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

Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it

#11

Post by ElevenLathe »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #9

What 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 som…

This implies a command economy, which we definitely don't have. Certainly people are doing these analyses within firms and agencies. Nobody is doing it on a society-wide basis except maybe in China.

Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it

#13

Post by grepfru_it »

philip1209 wrote: post #5

Curious 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.)

Both. You smell fumes while rear doors are open because the APU is not moving (or there is another plane in close proximity). From the main engines, it should not be noticeable in flight

Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it

#14

Post by error503 »

supernova87a wrote: post #8

Is 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.

Some new designs are 'bleedless' and use electric compressors sourcing from outside air to pressurize the cabin, and these designs shouldn't have significant fume event issues.

However not all recent cleansheet designs use this methodology, for example the A350 (launched 2013, after 787) and Bombardier CSeries (now A220, also 2013) both use the traditional bleed air design, as do the modernized 777X, 737MAX and A320neo families. I think even among modern designs, only the 787 is bleedless.

So we're at least another generation away from going bleedless, and it seems that Airbus and some other Boeing design teams have decided the tradeoffs aren't worth it. Maybe the new regulatory environment will put more pressure in that direction.

Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it

#16

Post by grepfru_it »

waynesonfire wrote: post #7
HPsquared wrote: post #4

I 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.

Notice it became a problem when pilots began getting sick and it could not be hidden anymore. At the same time pilots are the most exposed, as they are airborne the most. You, the passenger, probably don’t fly enough for it to necessitate an immediate response

Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it

#17

Post by [deleted] »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #9

What 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 som…

[deleted]

Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it

#18

Post by noncoml »

microburst wrote: post #12

Desperate measure to advantage Boeing and its B787 (and future aircraft) which are using electrical power to pressurize the cabin (vs bleed air for Airbus).

> Boeing and its B787 (and future aircraft) which are using electrical power to pressurize the cabin

At this point any change from Boring gives me shivers. Like with MCAS I expect it to be half baked and have at least a couple of incidents before FAA steps in and they have to do something about it.

Boeing has completely tarnished its brand name

Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it

#19

Post by SapporoChris »

Air quality monitors definitely do need to be installed on airplanes in order to measure the scope of the problem before panicking over it.

From the parent article: "Over a two-year period, nearly 400 pilots, flight attendants and passengers reported receiving medical attention after these “fume events,” and four dozen pilots were described as impaired to the point of being unable to perform their duties, The Times found."

Compared to: 178 million passengers and 99 million passengers in 2022 and 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/193590/total-air-traffic...

Now I'm not sure where 'Times' got their numbers, and I'm confident the issue is under reported. However as it stands the issue seems really minor. Let's start with air quality monitors on every aircraft and then go from there.

Re: Toxic fumes on airplanes? Airlines may have to do something about it

#20

Post by kube-system »

noncoml wrote: post #18
microburst wrote: post #12

Desperate measure to advantage Boeing and its B787 (and future aircraft) which are using electrical power to pressurize the cabin (vs bleed air for Airbus).

> Boeing and its B787 (and future aircraft) which are using electrical power to pressurize the cabin At this point any change from Boring gives me shivers. Like with MCAS I expect it to be half baked and have at least a couple of incidents before FAA steps in and they have to do something about it. Boeing has completely tarnished its brand name

Public opinion is not a rigorous method of risk analysis. The alcohol being served on the flight should scare you more than the MCAS.
Post reply on HN