Thursday, December 17, 2020

How we investigated toxic chemicals on airplanes: Los Angeles Times


Read the investigation‘We are slowly being poisoned.’ How toxic fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes

A Times investigation found that vapors from heated jet engine oil leak into planes with alarming frequency across all airlines, sickening passengers and crew.


Explore the full document

Explore the full email

Explore the full document



For decades, the airline industry and its regulators have known about incidents of toxic gases from jet engine oil and other fluids leaking into the air supply on planes. But the Federal Aviation Administration doesn’t track these fume events. And airlines aren’t required to report information needed to answer basic questions: How many fume events are there? How often are crew members and passengers sickened by fumes? How many pilots have been impaired by fumes, potentially endangering everyone on board?

To answer those questions, The Times first turned to a database of safety reports voluntarily made to NASA by pilots and flight attendants. NASA does not identify which reports involve a fume event, so the newspaper’s first step was to identify ones classified in the database as involving either “smoke/fire/fumes/odor” or an “illness” on a commercial plane. Those included more than 900 incidents from January 2018 to December 2019.

The Times modeled its analysis of those reports after methodologies used in academic and government studies of fume events. The newspaper counted incidents in which reports used terms such as “fume event”; described smells in language the airline industry uses to identify fume events, such as “dirty socks smell” or “acrid”; noted mechanical findings, such as a leaky seal, that confirmed air supply contamination or procedures completed by mechanics to decontaminate the air supply; or described smells and physiological symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic fumes based on an FAA-funded guide for treating fume event-related health problems. Incidents were not counted if electrical or fan malfunctions were the suspected cause of fumes, or if there wasn’t enough information to make a determination.

As NASA safety reports are made voluntarily, the information is limited to whatever crew members decide to include in their narratives. The Times used a conservative count of people who received medical attention after fume events. For example, if a report noted that an unspecified number of passengers were treated by paramedics, The Times counted that as two. To calculate the number of times pilots were impaired by fumes, the newspaper included cases in which a report mentioned a pilot suffering partial incapacitation during flight; handing off the controls to a copilot after becoming unfit; or declaring themselves unable to complete scheduled flights following exposure to fumes. Dizzy or confused pilots were not counted as impaired unless a report explicitly stated they were unable to perform their duties.

The Times’ analysis of NASA safety reports alone counted 362 fume events reported in 2018 and 2019, nearly 400 crew members or passengers who received medical attention and four dozen pilots who were described as impaired to the point of being unable to perform their duties.

The Times also filed hundreds of public records requests to identify fume events and determine whether passengers or crew were sickened. The newspaper reviewed two types of mechanical reports that airlines make to the FAA: Mechanical Interruption Summary reports and Service Difficulty Reports. Additional fume events were identified from internal airline mechanical records The Times obtained from sources. Paramedic reports requested from airports helped determine what symptoms were reported and whether medical attention was administered.

The Times spoke with several airline and academic experts in conducting its analysis. Guidance on identifying fume events was provided by an experienced pilot and airline mechanic who reviewed aviation records.

While reporting this series of articles, The Times reviewed thousands of pages of court filings from workers’ compensation cases and litigation against airlines and manufacturers. Much of the Boeing reporting was based on a cache of depositions and exhibits from recent lawsuits filed by flight attendants against the company. Additionally, The Times obtained internal airline documents used by pilots and mechanics when dealing with fume events. The newspaper interviewed dozens of people for this story, including pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, union officials, academic experts and medical professionals.


US Airways Capt. David Hill, far left, in 2015. In January 2010, a fume event during a flight from the Virgin Islands left Hill and his copilot groggy and sickened five flight attendants, sending them all to the emergency room. Afterward, Hill and his copilot both lost their FAA certifications.

8 comments:

  1. On pushback from Charlotte a Fume Event occurred, but none of the crew knew what was happening, the fumes eventually dissipated and the flight continued. On the return leg from Saint Thomas to Charlotte another Fume Event occurred. The flight was met in Charlotte by 11 Ambulances and Fire Engines. All of the crew were taken to Carolina Presbyterian Hospital. 3 of the crew showed high Carbon Monoxide levels in their blood.
    https://www.change.org/p/stop-contaminated-cabin-air-in-aircraft/u/23339295

    ReplyDelete
  2. A must read:
    http://avherald.com/h?article=425f6a41

    ReplyDelete
  3. How confusing. "Journalists" from the City of Smog Times are doing a story about engine fumes inside airliners? A reader's first response to ANY story from the LA Times should always be to wonder if it's true. On the other hand, is it possible that the FAA really pulled a US Airways crews' medical certificates because they smelled fumes?
    Well, given that the FAA's Aeromedical group is involved (with its 1950's walk-in clinic knowledge base), it could be true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a completely asinine post you have made.

      The article is quite accurately reporting what has taken place. The airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and even the FAA have done all they can to sweep this under the rug.

      Did you even bother to read the article in its entirety? As a retired airline pilot, I can tell you that the LA Times did an excellent job reporting this issue. I am grateful I never had to deal with a fume issue in flight. It is in fact, a serious problem that needs to be addressed seriously, and sooner than later.

      And yes, the FAA had to deny the pilots medical certification because of the debilitating effects of being exposed to neurotoxins during their fume event.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, your response was entirely stupid. I get it - middle aged white male mad at the mainstream media for shining a light on your sacred cows. Cry me a river. This issue has been discussed in crew circles for several years - thank god we have a mainstream media to bring it to public attention.

      Delete
    3. " thank god we have a mainstream media to bring it to public attention."

      LA Slimes is a leftist selective "mainstream media." Hunter Biden is no story. Eric Swalwell deep throating a communist ChiCom is no story. But Trump and Russia stealing the election? Major story. Pathetic. No, he's correct. Fraud news media stopped being journalists long ago. This makes no amends to their DECADES of fraud reporting and NON-reporting.

      Delete
  4. Show me a major American newspaper that is not leftist and selective. They have all accepted the man-made global warming scenario and would like nothing better than to tax motor vehicles (and planes fall into that category) at increasingly higher levels.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a clarification of why people are delicate just to certain pesticides. Legitimate derivation would persuade that MCS victims have lacks in various types of compounds that make them helpless to a specific one or gathering of chemicals. tadalafil powder

    ReplyDelete