bblank
9th May 2002, 20:17
I've pasted below 37.24% of a long front page article that appeared
in today's USA Today. The whole article can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020509/4096971s.htm
The print edition also contains a panel that discusses some
related issues, including investigations in Australia and
Sweden of BAe 146 fume problems.
--
USA Today, 9 May 2002
SEATTLE -- Twenty-six current and former Alaska Airlines
flight attendants say they have suffered severe neurological damage
from being repeatedly exposed to toxic chemicals on MD-80 flights
during the 1980s and 1990s. The case is expected to go to the jury
this month.
Last year, the Alaska flight attendants won a $725,000 out-of-court
settlement from Alaska Airlines, and now they're going after two of
the nation's biggest companies: Boeing and Honeywell.
The plaintiffs contend both companies have known for decades that the
MD-80 and DC-9 have design flaws that make it easy for leaking chemical
fluids to get sucked into the auxiliary power unit, or APU, and mix
with cabin air. The APU is a small turbine engine used to generate
electricity and circulate cabin air before takeoff.
Boeing inherited responsibility for the MD-80 and DC-9 models when it
bought McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Honeywell owns AlliedSignal, which
made the APU.
Both companies dispute the flight attendants' claims. They say fumes
that enter the passenger cabin don't contain enough chemicals to cause
harm. The lawsuit is believed to be the first to assert that an
aircraft maker is responsible for the quality of the air breathed by
passengers and airline crews. Jets built in the 1980s and since use
50% recirculated cabin air, instead of 100% outside air, as earlier
models do.
The Alaska flight attendants point to evidence the problem goes well
beyond their airline's jets. A July 1996 Alaska Airlines maintenance
document, introduced during the trial, identifies 15 other airlines
reporting instances of ''fluids entering APU air intake'' on DC-9s
and MD-80s and resulting in ''associated passenger/crew complaints
including illnesses.'' Among the most well-known airlines cited were
Alitalia, American, Swissair, TWA and US Airways.
To gauge how often air quality problems are reported on DC-9s and
MD-80s, USA TODAY checked the Federal Aviation Administration's
Service Difficulty Reports (SDRs) database. The FAA requires airlines
to file the one-page documents each time a mechanical problem arises.
They are an imperfect indicator because some airlines are more rigorous
about filing them than others. From 1974 through mid-2001, eight U.S.
carriers -- American, Northwest, TWA, Delta, Continental, US Airways,
Midwest Express and Alaska -- reported 1,051 incidents of fumes, smoke,
haze, mist or odors entering the cabin air supply system of DC-9s and
MD-80s
The DC-9/MD-80 isn't the only model with cabin air problems. Through
the 1990s, ''air quality incidents'' have been reported on
Airbus 320s, Boeing DC-10s, 737s, 757s and the British Aerospace
BAe 146, other airline maintenance records and union surveys of airline
crews show.
In October, the British Air Line Pilots Association surveyed 93 crews
who reported more than 1,600 events of fumes reaching the flight deck
on Boeing 757s.
The events ranged from pilots ''noticing some smells'' and a few
''serious incidents where crews had to put on oxygen masks,'' says
Bruce D'Ancey, assistant technical secretary for the union.
[Design flaws] begin with the placement of the APU's air inlet, the
rectangular opening through which the unit draws in fresh air, in a
''6 o'clock'' position at the rear belly of the fuselage. [Plaintiff's
lawyers] contend that as McDonnell Douglas incorporated improvements
to the 1960s-era DC-9, it should have heeded advice in a 1974
installation handbook suggesting the air inlet ought to be moved.
That's because hydraulic fluid lines running throughout the aircraft
invariably leak fluid into the belly, which is designed with small
''weep'' holes so such fluid can drain out. Gravity and motion can
draw fluid toward the rear belly, where the air inlet sucks it in like
a vacuum. The APU then compresses the fluid and mixes it with air
delivered into the plane's ventilation system.
''The least favorable location is an inlet located well aft of the
bottom surface of the fuselage,'' the installation handbook warns.
''Fluids likely to be ingested with this type of inlet include those
that may be spilled within the aircraft fuselage.''
SAE, a group that sets industrial standards for lubricants, reinforced
that warning in a 1981 advisory: ''APU inlets should not be located on
the bottom of the fuselage where there is maximum exposure to . . .
fluid leakage.''
But it wasn't until after Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas in 1997
that omething was done. In 1999, more than a year after the Bradford
lawsuit was filed, Boeing certified the latest version of the MD-80
and renamed it the Boeing 717, with one telling change: The APU air
inlet was raised to one side, in the 2 o'clock position, of the
fuselage, where it is unlikely to suck up leaking fluids.
The FAA in recent years has required airlines using DC-9s and MD-80s
to install metal strips and drain tubes near the air inlet to help
direct leaked fluids away from it. An FAA order in September 2000
makes reference to ''reports of smoke and odor . . . due to
hydraulic fluid leaking in the APU inlet, and subsequently into the
air conditioning system.'' The order requires airlines to strengthen
hydraulic lines prone to cracking, ''which could result in smoke and
odors in the passenger cabin or cockpit.''
When smoke or odor is reported on an American Airlines MD-80, the
carrier removes the plane from service to conduct a ''burn-out''
procedure designed to remove all remnants of the leaked fluid from
the air supply pumps and ducts. American has retrofitted its fleet
of 360 MD-80s with higher-powered APUs and installed all available
diverters and upgradeable ducting and fluid lines, says American
spokesman John Hotard.
in today's USA Today. The whole article can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020509/4096971s.htm
The print edition also contains a panel that discusses some
related issues, including investigations in Australia and
Sweden of BAe 146 fume problems.
--
USA Today, 9 May 2002
SEATTLE -- Twenty-six current and former Alaska Airlines
flight attendants say they have suffered severe neurological damage
from being repeatedly exposed to toxic chemicals on MD-80 flights
during the 1980s and 1990s. The case is expected to go to the jury
this month.
Last year, the Alaska flight attendants won a $725,000 out-of-court
settlement from Alaska Airlines, and now they're going after two of
the nation's biggest companies: Boeing and Honeywell.
The plaintiffs contend both companies have known for decades that the
MD-80 and DC-9 have design flaws that make it easy for leaking chemical
fluids to get sucked into the auxiliary power unit, or APU, and mix
with cabin air. The APU is a small turbine engine used to generate
electricity and circulate cabin air before takeoff.
Boeing inherited responsibility for the MD-80 and DC-9 models when it
bought McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Honeywell owns AlliedSignal, which
made the APU.
Both companies dispute the flight attendants' claims. They say fumes
that enter the passenger cabin don't contain enough chemicals to cause
harm. The lawsuit is believed to be the first to assert that an
aircraft maker is responsible for the quality of the air breathed by
passengers and airline crews. Jets built in the 1980s and since use
50% recirculated cabin air, instead of 100% outside air, as earlier
models do.
The Alaska flight attendants point to evidence the problem goes well
beyond their airline's jets. A July 1996 Alaska Airlines maintenance
document, introduced during the trial, identifies 15 other airlines
reporting instances of ''fluids entering APU air intake'' on DC-9s
and MD-80s and resulting in ''associated passenger/crew complaints
including illnesses.'' Among the most well-known airlines cited were
Alitalia, American, Swissair, TWA and US Airways.
To gauge how often air quality problems are reported on DC-9s and
MD-80s, USA TODAY checked the Federal Aviation Administration's
Service Difficulty Reports (SDRs) database. The FAA requires airlines
to file the one-page documents each time a mechanical problem arises.
They are an imperfect indicator because some airlines are more rigorous
about filing them than others. From 1974 through mid-2001, eight U.S.
carriers -- American, Northwest, TWA, Delta, Continental, US Airways,
Midwest Express and Alaska -- reported 1,051 incidents of fumes, smoke,
haze, mist or odors entering the cabin air supply system of DC-9s and
MD-80s
The DC-9/MD-80 isn't the only model with cabin air problems. Through
the 1990s, ''air quality incidents'' have been reported on
Airbus 320s, Boeing DC-10s, 737s, 757s and the British Aerospace
BAe 146, other airline maintenance records and union surveys of airline
crews show.
In October, the British Air Line Pilots Association surveyed 93 crews
who reported more than 1,600 events of fumes reaching the flight deck
on Boeing 757s.
The events ranged from pilots ''noticing some smells'' and a few
''serious incidents where crews had to put on oxygen masks,'' says
Bruce D'Ancey, assistant technical secretary for the union.
[Design flaws] begin with the placement of the APU's air inlet, the
rectangular opening through which the unit draws in fresh air, in a
''6 o'clock'' position at the rear belly of the fuselage. [Plaintiff's
lawyers] contend that as McDonnell Douglas incorporated improvements
to the 1960s-era DC-9, it should have heeded advice in a 1974
installation handbook suggesting the air inlet ought to be moved.
That's because hydraulic fluid lines running throughout the aircraft
invariably leak fluid into the belly, which is designed with small
''weep'' holes so such fluid can drain out. Gravity and motion can
draw fluid toward the rear belly, where the air inlet sucks it in like
a vacuum. The APU then compresses the fluid and mixes it with air
delivered into the plane's ventilation system.
''The least favorable location is an inlet located well aft of the
bottom surface of the fuselage,'' the installation handbook warns.
''Fluids likely to be ingested with this type of inlet include those
that may be spilled within the aircraft fuselage.''
SAE, a group that sets industrial standards for lubricants, reinforced
that warning in a 1981 advisory: ''APU inlets should not be located on
the bottom of the fuselage where there is maximum exposure to . . .
fluid leakage.''
But it wasn't until after Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas in 1997
that omething was done. In 1999, more than a year after the Bradford
lawsuit was filed, Boeing certified the latest version of the MD-80
and renamed it the Boeing 717, with one telling change: The APU air
inlet was raised to one side, in the 2 o'clock position, of the
fuselage, where it is unlikely to suck up leaking fluids.
The FAA in recent years has required airlines using DC-9s and MD-80s
to install metal strips and drain tubes near the air inlet to help
direct leaked fluids away from it. An FAA order in September 2000
makes reference to ''reports of smoke and odor . . . due to
hydraulic fluid leaking in the APU inlet, and subsequently into the
air conditioning system.'' The order requires airlines to strengthen
hydraulic lines prone to cracking, ''which could result in smoke and
odors in the passenger cabin or cockpit.''
When smoke or odor is reported on an American Airlines MD-80, the
carrier removes the plane from service to conduct a ''burn-out''
procedure designed to remove all remnants of the leaked fluid from
the air supply pumps and ducts. American has retrofitted its fleet
of 360 MD-80s with higher-powered APUs and installed all available
diverters and upgradeable ducting and fluid lines, says American
spokesman John Hotard.