UK begins probe into aeroplane air quality The UK government is paying Cranfield University to investigate air quality on aeroplanes amid concerns that dangerous contaminated air could be endangering pilot and passenger health. Professor Helen Muir is running the probe. Researchers will look at BAe 146 cargo and passenger planes, B757 cargo and passenger planes and …
This post has been deleted by its author
How about air *outside* the aircraft as a control. Sure include the A321 as a subject given that the 757 and 146's have a reputation for filling the cockpit/cabin with oil fumes. The A321 can be sampled as a 'clean' aircraft.
With the A321 as a control, all the study can show is whether the air inside a 757 and 146 is cleaner or dirtier than that in and Airbus, and by how much.
The base assumption is that the air inside the A321 is clean, when it might not be. Increased CO2 levels anyone?
This smells (pun intended) of airline PR at worst, or bad science at best.
The cabin fresh air is bled from the compressor section of the engines. It is then stepped down in pressure to control the temperature. The scope for contaminants to enter is small but still possible.
The problem is that airlines like to minimise fresh air flow as it detracts from the boost to the engines so more fuel is used. If there was loads of fresh then any contaminants would be very dilute indeed.
Clearly this is a green issue too. Do you want Hydrocarbons dumped into the atmosphere or not? If not then don't moan when they use the men's, women's and children's lungs to filter it out. ;o>
"I've never heard of anyone dying or feeling ill from fumes on a plane. So there's a "bit of a funny smell" on one in a thousand flights, damn."
Do you not remember Deep Vein Thrombosis which killed a fair few folk. This was apparently linked to air quality on aircraft and this is what this research aims to answer questions on.
I seem to remember reading several years ago that someone (scientific) had alleged that there was an issue with air quality on B737s and some planes that had originally been designed for military use, then commericialised.
Something to do with oils, vapours and exotic chemicals coming through from the engines into the cabin air supply. There was discussion about longterm exposure being particularly bad for health.
So maybe your once-a-year holiday-maker (if they still exist) is OK, but your frequent / business traveller could be at risk - in the same way that I don't mind the odd X-ray, but wouldn't want several per week.
Therefore this isn't new, but good that it's being investigated.
Please could they extend this to trains, ferries, buses, offices, anywhere with air conditioning. I have breathing problems and have difficulty staying alert unless there's enough oxygen entering my lungs; I have my bedroom window open all night and can barely sleep in hotels with air con and locked windows. I've fallen unconsious on a ferry before that insisted on keeping the air con on despite being packed to the seams with people for an hour.
When will people learn; cool air does not equal healthy air.
as said before the air quality since they stopped allowing smoking is supposedly much worse now! as far as i know they dont filter clean air any more - just move the stale air around...
and you people moan at us smokers lol :)
i bet air quality is fine on the black choppers.... or pork choppers as i like to call them!
There is a lot of data on this. Google "tricresyl phosphate".
If you need more info on toxicity look for the "Material Safety Data Sheet" for tricresyl phosphate. You will see things like "EXPOSURE LIMITS:TWA: 0.1 (mg/m3)" -Time Weighted Average - (This is the sort of level you get for materials that are known to be toxic).
I dunno about you lot but whenever I fly I always fart.
Cabins are only pressurised to about 7,000 feet altitude so that drop in pressure (from 14.7PSI to 11.5PSI) always makes me fart. Now, I do fart quite a lot anyways and at the moment I am on a high-fibre diet so my advice to anyone is that if you see me getting on the plane, prepare to be methaned. <LOL>
Well, *I've* felt ill after breathing the air in a 747 for the 7plus hours it took to cross the Atlantic. More than once, and when you consider I've made the trip only about a dozen times, them's worrying stats.
Of course, some of the airports I've had to cool my heels in when flying point-to-point have made the air quality in the plane a secondary concern next to getting the hell out of <insert your own airport hell of choice>.
"Most of the pollution I experence is from you smokers who think it's alright to blow it around - even outside. God bless the smoking ban, and I hope it's extended to everywhere"
Are you one of those twits who can be walking down a busy city street - thus in a sea of car exhaust - and you see a smoker 10 feet away and do that little disapproving cough-cough?
Great. A heavy farter named 'Big Boomer'. God help us all.
And in other news, @ImaGnuber:
The funny thing is that a busy city street in a sea of car exhaust is like a bermuda beach compared to walking five feet from the walking particle distribution point that is a smoker.
I wholly support smokers' rights to smoke. However, if someone strolled around town with one of those "Michael Schumacher won another championship" air horns blaring constantly, there'd be reason to be upset - nearby traffic noise not withstanding.
Alien because it's late here and I'm feeling kind of spacey.
Ever fly at the back of a plane.
Any time I'm in the back few rows on a flight I always smell fumes, stale air, fuel/exhaust smells.
I think it's about time this is done as we are only going to fly more.
I've heard that for long haul flights the ground crew face the other way when they open the doors due to the blast of stale, rank air that blasts out of the plane. (anybody able to confirm)
The air on planes is bad and only gettingn worse.
Particularly at the end of long-haul flights, as has been noted here before. My personal statistics (reached with the use of an organic smell detector, runs under the trade name "nose") seem to indicate ar correlation between the packing density of cattle and the amount of olfactory contaminants in the air, and of course the time the herd spends inside the tin can.
I would give pretty good grades to Airbus, though a 12-hour flight in a full A330 can leave one wanting to breathe some air for a change. In a 777, it would be time for the medics by then, though. Don't talk to me about long-haul flights in 757s; I'm still considering sueing the airline for breach of the Geneva convention.
Best flying experience in short-haul so far were the Avro RJ series jets, though that is probably only because they have a relatively low sardine density. Worst so far 737, which also normally has the highest body count per square inch.
Actually I agree with you that it is not always pleasant to be near a smoker (I'm a smoker and try to be considerate) - it's the neurotic little creatures who react to someone far enough away that get me going - I've had it happen even when I'm just fiddling with an unlit cig.
Otherwise fully approve of banning smoking in enclosed spaces - even if it would sometimes be nice with coffee etc. ...sigh.
Also agree with "NO s*it " that air quality on planes seems to have dropped since the ban. What the hell's up with that?
There a documentary a month or so ago (sorry can't remember title) that concerned the subject of airplane air quality ... not smoking, to which this thread seems to have been diverted.
Apparently, the chemical tricresyl phosphate, mentioned above, is used as an additive for lubrication purposes in the engines of big jets. The cabin air is sourced from the engine and can be contaminated with this chemical. There have been incidents where the contamination is so heavy it has rendered members of the flight crew incapable of doing their jobs. In one case, the pilot. In lower concentrations however, it cannot be detected by smell, but can cause nausia and other symptoms. Longer term exposure can have more drastic effects.
If this documentary is to be believed, then a study of this nature is LONG overdue.
[[ warning triangle as if you don't batton down the hatches you wouldn't need to worry about the air quality ... you wouldn't need any :-) ]]
@ Mister Cheese: fantastic, £200,000 worth of research grant neatly circumvented in one simple statement.
@ British Airways: Will you theiving phuktards be helping these scientists by offering them cheaper seats cause £200,000 ain't gonna go far after the next rise in fares and the re-introduction of baggage charges.
After the Smoking Ban: I too hated it when people would light up as I began my starter. And I too am a smoker. I feel persecuted by this draconian law. What was wrong with having "designated" smoking areas?... a particular table, a corner of a room, a seperate room, a seperate pub or restaurant even... why oh why did it have to be a total ban? - it's stupid, it's demeaning, it's cruel and unusual in the punishment of people who are otherwise exactly the same as everyone else. It is also a breach of Article 5 (of the good old widely ignored UK ratified document of humane reasoning... see therefore also Articles 6,7,8,9 and 29(2)). I've listened to barmaids outside pubs apologising over their fag to their smoking regulars because we are all standing out in the pissing rain - whilst the entire downstairs bar is completely empty (YES, this pub had two distinct bars, each with it's own door). I have also found myself unable to walk along a pavement (that's a 'sidewalk' guys) because the bulk of a pubs clientelle have taken over the frontage.
And since I began smoking BEFORE the smoking ban, can I be found guilty for lighting up in a place in which it was legal for me to smoke prior to the ban? - see Article 11(2).
I am a smoker. I express myself by smoking - See Article 19. Big_Boomer, is presumably a petomaine and, expresses himself with a more rudimentary release of gas.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
