Transport written question – answered at on 24 May 2006.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on airline safety of the inhalation by a pilot of the organophosphate tricresyl phosphate; and if he will make a statement.
In 2004 the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) published safety research into fume events that concluded that
'no single component or set of components can be identified which at conceivable concentrations would definitely cause the symptoms reported in cabin air quality incidents'.
But acids were found which could act as irritants, and as a result CAA brought in specific troubleshooting and maintenance actions to minimise the potential for fume events.
Since then the Department has commissioned the independent Committee on Toxicity (COT) to conduct a comprehensive evidence review of toxic risk in cabin air. The. formal COT meeting will be held in public later this year. We shall be guided by the COT conclusions and recommendations.
Yes1 person thinks so
No1 person thinks not
Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.
Annotations
Tartan Giant
Posted on 31 May 2006 5:23 pm (Report this annotation)
The first thing to say about this is that NO aircraft has crashed because a pilot has breathed in the said chemical in mist form. Thus safety has not been adversely compromised whilst flying operations took place, such that passengers were put in any "danger".
If I am wrong, then I will stand corrected.
The second thing to say is I have spent 38 years of my life flying aircraft and well over 20,000 flying hours in various heavy metal - most of them on jets using lubricants of which tricresyl phosphate takes up but a tiny percentage of the lubricant volume. That is not to say these 'parts' are not bad!
I have been involved in breathing in some particulates of such materials in my aviation career, on the ground and in the air, without any noticeable long term effect - on one occasion a hydraulic pipe ruptured and sprayed the flight-deck with a very fine mist, like smoke; before oxygen masks could be donned, some small volume of the mist could not be helped but enter the lungs of both pilots and the flight-engineer. Nobody was taken ill or suffered thereafter.
Whilst some aircraft are known to exhibit minor and transient fume events, nobody has been able to prove beyond doubt any prolonged sickness specifically due to tricresyl phosphate. If anybody is exposed to ANY obnoxious fumes outwith the standard atmosphere, for a notable period, the human will suffer effects. Smoke inhalation from house fires the sad example.
I get the gut feeling that the compensation culture is surfacing in this aviation fume event domain!
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/uteb/1999/000000...
Inhalation:
In applications where vapors (caused by high temperature) or mists (caused by mixing or spraying) are created, breathing may cause a mild burning sensation
in the nose, throat and lungs.
Eye Irritation:
May be irritating to the eyes causing a burning sensation, redness, swelling and/or blurred vision.
Skin Contact:
Slightly toxic and may be harmful if absorbed through the skin. May be irritating to the skin causing a burning sensation, redness and/or swelling.
Ingestion:
May be harmful if swallowed.
-------------------------
More from the WHO here http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc110.htm
TCP Inhaler
Posted on 29 Apr 2008 6:11 pm (Report this annotation)
Tartan Giant - We don’t know whether any aircraft has crashed due to pilots breathing contaminated air, or if it was a factor – pilots’ blood is not tested for such exposure following any incidents.
I’m pleased that you haven’t suffered any long-term problems in your flying career, but some of the unluckier ones have the genetic make-up that means they can’t detoxify certain chemicals quickly enough, so the toxins build up, and eventually neurological problems start to emerge. My blood test results showed high levels of oil-related chemicals, and metals that one can find in aircraft engines, plus neurological damage consistent with toxic poisoning. This alone may not be conclusive proof of the effects of contaminated bleed air, but I have seen very similar results from many other pilots. And in the context of neurological illness, the same two aircraft types crop up time after time.
The COT’s highly suspect research seems to be designed to cast doubt and lead to inconclusive findings, so nothing gets done, and the debate continues.
Anyone who spends a good amount of time researching the issue objectively will see that things just don’t add up, and will realise that certain parties want to keep this problem firmly under the carpet.