That is some nasty stuff. Can someone who understands lubricants explain the need for it in lubricating oil? Is it to keep mold from growing in the oil, or does it have essential anti-wear properties?
An important property is that when localized hot-spots appear on metal surfaces due to friction, the heat causes a chemical reaction that bonds the molecule to the metal preventing further wear. Organophosphates like ToCP do this at higher temperatures than some less toxic compounds, presumably important in jet engines. So they're not just mixing in random poisons for no reason.
Is anyone else not surprised to see this from Spirit? They are absolutely the worst carrier I've flown with in the states. Nothing is on time, everything seems dirty, and nobody that works there seems to care about anything.
I don't know if you are joking or not, but the point you are making is very legitimate. Over the past few years, there has been reason to be unusually concerned with Allegiant’s maintenance practices.
> I suspect this problem is not just Spirit but an issue across all airlines
I'm almost willing to bet the better carriers (in my mind Delta, United, American, Southwest, <maybe missing something>) wouldn't let an incident this big go unreported. (Seems like the issue itself is related to plane, and not carrier).
This article is poorly worded and does a poor job of forwarding their argument. The overall tone of the article is amateurish and feels more like an article you might find arguing against vaccinations.
The claims presented in the article are extremely serious-if what they're claiming is true, the FAA, major airlines, and pilots unions have all been sitting on 'fume events', or actively suppressing knowledge of them.
It's well known that such fume events happen from time to time. What's not so well-known is exactly how toxic they are and what the health consequences are for passengers, and especially, crew.
The Aviation Herald is recognized as accepted industry service for safety relevant occurrences. This is the closest you get to first-hand, factual and objective journalism. It does not intend to bring any argument forward (like opinion-making "journalism"), but instead inform people, primary aviators themselves. Thats also the reason for the technical wording.
I also thought the article's trustworthiness based on how it was written and presented was difficult to ascertain. I had never heard of that publication.
It says they filed a request under the "Freedom of Information Act on Mar 6th 2018 including requesting the ATC recordings pertinent to the arrival of that particular flight NK-708 on Jul 17th 2015 into Boston as well as any filings made about the occurrence, on Mar 12th 2018 we received the reply"
6 days, two of which are weekends, to send and receive a reply? Even if they had a proxy physically in D.C. I find that implausible speed for the FAA. Yet Aviation Herald is based in Austria so where was the request send from, and where was the answer received, and can we see both request and reply? Why not include them in the article? FOIA requests and their answers are very specific, we should be able to read those documents not just have fairly confusing and inexact summaries of what they contain.
http://avherald.com/h?impressum=&opt=0
"Neither NASA, FAA nor NTSB databases have the event listed."
Unremarkable if neither pilot immediately filed an incident report with the NTSB as required by regulation. What is remarkable is that they didn't file the required incident report. But even to cover their asses, they didn't file an anonymous ASRS report? That's just fucked up. The ASRS reporting system is handled by NASA, so I assume that's what Aviation Herald is referring to by reference to NASA: no ASRS reports by the pilots. That's weird.
I start losing consciousness, and my fellow pilot totally loses consciousness, we both need to don oxygen masks, and neither of us can remember landing the plane - as a pilot, the very idea that anyone on the ground prevents me from filing an NTSB report about this? Beyond ridiculous. Ridiculous meaning, worthy of ridicule (if not a moral imperative).
Being intimidated into violating regulations is a completely foreign concept to me. I sooner expect to be assaulted, and to commit assault in retaliation, on my way to the phone to call the NTSB to make the required report! Call the police while you pinch off your bleeding nose, and I go call the NTSB. I have zero patience for this kind of chickenshit nonsense. And any pilot who participates in it, is actually this easily intimidated after having just escaped death, who won't even bother to make an anonymous ASRS report? Appalling. Disgusting. Bizarre. I have no explanation for it.
And then you'd want to call a union rep, or a trade rep, and get or hire an aviation attorney within that same week. They would double check that the NTSB had the incident report and get a copy. They'd make sure to get all medical records from every person and facility you've seen for these symptoms. This is very serious business.
Which means no matter what you believe about the report, you have to take the reporting seriously: it is either a serious libel, that Spirit airlines violates regulations and by intimidating pilots to also violate them is probably committing crimes; or it's an incredible misfeasance, shut down the airline. If true, there's no telling what sort of records the airline has corrupted if they're willing to do what is claimed in the article. Shut down the airline. Full audit of all record keeping, maintenance records, one on one interviews with crew, company officers. This is NTSB, FBI, and maybe even FTC. How exposed to this liability are the board of directors?
Hopefully, future aircraft designs will follow the Boeing 787 in eliminating the bleed air system, which is the likely culprit in these kind of cabin air contamination events.
In the past few years I've flown a bunch on the AA A321T configuration, brand new planes. I was shocked at just how much better the 787 is in almost all regards in terms of the environmental quality of being on the plane. From the air, to the noise.. everything was noticeably better. When the A321T lands, the noise created was peaking ridiculous dB and hurting my ears. I was expecting something similar on the 787 and chalked it up to "lighter/thinner materials, more sound gets through" and it was shockingly almost silent by comparison.
The A320neo (and 737 MAX) are significantly quieter than the previous generations, thanks to their new super-high-bypass geared turbofan and LEAP engines.
American has 100 A321neo on order, but they haven't started being delivered yet.
Sorry, but those are just two entirely different planes with very different requirement sets. One is a wide body the other is a narrow body, for starters. A350 vs 787 is a slightly better, if still not perfect, comparison
A better way to look at it is that they are two different generations of planes. I fly/have flown a lot in a prior role.
Excepting the 747, which let you get so far away from the engines that it was often irrelevant, newer planes create significantly improved passenger experiences (ignoring seat pitch).
The A350 (2013 First Flight) , A380 (2005FF), and B787 (2009FF) are significant cabin environmental quality improvements over the A330(1992FF), A340(1991FF), B777(1994FF). They aren't just using different materials that are using IMMENSELY different technology and computing power in the design process. That lets the engineers pay attention to details they couldn't before.
For Comparison (look at the front and rear wings especially:
1994(B777era) F1-straight lines, single curves, few compound surfaces [0]
2005(B787era) F1-lots of curves, compound curse galore, intentionally designed interactions of surfaces [1]
Thats the different in design capacity driven by computing tools and technology.
2008 or 2017-2018 would be more dramatic examples of recent Formula 1 aero taken to extremes - 2009 was the most aerodynamically restricted year in recent regulations.
I know but I was going for what lined up to make my point :)
If you look at details, the progression from 94 to 2008 is HUGE but its very much in details. That was the point more so than figuring out which McLaren had the most appendages.
> In the past few years I've flown a bunch on the AA A321T configuration, brand new planes. I was shocked at just how much better the 787 is in almost all regards in terms of the environmental quality of being on the plane.
Brand new planes of a design that first flew 25 years ago, of a family of aircraft that first flew 31 years ago, compared with aircraft of a design that first flew 9 years ago. It's hardly surprising that a much more modern clean-sheet design is better; the A321neo would be a more interesting comparison, as that should be much quieter than the A321ceo, but that's still not a clean-sheet design.
I booked a flight with them once, everything about the experience was terrible. Then they canceled the flight and told me I was free to rebook, instead of refunding me. They even gave me a deadline after which my money was just gone. Instead I decided I will just avoid them forever. It seems like an impressively terrible company.
That's absolutely terrifying. Seems to me like a systemic problem if the pilots didn't felt like they couldn't report their symptoms/or felt forced to work even though such a serious event happened the previous day.
IMO, there's nothing wrong with doing heavy maintenance checks in low-labor-cost countries, provided they are done to FAA standards (which I have no reason to believe they aren't).
People want their $189 round trip tickets. To give it to them, there is little room for operational fat.
That said, there's a difference in airlines in regards to how they handle maintenance and irregular operations. A major legacy airline will have more flexibility, more spare aircraft, than a budget operator like Spirit. If a Spirit airplane unexpectedly comes off the line, Spirit operations are substantially disrupted. If a Delta jet comes off the line, Delta can reposition a replacement aircraft far more easily to resume (or not even interrupt) operations. This is likely to have an effect on the openness the airline operations groups have to maintenance squawk reports by pilots.
> there's nothing wrong with doing heavy maintenance checks in low-labor-cost countries, provided they are done to FAA standards (which I have no reason to believe they aren't).
Including the article that was in my previous comment, there's good to reason to believe that it isn't done to FAA standards. Of course I could be wrong and things may change in the foreseeable future.
The Vanity Fair article made the case it wasn’t being done by FAA licensed mechanics; it didn’t make the case that it wasn’t done to FAA standards. It just gave a lot of innuendo to that effect. One doesn’t need to read or speak English to take out or put in 39 rows of seats that are all the same...
I don’t believe that maintenance signed off on a US N-registration aircraft by an FAA-licensed mechanic outside the US is any more likely to be substandard than that done inside the US. There’s just too much at stake for the company and inspector and the safety record of N-reg airliners is outstanding.
There is a LOT to worry about Central and South American and African/Asian airlines. The second two articles focus there, and there is genuine, statistically significant reduction in safety there.
The Vanity Fair article made a big deal about FAA licensed vs not, but I don’t see that as nearly as big a deal. I (no FAA mechanic credentials) can do any amount of work on an N-reg airplane provided I’m under the effective supervision of an FAA licensed mechanic. I see no reason to think that isn’t safe for me and no reason to think it isn’t safe for the teams taking out and reinstalling interiors on heavies.
> The Vanity Fair article made the case it wasn’t being done by FAA licensed mechanics; it didn’t make the case that it wasn’t done to FAA standards.
Actually it did. It points out that it's near impossible for the FAA to make inspections in these countries to ensure that the work meets its standards. For example, unlike here - it's impossible for them to conduct surprise inspections.
Regardless, there IS reasonable doubt. There is a high chance that work done in developing nations does not meet FAA standards.
I'm certain it's industry-wide. Maybe not on a problem on the mainlines themselves with their strong unions, but all their regional connections are on smaller, confusingly-branded partners ("United Express", "Delta Connection", "American Eagle") and these run on razor thin margins and are where pilots get underpaid and overworked.
This is a blatant violation of 49 CFR 830.5(a)(2). It's an explicitly listed incident that requires immediate reporting by the pilot. I can't find a definition for immediate, but as a pilot I consider it to mean today, not tomorrow. If it were a clearance, immediate means right now, not even one minute from now and if I can't do it right now, I would right now reply "unable: reason(s)"
And a big part of why I expect this is because ATC collects a shittonne (an SI unit) of data per day, and I don't expect they have a very long retention for that data. The accident and incident reporting requirements are meant to make sure that data is preserved. I have zero expectation of data retention for flight plans, audio tapes, radar tape, beyond 30 days. I would not be suprised if it were 7 days.
Neither pilot reported this incident? And the surviving pilot admits he did not file a required incident report but he's done a recorded public presentation on an incident that has a mandatory incident reporting requirement? And his excuse is intimidation by his employer, which is probably a crime? What?
I don't have time to dig through all of this, so maybe I've missed something, but something does not pass the smell test.
Perhaps the problem is self reporting? If the captain is still mentally affected, he might not remember to follow through with that? Or he might not have understood that he was even incapacitated at that point.
The AvHerald & Simon Hradecky is well respected in the aviation community for factually reporting incidents and accidents in a balanced and non-dramatized manner.
He has posted numerous times regarding fume events, which occur somewhat frequently on the A320 series airliners, and less frequently on other types.
Ah. The so-called polonium episode, as I like to refer to it.
Six reasons you can't take the Litvinenko report seriously | The Guardian
>There is also the question of Litvinenko’s dramatic deathbed statement implicating Putin that drew so much international attention. Early media reports suggest the statement was composed by Litvinenko himself and dictated to his associate, Alexander Goldfarb. The inquiry report describes Goldfarb as the co-author of the book Death of a Dissident with Marina Litvinenko. It does not mention that he was a close ally of Berezovsky’s.
>Later media reports quote Goldfarb as saying that he wrote the statement himself and checked it with Litvinenko. Another account suggests the statement was drafted by the family lawyer, George Menzies, and discussed with the PR firm Bell Pottinger, acting for Berezovsky.
>Which is correct? And even more importantly, the statement does not explain how Litvinenko could possibly have known of the Russian president’s culpability, nor does it offer evidence to back up the allegation.
Britain WANTED Alexander Litvinenko dead NOT the Kremlin says murdered former KBG agent's brother | Mirror
>"My father and I are sure that the Russian authorities are not involved. It's all a set-up to put pressure on the Russian government."
>"Why else would the court be called to hold this inquiry only after 10 years?'
>"The West appear to be collaborating with Russia in Syria but it's not real-there's still sanctions."
>He claimed that British authorities had not collaborated with Russian investigators on his brother's case and cast doubt on whether polonium was really the murder weapon saying he believes it could have been planted to frame the Russians.
>He said: "I believe he could have been killed by another poison maybe thallium, which killed him slowly and the polonium was planted afterwar
This really opens my eyes. My wife flies frequently, usually on AA but sometimes on others. For years, really for as long as I remember she would spend the first day or so fighting stomach problems, headache, etc. and after the return flight she would inevitably have similar symptoms that she always attributed to food eaten while on the road.
I finally just warned her to avoid the shrimp or seafood since we rarely eat it when at home but it seemed like every time she traveled she ended up at a restaurant and had some kind of sea food.
It didn't help because just last week she returned home, again with headache, nausea, sinus problems, etc. that kept her sidelined for part of the weekend.
I am going to look into test strips to detect these substances that she could carry on the plane with her to see whether any correlates.
Her assignments see her needing to fly as it is too far to drive in a realistic time frame to most of the meetings but maybe a career change might solve this if it is the cause of her post-flight issues.
Anyone else have similar observations or observations that would indicate this is likely not an issue? I'm open for any discussions.
Those symptoms strike me as altitude sickness-esque -- they're what a friend of mine experienced when we went to Bogota. A quick google seems to indicate that altitude sickness from flying is a thing for some people.
It wouldn't shock me. Cabin pressurization depends on the plane--maybe the airline(?)--but my understanding is that it's to about 6K to 8K feet. In other words, higher than Denver but lower than Quito or many US West ski areas. Serious altitude sickness does happen in Colorado. I've heard of it happening in Denver itself but it's at least rare. I'm not sure it's a likely explanation but it's at least possible.
> "Although aircraft cabins are pressurized, cabin air pressure at cruising altitude is lower than air pressure at sea level. At typical cruising altitudes in the range 11 000–12 200 m (36 000–40 000 feet), air pressure in the cabin is equivalent to the outside air pressure at 1800–2400 m (6000–8000 feet) above sea level. As a consequence, less oxygen is taken up by the blood (hypoxia) and gases within the body expand. The effects of reduced cabin air pressure are usually well tolerated by healthy passengers."
While the NY Times blog link earlier in this chain of comments had a recommendation about reducing cabin air pressure to 6,000 ft, I question how useful that is, since for those susceptible to altitude sickness, 6,000 feet is going to be enough to trigger symptoms for many.
These next two articles are not devoted to airline travel per se, but about high altitude related sickness.
From "Preparing for Safe Travel to High Altitude", by Paul Anderson, M.D.
> "High Altitude Illnesses (HAI) include Acute Mountain Sickness (AMS), High-Altitude Pulmonary Edema (HAPE), and High-Altitude Cerebral Edema (HACE). The symptoms of AMS are typically felt by most people when they arrive at a new altitude, but the symptoms are usually self limiting (e.g. 1st 3-5 days at high altitude). The exact mechanisms of AMS remain unclear, however symptoms tend to be the most prevalent 1-2 days after arrival at elevation. The most common symptoms include a headache, gastrointestinal upset, feelings of fatigue, dizziness, and sleep disruption. ..."
From "Altitude-Related Illnesses", Mayo Clinic Preceedings:
> "... An estimated 30 million people are at risk for altitude related illnesses in the western United States annually. Many cases are unrecognized by the victims and by their physicians who may attribute symptoms to viral illness, “hangover,” or fatigue. In addition, commercial airline travel exposes passengers to a cabin pressure equivalent of 2,500 m and allows them to travel rapidly to high altitude destinations such as Aspen or Steamboat Springs, Colorado, where they may be exposed to even greater altitudes.
... The rate of ascent and a prior history of altitude illness are the major determinants of a person's susceptibility to altitude illness. Aerobic fitness does not correlate with the likelihood of acquiring AMS."
(See especially the symptoms of Acute Mountain Sickness in this article.)
As far as FAA is concerned, this death will not count as related to that fume situation. For something to be an "accident", it must meet a few criteria, one of them is causing a death or serious injury. A fatal injury related to an accident is defined in 8020.11C as
> Fatal Injury - any injury which results
> in death within 30-days of the accident.
It will not even count as a "serious injury"
> Serious Injury - any injury which: (1)
> requires hospitalization for more than 48
> hours, commencing within 7-days from the
> date an injury was received; (2) results
> in a fracture of any bone (except simple
> fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3)
> causes severe hemorrhages, or nerve,
> muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves
> any internal organ; or (5) involves
> second- or third-degree burns, or any
> burns affecting more than 5-percent of
> the body surface.
Wouldn't "(4) involves any internal organ" apply? As I understood it the pilots internal organs (lung, brain, etc) were severely injured by the toxic fumes.
Nobody commenting about bleed air sensors? I think that bleed air sensors are the obvious solution here, expensive and difficult to add but with the claimed almost 2000 fume incidents per day it seems like they are fairly low-hanging fruit.
Anyone with more experience know about this? e.x. how expensive they would be to add?
"While the flight crew was considering what to do next, the assistant chief pilot of the airline boarded the aircraft and told the crew off, that they didn't know what they were doing and they were wrong in pushing for further maintenance action."
So, could this kind of thing have caused the MH370 disappearance?
It's a stretch, but perhaps similar cockpit confusion caused by oxygen deprivation or ToCP poisoning (from a gas leak) could have been a reason to change direction (before passing out)?
Theoretically I could see how, but my impression was that there wasn't a single flight path change but multiple changes and possibly even active effort to avoid radar [1]. That seems more cognitively engaged than the routinous behavior described in the article.
This looks like a serious issue that the faa should investigate. Since they look at so many problems and frequently issue repair orders, recalls, etc by certain dates, why would they treat this particular issue so differently?
For those like me who are not familiar with aviation topics, "bleed air" is air taken from the compressor stage of the engines and used to pressurize the cabin. Not all aircraft use this system and some have an option to use this or some other system to pressurize cabin air.
The 787 is the only jet-powered passenger aircraft I'm aware of that doesn't use a bleed air system. Any pressurized-cabin turboprop aircraft uses bleed air, and so does the M1 Abrams tank. Bleed air is not just used for cabin pressurization, it's also used for anti-icing systems, cabin temperature control (the high-pressure air is the working fluid, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_cycle_machine), and nitrogen generation systems for fuel tank inerting.
(I worked on the environmental control system for the Gulfstream G650 many years ago)
Any mitigation to this as passengers? Given the security environment these days I'd hate to be they guy that starts yelling "I smell dirty socks - drop the oxygen masks!" when it was actually dirty socks. Given the odds / number of events does a rational person bring a basic respirator for themselves and their family?
Reading the letter, reading between the lines, it seems like an airline would have to report this to NTSB/FAA if a passenger requests medical assistance upon landing. We're always in a hurry when flying which probably contributes to under-reporting.
It also feels like the primary risk here is that the pilots will pass out and crash the plane, not main cabin toxicity. The pilot in his letter states clearly that had he not put on his mask when he felt the onset of tunnel vision "we would've killed every person on that aircraft". By that point the captain was already slumped over, eyes half open in a dead stare. Meanwhile 200+ people are in the back oblivious.
But wouldn't the air bleed of ToPC effect the passengers? And if so, wouldn't that mean Spirit could be on the hook for passengers who suffered as a result?
I don't know anything about aerospace HVAC, but wouldn't the larger cabin volume necessitate a larger exchange of usable air, and therefore bring in just as much ToPC as in the cockpit? I.e., isn't the volume adjusted for regardless?
1. Has anyone done investigative work on the passengers of this flight and their subsequent health status? How many visited a doctor with symptoms similar to the crew? Were there any fatalities among the passengers in the weeks following the flight?
2. How many years away would you estimate the the commercial aviation industry is from avoiding this type of toxic air problem? Are newer aircraft still susceptible to air quality issues like this? Does a radically new approach such as solar powered flight reduce these issues?
69 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 135 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricresyl_phosphate,
which is used as "an additive in turbine engine oil".
>It is used as an antiwear and extreme pressure additive in lubricants and hydraulic fluids.[2][3]
An important property is that when localized hot-spots appear on metal surfaces due to friction, the heat causes a chemical reaction that bonds the molecule to the metal preventing further wear. Organophosphates like ToCP do this at higher temperatures than some less toxic compounds, presumably important in jet engines. So they're not just mixing in random poisons for no reason.
(see here: https://www.travelpulse.com/news/impacting-travel/is-allegia...)
I'm almost willing to bet the better carriers (in my mind Delta, United, American, Southwest, <maybe missing something>) wouldn't let an incident this big go unreported. (Seems like the issue itself is related to plane, and not carrier).
> Spirit is a fairly mediocre budget airline,
I think this is understating how bad Spirit is.
The claims presented in the article are extremely serious-if what they're claiming is true, the FAA, major airlines, and pilots unions have all been sitting on 'fume events', or actively suppressing knowledge of them.
http://fortune.com/2017/08/09/dangerous-cabin-fumes-planes/
Your comment is the epitome of ignorance on HN.
It says they filed a request under the "Freedom of Information Act on Mar 6th 2018 including requesting the ATC recordings pertinent to the arrival of that particular flight NK-708 on Jul 17th 2015 into Boston as well as any filings made about the occurrence, on Mar 12th 2018 we received the reply"
6 days, two of which are weekends, to send and receive a reply? Even if they had a proxy physically in D.C. I find that implausible speed for the FAA. Yet Aviation Herald is based in Austria so where was the request send from, and where was the answer received, and can we see both request and reply? Why not include them in the article? FOIA requests and their answers are very specific, we should be able to read those documents not just have fairly confusing and inexact summaries of what they contain. http://avherald.com/h?impressum=&opt=0
"Neither NASA, FAA nor NTSB databases have the event listed."
Unremarkable if neither pilot immediately filed an incident report with the NTSB as required by regulation. What is remarkable is that they didn't file the required incident report. But even to cover their asses, they didn't file an anonymous ASRS report? That's just fucked up. The ASRS reporting system is handled by NASA, so I assume that's what Aviation Herald is referring to by reference to NASA: no ASRS reports by the pilots. That's weird.
I start losing consciousness, and my fellow pilot totally loses consciousness, we both need to don oxygen masks, and neither of us can remember landing the plane - as a pilot, the very idea that anyone on the ground prevents me from filing an NTSB report about this? Beyond ridiculous. Ridiculous meaning, worthy of ridicule (if not a moral imperative).
Being intimidated into violating regulations is a completely foreign concept to me. I sooner expect to be assaulted, and to commit assault in retaliation, on my way to the phone to call the NTSB to make the required report! Call the police while you pinch off your bleeding nose, and I go call the NTSB. I have zero patience for this kind of chickenshit nonsense. And any pilot who participates in it, is actually this easily intimidated after having just escaped death, who won't even bother to make an anonymous ASRS report? Appalling. Disgusting. Bizarre. I have no explanation for it.
And then you'd want to call a union rep, or a trade rep, and get or hire an aviation attorney within that same week. They would double check that the NTSB had the incident report and get a copy. They'd make sure to get all medical records from every person and facility you've seen for these symptoms. This is very serious business.
Which means no matter what you believe about the report, you have to take the reporting seriously: it is either a serious libel, that Spirit airlines violates regulations and by intimidating pilots to also violate them is probably committing crimes; or it's an incredible misfeasance, shut down the airline. If true, there's no telling what sort of records the airline has corrupted if they're willing to do what is claimed in the article. Shut down the airline. Full audit of all record keeping, maintenance records, one on one interviews with crew, company officers. This is NTSB, FBI, and maybe even FTC. How exposed to this liability are the board of directors?
American has 100 A321neo on order, but they haven't started being delivered yet.
Excepting the 747, which let you get so far away from the engines that it was often irrelevant, newer planes create significantly improved passenger experiences (ignoring seat pitch).
The A350 (2013 First Flight) , A380 (2005FF), and B787 (2009FF) are significant cabin environmental quality improvements over the A330(1992FF), A340(1991FF), B777(1994FF). They aren't just using different materials that are using IMMENSELY different technology and computing power in the design process. That lets the engineers pay attention to details they couldn't before.
For Comparison (look at the front and rear wings especially:
1994(B777era) F1-straight lines, single curves, few compound surfaces [0]
2005(B787era) F1-lots of curves, compound curse galore, intentionally designed interactions of surfaces [1]
Thats the different in design capacity driven by computing tools and technology.
[0] http://www.spannerhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Ferrar...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_FIA_Formula_One_World_Cha...
If you look at details, the progression from 94 to 2008 is HUGE but its very much in details. That was the point more so than figuring out which McLaren had the most appendages.
Brand new planes of a design that first flew 25 years ago, of a family of aircraft that first flew 31 years ago, compared with aircraft of a design that first flew 9 years ago. It's hardly surprising that a much more modern clean-sheet design is better; the A321neo would be a more interesting comparison, as that should be much quieter than the A321ceo, but that's still not a clean-sheet design.
People want their $189 round trip tickets. To give it to them, there is little room for operational fat.
That said, there's a difference in airlines in regards to how they handle maintenance and irregular operations. A major legacy airline will have more flexibility, more spare aircraft, than a budget operator like Spirit. If a Spirit airplane unexpectedly comes off the line, Spirit operations are substantially disrupted. If a Delta jet comes off the line, Delta can reposition a replacement aircraft far more easily to resume (or not even interrupt) operations. This is likely to have an effect on the openness the airline operations groups have to maintenance squawk reports by pilots.
Including the article that was in my previous comment, there's good to reason to believe that it isn't done to FAA standards. Of course I could be wrong and things may change in the foreseeable future.
https://psmag.com/economics/are-some-airlines-just-too-dange...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901132235.h...
I don’t believe that maintenance signed off on a US N-registration aircraft by an FAA-licensed mechanic outside the US is any more likely to be substandard than that done inside the US. There’s just too much at stake for the company and inspector and the safety record of N-reg airliners is outstanding.
There is a LOT to worry about Central and South American and African/Asian airlines. The second two articles focus there, and there is genuine, statistically significant reduction in safety there.
The Vanity Fair article made a big deal about FAA licensed vs not, but I don’t see that as nearly as big a deal. I (no FAA mechanic credentials) can do any amount of work on an N-reg airplane provided I’m under the effective supervision of an FAA licensed mechanic. I see no reason to think that isn’t safe for me and no reason to think it isn’t safe for the teams taking out and reinstalling interiors on heavies.
Actually it did. It points out that it's near impossible for the FAA to make inspections in these countries to ensure that the work meets its standards. For example, unlike here - it's impossible for them to conduct surprise inspections.
Regardless, there IS reasonable doubt. There is a high chance that work done in developing nations does not meet FAA standards.
And a big part of why I expect this is because ATC collects a shittonne (an SI unit) of data per day, and I don't expect they have a very long retention for that data. The accident and incident reporting requirements are meant to make sure that data is preserved. I have zero expectation of data retention for flight plans, audio tapes, radar tape, beyond 30 days. I would not be suprised if it were 7 days.
Neither pilot reported this incident? And the surviving pilot admits he did not file a required incident report but he's done a recorded public presentation on an incident that has a mandatory incident reporting requirement? And his excuse is intimidation by his employer, which is probably a crime? What?
I don't have time to dig through all of this, so maybe I've missed something, but something does not pass the smell test.
He has posted numerous times regarding fume events, which occur somewhat frequently on the A320 series airliners, and less frequently on other types.
Six reasons you can't take the Litvinenko report seriously | The Guardian
>There is also the question of Litvinenko’s dramatic deathbed statement implicating Putin that drew so much international attention. Early media reports suggest the statement was composed by Litvinenko himself and dictated to his associate, Alexander Goldfarb. The inquiry report describes Goldfarb as the co-author of the book Death of a Dissident with Marina Litvinenko. It does not mention that he was a close ally of Berezovsky’s.
>Later media reports quote Goldfarb as saying that he wrote the statement himself and checked it with Litvinenko. Another account suggests the statement was drafted by the family lawyer, George Menzies, and discussed with the PR firm Bell Pottinger, acting for Berezovsky.
>Which is correct? And even more importantly, the statement does not explain how Litvinenko could possibly have known of the Russian president’s culpability, nor does it offer evidence to back up the allegation.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/05/litvinenko-rep...
Britain WANTED Alexander Litvinenko dead NOT the Kremlin says murdered former KBG agent's brother | Mirror
>"My father and I are sure that the Russian authorities are not involved. It's all a set-up to put pressure on the Russian government."
>"Why else would the court be called to hold this inquiry only after 10 years?'
>"The West appear to be collaborating with Russia in Syria but it's not real-there's still sanctions."
>He claimed that British authorities had not collaborated with Russian investigators on his brother's case and cast doubt on whether polonium was really the murder weapon saying he believes it could have been planted to frame the Russians.
>He said: "I believe he could have been killed by another poison maybe thallium, which killed him slowly and the polonium was planted afterwar
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britain-wanted-alexand...
I finally just warned her to avoid the shrimp or seafood since we rarely eat it when at home but it seemed like every time she traveled she ended up at a restaurant and had some kind of sea food.
It didn't help because just last week she returned home, again with headache, nausea, sinus problems, etc. that kept her sidelined for part of the weekend.
I am going to look into test strips to detect these substances that she could carry on the plane with her to see whether any correlates.
Her assignments see her needing to fly as it is too far to drive in a realistic time frame to most of the meetings but maybe a career change might solve this if it is the cause of her post-flight issues.
Anyone else have similar observations or observations that would indicate this is likely not an issue? I'm open for any discussions.
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/really-flying-can-...
> "Although aircraft cabins are pressurized, cabin air pressure at cruising altitude is lower than air pressure at sea level. At typical cruising altitudes in the range 11 000–12 200 m (36 000–40 000 feet), air pressure in the cabin is equivalent to the outside air pressure at 1800–2400 m (6000–8000 feet) above sea level. As a consequence, less oxygen is taken up by the blood (hypoxia) and gases within the body expand. The effects of reduced cabin air pressure are usually well tolerated by healthy passengers."
http://www.who.int/ith/mode_of_travel/cab/en/
While the NY Times blog link earlier in this chain of comments had a recommendation about reducing cabin air pressure to 6,000 ft, I question how useful that is, since for those susceptible to altitude sickness, 6,000 feet is going to be enough to trigger symptoms for many.
These next two articles are not devoted to airline travel per se, but about high altitude related sickness.
From "Preparing for Safe Travel to High Altitude", by Paul Anderson, M.D.
> "High Altitude Illnesses (HAI) include Acute Mountain Sickness (AMS), High-Altitude Pulmonary Edema (HAPE), and High-Altitude Cerebral Edema (HACE). The symptoms of AMS are typically felt by most people when they arrive at a new altitude, but the symptoms are usually self limiting (e.g. 1st 3-5 days at high altitude). The exact mechanisms of AMS remain unclear, however symptoms tend to be the most prevalent 1-2 days after arrival at elevation. The most common symptoms include a headache, gastrointestinal upset, feelings of fatigue, dizziness, and sleep disruption. ..."
http://www.mayo.edu/research/documents/preparing-for-safe-tr...
From "Altitude-Related Illnesses", Mayo Clinic Preceedings:
> "... An estimated 30 million people are at risk for altitude related illnesses in the western United States annually. Many cases are unrecognized by the victims and by their physicians who may attribute symptoms to viral illness, “hangover,” or fatigue. In addition, commercial airline travel exposes passengers to a cabin pressure equivalent of 2,500 m and allows them to travel rapidly to high altitude destinations such as Aspen or Steamboat Springs, Colorado, where they may be exposed to even greater altitudes.
... The rate of ascent and a prior history of altitude illness are the major determinants of a person's susceptibility to altitude illness. Aerobic fitness does not correlate with the likelihood of acquiring AMS."
(See especially the symptoms of Acute Mountain Sickness in this article.)
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)6...
As far as FAA is concerned, this death will not count as related to that fume situation. For something to be an "accident", it must meet a few criteria, one of them is causing a death or serious injury. A fatal injury related to an accident is defined in 8020.11C as
It will not even count as a "serious injury" Further reading: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8020.11C_.pd...Anyone with more experience know about this? e.x. how expensive they would be to add?
There's this screenshot from a presentation about bleed air sensors (from the article) http://avherald.com/img/spirit_a319_n519nk_boston_150717_3.j... I suppose in this case the "sensors" worked but there was interference from higher-ups:
"While the flight crew was considering what to do next, the assistant chief pilot of the airline boarded the aircraft and told the crew off, that they didn't know what they were doing and they were wrong in pushing for further maintenance action."
It's a stretch, but perhaps similar cockpit confusion caused by oxygen deprivation or ToCP poisoning (from a gas leak) could have been a reason to change direction (before passing out)?
[1]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/108...
(I worked on the environmental control system for the Gulfstream G650 many years ago)
It also feels like the primary risk here is that the pilots will pass out and crash the plane, not main cabin toxicity. The pilot in his letter states clearly that had he not put on his mask when he felt the onset of tunnel vision "we would've killed every person on that aircraft". By that point the captain was already slumped over, eyes half open in a dead stare. Meanwhile 200+ people are in the back oblivious.
Chilling.
2. How many years away would you estimate the the commercial aviation industry is from avoiding this type of toxic air problem? Are newer aircraft still susceptible to air quality issues like this? Does a radically new approach such as solar powered flight reduce these issues?