Crewmember Comments on the Design, Implementation, and Outcomes of EASA/EC-Funded Oil Fume Research 2014-2025

Do we know more due to EASA/EC-funded oil fume research from 2014 to 2025?

1.) It is disappointing that 11 years of EC/EASA funded work has not had practical impact; has not meaningfully progressed the field; has not proposed new exposure control measures.
2.) AVOIL + in‐vitro tests in FACTS study did suggest some mechanisms of injury by oil and hydraulic 
fumes to the brain and lungs. But other than that, we don’t seem to know more than we did.

Next steps?

Please stop spending time and money on repeating same/similar assessments. The industry needs
regulations to drive investment into R&D to prevent exposure to oil fumes. To mitigate health and
operational impacts:
1.) Don’t allow NEW aircraft designs to bleed ventilation air off an oil‐lubricated compressor;
2.) Require some existing design features (e.g., locating oil drainage next to the APU inlet) to be modified;
3.) Prioritize testing and use of high‐performance oils and hydraulic fluids formulated to be safer (not just to
smell less); and
4.) Require filters, sensors, crew education for aircraft with bleed air designs.