Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

#81

Post by vmception »

sjg007 wrote: post #74
vmception wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like they are intentionally asking for regulation, saying they have absolutely no consensus mechanism to do what is necessary until Congress forces them to

They are already regulated but apparently this is most likely a major and intentional oversight. Why? My best guess as to why you can't have a separate air intake from bleed air is that you need the pressurization and the heat. And the extra weight of a different system is cost prohibitive and maybe less reliable. I would hope you could have a primary system that was all electric and taken from a safer bleed or entir…

I’m referring to the regulations requiring them to detect bad air with a sensor, not an actual solution. Just more data for now, they seem to be asking for that.

Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

#82

Post by [deleted] »

andy_ppp wrote: post #79
ashtonkem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is indeed ironic, although in my defense all of my flights are going to be on 737/A320 sized aircraft. I can't remember the last time I flew on a wide bodied aircraft, and I'm not likely to do it again soon. 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…

Airbus are European, of course they have better safety standards and working culture than American companies ;-)

[deleted]

Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

#83

Post by autarch »

gen220 wrote: post #39
vecinu wrote: post #19

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 this in the US? I've taken fancy buses like you describe in Taiwan, but I didn't know it was a thing in the US.

Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

#84

Post by octoberfranklin »

TylerE wrote: post #47
echelon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US needs a more substantial train system. Sleeper cars are refreshing and train travel is extremely enjoyable.

There just isn't the population density in about 90% of the US.

This is absurd.

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.

Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

#85

Post by bonestamp2 »

tootie wrote: post #57
vecinu wrote: post #19

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…

In the two years pre pandemic I had to do a ton of business travel. I could expense whatever I needed, fly biz class for international. It still started to wear on me. I think it's just getting older. It's more emotional effort to be away from home. I started feeling some anxiety just about being trapped in a flying tube and not being able to leave. Also because seats are narrower and I'm wider.

For a couple years I was taking 4 flights/week. I absolutely hate flying now and the conclusion I came to was that travel has a lot of anxieties, and air travel in particular involves even more. There are so many variables out of your control that have to go your way to be successful.

Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

#86

Post by octoberfranklin »

TylerE wrote: post #64
ashtonkem wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As compared to France?

France is 1/3rd higher, and it's centered in relatively fewer big cities - Paris alone is one quarter of the total population of France - no area in the US comes close. 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.

You don't think there are France-sized regions in the US that have greater-than-French density? Why don't those regions have these trains if density is the only problem?

Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

#87

Post by bonestamp2 »

rsync wrote: post #71
ta988 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the battery of the detector is not too big, there should be no problem. I did bring an oscilloscope (with probes and all) and lot of other electronics with no issues. The only piece of electronics TSA checked longly was a half broken laptop with no battery. This really intrigued them (so it got re xrayed and the full strip test plus hands and clothes).

I once brought a sun netra 4U server, unboxed, onto the plane and somehow got it up in the overhead. Full length 4U... weighed about 70 lbs. San Jose to dc ... pre 911 ...

That's Legendary.

Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

#88

Post by ImprovedSilence »

ashtonkem wrote: post #48
haecceity wrote: post #25

> An internal Boeing memo described it as a “risk” to give air sensors to even one airline, according to a deposition of a Boeing executive. > “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. > Boei…

At every turn, Boeing is making it very hard to not commit to flying AirBus.

Several examples of fume events in the article are from Airbus planes as well, especially Jet Blue ones. I suspect because Boeing is closer to home, the journalists have more insider insight as to the internal decisions to not do anything at Boeing, thus putting them in an even more negative light. I would guess Airbus is just as bad. The actual airlines seem to be neglegent as well, fighting to not pay workers comp.

Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

#89

Post by TylerE »

octoberfranklin wrote: post #84
TylerE wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There just isn't the population density in about 90% of the US.

This is absurd. 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.

Except even by billet train a trip across the country takes a minimum of 15 hours, instead of a 5 hour flight - and that’s assuming no stops. There is a distance where trains can potentially make sense but it’s NOT across the country.

Re: Toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

#90

Post by TylerE »

octoberfranklin wrote: post #86
TylerE wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France is 1/3rd higher, and it's centered in relatively fewer big cities - Paris alone is one quarter of the total population of France - no area in the US comes close. 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.

You don't think there are France-sized regions in the US that have greater-than-French density? Why don't those regions have these trains if density is the only problem?

They do. They’re the North East corridor (DC to Boston) and Southern California. The only two areas where Amtrak has ever turned a profit.
Post reply on HN