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

31–40 of 56 posts

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

#31

Post by ElevenLathe »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #21
ElevenLathe wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hou…

Ah well the answer is definitely no. Nobody in government or even the airline industry is considering 4th or 5th order effects like this, and likely never will (again, unless we decide to have a planned economy).

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

#32

Post by HPsquared »

nawgz wrote: post #30
grepfru_it wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 milli…

Low-level exposures will surely be MUCH more frequent than that.

Harm caused by occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals is usually a chronic, cumulative, delayed onset type of thing.

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

#33

Post by kube-system »

noncoml wrote: post #24
kube-system wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That is a more objective measure than a "tarnished brand name".

However, if we're comparing, issues with air quality within planes has contributed to accidents as well.

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

#34

Post by dahdum »

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.

> The alcohol being served on the flight should scare you more than the MCAS.

The coffee/water/ice scare me more than either of those. A former FA family member told me longer term employees wouldn’t dare touch the stuff.

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

#35

Post by sml156 »

nawgz wrote: post #30
grepfru_it wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 milli…

If you told me that if I leave my house at 10:00 PM to-nite and I had a probability 1/15000 chance of dying or become incapacitated I would more than likely wait five or ten mins before leaving.

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

#36

Post by kube-system »

cramjabsyn wrote: post #28
kube-system wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not anymore. All MAX8s have two AoA sensors and MCAS software no longer activates in a disagree scenario.

If a hundred people died every time a kubernetes cluster served a 503, the human race would be extinct.

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

#37

Post by Supermancho »

howenterprisey wrote: post #22
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

I think it's a solid sentiment that can be applied to many practices that, are going to be and have been, regulated.

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

#38

Post by gonehome »

dahdum wrote: post #34
kube-system wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The alcohol being served on the flight should scare you more than the MCAS. The coffee/water/ice scare me more than either of those. A former FA family member told me longer term employees wouldn’t dare touch the stuff.

Why?

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

#39

Post by Supermancho »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #21
ElevenLathe wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hou…

I still remember the "vapor recovery" mechanisms implemented decades ago, in California, that now compete against newer car's internal recovery systems. These regulations often outlive their usefulness.

Howabout recognizing there is inherent risk in flying, and adding the pollution as a broadcast/informed risk seems like an eco-friendly way to reduce air travel (and the pollution from that travel).

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

#40

Post by kube-system »

gonehome wrote: post #38
dahdum wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alcohol being served on the flight should scare you more than the MCAS. The coffee/water/ice scare me more than either of those. A former FA family member told me longer term employees wouldn’t dare touch the stuff.

Why?

Potable water tanks are built into the plane, and they're filled from a truck at the gate. Those tanks are cleaned... occasionally. Oh, and the water is usually pumped out via the same bleed air this article is about.

Although this article says that "most airlines" serve bottled water for this reason:

https://insights.globalspec.com/article/16509/airplane-water...

Although I have seen it claimed elsewhere that often the coffee and tea are made with water from the tap and not bottled. I suspect it may vary by airline.

Post reply on HN