PDA

View Full Version : Time to re-engineer airliner ventilation?


korrol
20th Mar 2018, 13:30
The one thing airlines don't sell with your air ticket is decent air.

I suppose the best air quality is on Dreamliners because the cabin altitude is at least set at 6,000 feet pressure rather than 8,000 - but the same old air still goes around and around - within the same plane.

What passengers must surely now want is the kind of ventilation cycle you get in your car, where the air is changed every 2 minutes - and the stale old air is vented out the back .

That hated target of the Pprune community The Daily Mail reports today that "The new study sent squads of researchers onto commercial flights to look for viruses and observe how and when people came into close contact.They concluded that people on the aisles get up the most and tend to be most likely to be near a person spewing infectious droplets of flu or cold virus."

The advice is sit near a window seat - but even if a passenger with flu is two seata away from you, you're still in line to be infected.

The study was funded by Boeing and s published yesterday (Monday) by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

...And as for how clear the air-con filters are on airliners - that's anyone's guess .

DaveReidUK
20th Mar 2018, 15:57
What passengers must surely now want is the kind of ventilation cycle you get in your car, where the air is changed every 2 minutes - and the stale old air is vented out the back.

The ECS on an airliner typically provides around 20 air changes an hour, so it's not much different from your family car.

Except that you're not sharing the car with 400 other passengers and their assorted ailments. :O

ExXB
20th Mar 2018, 17:39
Modern aircraft, ie since the DC8 or 707s, circulate air across the cabin and filter the air using HEPA technology (which captures viruses). Said filters are cleaned and/or replaced on a regular schedule and this is logged. The filters used are certified for use on that aircraft type/model. and not just picked up at the ASDA/Walmart.

Since the airflow is across the cabin you are unlikely to be exposed from more than a row forward and a row back. Of course if an infected person is sitting next to you you are going to catch it.

Viruses are everywhere and many people become ill while travelling. . If you catch a bug it is as likely you picked it up in a queue to check in, or for security - or perhaps in the taxi on the way to the airport, none of which have air filtered as in a commercial aircraft.

ZFT
20th Mar 2018, 22:22
The one thing airlines don't sell with your air ticket is decent air.

I suppose the best air quality is on Dreamliners because the cabin altitude is at least set at 6,000 feet pressure rather than 8,000 - but the same old air still goes around and around - within the same plane.

What passengers must surely now want is the kind of ventilation cycle you get in your car, where the air is changed every 2 minutes - and the stale old air is vented out the back .

That hated target of the Pprune community The Daily Mail reports today that "The new study sent squads of researchers onto commercial flights to look for viruses and observe how and when people came into close contact.They concluded that people on the aisles get up the most and tend to be most likely to be near a person spewing infectious droplets of flu or cold virus."

The advice is sit near a window seat - but even if a passenger with flu is two seata away from you, you're still in line to be infected.

The study was funded by Boeing and s published yesterday (Monday) by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

...And as for how clear the air-con filters are on airliners - that's anyone's guess .

I wonder how some people survive public transport?

Underground mass transits with the great unwashed the world over are like sardin cans yet there is no demand for ac redesign!

At least on an aircraft your wallet is safe.

PAXboy
22nd Mar 2018, 06:41
Ah, The Daily Mail ... aka The Daily Fail.

I recall a couple of years ago that someone collated all the food health scares they had published in the previous ten years (or so). The simplest example was the headline telling you that coffee would shorten your life - juxtaposed with the headline some years later that coffee was good and would prolong your life. :ugh: :hmm: :rolleyes:

Peter47
23rd Mar 2018, 11:38
One thing that bugs me is the trend away from individually adjustable air vents at each seat. Different people prefer different temperatures and cooler air stream and warmer cabin give pax at least some control.

I presume that its inclusion can be specified by individual airline (or is it not available as an option with some models of a/c)? As a matter of interest does can anyone in the know tell me if the deletion of individual vents does actually save airlines money, and if so how much?

reynoldsno1
24th Mar 2018, 01:25
One thing that bugs me is the trend away from individually adjustable air vents at each seat. Different people prefer different temperatures and cooler air stream and warmer cabin give pax at least some control.
Indeed. I find modern cabins quite stuffy, and too warm. Mrsr1, of course, usually finds them too cold...

tdracer
24th Mar 2018, 20:03
One thing that bugs me is the trend away from individually adjustable air vents at each seat. Different people prefer different temperatures and cooler air stream and warmer cabin give pax at least some control.

I presume that its inclusion can be specified by individual airline (or is it not available as an option with some models of a/c)? As a matter of interest does can anyone in the know tell me if the deletion of individual vents does actually save airlines money, and if so how much?
It's more to the design trend of more 'open' cabins - especially on wide bodies. Individual air vents require a low overhead with the vents within easy reach of a seated passenger - a low overhead tends to feel claustrophobic and is counter to the open, airy cabin that most passengers prefer. So it's a trade off. I don't think cost plays a significant factor.
Personally, I don't miss the individual vents much - I almost never use them except on the ground.

Anyplace where you have a large number of people in a confined area, the risk disease transmittal goes way up - bus, train, movie theater, etc. - and an aircraft actually provides more 'fresh' air per person per unit time that most confined areas. A few years back I got a nasty virus while in Indonesia - when I flew back to Seattle (business class) I was quite thankful that no one was sitting close to me on either leg as I'm sure I was contagious...

cee cee
25th Mar 2018, 09:48
It's more to the design trend of more 'open' cabins - especially on wide bodies. Individual air vents require a low overhead with the vents within easy reach of a seated passenger - a low overhead tends to feel claustrophobic and is counter to the open, airy cabin that most passengers prefer.

That explanation does not work for me because right next to the now absent individual air vents are the adjustable lights that also need to be within easy reach of a seated passenger.

Mark in CA
29th Mar 2018, 17:03
AirBus A380s also have great ventilation and pressurization. Most comfortable plane I've flown on yet (have not flown B787 yet).

rog747
30th Mar 2018, 08:42
not done a 380 yet but did VS 789 LHR-MIA and got off after almost 9 hours fresh as a daisy and not jet lagged

unbelievable effect of a better well being after a long haul flight

landed 2pm USA time (early - got to try and stay up until 9 or 10pm) rented a car drove OK to FLL hotel - unpacked went out for nice dinner and slept until 7am