Toxic Fumes within Cabins - Sunday Night TV Show Ch7

[alien]

Hi All,

Just saw the back end of an investigation report by Investigative Reporter Ross Coulthart about airlines not coming clean about the toxic fumes within cabins. The report was on Sunday Night Ch7 however the link isn't on the site yet.

An ex Ansett pilot states she and a professor from the US have proof that people on board ie crew and passengers are being exposed to TCP.

Here's a couple of links on the issue:

Airplane Cabin Air Filled with Toxic Chemicals

'Toxic' cabin air found in new plane study - Telegraph

Very interesting to learn about how the air is actually conveyed into the cabin and will be interesting to see how this will have an impact on current travel now that the show aired on Australian TV.

This could actually explain they way I feel sometimes when I travel. Maybe people don't have jet lag?????

 

[samh004]

Well DVT is real, but it could be caused by other factors too I suppose. I just checked on the site and couldn't find anything, gosh they're slow.

Seeing as I already might be poisoned by heavy metals (Aspie), should I be worried by TCP's?

 

[Travel Guru]

Seeing as I already might be poisoned by heavy metals (Aspie), should I be worried by TCP's?

Depends if you mind seeing out your days with uncontrollable twitches I guess.

TG

 

[dot]

I'm no expert when it comes to toxic chemicals, but this following interview makes for an interesting read on the subject: Toxic cabin air is more poisonous than reckoned - Learmount

 

[Evan]

Didn't Ansett use the ba146's a lot ? from memory they had real issues with this problem.
It certainly as i have read tends to affect some makes/models more than others.

 

[mannej]

From memory both the BAe 146's and the 757's have had problems with the TCP's present in cabins. There is material regarding this topic online, but off the top of my head I can not remember exactly where it is

 

[NM]

remember that the BAe146 was often called the flying muffler. Two reasons behind the name were that there were more fumes inside the cabin that outside, and the aircraft was noisier inside than outside (perhaps related ).

Never really did understand why someone would design an aircraft with five APUs .

 

[anat0l]

Great. So mileage/status running can be severely hazardous to your health - for many reasons yet I had not considered this one.

Why do I smell a class action brewing here...

 

[straitman]

From memory both the BAe 146's and the 757's have had problems with the TCP's present in cabins. There is material regarding this topic online, but off the top of my head I can not remember exactly where it is

Certainly the 146 had issues but I've never heard of the 757 having any issues.

 

[straitman]

Never really did understand why someone would design an aircraft with five APUs .

Redundancy :!:

 

[NM]

Redundancy :!:

The 146 should have resulted in the employment redundancy of the design team

 

[docjames]

Hey NM stop knocking the 146 - I love that a/c. Took us safely through terrible weather in Northern WA (milk run DRW-PER)!

Why have two props when you can have 4 jets!


/on topic/

I'm sure if you analysed the air in car interiors it would be toxic too. As would your house, walking down the street etc etc.

Agree 146s were known for it (iirc there was one that had an "emergency landing" in WA with such a problem.) You get all sorts of smells in all sorts of a/c at various times.:-|

 

[docjames]

Found it:


Plane makes emergency landing after fumes scare. 30 August 2006. Kalgoorlie News

 

[NM]

Why have two props when you can have 4 jets!

If they had 4 jets I would not have a need to knock it . but someone cut the design budget and they could only afford 4 hair driers to be slung under the wings.

 

[docjames]

Next time you're on an a/c with 2 engines and one fails, think of those that started with 4 and have three still running.:evil: :mrgreen:

 

[NM]

Next time you're on an a/c with 2 engines and one fails, think of those that started with 4 and have three still running.:evil: :mrgreen:

Ahh, but the probability of a single engine failing is higher on a quad-engined aircraft than on a twin-engined aircraft .

And remember that on a twin-engined aircraft, an important design specification is that if one engine fails, the other engine will always provide sufficient power to carry the aircraft to the crash location.

 

[possumoz]

I'm sure if you analysed the air in car interiors it would be toxic too. As would your house, walking down the street etc etc.[/quote]


seems there's toxic fumes and toxics fumes....

Study finds cocaine in city&squo;s air | The Courier-Mail

 

[notzac]

And remember that on a twin-engined aircraft, an important design specification is that if one engine fails, the other engine will always provide sufficient power to carry the aircraft to the crash location.

NM, isn't it a given that any amount of power delivered by any number of engines would be sufficient to carry a plane to a crash location?

 

[docjames]

, the other engine will always provide sufficient power to carry the aircraft to the crash location.

Just what i was thinking!


/on topic/

You can bet there'll be toxic fumes at the crash location

 

[serfty]

Ahh, but the probability of a single engine failing is higher on a quad-engined aircraft than on a twin-engined aircraft . ...

It also follows that the probability of any two jet engines failing is higher on a quad-engined aircraft than on a twin-engined aircraft.

Of course, I know which of the two aforementioned types of aircraft I would prefer to be on should two engines fail in flight ... all other things being equal :shock: