Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
latimes.com
latimes.com
> “Flight attendant, pilot unions, and congressional supporters could use this effort as evidence that sensors are needed and ... to drive their agenda forward to have bleed air sensors required on all aircraft,” said the 2015 memo, which Boeing turned over in litigation.
> Boeing told The Times that it has not equipped its planes with air sensors because suppliers have not “demonstrated the existence” of devices that could “reliably detect contaminated bleed air.” The company said in a statement that scientific studies have not proved a link between fume events and health problems. “The cabin air inside Boeing airplanes is safe,” the company said.
Thanks Boeing
You can, the 787 does it, but it has significant drawbacks as well. Also it basically can't be retrofitted onto an existing aircraft series.
My issue is mostly that everything that comes out of Boeing makes me feel like they're more worried about suing them than them hurting me or killing me. Maybe Airbus isn't much better, but it sure seems hard for Boeing to get much worse.
Substantiate your stereotyping.
I'm not saying it is or isn't true, I'm saying that such broad stereotyping without reasoning comes off as bias.
The risk of fumes is exactly the same on all brands (again, except the 787).
So in the end the component that really matters for this is the engine. And both Airbus and Boeing use very similar engines from the same suppliers. And the engine manufacturer defines the maintenance tasks for it.
I’ve never seen such emails out of Airbus, although it’s entirely possible that that’s because they’re in another language and therefore they haven’t made it to the English only media I consume.
I've told about a dozen friends about this when I got home. While all of them found it very unpleasant, only one other person had to be sick.
The mechanical power offtake affects the engine fuel consumption less than the equivalent bleed offtake, but on the other hand their system is significantly heavier, and creates a lot more drag.
Basically, the engine compressor is the best compressor you will find aboard. To provide air supply you need pressurized air. So it makes sense to directly take the compressed air you already have with that excellent compressor. With their bleedless system they add 2 large extra electrical compressors, and 2 large extra air intakes (to take the air to be compressed). So of course there are advantages to the electrical route, but efficiency isn't a given.
TCP is a known neurotoxin:
"It is a toxic substance that causes neuropathy, paralysis in the hands and feet, and/or death for humans and animals alike. It can be ingested, inhaled, or even absorbed through the skin." [2]
Below is a presentation based on a PHD thesis on the subject with a lot of detail:
https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2012...
[1] https://petrico.com/products/durad-125/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricresyl_phosphate#Health_cal...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/american-airlines-jet-suffers-fume...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2019/02/26/ala...
In both cases only the pilots/crew had issues, none of the passengers. In one case it was a "dirty sock" smell. If it was a bleed air problem, it would have affected passengers as well.
A lot of research has been done, and there isn't actually any evidence showing that bleed air causes any health problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerotoxic_syndrome#Research
Obviously there are some cases where the seals do break, and there is actual smoke in the cabin, but that is not what the majority of these cases are referring to.
Apparently to a similar degree. It seems that the European airlines are doing a good job (DHL, Lufthansa) as mentioned in the article about mandating this stuff.
The 787 was intended as a more electric aircraft, from the very start, even called the "7E7" during development. An electrical ECS requires special cabin air compressors with big motor drives and power electronics, but there was significant savings for the engines by removing bleed air. It makes sense as a system: Electrical main engine start, generator-optimized engines/APU, electrical cabin air compressors. But the trade criteria were the typical ones: weight, installation volume, total lifecycle cost, etc.
The choice of a lower cabin altitude _was_ a big deal though, and if I had to guess, is the main source of a more pleasant experience.
The main ECS vendors (Honeywell, Hamilton Sundstrand, and Liebherr) all have cabin air quality products, which have mostly gone without interest by the aircraft manufactures and the airlines.
Please to expand the acronyms?
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_...
The main points are increased efficiency and decreased maintenance costs.
I never thought to say or do anything about it.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/08/ba-pilot-died-inhaling-toxic-...
On another note, I'm more concerned with the toxic gases coming out of people sitting next to me.
Air nozzle.
First thing I do when I get to my seat is turn it on full blast, point it at my nose. Leave it that way until deplaning.
I recently started trying to fly business class to actually arrive at my destination like a functioning human being and not anxious/sick to my stomach. Unfortunately it's prohibitively expensive.
Add in the toxic fumes and I'm not surprised how bad I feel after a transcontinental flight.
I used to actually really enjoy flying but the experience has severely degraded over the years. My chief complaints are insanely tight seat density, shitty food / flight amenities, and a terrible boarding process.
In the US it's worse than the density alone would suggest... because 80% of the country right in the middle geographically has a density that is for all intents and purposes zero.
California: Pop 39,512,223, Area 163,696 sq mi
Population density is about the same. 270 vs 240 people per sq mi.
Also running rail through flat low density area's tends to be cheap.
You can drive to a bullet train station for a trip across the country just like we already drive to an airport. Density isn't the reason we don't have this stuff.
More silly urbanist "density solves all problems" nonsense.
A train gets you city center to city center, you have all the freedom you want to walk around, and the luggage restrictions are nowhere as drastic (plus you can keep your 250mL drink you got cheap at the supermarket on the way)
What city centers?
Seattle, love it, still "tiny" by city definitions.
Portland is too small to be considered a layover.
So what's next, SF and then LA.
These two tables are why the US doesn't have high speed rail.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_China_by_p...
Bang for the buck, I’d say our preference became car, train, fancy bus, flying, bad bus.
They all pretty much take the same time, door to door, because the airports are not particularly accessible from our starting point and destination.
The key factors were autonomy and punctuality. If the train or bus hit traffic or broke down, you were totally screwed. Sometimes for hours. If the car hit traffic, we stopped for dinner. The plane is the most expensive, and provides some of the worst experiences of the three. They were rarely late, but really made you suffer for the price.
I never thought I’d become a car person, and yet here I am!
Is that like the sawed-off schoolbus?
They charge a premium, but you bring as many bags as you like and the pickup locations are usually less chaotic (a hotel rather than a regional mass transit center).
They still suffer from traffic and the movement of the vehicle (trains are way better in this dimension).
They’re kind of like what I imagine flying in the 80s was like, in terms of the amenities and milieu of customers. Except with near constant turbulence.
It’s far too long for a taxi, too short for the plane to be obvious, too short for a drive to be overly boring, and too short for a train to be mind-numbing.
Any longer (500+), I think the plane gets the obvious advantage. Any shorter and you wouldn’t consider a plane.
I guess my point is that, at this point in my life, I’d only want to fly to avoid a reliably 6+hour drive (NYC to Augusta ME, for an example). Even then it’s a toss up, depending on how much stuff I’m bringing with me.
First off, getting to the airport is guaranteed time lost since airports are nowhere near where I want to end up. Second, the security theater. Take off your shoes, belt, get X-rayed.
Next come the delays. The worst is when you can be stuck on the tarmac for hours and you can't even get up to go to the toilet or stretch your legs. If a train is stuck you can get up and walk around and if you have a car you can take a break.
Definitely the most inflexible form of travel.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/564717/airline-industry-...
Airlines learned from previous mistakes and basically would not add any capacity until load factors were incredibly high and they knew they could easily fill another flight. Very rarely would someone get bumped 10 plus years ago but in the last few years it was common practice. The planes were stuffed full where even the very back rows typically left open for flight attendants were filled.
I used to take at least one trip every week for 20 years and it wasn't so bad. After 911 it became worse but the flight was still ok. The last 3-4 years have been absolutely terrible. Even 1st/Business class was a joke and always oversold. I developed anxiety every time I had to fly simply because of the nightmare of getting through the lines (TSA/Customs/DHS), fighting the crowds, no where to even sit, dirty planes, etc. Flying became like riding in a cattle car.
I still fly about once a month and ever since the pandemic it's a lot more pleasant. My last flight had over 100 empty seats and absolutely no lines or people at the airport. Reminded my of a flight I once took to YYZ from DFW on a 727 in 91. I and two more guys were the only passengers on the whole plane, 2 in coach and the other in 1st. Three of us on the whole plane. Felt like a Rock Star on my own private jet....
I'm confident that flying will become miserable again. In another year I expect everything will be back to shit/normal.
That comes with its own set of interesting issues but I wonder if you could get some useful data from the fact that these events shouldn't occur on that plane.
> Belgian police has blocked off a part of downtown Brussels over a man wearing a thick coat with wires hanging out of it. The suspect turned out to be a radiation student doing research.
https://www.dw.com/en/radiation-student-raises-fake-bomb-ale...
San Jose to dc ... pre 911 ...
There is only a headline and a no-sound not-telling-me-anything video...
EDIT: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-17/how-we-i...
Seems to be a link to the actual article? Or a different article related to it?
Oh, definitely nothing to do with Boeing’s consistently poor management, an engineer thought up not implementing sound technical safeguards because of imaginary lawsuits. Bullshit.
For example, in March 2018, Jeff Dean defended Google making Tensor Flow video analysis software for the US military (to use to decide which Pakistani families to assassinate [0]). He calmly and normally presented the technology. When he presented his rationalization for the project, he blinked continuously. I think he was lying.
Having a senior engineering position in a large company does not imply integrity.
"Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes" -> Toxic fumes can seep into the air you breathe on planes"
The original title is also not as bad, I think HN automatically removes the "how"
"How toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes"
We are still at clickbait territory, but it would now be within HN rules with either of those titles.
If an engine bleed is sucking in fumes, there are much bigger issues, like the law of gravity and being 30k feet above a hard surface.
When I see articles like this written so poorly and based on crap science, I usually look for alternative motive. In this case, I can only speculate... Like what on earth?
So we spent time on our trip getting vicks vapor rub etc to combat the smell
Only for the return flight to be fine
Couldn't they just go down to <10,000ft and depressurise thus allowing atmospheric air in?
Plastic vapors. Bad food. Weird solvents. Toxic af.
The actual 737 Max design problems were caused by Boeing, then false documents were filed with the FAA, so you could argue that beyond the ODM system, Boeing deliberately misled the FAA, subverting the safety certification process.
The challenge with cockpit/cabin air quality is that fundamentally air flows from high pressure to low pressure in both a local as well as a global manner. So each airplane model and perhaps each example would need to be studied for air quality. Although airliners are air-tight pressure vessels, I don't think this is as simple as one might think.
I also have noticed strange smells or emissions in the cabin on some flights, so it appears to be a real issue. What people don't understand is that an airliner is a big machine beyond human scale, so even a minor problem on the scale of an airliner can have a big effect on a row of passengers.
Source: commercially-rated pilot, study aerodynamics.
A first step to investigating how serious of an issue the air quality is during fume events would be to actually measure the air quality during fume events, which congress instructed/mandated the FAA do in 2003, per the article. But to paraphrase, the airlines told the FAA to take a hike, and they obeyed.
If the mfg can repeatedly mislead the regulators and the airlines they are purportedly regulating can tell them to pound sand when they try to investigate, it means the regulators are failing. Yes it also means Boeing is in the wrong and the airlines, but it means the FAA has dropped the ball.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the statement that gas flows along pressure gradients... temperature flows along temperature gradients... why does that standard behavior change anything in the analysis.
And this point: "The committee also said “multiple independent whistleblowers contacted the committee to allege FAA senior management was complicit in determining the 737 MAX training certification level prior to any evaluation.”"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737-max/boeing-ina...
Hah and someone down voted my upper comment without saying why. The FAA has serious issues.