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

21–30 of 56 posts

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

#21

Post by Nifty3929 »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #11
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.

Someone is deciding that it's a good idea to pass legislation that would require airlines to remediate this. It would be nice if those people consider how much effort will be required to do so, and whether that is a good trade-off or not compared to the [presumed] health benefits. It would require airlines to indirectly pull labor from the production of things like housing, shoes, tweets, solar panels, etc. Every hour spent improving the safety of the air in planes could be spent doing other things.

I'm not sure if you would call this a command economy or not, but the force of law is a pretty strong command.

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

#22

Post by howenterprisey »

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 is at least the second time you've posted the same thing... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35170026

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

#23

Post by error503 »

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.)

I think the concern is generally air coming from the bleed air system (air that has been redirected from the engine core's compressor stages, prior to combustion) which is used to pressurize the plane. This can come from either the main engines or the APU, but in-flight it's almost always going to be the main engines and the APU will be shut down. During a potential fume event, if the APU is supplying bleed air the packs could generally just be turned off, the APU shut down, or the aircraft deplaned, since it's probably on the ground. Obviously you don't have any of those options in the air.

Exhaust, which is what you're smelling when the doors are open, seems like it'd be much less of a problem. Any fumes will be much more dilute from all the uncontaminated air pushed by the fan through the bypass ducts, and of course diffusion into the environment. Not to mention probably decomposed by the temps in the combustion chamber. The bleed air though comes from the engine core's compressor stages (before combustion), and it's the only source of air for the cabin, so if it's contaminated you won't have any dilution effect.

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

#24

Post by noncoml »

kube-system wrote: post #20
noncoml wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are 346 deaths “public opinion” to you?

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

#25

Post by philip1209 »

error503 wrote: post #23
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.)

I think the concern is generally air coming from the bleed air system (air that has been redirected from the engine core's compressor stages, prior to combustion) which is used to pressurize the plane. This can come from either the main engines or the APU, but in-flight it's almost always going to be the main engines and the APU will be shut down. During a potential fume event, if the APU is supplying bleed air the p…

Great answer, thank you!

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

#26

Post by error503 »

Invictus0 wrote: post #15

Since 2003, not a single person has brought an air monitor on board?

I believe the amount of organophosphates has been studied on 'normal' flights, but considering these events are estimated to be 1/5000-1/50000 flights, you need a lot more than one person to capture a statistically significant sample. But considering the number of flights per day, that's a few events per day and is probably worth investigating.

There have been some post-facto blood tests trying to find if crew who noticed these fumes had detectable byproducts in their blood, which mostly found nothing, but this doesn't say much about whether the environment in the aircraft is safe when these events occur, especially since significant and acute harm seems relatively rare among these incidents.

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

#27

Post by mattgreenrocks »

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…

Pretty gross take, given this section of the article:

> Scientists have long warned of potential dangers from breathing heated jet engine oil, which contains tricresyl phosphate, or TCP, a highly toxic chemical that can damage the nervous system. TCP can have immediate effects such as headaches and dizziness, as well as longer-term effects such as tremors and memory problems, experts say. Some pilots and flight attendants have experienced serious health problems, including brain damage, after fume events, The Times found.

> 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.

Long term health effects are a big problem.

It's just not as sexy of a problem as the ones you mentioned. Perhaps this is more a comment on needing more people working towards the great mythical idea of capital-P Progress?

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

#28

Post by cramjabsyn »

kube-system wrote: post #20
noncoml wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I’m quite certain the redundancies in your average kube system are more robust than those on the MCAS. single sensor for starters

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

#29

Post by kube-system »

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.

We really don't address air pollution anywhere if the levels are low enough that there aren't any severe acute effects. Aviation actually has exemptions that allow them to pollute more in the name of mechanical reliability, e.g. 100LL

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

#30

Post by nawgz »

grepfru_it wrote: post #16
waynesonfire wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I feel like you are implying conspiracy-like behavior, instead of recognizing the absurd rarity of the event:

> "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."

This same two year period flew about 280 million "passengers", obviously not unique, but 400 / 280 000 000 ~= 1 in 15000

I don't think that this is about being covered up so much as obfuscated. That's a low-frequency event.

Post reply on HN