How safe is air quality on commercial planes?

2015-06-0818:534545www.bbc.com

Seventeen flight staff are planning legal action over the alleged contamination of air on board British flights. But what is the evidence to suggest it is unsafe?

By Jim Reed and Adam Eley
BBC Victoria Derbyshire programme

Seventeen former and serving cabin crew are planning to take legal action against British airlines because they say contaminated air inside plane cabins has made them seriously ill, the Victoria Derbyshire programme has learned.

Figures from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) show that since 2010 they have received more than 1,300 reports of smoke or fumes inside a large passenger aircraft operated by a British airline.

But is there evidence to suggest air quality on flights can pose a serious health risk? We examine the evidence.

At the altitude at which commercial jets fly, the air pressure does not allow humans to breathe independently.

To overcome this, hot compressed air is drawn from the plane's engines and, once cooled, directed into the cabin to supply breathable air - known as bleed air.

This does not pose a health risk in itself. But campaigners believe that potential faults in the engine seals can lead to heated engine oil, hydraulic fluids and harmful chemicals called organophosphates - used to lubricate the engine's metal parts - contaminating the air.

They claim this can cause negative health consequences in both the form of fume events - one-off instances where oil fumes from the engine move into the cabin - and long-term, low-level exposure from frequent flying. The only exception being the new Boeing 787, which uses "bleed-free technology".

These health effects are known to campaigners as "aerotoxic syndrome", but British airlines and the CAA maintain there is no scientific evidence that shows the condition exists.

Prof Alan Boobis, director of Public Health England's Toxicology Unit at Imperial College London, estimates fume events take place in "one in every 2,000 [British] flights". As a result, he says, studies have never been able to record one.

He adds that the information available indicates even during potential fume events, levels of air contamination "are low, and probably below those which would be affecting health in humans".

According to safety reports submitted to the CAA, there were 251 incidents of fumes or smoke in the cabin between April 2014 and May 2015.

image copyrightGetty Images

These figures just apply to UK airlines so would not include any fume event reported by Lufthansa or Ryanair for example, even if they took place in British airspace.

Where possible, the BBC has stripped out cases which were clearly the fault of broken internal equipment like toilets and air conditioning systems.

Dr Jenny Goodman from London's Biolab Medical Unit, who has treated many crew members, says she has heard anecdotal accounts from airline staff of "old stinkies" - planes in which the cabin fills with fumes every time they start up the engine.

Although the smoke evaporates in such instances by the time passengers go on board, she explains, cabin crew are nevertheless exposed to the contamination.

Dr Goodman believes the risk for health complications is particularly great for airline staff and frequent flyers. "If you fly regularly, or fly as part of your job, you're going to have exposure to constant low-level leakage, which you may or may not be aware of," she explains.

She adds that those on long-haul flights are also more susceptible to illness, when taken regularly: "You're stuck there for hours and hours. You're breathing far more concentrated levels of these substances, and a far greater level of them."

image copyrightGetty Images

Aviation lawyer Frank Cannon believes pilots and cabin crew are at greatest risk, and as a result of exposure to contaminated air could become unfit to fly. He believes in some instances pilots may be willing to hide cognitive dysfunction or memory deficits caused by the poor air quality for fear of losing their jobs, which puts others at risk.

In other instances, he says, pilots may not be aware of the symptoms, meaning they similarly continue to fly while unsafe to do so.

Prof Boobis says the possibility of long-term health effects from repeated exposure to fume events is an area that needs more research.

Dr Goodman says aerotoxic syndrome affects the central nervous system and brain in particular. While genetic variation means not all people suffer symptoms, the nature of the chemicals present in contaminated air means they can "dissolve in our cell membranes, get into our cells and therefore get into every system in the body".

She says this can lead to wide-ranging symptoms including migraines, fatigue, difficulty thinking, aches and pains in joints and muscles, breathing problems, digestive problems and even an increased risk of breast cancer for women. She adds that many GPs fail to see the link to frequent flying and wrongly prescribe anti-depressants.

image captionDr Goodman says aerotoxic syndrome can have serious effects on the central nervous system and brain

But Prof Boobis believes levels of chemicals in the cabin following a leakage are "similar to a normal home or workplace", and do not pose a serious health risk.

He says the symptoms Dr Goodman describes may instead be the result of a "nocebo effect" - in this instance an individual's false belief that they are being harmed by a chemical after smelling an odour in the cabin, most probably from fuel.

He believes this can lead to "serious health issues" in its own right and should not be ignored. But, he adds, it should not be misconstrued as aerotoxic syndrome.

Dr Goodman and Mr Cannon say the industry must ensure filters are fitted to aircraft engines. Mr Cannon notes that there are "two or three different companies" making the filters - including one manufacturer that claims it can prevent 99.9% of the contamination.

They both believe that the principal reason the industry is reluctant to fit the filters is that doing so would be seen as a "tacit admission" that aerotoxic syndrome exists.

A report from the Committee on Toxicity in December 2013, commissioned by the Department of Transport and chaired by Prof Boobis, said there was a "continuing imperative to minimise the risk of fume incidents that give rise to symptoms", whether this be through toxicity or nocebo effects.

The CAA said in a statement: "There is no positive evidence of a link between exposure to contaminants in cabin air and possible long-term health effects - although such a link cannot be excluded."

Watch Jim Reed's full film on cabin air quality on the Victoria Derbyshire website.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By omegant 2015-06-0823:351 reply

    I´m commercial pilot and from my 16 years experience, breathing toxic fumes has never been a real issue for crew members. The rate of medical discharges due to respiratory illness is equal or lower than I you can see in normal population (just my experience). We never talk about it, nor consider it a health factor.

    It´s true there is a moment when the engines start (there is fuel vapor that is not being burnt at the very beginning) when you can smell strong fuel fumes, they make their way to the packs (air conditioning system) but it only smells for a minute or so.

    Crews are very, very, VERY sensitive to smells, the worst emergency you can suffer in flight is a fire or smoke (electrical are the worst). We are always trying to discover and track any weird smell. We have procedures to isolate an air conditioning if it´s the cause of the smell or smoke (sometimes it happens).

    So no, I don´t think air quality it´s an issue in commercial planes. The air is very dry, and the recirculation and cabin altitude of 5k to 8k feet that create a lower oxygen partial pressure, in my opinion these are bigger factors in how you feel in flight than isolated contaminations.

    Also I must note that some flight attendants have some kind of urban legend were they come to cockpit and check the Flight level we are flying, then if it´s high (above FL320 or so) they start complaining about hipoxia and how tired they feel. Usually there is little difference in cabin pressure between FL320 and let´s say FL380, for example the cabin will keep around 8k feet for an Airbus A320 and 5k feet for an airbus A340 (cabin altitude is lower). I´ve tried several times to see if I can feel the difference somehow, but it´s almost impossible. I guess you need an aerobic test to feel it, or having some hipoxic condition due to an illness.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the people complaining from the quality of the air is the same one that complains of cabin altitude. But maybe they are right and there is an aerotoxic syndrome, I´m interested in seeing the results of a study.

    Personally I´m still more concerned about timezone changes 4-5 times a month, accumulated radiation, being bitten by malaria mosquito (when flying to Caribbean or Africa)or simply a van accident when being carried from the hotel to the airport.

    Edit: typo and clarification.

    • By neurotech1 2015-06-090:12

      A similar thing happened with the F-22A Raptor. Pilots reported breathing difficulties, and for a while the "experts" were sure it was some exotic chemical toxin in the air supply.

      After much investigation, it was confirmed as a combination of a faulty BRAG(Breathing Regulator & Anti-G) valve and poor breathing technique. The proximate physical condition is known as 'Acceleration Atelectasis' which is a lung issue resulting from the incorrect breathing technique under High-Gs.

      IMO a combination of fatigue, and a relatively high cabin altitude (8k feet) could easily account for the symptoms these crew are reporting.

  • By Someone1234 2015-06-0821:162 reply

    Can I just say, this is a really well written article. Great diagrams, explanations, and it gives both sides fairly well. Even for the BBC this is top class journalism.

    • By hammock 2015-06-0822:081 reply

      Small thing about the diagrams, they depict a four-engine aircraft which only make up about 5% of commercial aircraft in service

      • By kijin 2015-06-090:20

        They're talking about British Airways, the world's largest operator of Boeing 747.

        According to Wikipedia [1], the four-engine 747 and A380 comprise over 20% of BA's fleet, way above the worldwide average. The percentage of four-engine aircraft on BA's long-haul routes are likely to be even higher, and it's those long-haul routes that the people mentioned in the article are worried the most about.

        [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways#Fleet

    • By kaa2102 2015-06-0821:20

      The diagrams are exemplary.

  • By hammock 2015-06-0822:102 reply

    >The only exception being the new Boeing 787, which uses "bleed-free technology".

    More detail on this: "In the no-bleed architecture, electrically driven compressors provide the cabin pressurization function, with fresh air brought onboard via dedicated cabin air inlets." http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4...

    Say what you will about the 787 but it has brought a number of innovations to aircraft that will probably live on eventually in future models.

    • By ak217 2015-06-0823:35

      Unfortunately, bleed-free won't save you from the exhaust that other planes are producing. Breathing exhaust-filled airport air can be a substantial chunk of the time spent on a short trip.

      Also, I don't know if I've ever experienced a "1 in 1000 fume event" that the article mentions, but I know that about half the time the pilots start the engines on the ground, I can smell the half-burnt jet A in the cabin. It seems to happen on smaller/older aircraft more often.

      Then again, the relative harm of all that vs. the high altitude radiation is very unclear.

    • By pcl 2015-06-0822:381 reply

      Say what you will about the 787

      Sounds like you've got a somewhat negative view of the 787; I'd love to hear more. I haven't read much in the way of 787 reviews, but my experience as a passenger on them have been great thus far.

HackerNews