51–56 of 56 posts
Maybe overly simplistic, but what would stop the air inlet being positioned well forward of the engines. Perhaps even on the nose of the aircraft.
Maybe overly simplistic, but what would stop the air inlet being positioned well forward of the engines. Perhaps even on the nose of the aircraft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But actually, I typo'd quite badly: the ratio is 1 in 700000, not 1 in 15000 (how did I make that mistake?)
Anyways, I hope it's clear that a 1 in 700000 event is hard to detect.
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
They did have some teething issues with the batteries going on fire but that seems sorted. (fire thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Boeing_787_Dreamliner_gro...)