Contaminated Cabin Air and Crew Impairment
Source: Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual
Number of Cases of Crew Impairment © 10th April 2008 by Susan Michaelis In 2005, the CAA advised, ‘The number of events where impairment has been reported has remained low.’ [104] However, this is actually completely ignoring the evidence in the UK contaminated air events in the database in Appendix 2 and information in the frequency of events chapter which shows the complete opposite. The CAA claim ignores the actual data available combined with the known problem of significant and incomplete under reporting.
The CAA advised back in 2003 the following conflicting information that, ‘smoke and fume events is not uncommon: flight deck events are rare and of low severity; no precursors of an emerging ‘safety of flight risk’.’ [92] The data available in Appendix 2 and known problem of under and incomplete reporting in no way supports this statement, even back in 2003.
In 2005 the Government advised in the House of Lords that the CAA figures involving pilot impairment possibly related to engine oil and fume events showed there had been 1 and 0 cases of pilot impairment in 2004 and 2005 respectively. This was clear misrepresentation of the data available. By looking at Appendix 2 we can see that there were in fact 22 and 54 cases of pilot impairment during these years respectively that involved anything that was listed as an adverse effect that had the potential to distract the pilot from performing his duties as required.
Perhaps the CAA was confusing the terms impairment and incapacitation when providing the information to the House of Lords and listing only those involving incapacitation, while using the term impairment and thereby downplaying the situation. However, this too was not the case as in fact in 2004 and 2005 there were 3 and 8 cases of partial or full incapacitation respectively related to contaminated air.
By looking at just a few examples on the UK contaminated air database that are on the CAA list for 2004, it can be seen that the CAA figures of 1 case of pilot impairment was plain misinformation:
25 January 2004 - A320: MOR 20040455: Strong oil fumes in cabin and flight deck / Oxygen / LHR-CPH Return to LHR / PAN / Cabin crew unwell / the Captain noticed marked tingling in arms- extreme light-headedness and no ability to focus or concentrate (partial incapacitation). Co-pilot experienced some mild light-headedness / ground crew smelt fumes minutes after return to LHR / seal failed and scavenge pipe leaked / various defects found and listed in MOR in detail – ‘the combination of defects could produce a source of oil fumes which would enter the gas path and ultimately the aircraft bleeds.’ MOR understates crew incapacitation degree as Captain affected badly and Co-pilot slightly with the latter not mentioned in the MOR and the degree of Captain effects not mentioned.
21 October 2004 - BAe 146: MOR 200409537: Fumes on 2nd sector with 2 cabin crew on oxygen as dizzy and light headed. Aircraft continued to operate with Captain dizzy and tingling in legs on 4th sector /nothing entered in tech log / ASR and air quality report to be filed.
3 November 2004 - B757: CAA MOR 200408064: BALPA / ASR / MOR / Captain and Copilot affected - throat irritation, light headed and sore eyes and oily taste in mouth / holed air con duct / engine overfilling ?? / fumes reoccurred on 4 November 2004. Inspection maintenance done 8 November 2004. Fumes again 16 November 2004 / Captain still had symptoms next day and skin problems and health problems since.
8 December 2004 - BAe 146: CAA MOR 200408975: ‘Flight crew incapacitation due to possible air quality problem: P2 felt unwell (faint and breathless with shaking hands) / 02 given / P1 had headache with flu symptoms and was in a state of euphoria although successfully landed the aircraft while operating as single crew. P2 sent to hospital and P1 suffered headache and flu symptoms for 24hrs. Incident not entered in aircraft tech log. APU exhaust may have entered air supply. Subsequent investigation found APU Bay covered in soot as were packs and ducting.’
In early 2006 it was acknowledged that the, ‘level of pilot impairment is higher than previously admitted, a fact the CAA has had to accept.’ [107]
With regard to crew impairment, cabin crew must also be considered, yet this rarely occurs. Most passengers do not appreciate that cabin crew are not primarily employed to serve passengers with meals and refreshments as this is very much their secondary duty. Cabin crew are an integral part of the safety aspect of commercial aviation. Cabin crew are trained to deal with all cabin emergencies that include cabin fires, depressurisations or to evacuate passengers from the aircraft in an emergency. This vital role that cabin crew play in an emergency was clearly demonstrated on 2 August 2005. On 2 August 2005, an extremely well trained cabin crew evacuated all 297 passengers in under 90 seconds, from an Air France Airbus A340, after it skidded off a runway at Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto and burst into flames. The aircraft was totally destroyed by fire. If cabin crew are exposed to contaminated air and a similar incident were to occur, how many lives would be lost by the reduced reaction times and effectiveness of a crew suffering exposure symptoms and reduced reaction times. The concerns in relation to being able to safely evacuate an aircraft in under 90 seconds, as required by law for most commercial jet aircraft, whilst suffering exposure symptoms from contaminated air exposure were highlighted by CUPE in 2004. [108]
Flight Safety Aspects of Contaminated Air
Reporting Contaminated Air Events with Samples of Known Events
FODCOM (Flight Operations Department Communication) number 17/2000
FODCOM (Flight Operations Department Communication) number 14/2001 and 21/2002
Aviation Regulators Misinterpret Main Ventilation Airworthiness / Safety Standard
You are reading >> Number of Cases of Crew Impairment
References
92. CAA presentation by S. James, SRG BRE Cabin Air Conference September 2003. Flight deck occurrences from MORs.
104. UK House of Lords written question. Countess of Mar [HL 1637] 1 November 2005.
107. The Observer Feb 26 2006. ‘Toxic cockpit fumes that bring danger to the skies.’
108. Comment made by Gerry McCann, H&S Rep for CUPE in the documentary entitled: Contaminated Air: An Ongoing Health and Safety Issue. Produced by www.aopis.org in 2004.
