Toxic Fumes Are Leaking Into Airplanes, Sickening Crews and Passengers (msn.com)
- Reference: 0179264800
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/09/15/1840218/toxic-fumes-are-leaking-into-airplanes-sickening-crews-and-passengers
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/toxic-fumes-are-leaking-into-airplanes-sickening-crews-and-passengers/ar-AA1MuNGM
The surge is driven by Airbus A320 aircraft, particularly the A320neo model introduced in 2016. WSJ reports Airbus loosened maintenance requirements under airline pressure despite knowing the changes would increase incidents. The FAA received over 700 fume event reports from major U.S. airlines in 2024. Most commercial jets except Boeing's 787 use a "bleed air" system that pulls cabin air through engines.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/toxic-fumes-are-leaking-into-airplanes-sickening-crews-and-passengers/ar-AA1MuNGM
Experienced this (Score:3)
The last flight I took, (back in 2019) had something like this going on. A strong chemical fume coming from the air vents for the entire flight, very harsh, like an industrial solvent. Gave me a hell of a headache, and made it impossible to sleep on the flight, which was unfortunate, as it was a late flight, and I had a 4 hour drive to make on landing.
I left a feedback on the airline website about it, but never heard anything back from them on it.
Seems like Airbus's 737 Max (Score:2)
The way Airbus is downplaying this and refusing to reinstate the old maintenance regime tells me this is a near bankruptcy level design flaw, a ground the fleet level fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that a part of the problem is switching off the airplane for the night too quickly, before all of the oil in the APU returns to the oil sump, giving false indication to the technicians who, in turn, top up the oil to the max, so on the next APU start the oil overflows.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd better fix it, before they kill a cockpit crew and by extension a plane full of passengers. Given what has already happened, this is not an unlikely failure mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it is not a design flaw and has nothing to do with design flaws. It's to do with maintenance issues on engines which make the Airbus planes in question slightly worse than all others. The only aircraft which won't experience this is a 787 since it gets air in a fundamentally different way. There's nothing to change on existing planes, and not only will no one go bankrupt over this, it won't even move the share price.
Re: (Score:2)
The occurrences exploded after they stopped revisions every time it happened, because the operators found it too expensive/unreliable. So even at that point, it was not a maintenance issue, but a repair issue.
For it to be preventative/maintenance the revisions would have to be performed even more often than that, which would be even more expensive. A plane too expensive to maintain in a state where it doesn't routinely poison the crew and passengers has a design flaw.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you call it a design flaw or not is in the eye of the beholder. Like TFA points out the A320's Neo engine seals wear out a lot faster so it leaks a lot more and it's not "slightly worse" it's a multiple worse. So it's like a car model that bursts into flames 5x as often as others of its type. It's still generally speaking a safe car but in modern production goods... that's considered a "design flaw".
Also what can be done on existing planes is to retrofit an air sensor and filter system it w
TFA is excellent (Score:3)
TFA is excellent and worth a full read.
it addresses a lot of the knee jerk concerns voiced above about Airbus vs Boeing.
This is a real problem where the industry has downplayed the issue for decades.
(and that Mentour Pilot YT video covers a particular disastrous failure mode that TFA doesn't get into, but TFA is great on the chronic issue)
Known for decades by Boeing/Airbus (Score:2)
Air for the cabin and cockpit is coming in through the engines and takes lubricant oil and burned up toxic remains with it as well.
Especially at take off you can usually smell this.
I think it was called air-bleed intake.
Boeing and Airbus have know about this for decades but it takes an extra 100,000$ to fit a plane with a device that prevents this kind of polluted air from entering the cabin.
When the lubricant system is malfunctioning the whole cabin can fill with smoke and planes are usually grounded and p
Re: (Score:2)
And it smells like it, too. I mean, on landing when taxi-ing it often smells like burnt av gas (kerosene?) but it often stinks during the flight. I'd rather drive despite the inconvenience.
Nothing new (Score:2)
The BAe 146 more often than not, released a generous cloud of oil smoke into the cabin at startup. PSA would advise passengers of this and of the impending somewhat scary noise reduction maneuver that would occur just after takeoff.
Poor Boeing. (Score:1, Interesting)
Sounds like this piece is less about passenger safety and more about throwing shade at Airbus. Funny how the article zeroes in on the A320neo while glossing over the fact that almost every modern aircraft (except the 787) uses the same bleed-air system. If this was really about systemic safety issues, Boeing, Embraer, and everyone else would be in the spotlight too but instead, the narrative is laser-focused on Airbus loosening maintenance requirements. Convenient angle for Boeing, considering their own lon
Re:Poor Boeing. (Score:5, Informative)
You mean where ity says they all use it but the A320 is the worst offender? Chesson’s experience is one dramatic instance among thousands of so-called fume events reported to the Federal Aviation Administration since 2010, in which toxic fumes from a jet’s engines leak unfiltered into the cockpit or cabin. The leaks occur due to a design element in which air you breathe on an aircraft is pulled through the engine. The system, known as “bleed air,” has been featured in almost every modern commercial jetliner except Boeing’s 787. The rate of incidents is accelerating in recent years, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found, driven in large part by leaks on Airbus’s bestselling A320 family of jets—the aircraft Chesson was flying.
Re: (Score:1)
These events have been reported ever since smoking was banned on commercial jets, a lot earlier than 2010, but were dismissed as a conspiracy theory / gripe at not being able to spark up any more / fear mongering / flat out lies.
Re:That's no conspiracy also airplane tire (Score:3)
Complete bullshit.
1) smog is not tire particulates. It's a mix of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic chemicals. These react under UV and turn a beautiful brown color.
2) A Model 3 weighs less than the average vehicle in the United States.
3) EVs tend to have long-life low-wear lower-traction tires. This is because computer control of the power application makes sticky tires less important.
Fuck off, and quit spreading misinformation.
Re: (Score:1)
My personal experience from driving a Tesla YLR for 4 years including a round trip coast-to-coast across the coterminous USA is at variance with your statement. My OEM Tesla Y tires were quite worn out by 30K miles. The increased cost of the tires negates the reduced cost of all the other unneeded maintenance.
You're right that they were low traction. Tires that do what tires used to be expected to do (stop quickly) wear out even faster, cost up to $400/tire, and hurt the range by 20%.
It sounds like yo
Re: (Score:2)
I can only offer anecdotes. Take them for what they are.
I have 2 coworkers with Teslas. A Model 3 LR (single motor), and a Model Y Performance.
They both claim, as of this minute on our group text thread, "around 40k" per set of shoes.
This is for a vehicle with 271hp, and a vehicle with 460hp. Surprising they they're even similar, but then again- the Y has 4 driven wheels, not 2. Expensive.
My Mustang does around 20k per set of shoes (rear only, fortunately)- you dual-motor people are learning what my sis
Re: (Score:2)
What's that got to do with incidents getting worse in recent years?
Re:Poor Boeing. (Score:5, Interesting)
You're missing that both a bleed air system AND poor maintenance are required for this problem to manifest.
Presumably the other planes with a bleed air system are getting better maintenance, so haven't been a problem. No idea how the 787's maintenance is, but since it doesn't have a bleed air system, the problem of dangerously contaminated cabin air hasn't manifested.
More specifically, this happens when engine oil or hydraulic fluid leak into the engine while bleed air is being drawn.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even a question of maintenance, it's treating the failure as transient instead of requiring repair.
It's allows neigh deadly air contamination, starting at the cockpit for extra fun, and they don't even repair it when it occurs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swlVkYVSlIE
Re:Poor Boeing. (Score:4, Interesting)
If it helps overcome your knee-jerk Airbus vs. Boeing hang-ups, 737 MAX has a [1]known failure mode [youtube.com] that will rapidly gas the cockpit with vaporized oil. Equipped with this necessary whataboutery affordance, you should feel safe in at least allowing for the possibility that Airbus is also not flawless in all things.
Cockpits and cabins have been getting filled with various gasses since the inception of pressurization ~80 years ago. To Boeing's credit, the 787 has set a legitimate engineering precedent in aircraft design and eliminated at least some of the major sources of air contamination. Eventually, when Airbus copies it, you'll be able to safely ignore this. So no worries.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swlVkYVSlIE
Re: (Score:3)
The electrical compressors are SO nice on an '87. Hell, everything about that plane is really fucking nice. I hope it sets several precedents.
I've had stinky bleed air on every plane in the sky except for the '87. The system needs to go the fuck away.
It may be more likely on A320s, but I've had it plenty of times on 737s old and new.
Re: (Score:2)
> Hell, everything about that plane is really fucking nice.
Except for the windows that are entirely under the control of the cabin crew who will decide when you are allowed, or not allowed, to look out of them. If they would replace them with mechanical blinds or remove the ability for the cabin crew to be able to force them to go opaque I'd agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
> Except for the windows that are entirely under the control of the cabin crew who will decide when you are allowed, or not allowed, to look out of them.
Haven't had that experience. That's up to the airlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, if the problem is happening primarily with A320s and not with other airframes that use bleed air, then why wouldn't they comment on that? Hate Boeing much?