading comprehension problem.

greendot wrote:
Do you want to put lead back in gasoline?


As a scientific expert, no doubt you're aware that 100LL aviation gasoline has a high lead content. Or are you?

greendot wrote:
You are just as much a checklist monkey as the average pilot.


Really? So I'm not just an average pilot, but just as much a one, as the average pilot, then? Did you check on that, too?

Maybe you need to do a bit more research, mr. wizard.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos