61–70 of 130 posts
To be honest, even just the amount of jetfuel fumes you take in while on board waiting to push off the from the gate bothers the hell out of me. I think that's just because the jetway connector mostly has unconditioned exterior air and with the door open, that makes its way into the cabin, but it can be very nauseating.
Can we please change the click bait headline to reflect what actually happened
Such as? It looks like what I just read, how about you
"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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There just isn't the population density in about 90% of the US.
As compared to France?
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.
Does anyone else have a hard time putting up with flying (pre-pandemic) recently? 20 years ago I used to fly without any issue but since they've made the seats smaller, the food somehow got worse and the TSA pre-boarding eats another hour of time I wouldn't have spent in the airport. I recently started trying to fly business class to actually arrive at my destination like a functioning human being and not anxious/sic…
We travel around 300 miles pretty regularly to visit family. Over the years we’ve tried almost every form of transportation: train, renting a car, flying, dirt cheap buses, very fancy buses. 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 dest…
Is that like the sawed-off schoolbus?
Fume events are the dark belly of the aviation industry. The stuff used to lubricate turbofan engines is incredibly toxic when breathed in, literally orders of magnitude more potent than simple kerosene fumes.
Do you have any idea what that lubricant is?
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...
Sounds like the Dreamliner is the only plane designed to avoid this problem. Oddly the article hardly mentions Airbus, so it isn't clear to what degree their planes suffer this problem. And I wonder why European regulators aren't addressing this issue (which seems implied by the article).
I wouldn't say "designed to avoid this problem", because I'm pretty sure that cabin air quality didn't play much of a role in the engineering trades regarding ECS architecture. 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 sa…
Please to expand the acronyms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We travel around 300 miles pretty regularly to visit family. Over the years we’ve tried almost every form of transportation: train, renting a car, flying, dirt cheap buses, very fancy buses. 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 dest…
What's a fancy bus? 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.
I've heard people say they feel different when they fly on 787s. I wonder if this is why. 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.
Sounds like the Dreamliner is the only plane designed to avoid this problem. Oddly the article hardly mentions Airbus, so it isn't clear to what degree their planes suffer this problem. And I wonder why European regulators aren't addressing this issue (which seems implied by the article).
I wouldn't say "designed to avoid this problem", because I'm pretty sure that cabin air quality didn't play much of a role in the engineering trades regarding ECS architecture. 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 sa…