Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it
#2Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it
#3New warning sign, "Please do not fart on the air censors" inbound in 3... 2...
Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it
#4I don't understand how modern airliners, with all their advanced high-tech complicated design, operating in such a tightly controlled regulatory environment, can still be having trouble with this. Crazy.
Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it
#5Curious whether this is typically APU or primary engine-related. (I find that the APU fumes are noticeable when the rear doors are open during loading.)
Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it
#6I don't understand how modern airliners, with all their advanced high-tech complicated design, operating in such a tightly controlled regulatory environment, can still be having trouble with this. Crazy.
Deregulation, regulatory capture, consolidation, etc.
Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it
#7I don't understand how modern airliners, with all their advanced high-tech complicated design, operating in such a tightly controlled regulatory environment, can still be having trouble with this. Crazy.
The air u breathe isn't a line item on the income statement.
Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it
#8Is this not more applicable to the (yes of course, many) 1-previous generation of bleed-air based planes where the AC packs are linked to the jet exhaust?
I thought that 787 etc. now use purely electrical power that are now (and for the future generation of planes) a no-bleed-air-anymore system.
Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it
#9What people don't take into account is that human effort is both limited and fungible. Even if we restrict ourselves to only activities that improve health and/or environment, any effort spent on this could have been spent on something else. Is this the BEST way to spend that effort? I don't know, maybe it is. But would it be better spent on recycling, solar power, species protection, cancer research, etc?
I hope someone is trying to do some level of analysis of this so that we don't spend a lot of effort on a tiny problem when there might be larger problems we could be going after.
Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it
#10Is this not more applicable to the (yes of course, many) 1-previous generation of bleed-air based planes where the AC packs are linked to the jet exhaust? I thought that 787 etc. now use purely electrical power that are now (and for the future generation of planes) a no-bleed-air-anymore system.
The newer generation of planes are using pumps instead of bleed air and add humidity.
I sort of recall reading something that not having metal bodies helped with the increased pressure (787 is like 6000ft pressure altitude instead of 8000ft) and reducing corrosion?