1 July 2009
: Column 103WH
Air
Quality (Aircraft)
Mr. Tobias Ellwood (
I begin by posing the key question: is there a
fundamental design fault in passenger aircraft that exposes passengers and crew
to dangerous and potentially lethal toxic fumes? To place that question in
context, one must first appreciate how modern aircraft pressurise the air so
that passengers and crew can breathe normally at high altitudes. Up to about
the late 1950s, pressurised air was taken from outside and depressurised using
cylinders and so forth, but a cheaper way was found that involves taking
pressurised air from the compressor stages of an aircraft’s jet engines. The
air is cooled and flows into a chamber where it is mixed with highly filtered
air from the passenger cabin. The air then flows through the cabin and exits
through valves in the fuselage. It is called the bleed air system and has
worked efficiently for many years. However, while micro-organisms may be
trapped by those filters, it is clear that other toxins may not, which is the
whole reason for this debate.
The use of air that has passed through the engine
means there is a probability that toxins and organophosphates, particularly
tricresyl phosphate, or TCP, which is used as an anti-wear additive, can enter
the cabin. Those toxins are not removed by the filters. The consequences of TCP
entering the cabin can be headaches and drowsiness, as well as respiratory and
neurological problems. That is certainly unpleasant for passengers, but is
potentially lethal for pilots. Captain Tim Lindsey, a British airline pilot who
supplied evidence to the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer
Products and the Environment died in January 2009 of brain cancer—a long-term
effect of toxicity exposure.
The condition caused by TCP has now been called
aerotoxic syndrome, and the airline industry is familiar with it.
Unfortunately, however, pressures within the industry mean that reporting of
the syndrome is not as fair as it should be. Symptoms include eye irritation,
respiratory problems, headaches, skin problems, nausea, vertigo, loss of
balance, dizziness, fatigue and cognitive impairment—all things that one does
not want the person in charge of the plane to suffer from.
It is interesting to consider which planes are the
most vulnerable. All aircraft may be affected, as the bleed air system is
similar throughout all aircraft, which means that whenever any of us flies we
could be exposed to those toxins from the air that is taken via the engine.
However, one is more likely to be exposed to toxins through certain aircraft
designs than others. The main aircraft are the Boeing 757, the Airbuses 319 and
320, the Boeing 737 and the BAe 146. Interestingly, a different design has been
chosen for the cabin air system in the new Boeing 787, which is about to be
rolled off the factory floor. In that new system, the air
does not go anywhere near the engines. I do not attribute any fault to
the old systems, but simply note that the new aircraft is already moving away
from that old design. The industry
1 July 2009 : Column
104WH
is well aware of the issue, as are the airlines. After a disastrous flight on a
BAe 146, on which two stewards collapsed and after which the crew went to
hospital, Flybe decided not to use those aircraft
again.
According to the clinical neuropsychologist
Dr. Mackenzie Ross up to 200,000 passengers are affected by aerotoxic syndrome
every year, but when one thinks about any of one’s experiences on an aircraft,
one realises that one feels pretty lousy when one gets off anyway. We may
attribute that feeling to the time change, jet lag or even the food on the
aircraft. It is difficult to put one’s finger on, or understand, the scale of
the problem, because not enough research has been conducted on the issue.
In the studies that have taken place, however, there
have been some interesting results. The German television network ARD and Schweizer Fernsehen—Swiss
Television—secretly took 31 swab samples from the aircraft cabins of popular
airlines, of which 28 were found to contain high levels of TCP. Other
scientific research, which was not necessarily linked to airlines, has proved
that there is a direct link between TCP toxins and the human condition that I
have discussed. That demonstrates the long-term link between low-level exposure
to organophosphates and the development of neuro-behavioural
problems. That position has been advanced by the US Research Advisory Committee
on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses. Some 25 per cent. of Gulf war veterans suffered from the effects of
organophosphate poisoning, and the organisation was able to establish that
link, but unfortunately we have not been able to confirm the same link in
relation to the airline industry. I hope that the Minister is willing to
address that issue.
Airline pilots report symptoms similar to signs of
aerotoxic syndrome.
Mr. Julian Brazier (
Mr. Ellwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
clarification. That is exactly what I am calling for, and I hope the Minister
will respond to that point. Until we have the information that my hon. Friend
mentioned, we will be in a very difficult place for making a judgment about
what steps should be taken, rather than simply turning our backs on the issue.
The British Air Line Pilots Association has found that
only 61 of 1,667 contaminated air events were recorded on the UK Civil Aviation
Authority database. That equates to just under 4 per
cent., which may be a small number from that perspective, but I return to my
original point about how many incidents have been reported correctly. How many
pilots simply said, “I don’t really want to rock the boat, or be seen to cause
problems; I’ve got my future to look after, so I’m not going to bother filling
out that incident report”? The real figure could be a lot higher.
However, passengers want to make sure that the figure
is down to 0 per cent. They want to be sure that all pilots and co-pilots are
fit and healthy when they get on a plane and when they get off it after a
flight.
There have been other voices of concern from outside
the
Clear evidence demonstrates that there is a design
fault in passenger aircraft that puts passengers and crew at risk from fumes,
yet the CAA and the Government continue to allow that situation to go
unchecked. It is worth recognising who pays for the CAA; it does a wonderful
job in some respects, but let us not forget that it
receives its financial support from the airlines, so the CAA is not necessarily
the best organisation to make a judgment on whether there is a problem with
TCP.
Let us take a look at other parts of the industry that
have commented on the matter. BAE Systems has said:
“With the weight of human evidence and suffering,
which is quite clear, there must be something there...There is absolutely no
doubt in our mind that there is a general health issue here.”
That is from the people who make the aircraft.
The CAA commissioned the Defence Science and
Technology Laboratory to examine contaminated cabin air supply ducts removed
from two BAe 146 aircraft. It concluded that the chemicals that enter the
aircraft were unlikely to be of sufficient concentration to cause ill health.
It just plucked two cylinders off two aircraft and decided there was nothing to
find. We must understand that these incidents occur when a sudden push of
toxins comes from the engine. It is not simply a matter of taking two cylinders
at random and saying, “Well, that’s the judgment we are making for the entire aircraft
industry.”
The report accepted that there were more than 40
different chemicals contained in oil breakdown products, for which there are no
published toxicology data. That means the CAA is making a judgment and an
assessment about something when it cannot even put a yardstick next to it. If
it does not know about the 40 different chemicals and what they might do,
surely it should ask whether it is possible to do some more research and find
out a bit more about what happens to those toxins. The CAA should not simply
say, “Well, the things we do know about don’t affect humans, but we are just
going to push the things we don’t know about to one side.”
Of course, air crews argue that the data are
meaningless because they were not collected during a contaminated air event,
which, as I said, is when a sudden surge of toxins comes into the aircraft and
levels of chemicals may be higher. Obviously, there is also a question about
the validity of exposure standards currently used to determine what constitutes
safe concentrations. Again, the CAA, rather than an independent body, is
examining the matter.
It would be fair to say that no proper studies have
been conducted to date and that those that have been done typically involved
questionnaire surveys conducted by air crew, or clinical examinations of small
self-selected samples of air crew. I urge the Minister to read some of the
papers by Michaelis, Winder, Coxon, Harper, Burdon,
1 July 2009 : Column
106WH
Somers and Heuser, and Mackenzie Ross, whom I have mentioned already. That is
the sort of evidence that should raise the Minister’s eyebrows and make him
wake up to the problems that we are facing and the fact that Governments have
successively turned their back on the issues. The air crew reports show that they
suffer from a range of different symptoms, including respiratory,
gastro-intestinal and neuro-behavioural problems.
However, little can be concluded from work on small, self-selected samples,
other than that further research is warranted.
If the Minister has not already seen it, I urge him to
watch the video documentary called “Welcome Aboard
Toxic Airlines,” which was put together by Captain Tristan Loraine, who is
chairman of the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive. He has been a pilot for 19
years and he has spent seven years researching the subject. If the Minister
does not know Captain Loraine, I shall be happy to introduce him. I am sure
that a copy of the video can be supplied. The documentary prompted a BBC
“Panorama” follow-up and I understand that another film is on the way. The
issue is not disappearing and I hope the Minister will recognise that.
The risks in planes are being ignored. We need honest
research and a serious recognition that aerotoxic syndrome can affect pilots.
Incidents of contaminated air events on commercial aircraft are difficult to
quantify because they do not have air quality monitoring systems on board. That
means there is no way to judge the problem because the filter measuring systems
are not in place. There is an irony in relation to that because Federal
Aviation Administration regulation 2002 states:
“FAA rulemaking has not kept pace with public
expectation and concern about air quality and does not afford explicit
protection from particulate matter and other chemical and biological hazards”.
In effect, the FAA is saying that all aircraft should
have some form of measuring facility on board. I am not aware of any aircraft
that have that, so the Government are already in violation of their own rules.
The Minister also needs to address that matter.
An organisation in another part of the industry that
has commented on the problem is Rolls-Royce, which has acknowledged:
“Any oil leaking from an engine, entering the aircraft
customer bleed offtake, is classified as hazardous”.
That is a comment from the engine maker itself. One
small movement in the right direction has, in fact, come from one of the main
companies that produces the oils for the aircraft
company. A French oil company has conceded that oils are dangerous if they are inhaled, and that they can cause respiratory problems and
affect the growth of small babies and so on. That is a minor step in the right
direction, but there is an awfully long way to go.
I ask the Minister to recognise the scale of the
problem and not to look at it as a case of liability. Those who have suffered
from illnesses are not looking for some form of compensation. Yes, of course,
they are angry at the system and they are angry at the Government for not doing
anything about it. However, they just want planes that are safe and for people
not to have to go through the same pain that they have gone through. It would
not require an awful lot of money to include filters or air monitoring systems
on aircraft. Those are the positive steps that many people—pilots, passengers
and so on—are calling for from the Government. They want the Government to
confirm that that is the direction
1 July 2009 : Column
107WH
they want to take. They do not want the Government to say, “Right, let’s get
the industry to admit liability” and then go through the whole legal rigmarole
of compensation. I wish to make it clear that those affected by TCP do not want
that; they just want the Government to wake up and recognise the changes that
are required.
There have been some investigations by the Department
for Transport and, indeed, the Department of Health. In 2000, the Department
for Transport asked the Committee on Toxicity to look at these issues. I am
sure that the Minister will probably lean heavily on its report in his rebuff.
In the last couple of years, the committee has come back with a follow-up
report. The committee’s final assessment was that more research was needed. The
Minister may well pluck another quote from the report that says this, that or
the other, but the bottom line is that a couple of years ago, the COT said that
more research was needed. I am pleased to see that the Minister is nodding
because that means he recognises that. I hope we will perhaps hear today what
research will be done, because obviously there are questions to be asked.
The COT also recommended that two types of study be
commissioned: the exposure monitoring study, which is the on-board monitoring
of air quality on a number of aircraft, and the further investigation of
neuropsychological functioning in pilots via a cross-sectional epidemiological
study using proxy measures of exposure, such as type of aircraft flown. That is
a very complicated way of saying that we need to understand the health and
welfare of pilots a little better when they are flying aircraft.
The Department for Transport commissioned Cranfield university to undertake the exposure monitoring study. That
was not done through a process of competitive tender; the contract was simply
awarded to Cranfield. Will the Minister explain why the study was not put out
to tender and why it was given to an organisation that might be considered
sympathetic to the industry? To date, the Department for Transport has refused
to commission a cross-sectional neuropsychological study. That was the second
aspect of the COT’s request, but it has not happened.
I hope that the Government will wake up to that.
What can the Government do? They need to stop burying
their head in the sand and wake up to the responsibility of office. That is
exactly what Governments should do. They should also be able to make tough
decisions that might have major consequences for powerful sectors of
industry—in this case, the airline industry. First, the Government should
recognise that the problem exists and that the Department for Transport has
taken no steps to ensure that passengers and crew are informed about the
possibilities of being exposed to contaminated air.
Secondly, the Government should conduct a proper
inquiry, and collate proper evidence and data via air-monitoring systems on
board passenger aircraft so that we know exactly which chemicals are entering
the aircraft during a contaminated air event, and in what quantity. At present,
the incidence of contaminated air events is hard to determine, as I said. Air crew
state that under-reporting is common due to fears about job security and so on.
Thirdly, very much based on the outcome of those
reports, the Government should make some firm decisions
1 July 2009 : Column
108WH
on the direction that the airline industry should take. They should decide
whether a redesign of the aircraft is required, or whether filtering systems
need to be put in to make engines safer.
I have spoken for a good 20 minutes on this subject,
and I apologise to hon. Members who wish to speak. However, the debate is
overdue and serious, and the Minister has some questions to answer. I have
raised various issues. If he is unable to provide answers today, I should be
grateful if he could write to me, because I intend to pursue the matter most vigorously.
I do not believe that we can end a debate in Westminster Hall, pat ourselves on
the back and say, “Yes, we have dealt with the issue. We can now move on to
something else.” We need change in the industry, and we need to understand
exactly what is going wrong. We need to ensure that when people get on an
aircraft, they feel safe.
Mr. John Maples
(Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): My hon.
Friend the Member for
I wish to add a couple of points. I got involved with
this subject two or three years ago because a constituent of mine, John Hoyte, one of the founders of the Aerotoxic Association,
came to see me about it. Since then, I have had a great deal of correspondence
with various parts of the Government and various parts of the industry. My
constituent lost his licence on medical grounds while working for Flybe but is now in the process of trying to get it back.
He is convinced that, in essence, oil fumes poisoned him. Organophosphates were
found in his blood, as they have been in the blood of many other pilots who are
convinced that they have been affected by the same problem.
I do not remember how long ago it was—perhaps some of
my colleagues do—but there was a terrible problem with sheep dip affecting
people. The problem was caused by organophosphates, which we know are a
terrible poison. Organophosphates are awful neurotoxins which cause serious
neurological problems if they get into one’s blood. I have seen some medical
evidence, and Dr. Mackenzie Ross’s study, which is due to be completed soon—if
it is not by now complete—is looking at cases. I would be interested if the
Minister brought us up to date on that.
Since becoming involved with this issue, I have had
correspondence, mainly with the Department for Transport and the Committee on
Toxicity, about the Cranfield study. What disturbs me about it is how long it
has taken; no doubt the Minister will update us on that. If it has reported in
the past few days—it is due to report—and I missed it, I apologise, but I do
not think it has. In January, I was told that it was about half complete but
that the other half had to be commissioned from someone else. I hope that that
has been done.
1 July 2009 : Column 108WH—continued
It is not the most complicated thing to investigate
the air going into the cabins of airliners. I understand that a German device
measures any toxins in the fumes in aeroplanes. I am not sure why this is
taking so long. I have consistently found in correspondence a resistance even
to acknowledging that there is a problem or the possibility of one. I could
understand that view on
1 July 2009 : Column
109WH
the part of the airlines—it would be a huge issue for them to replace the air
pressurisation systems on aircraft if that proves necessary. The problem seems
to occur more often in one or two models of aircraft than in others. My hon.
Friend’s point about the new Boeing not having this system makes one wonder if
Boeing did not realise there was a problem and that it should perhaps deal with
it, so that at least the planes produced in the next 30 years could not be
accused of poisoning pilots and passengers.
I am interested in where the Cranfield and Mackenzie
Ross studies are. I understand that they deal with the two aspects of the
problem: the medical evidence, and the question of whether fumes are entering
aircraft ventilation systems. “Obstructive” would be too strong a word, but I
have found an unwillingness to engage constructively in argument on the part of
the DFT, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Committee on Toxicity, the air
accidents investigation branch of the CAA and even, surprisingly, the British
Air Line Pilots Association. I do not know why BALPA has not taken a more
aggressive interest in the matter. After all, it is the pilots’ union. One
would have thought that this issue would be one of its prime responsibilities,
but it seems reluctant not only to engage in correspondence but, as I said,
even to admit that there may be a problem.
I hope that I am not right in thinking that there has
been obstruction. There certainly has been an unwillingness to talk about the
problem. My hon. Friend has picked an appropriate moment to have this debate.
If the two studies are not in the Minister’s hands, they are about to be, and I
have no doubt that he will bring us up to date on them.
We really need to know definitively whether there is a
problem with aircraft ventilation systems, whether it is causing the medical
conditions that pilots are reporting, and, if so, what needs to be done.
Alternatively, if the conditions are being caused by something else, we need to
get to the bottom of that. There seems to be a great deal of substantial
evidence backed up by too many “coincidences” for this to be an accident and
there to be nothing in it.
I look forward to the Minister’s bringing us up to
date on the matter, and I hope we will get from the Government timely and
constructive progress in dealing with the problem and bringing the studies to a
conclusion.
Norman Baker (Lewes)
(LD): I congratulate the hon. Member
for
This is a serious issue. It is worth putting on the
record that it has, in fact, been raised many times in this House with
successive Ministers by Members of all parties. The problem with contaminated
air in aircraft stays while Ministers move on—upwards, outwards and sideways—at
a bewildering rate. Many of us who have campaigned on the issue for some time
find ourselves trying to explain to new Ministers the same problem that we have
explained to previous ones.
Indeed, the issue predates my involvement. I note that
my colleague Lord Tyler, who was then the Member for
“the House will recognise
that the issue is important. The health of pilots, crew and passengers could be
affected...I find alarming the apparent complacency of the
That was in 2000, yet here we are in 2009 having not
made much progress on solving a serious matter.
The issue has been raised by Members across the House.
It was raised by the hon. Member for
While we wait for progress to be made, we still have
the prevalence of incidents. In 2007, 116 contaminated air events were reported
to the Civil Aviation Authority. The number of cases reported annually is
rising. In 2006, it was 109—there were 78 in 2005. There are more complaints
about some aircraft than others, which supports the
point made earlier. It seems that some aircraft are more disposed to the
problem than others. The Boeing 757 was involved in 43 such cases, out of 109,
in 2006; and the BAe 146, of which fewer exist, was involved in 17
incidents—the second highest number of any aircraft.
The Government, in a previous incarnation as the
Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, stated on 21 January
2000 that
“fumes from the engines can
only enter the aircraft cabin if an engine seal fails, which is a very rare
event—around one failure for every 22,000 flights.”
That was the Government’s official position in 2000,
but the Minister’s predecessor—now the Minister of State, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Poplar and
“There are however occasional bad smells or ‘fume
events’ during flights, which are estimated to occur on approximately 0.05 per
cent. of flights overall (one in 2000).”—[Official Report, 6 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 192W.]
So we have gone from one in 22,000 to one in 2,000.
One wonders how much further that statistic will drop before there is action to
deal with the points in question.
Research by the German or Swiss
broadcaster that the hon. Member for
1 July 2009 : Column
111WH
cent. believed that they were breathing contaminated
air while flying. More than half of them—an enormous number of pilots—reported
symptoms of ill health relating to air contamination, and nearly one in 10 had
to be retired on health grounds. An enormous toll is being taken on
professional people, with seemingly little being done about it.
There have been incidents elsewhere in the world. In
May 2009, a former flight attendant won civil damages for respiratory damage,
having been exposed to contaminated air, in the case of Turner v. Eastwest Airlines Ltd. In October 2007, staff at Flybe refused to board the company’s fleet of BAe 146
aircraft, saying that poor air quality was putting them and their passengers at
risk. That came about after two stewardesses collapsed during a flight and all
seven crew members had to be taken to hospital. Flybe
subsequently announced that it would phase out BAe 146s for commercial reasons.
That seems to be the nearest thing to what might be called an out-of-court
settlement. I agree with hon. Members’ comments on how interesting it is that
we are now adopting a new form of producing air for cabins or, perhaps,
reverting to what was originally there before bleed air was introduced in the
1960s.
There is no question but that this is a serious
matter. The Government have said that they recognise there is an issue, and I
do not wish to suggest that they are being less helpful than they are, because
they have been willing to engage and have answered parliamentary questions. I
met the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Poplar and
I asked the Minister’s predecessor on 6 May why the
research project on cabin air quality had been allocated to Cranfield. I say
“allocated” because no European Union public procurement procedures seem to
have been invoked on that occasion. He replied:
“The research project was tendered under the single
tender procedure and approved in April 2007. Due to the complex logistics and
the need for a project manager to develop protocols, this research could not be
specified as a normal tender. Following the tender, Cranfield university was chosen by the Department, in consultation
with the Department of Health, the Civil Aviation Authority, BALPA (largest pilot
trade union) and airlines.”—[Official Report, 6
May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 193W.]
Although that may be a realistic exercise, eyebrows
would be raised if it were not tendered. An explanation has been given, but I
hope that the Minister accepts that, because of the long delays—not necessarily
since the project was allocated, although there have been delays since
then—going back to 2000 and beyond, which I have mentioned, there appears to be
an element of playing for time on somebody’s part until aircraft are phased out
and the problem goes away. I do not necessarily wish to suggest that that is
absolutely the case, because I cannot prove it. Nevertheless, putting the
circumstances together, one gets circumstantial evidence that suggests there
may be some element of truth in my assumption.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what is
happening with the Cranfield study, including when it will report.
1 July 2009 : Column
112WH
I hope he will tell us that there should be an open inquiry into this issue,
because the public at large, and the pilots in particular, want to be confident
that it is being seriously addressed. We need an open forum of some sort—I
would hesitate to use a public inquiry as a forum—with opportunity for
cross-examination, whereby people can test the theories, put forward their
views and scrutinise those taking decisions and making assumptions on our
behalf.
My colleague Lord Tyler asked a parliamentary question
in the other place on 20 February 2007:
“Whether the Department for
Transport will participate in research on cabin air quality by the United
States Federal Aviation Administration.”
Lord Bassam, answering for
the Government, indicated that the Department was
“discussing with the Federal
Aviation Administration...the possibility of collaborative research.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 2007;
Vol. 689, c. WA215.]
Can the Minister give any further information on the
collaboration that clearly was under way, or at least under consideration, back
in February 2007?
Let me raise two other matters relating to cabin air
quality that are entirely different to the substantive matter we are
discussing. First, under an international aviation agreement, insecticides are
sprayed in the cabin on flights from particular countries, presumably to kill
off insects that may be brought into this country or elsewhere. Having done
quite a lot of work on pesticides, I do not regard that as a safe procedure.
One of the first issues that I ever took up as a campaigner was pesticides, and
that is one reason why I am in politics. It does not seem entirely safe for
large amounts of insecticide to be sprayed in a plane before it lands,
sometimes over food, irrespective of whether children are present, with no
proper warning or safeguards in place and in a confined atmosphere. I should
like the Minister to tell me now or in writing what assessment has been made of
the potential health implications of that practice, not necessarily for a fully
healthy person but for a vulnerable person with previous exposure to
pesticides. The first time I went on a long-distance flight and experienced
that, I had no pre-knowledge of it. Someone who is vulnerable to
pesticides—insecticides—through exposure to them on farms, for example, and has
lost resistance to them could be sprayed without their knowledge. That is
worrying. I would grateful if the Minister took up that issue.
My second point concerns air quality on board for
individuals who require extra oxygen for health reasons. The Minister may be
aware that airlines have vastly differing practices regarding allowing oxygen
on board. I have had representations on this matter from the British Lung
Foundation and others, who are concerned at the wide variations in practice
across the industry. There is even resistance from some airlines to anyone
bringing on board extra oxygen at all, even if they pay for it themselves. A
person’s requirement for extra oxygen is effectively a disability, and we
should not be discriminating against people with such a health need. I should like
the Minister to ensure that there is a process whereby airlines supply extra
oxygen to those who identify themselves as needing it; or, at least, to ensure
that no obstacle is put in their way if they wish to bring extra oxygen on
board.
3.8 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier (
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for
I pay tribute to the campaign by the Global Cabin Air
Quality Executive for raising awareness of the issue, and in particular to
Captain Tristan Loraine, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East
mentioned, and to Captain Susan Michaelis, who have done so much to raise the
profile of this issue in the public spectrum. The campaign is made up of
professional pilots and is assisted by scientific experts who are well placed
to research and comment on the matter, one of whom—Dr. Sarah Mackenzie
Ross—figured in my hon. Friend’s speech.
The campaign argues that a number of pilots have been
severely brain-damaged by cabin air pollution, and that the lives of passengers
and crews are being put at risk, as my hon. Friend set out in some detail. Dr.
Mackenzie Ross considered those issues in her studies and specifically looked
at flight crews, not only because they are more frequently exposed and
therefore principally at risk, so we are more likely to see effects among them,
but because of the obvious point that the lives of everyone on board a modern
aeroplane would be put at risk if the pilot was seriously affected or, worse
still, if the pilot and the co-pilot were seriously affected at the same time.
When simulators are used to investigate the decisions
taken by flight-deck crew, factors such as tiredness are sometimes assessed,
but there are no tests to establish what happens when the quality of decision
making is deliberately downgraded. If that is the case, and that is what I have
heard from the industry, it suggests that different sectors have different
approaches. Most people believe that being a pilot is more difficult than being
a driver, but a number of organisations, including the Institute of Advanced
Motorists, have done extensive tests on drivers, subjecting them to a variety
of things that would impair their decision making, such as large quantities of
alcohol or having to talk on a mobile phone while driving a difficult route.
Dr. Mackenzie Ross has found that cabin air is
sometimes contaminated with hydraulic fluids and synthetic jet oils, which
contain the chemicals described by my hon. Friend. Those chemicals are
potentially highly neurotoxic and are, as he said, found in a variety of other
sources, including agricultural chemicals. Most famously, they were also behind
Gulf war syndrome. In 2007, about 350
Dr. Mackenzie Ross has argued that the incidence of
contaminated-air events on commercial and military aircraft is difficult to
quantify because of the lack of monitoring systems. I do not want to repeat
everything that my hon. Friend said, but the study that he quoted is
significant. In 2003, the British Airline Pilots Association said that only 61
out of 1,667 contaminated-air events were recorded. In other
words, only about 4 per cent. of incidents were
making the records, for all the reasons that he gave.
The Minister should set up an awareness campaign among
aircrew to look at the dangers of air contamination and at how to report
contamination events. I will be making a number of other points, but that is
one of the most basic. Aircrew—I hope that the union will show some leadership
on this—should be actively encouraged to report problems. I would also like to
know what steps the Minister will take to ensure that passengers are informed
when they have been exposed to a contamination event.
Unlike in a building, passengers in the pressurised
cabin of a plane are totally dependent on the air supplied by the plane once
the doors have been closed—obviously, they cannot open a window. Today, that
always means bleed air from the main engine. In most aircraft, air is bled off
at a temperature of at least 400° C. It then goes through a heat exchanger and
ductwork before being delivered to a manifold, where it is mixed with
re-circulated air. I am told that the heat exchanger and ductwork in most
aircraft are never cleaned and that no regime is in place to ensure that
airlines do such work—indeed, there is no regime or regulation in place even to
establish whether airlines do it. Even the air conditioning systems in a decent
hotel room are subject to a regime of filter changes and duct cleaning, and
people in a hotel room can open the window.
Everyone present will agree that air supply needs to
be safe. It is widely recognised that all aircraft are subject, to some extent,
to occasional engine oil leaks, but certain types are subject to many more, and
my hon. Friend picked out the BAe 146 and the Boeing 757. The CAA database for
2004 recorded that 72 flights experienced contaminated air, although the low reporting
rate, to which we have all alluded, suggests that up to 2,000 flights in the UK
may have experienced contaminated-air events in that year. It is clear that the
process by which air is delivered to the cabins of commercial airliners is
potentially flawed. It does not guarantee the quality of air for breathing, and
no mechanisms appear to be in place even to monitor air quality, let alone to
ensure that air is safe.
Such issues are increasingly recognised. My hon.
Friend referred to Boeing’s decision on the 787—the so-called Dreamliner—and it is interesting to look at what Boeing
said about it. Boeing was invited by the House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee to make a submission and it did so in writing. It said:
“The Boeing 787 will have a no-bleed
architecture for the outside air supply to the cabin. This architecture
eliminates the risk of engine oil decomposition products...being introduced in
the cabin supply air”.
The fact that the world’s biggest aircraft
manufacturer takes that view provides compelling evidence that there is an
issue to address. My hon. Friend also mentioned Rolls-Royce, which, as far back
as 2003, said:
1 July 2009 : Column 114WH—continued
“Any oil leaking from an
engine, entering the aircraft customer bleed offtake,
is classified as hazardous”.
Another independent expert on the subject, who comes
from the opposite side of the world, is the Royal Australian air force’s head
of aviation medicine research, Dr. Singh Bhupinder. He has spoken out at
international conferences, making it clear that he, too, believes there is a
real issue to address.
Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government
are taking in conjunction with the CAA to ensure that the passenger air supply
on aeroplanes operates at a safe level of toxicity? Everybody in the Chamber
recognises that the airline industry is struggling, and it is worrying to see
the country’s national airline appeal to staff to work without pay, while a
whole string of small, struggling airports, many of
which are highly geared, are on the edge financially. I am the last person to
want to put extra burdens on a struggling industry at such a time, but the fact
is that people’s lives and the long-term health of crew members are at stake.
It is therefore strange that the Department for Transport has done little
quality research on the subject.
When the Department asked the Committee on Toxicity—an
independent body that advises the Government, including, incidentally, the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on agricultural issues—to
review all the available evidence, the committee was unable to arrive at firm
conclusions. As my hon. Friend said, however, it recommended further research
to determine what substances are released via the bleed air system and whether
exposure to those substances could result in acute or chronic ill health. The
committee recommended two types of study: first, an exposure monitoring study,
with on-board monitoring of air quality on a number of aircraft; and, secondly,
further investigation of neuropsychological functioning in pilots via a
cross-sectional epidemiological study using proxy
measures of exposure.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Lewes mentioned
the Department giving the first study to Cranfield university.
Cranfield has an excellent record, and I do not want to be critical of it, but
it is very nearly an in-house organisation. Indeed, its staff
include quite a number of Government employees, including quite a lot of
uniformed people—indeed, my father-in-law worked there at one point. There is
therefore a legitimate concern that simply giving the study to Cranfield,
rather than putting it out to competitive tender, raises serious questions over
whether the investigation is independent. To date, the Department for Transport
has refused to commission the second study—the cross-sectional
neuropsychological study—but the Minister may be able to update us on that.
Will he tell us why the first study could not be put out to competitive tender,
and where we have got to on the second study?
The hon. Member for Lewes asked about co-operation
with the FAA, and I repeat the question. I have had complaints from people
involved in the campaign that we have dragged our feet in co-operating with the
FAA when
Norman Baker: Lewes.
Mr. Brazier: Indeed; like
The other issue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is
oxygen on flights, and it is a serious concern. I draw the Minister’s attention
to the fact that the early-day motion has attracted more than 200 signatures.
There is a legitimate point to consider. A safe air supply for people who
require oxygen must involve the presence of cylinders to top up their need for
greater concentration. I hope that the Minister will update us on that.
Contamination of aircraft cabins by engine oil fumes
is a serious aviation safety concern for both aircrew and passengers. There is
significant evidence to warrant going beyond just a bit more study to get to
the bottom of the matter. I hope that the Government will today make it clear
that they will urgently and thoroughly investigate the problem so that the
necessary steps to make crew and passengers safe on our aeroplanes are taken.
The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Clark): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Dr. McCrea, in this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for
Air quality in commercial passenger aircraft is high,
and much of the information that we have heard today would be worrying for
anyone who is thinking of travelling on a plane. To put the matter into
perspective, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) referred to numbers and
said that the Government had reduced the number of events from one in 22,000 to
one in 2,000. The Committee on Toxicity estimated in 2007 that fume events
occurred in approximately 0.05 per cent. of flights,
or one in 2,000. In 2008, 97 contaminated air events were reported to the CAA
under the mandatory occurrence reporting scheme from 1.2 million passenger and
cargo flights by
Of the 97 reported occurrences of contaminated air by
aircraft type, 38 were on a Boeing 757, 19 were on an Airbus 319, and six were
on an Airbus 320. Some hon. Members referred to British Aerospace’s BAe 146,
and there were two reported occurrences in 2008 for that aircraft. They asked
why such fume events happen, and why nothing has been done in any shape or
form. Mechanical system malfunctions occur and may result in abnormal operating
conditions, but the CAA has taken remedial action to help operators of specific
aircraft to reduce the incidence of fume events, such as engine oil servicing
procedures and engine sealing modifications. Those are some of the steps that
have been taken to help the industry and those who work on planes and travel by
air. It is essential to ensure that health and safety provisions for both
categories of people are of the highest level.
I recognise the concern that has been raised, but we
must have evidence, and we have undertaken work on
1 July 2009 : Column
117WH
that. I assure everyone who is listening to our debate and those who read Hansard
that it is not a proven fact that cabin air harms health. Hon. Members rightly
said that work on that should be done and should continue, and I intend to show
that it is being done, and that we have the highest quality of studies.
Norman Baker: The Minister said that there is no proof that cabin
air causes problems. Does he think that stewardesses and pilots collapsing with
brain damage is a coincidence?
Paul Clark: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I am saying
that we need evidence to conclude that such fume events cause those illnesses.
I am not suggesting that they have not happened, but to ensure that they do not
happen again, we must know exactly what causes them. That is why research is necessary.
It is complex research and it is being done as we speak.
Mr. Brazier: To return to the Minister’s figures, he said that
approximately 100 events were recorded in a year. Several of us mentioned the
study that suggested that only 4 per cent. of events
are recorded, but if the average number of passengers on the aircraft on which
such events took place was 150, 15,000 passengers would be affected. If 4 per cent. of those are
reported, 25 x 15,000 is about one third of a million passengers affected in a
single year. That does not mean that all were brain damaged, but it provides an
idea of the scale of what we are talking about, especially as no one denies the
link between organophosphates and brain damage.
Paul Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that no one
denies that link, but 97 reported occurrences does not mean that they led to x,
y or z occurrences of illness or disease. The jump to the calculations that he
just made about 15,000 passengers being affected and so on is a big leap. I am
sure that we all want to make certain that the evidence exists, so that we can
ensure that if there is a problem, we can take the necessary steps to eradicate
it, but again, that is not straightforward.
Mr. Ellwood: Will the Minister give way?
Paul Clark: Let me make some headway and I will give way shortly.
I want to deal with this issue. There seems to be a suggestion that people are
not reporting incidents because they do not want to rock the boat. Well, the
mandatory occurrence reporting scheme—
Mr. Ellwood: With respect to the Minister, we have ample time in
which to debate these issues. I am pleased that he is taking interventions, but
there is still another half hour to go—plenty of time for us to debate. He has
spent 10 minutes arguing about statistics, and they can be read in different
ways. He began his remarks by saying that this is a serious issue. I would like
to move on to the action points—what he intends to do—and I think that he wants
to move on to that, too.
On the point that he is making now, however, does he
agree that, rather than depending entirely on whether a pilot comes forward to
make a report, it is time that we had a monitoring system to measure the
quality of air on aircraft? That would be an independent way of checking whether
the toxins are making it on board, as opposed to leaning heavily on the reports
written by pilots, who might or might not fill out a form.
Paul Clark: I am delighted to say that that is exactly what I
want to move on to, which is why I did not particularly want to give way again.
I do want to get to some of the substance of the debate, to which the hon.
Gentleman referred. However, the reporting procedures have to be one of the
first stages of dealing with the issue, which we all agree is important and
needs investigation. We cannot allow the reporting system to be undermined in a
way that suggests that it is not robust. That is why I wanted to deal with that
at the outset.
Most modern commercial aircraft are fitted with high
efficiency particulate air—HEPA—filters, which are extremely efficient at
removing airborne contaminants such as droplets, bacteria and large viral
particles. Typically, the air in the cabin is exchanged every two to three
minutes. This is the only country that I know of in which there is a general
duty to safeguard the health of persons aboard aircraft. Our commercial
aviation safety record is second to none. That is a hard-won reputation, and it
has been won by all players in the industry and all staff who work in the
industry. As I said, we are the only country in the world with a duty to
safeguard the health of persons on board aircraft—the health of the travelling
passengers as well as employees. The Civil Aviation Act 2006 amended the Civil
Aviation Act 1982 to charge the Secretary of State with
“the general duty of
organising, carrying out and encouraging measures for safeguarding the health
of persons on board aircraft.”
The functions of the CAA were also amended to include
the health of persons on board aircraft. That change is a world first, as far
as we know, and was welcomed by Parliament. It follows that we take the issues
of safety and air quality in passenger planes extremely seriously.
We have a good story to tell on the research that we
have put in hand to try to get to the bottom of cabin air fume events.
Occasionally there are bad smells or fume events, as they are referred to,
during flights, and those have been reported on a number of aircraft types that
are used around the world. That is a valid point: we must remember that this is
not a UK-only matter. It raises issues that we need to take into account.
Reports to the CAA show that sometimes one pilot reports a bad smell and the
other detects nothing. An unpleasant smell is undesirable but does not
necessarily harm health. That is partly the point that I was making to the hon.
Member for
Pilots who have experienced fume events report a
variety of short or long-term symptoms of ill health, but it is not certain
that those symptoms are work-related. Reports of those events are very
infrequent. As I said, the figures for 2008 show that there were 97 reported
contaminated air fume events. That is out of 1.2 million flights.
So what has been done, bearing in mind the small
number of fume events? First, we commissioned the independent Committee on
Toxicity—a panel made up of toxicologists from various universities, not
Government stooges. They completed a substantial review of evidence in
September 2007 and concluded that the evidence available did not establish a
link between cabin air and pilot ill health, nor did it rule one out. We have
therefore begun innovative research to investigate concerns about potential
contaminants in cabin air and to try to fill the gap in knowledge identified by
the Committee on Toxicity. Again, we are leading the world in that work.
No one has previously captured samples of cabin air
during normal conditions and fume events and analysed them to see what
substances they contain and in what concentrations. The science is difficult,
because fume events are unpredictable and can last only a couple of minutes—if
that, in some cases. We have that research in hand as a priority. To date, we
have commissioned functionality tests to identify equipment capable of
capturing fume events in real time. The report was published on 21 February
2008. We are now confident that we have the equipment that will do the job. We have
begun a more substantive phase of in-flight functionality tests to assemble
data on the substances in the cabin air during fume events. That work builds on
the equipment and methodology tested in the first phase. Several airlines
volunteered to take part by allowing an independent scientist to come on board
with sampling equipment. Testing began in 2008 and is continuing in 2009.
The tests to identify suitable scientific equipment
capable of capturing fume events were peer-reviewed by scientists in the
I shall deal with some of the specific issues raised
before moving on to other matters. We heard that Flybe
is no longer flying the British Aerospace 146. The company has upgraded its
fleet, as all airlines do, for a variety of reasons, not least to stay
competitive and to ensure efficiency. However, it does not say that it was to
do with air contamination. I realise what is being said, but it was a great
leap to suggest that Flybe got rid of its BAE 146
fleet because of contamination. Indeed, I have already pointed out that the
last reported statistics show only two cases in that time. It is a leap of
faith to say that the company did it purely because of problems of
contamination; that is not the case.
It is far too premature to draw an analogy with Gulf
war syndrome. A substantial amount of work has yet to be done on that. However,
military service is not directly comparable to working in private commercial
employment. Our primary aim has to be to get evidence of what occurs during
fume events, to see what contaminates are released, and to analyse them.
Mr. Maples: Has the Minister moved on from the toxicity study? If
so, will he tell us when it is expected to report? People are anxious to know.
They are grateful that the study is taking place, but they want to know when
they will receive the answers.
Paul Clark: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I have
indicated that the work is continuing; it is being done in conjunction with
specific airlines, which have offered to help with the study. That work is
being undertaken now. We expect it to continue for the majority of the year,
and then to be written up. It will then be peer-tested, unless there is
anything of particular alarm. It has to be peer-tested for the reasons that I
gave. We expect the report to be published in the early part of next year.
I should explain the work undertaken by Professor van
Netten at the
“I have no further information...Most importantly, however, accurate in-flight air concentration
measurements are needed. Only then can a proper assessment be made if TCP
exposure is indeed a problem or can be eliminated.”
That is precisely what we are seeking to achieve with
the current research project.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth,
East cited studies from
Mr. Ellwood: I am saddened by the direction taken by the Minister.
He seems to be trying to knock away every bit of evidence that has been put to
him. He is right to say that the tests are difficult to do on planes and that
they cannot be done in laboratory conditions. However, the point has been made
that there is enough evidence to raise eyebrows. For the Minister to lean on a
report that is not to be published for a couple of years suggests
that the Government are not taking the matter as seriously as they should. I
posed a firm question to the Minister: I asked whether it was time to install
monitoring systems in aircraft. He did not give a reply. I pose the same
question again.
Paul Clark: The Government are leading world research into the
very issues that are of concern both to the hon. Gentleman and to me as
Minister. We must ensure that we have the evidence, and thus know exactly what
the issues are, so that if we find evidence that gives cause for concern, we
can then help and protect those who work in the industry and those who travel
by air. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it will have to be based
on the evidence. This Government and this country are leading that research. He
is right that it will not be done be in laboratory conditions. That makes it genuinely
more difficult to ensure that we get the systems and processes needed to get
precisely the evidence that he and I seek.
July 2009 : Column 120WH—continued
I express my thanks to those airlines that have made
their aircraft, their pilots and their management time available to the
research effort, especially as they have
1 July 2009 : Column 121WH
done so free of charge. It is no exaggeration to say that without that help the
work could not have progressed, as sadly was the case in the
Cranfield university, the
project manager, is actively engaged on the cabin air sampling programme, and
about 40 of the planned 100 flights have now been tested by scientists on
board. Samples are being taken by named individuals, who have received special
briefing by Cranfield to ensure a consistent methodology and a secure chain of
custody for delivering the samples to the laboratories for analysis. It is
likely that this phase of the research will last until the end of the year. The
logistics are complex, which is why it cannot be done sooner. Equally, we want
to ensure that the work is not open to substantial challenge because procedures
and so on were not followed.
We lost some months recently because of internal
procurement procedures, but those delays were important in enabling us to test
that we were getting value for money in what are obviously tight departmental
research budgets. I am pleased to say that those hurdles have been overcome and
that the research continues.
The project manager is Professor Helen Muir, an
aviation safety expert at Cranfield. The project also has the support of
Cranfield Health and two external laboratories. The research design was
overseen by a steering group, which includes a number of independent
occupational hygiene experts, a British Airline Pilots Association pilot and
the Health Protection Agency. It reports to the aviation health working group,
the members of which include trade union representatives, the Air Transport
Users Council, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Department of Health and the
Health and Safety Executive. It is a robust reporting system. We needed an
organisation that was familiar with aircraft and with which airlines would
work. That is not what happened in the
Once completed, the findings will be peer-reviewed,
before being published as a whole, and I hope that that will be as soon as is
practicable. The Chamber will understand that we are filling a gap in
knowledge. Fume events are unpredictable and can last less than a minute. There
are no published studies of air sampling during fume events. The only way to
resolve the issue is with top-quality science of a standard necessary to
encourage aviation regulators to take the action required. I am confident that
Cranfield will give us the best scientific picture possible in what happens
during a fume event. Any regulatory action required will have to be taken, as
far as the EU is concerned, by the European Aviation Safety Agency. Hon.
Members will be aware that EASA will not take any regulatory action without
sound evidence, which is why it is critical that our pioneering, world-leading
research is robust and responsive.
The hon. Member for
1 July 2009 : Column
122WH
already indicated that we are leading the world. The issues are not being
ignored, as I hope he will recognise in the light of my comments so far.
Mr. Ellwood: I have a letter from the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, which is one of the main
engineering associations in the
Paul Clark: The report will do exactly that necessary detailed
research, in conjunction with the private airlines with which we are working
closely on the monitoring work. We are involving their staff, as well as
independent, on-board scientists, in the work that we all want done.
We accepted, and are now acting on, COT’s recommendation for further work to be done. The hon.
Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) referred to COT and raised various
other issues. COT arranged for an independent review to be carried out by
Professor Morris, who is professor of neuropsychology
at the
“should be interpreted with
great caution because of the small sample used”.
“cannot suggest a link and
equally, it does not rule out a link... In order to establish a link there is a
need for a much larger study taking a randomly selected...sample”.
Mr. Brazier: I have huge respect for King’s despite my son being a
medical student there. COT recommended that a study be done, but that study has
been described as being not big enough to give a proper answer. We need a large
study so that we can find out whether that link exists.
Paul Clark: There is a need in terms of the scale of requirement.
We are working through some of the requested work and have accepted some of the
recommendations to which I referred earlier.
I shall address the point about the Boeing 787.
Indeed, Boeing has designed a new aircraft with no-bleed air, but it has not
withdrawn the older models, such as the 757, or required extra filters to be
fitted.
Mr. Ellwood: No one has told it to!
Mr. Ellwood: No one has legislated!
Dr. William McCrea
(in the Chair): Order.
Paul Clark: People working in the industry need regulation, to a
certain extent, but I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that
Boeing is so irresponsible that it would allow planes to fly that could
contaminate passengers, according to his earlier arguments. It would be
uncharitable to follow that line in suggesting that regulation is needed to
tell it to remove planes that he thinks are “lethal”—his word.
The hon. Member for Lewes asked about a public
inquiry. COT, an independent panel, looked into the matter. In 2007-08, the
issue was revisited by the House of Lords Science and Technology Select
Committee, which urged the Government to complete the air sampling research,
which we are doing. I am not convinced that a third public inquiry would take
us much further forward.
On non-co-operation with the
Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that it is not satisfactory
for people not to know what is being sprayed when they get on a plane? Will he
undertake to ensure that planes identify what chemicals are used and notify
individuals in advance? Will he let me know what they are? When I have asked
stewards and stewardesses on planes, they do not know the active ingredients.
If he cannot answer now, he can write to me.
Paul Clark: That is covered by WHO provisions, guidance and
rules.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for
The