Brofiscin quarry is on an aquifer (water bearing strata/rock), which is hydrogeologically disconnected from the aquifer beneath Elan Valley reservoirs and the associated aqueduct that contribute to Birmingham public water supply. The distance that separates the two locations is significant; therefore there is no pathway for contamination to migrate from the quarry to the Elan aquifer. The Elan aquifer is the nearest aquifer to Brofiscin quarry that contributes to Birmingham’s public water supply and the Environment Agency does not consider Brofiscin quarry to present any risk to Birmingham’s water supply.

Natural Resources Wales is responsible for regulating the Brofiscin quarry site. Any risks relating to this site are a matter for the devolved Welsh Government.

Brofiscin quarry is on an aquifer (water bearing strata/rock), which is hydrogeologically disconnected from the aquifer beneath Elan Valley reservoirs and the associated aqueduct that contribute to Birmingham public water supply. The distance that separates the two locations is significant; therefore there is no pathway for contamination to migrate from the quarry to the Elan aquifer. The Elan aquifer is the nearest aquifer to Brofiscin quarry that contributes to Birmingham’s public water supply and the Environment Agency does not consider Brofiscin quarry to present any risk to Birmingham’s water supply.

Natural Resources Wales is responsible for regulating the Brofiscin quarry site. Any risks relating to this site are a matter for the devolved Welsh Government.

The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States was involved in the investigation of this event. Public Health England has confidence in any assessments done by the CDC, which is a highly competent authority that produces sound evidence-based advice.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) were notified of the diversion of the British Airways flight BA 286 to Vancouver by the Canadian Transport Safety Board. Canada, as the State of Occurrence under the international protocols, is responsible for conducting any investigation.

The AAIB did not conduct any inquiries with the Aircraft Commander or crew. The Canadian Transport Safety Board, working closely with British Airways and Airbus technicians carried out an investigation, but were unable to determine the cause. The aircraft returned to service and British Airways continue to monitor key flights. To date no further reports have been made.

The British Airways Airbus A380, on a flight from San Francisco to London, diverted to Vancouver because of a strange odour in the cabin. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch were made aware of the event but under international protocol, it was the responsibility of Canada, being the State of occurrence, to carry out an investigation. The Canadian Transport Safety Board, working with British Airways and Airbus technicians carried out an investigation but were not able to determine the cause. The same captain later flew the aircraft to London with the technicians on board, but there was no recurrence. The aircraft returned to service and British Airways continue to monitor key flights. To date no further reports have been made.

All passengers on BA Flight 286 disembarked from the aircraft safely, however crew members attended various hospitals in Vancouver, as a precaution.

It is not clear what the cause of the crew's symptoms was, however the incident was reported to Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

If passengers are unwell they should seek medical attention, but no special arrangements are in place for medical screening.

Passenger and crew safety is of paramount importance. The Department for Transport and the CAA are constantly working to enhance safety standards.

The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) identified and evaluated over 400 references when producing their 2007 statement, called “Statement on the Review of the Cabin Air Environment, Ill-health in Aircraft Crews and the Possible Relationship to Smoke/Fume Events in Aircraft”. The evidence base consisted of data submitted by the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) and references identified as relevant by the COT Secretariat.

All evidence reviewed can be found listed at the end of the Statement. There are no references to ExxonMobil submitting evidence, or being consulted by the COT during the review.

Yes. The Regulation does mandate the reporting of events such as those the Noble Lady sets out.

Suppliers of jet engine oils, hydraulic and de-icing fluids are required to provide information on their products and on certain hazardous components under the direct-acting EU CLP Regulation. Some hazardous components/substances in these oils and fluids may attract harmonised hazard classifications under the CLP Regulation.

Information for users of these products about hazardous components/substances must be included in the safety data sheets required by the REACH Regulation ((EC) No 1907/2006) and, where appropriate, on the labels for these products before the products can be placed on the market in the EU.

The Committee of Toxicity (COT) referred to this and other research on pyrolysed oils in the 2007 Statement that it published after being commissioned by the Department for Transport to undertake a scientific review of data submitted by the British Airline Pilots’ Association on the possible effects on aircrew health of oil/hydraulic fluid smoke/fume contamination incidents in commercial aircraft.

Anosmia (complete loss of smell) is rare and many of the medical conditions/medications which may cause this are incompatible with pilot medical certification. Hyposmia (reduction in sense of smell) is most commonly associated with acute or chronic upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) - crew who have a significant URTI should not be on duty.

Even if someone did have little, or no sense of smell, there are other indications of the occurrence of a fumes event, such as the presence of smoke or a visible haze. In addition, any fumes event associated with bleed air contamination would be distributed throughout the cockpit/cabin, so detection does not rely on the sense of smell of one individual.

Any pilot experiencing symptoms of possible cabin air contamination, such as eye or throat irritation, should follow the standard operating procedure and wear their goggles and oxygen mask, regardless of whether they can smell anything - particularly if they are aware that they have a poor sense of smell.

There is currently no evidence of toxicity as a result of fumes events that would justify installation of monitors (even if monitors suitable for routine use on aircraft were available).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) certification standard CS 25.1309c requires a warning only in the case where an unsafe condition requires immediate corrective action by the flight crew.

By virtue of the engine manufacturer’s compliance with certification standard CS E.510 for the engine, the aircraft manufacturer is able to demonstrate that an unsafe condition requiring immediate corrective action will not exist under CS 25.1309c. Ensuring compliance with these requirements is the responsibility of EASA.

European Aviation Safety Agency certification standard 25.1309c does not require this. However the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) standard for engine certification, CS-E 510, requires that a failure analysis and safety assessment is conducted by the engine manufacturer to show that hazardous concentration of toxic products will not enter the cabin bleed air.

EU airlines are legally required to report any potential safety incident including where fumes or smoke are detected on board an aircraft. Although these incidents are rare, these reports are taken very seriously and reviewed thoroughly to identify any safety issues or trends.

Passenger and crew safety is of paramount importance. The Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority are constantly working to enhance safety standards.

The Government has not made any assessment of the study referred to. However, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has reviewed a number of earlier reports by the author when conducting its own research into cabin fume events, which has informed the Government’s assessments.

Support for those concerned that their health has been impacted by air travel is offered through the National Health Service. The Government would encourage any pilots, crew or passengers with health concerns relating to fume events in the first instance to contact their GP, who can assess their case and refer on to specialist services where appropriate.

The study itself concludes that “It is notable that no detectable amount of TOCP or other TCPs were found in over 95% of the cabin air samples.” The Government has taken this peer-reviewed finding at face value and sees no reason to dispute the conclusions of the report.

The study was published in two parts, Part 1 containing the conclusions and Part 2 setting out the raw data. During analysis some of the data samples in Part 2 were discounted from the study due to various reasons such as fault with the equipment.

Under the Civil Aviation Authority’s mandatory reporting scheme (CAP382), a trigger for a report is an event that is considered by crew to be a “safety-related event which endangers or which, if not corrected or addressed, could endanger an aircraft, its occupants or any other person”.

None of the flights where fumes/smells were reported on post flight questionnaires met this criteria.

The previous answer (HL3216) took account of the relevant national and international guidelines and the relevance of various chemicals to human health. For example, two of the substances measured (tolulene and carbon monoxide) are the subject of a European standard for safety, health and comfort limits (BS EN 4618:2009). In addition to this, for the substances that do not have a European standard, other limits and guidelines have been considered in assessing the significance of any health risk of exposure to the concentrations measured in cabin air. Several of the substances monitored during the research, for example TBP, TOCP and tetrachloroethylene, have workplace exposure limits (WEL). For substances that do not have a WEL, a number of guidelines were used that have been recommended by the World Health Organisation as well as different groups in the UK and EU. These groups include Kotzias et al, Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Committee on the Medical Effect of Air Pollutants (COMEAP).

The previous answer took account of all the substances referred to in the Cranfield University’s Aircraft Cabin Air Sampling Study regardless of whether they are subject to Workplace Exposure Limits. For example, two of the substances measured (tolulene and carbon monoxide) are the subject of a European standard for safety, health and comfort limits (BS EN 4618:2009). In addition to this, for the substances that do not have a European standard, other limits and guidelines have been considered in assessing the significance of any health risk of exposure to the concentrations measured in cabin air. Several of the substances monitored during the research, for example TBP, TOCP and tetrachloroethylene, have workplace exposure limits (WEL). For substances that do not have a WEL, a number of guidelines were used that have been recommended by the World Health Organisation as well as different groups in the UK and EU. These groups include Kotzias et al, Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and Committee on the Medical Effect of Air Pollutants (COMEAP).

Trixylyl phosphate (TXP) has been identified as reproductive hazard with effects on fertility based on the oral combined repeated dose and reproductive/developmental study submitted by the company Supresta Netherlands BV. The evidence in the study is derived from oral dosing of rats with various amounts of pure compound during time period of 33 to 48 days. Some effects to fertility were found in mid and high dose groups, however there was no evidence of the substance harming the development of the foetus.

Based on the study, it is not plausible that the occupants of an aircraft would be exposed to sufficient quantities of TXP to have an impact on fertility.

No fume event occurred during this study (Aircraft Cabin Air Sampling Study, Cranfield University, 2011) which triggered the airline’s formal reporting procedures to the Civil Aviation Authority.