Poor Passengers
The advertisement was unequivocal. Alongside a panoramic picture of a
sunrise from an aeroplane window, it boasted that the air on board United Airlines' jets was the freshest available. Anne Lewis, a primary school teacher, was sceptical and complained about the airline's claim. She knew from past experience that cabin air was often recycled, low on oxygen and could be a conduit for spreading disease. Her concerns stem from a £1,200 family holiday to the Italian ski resort of La Thuile. As she boarded the Britannia flight with her husband and two children, one passenger was suffering from a winter bug. By the time the plane arrived in Turin, more than 70 passengers had been unknowingly infected. Just hours after they ventured out onto the Alpine slopes, Lewis and her family started succumbing one by one to the illness. "It caused vomiting, severe pain in the kidneys and a blinding headache," said Lewis. "We later found out the person carrying this bug was sitting in row 10, but most of the people who were ill were at the back of the plane." Lewis believes the ventilation system was most likely responsible for spreading the bug - although this is disputed by Britannia. Lewis is among a growing number of passengers and cabin crew who are beginning to question the health risks from flying. Her complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority was upheld in February after United Airlines failed to justify its claim that its air was the freshest in the industry. "This is an artificial environment which the airlines don't want you to know about," said Lewis, who lives near Newark in Nottinghamshire. Regulatory bodies such as the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), and the airlines, have tried to allay passengers' anxieties. They say many of the complaints about health risks - from bacteria re-circulating in cabin air to pilots shutting down ventilation systems to save fuel - are unfounded. The Sunday Times, however, last week obtained research and confidential industry documents which raise doubts over those assurances. They include: Medical reports on cabin staff on Boeing 777s who have complained of nausea, dizziness and nosebleeds. Many have had to be given oxygen during the flight, and British Airways is among a number of airlines that have launched secret safety investigations. New research, which reveals how aircraft filters fail to stop viruses after becoming clogged with mould and fungus. Swabs taken in the passenger cabins of some planes found 51,000 micro-organisms in a 4in square - more than the number you would find on the door handle of an office lavatory. Internal documents that reveal an auxiliary power unit used on planes, including the Boeing 737, has had a history of oil leaks. These have contaminated the cabin air in some planes with toxic vapours. Advice given to pilots to switch off the ventilation units - causing oxygen levels to fall - to save money on fuel. The House of Lords science and technology committee is now examining the potential health hazards of the cabin environment. It is expected GPs will be advised to give more warnings to patients about air travel, but have some dangers been ignored for too long? AT 40,000ft with a club soda in one hand and a film playing on the in-flight entertainment system, you might feel relaxed. The downside is, if your health is already poor, you might not even survive the flight. While the surrounding atmosphere may seem normal, the cabin air is actually equivalent to being 8,000ft up a mountain. You have 20% less oxygen and even the airline's medical advisers admit a heart patient can be tipped into "a crisis phase". The cramped conditions of long-haul flights have been blamed for causing potentially fatal blood clots. Farrol Kahn, of the Oxford-based Aviation Health Institute, believes that of 20,000 deaths a year in Britain from blood clots on the lung, up to a third may be related to air travel. Even for a passenger in perfect health, the environment is far from conducive. Only about 50% of the cabin air is drawn from outside the plane - the rest is recycled. It is a significant economy, because fresh air has to be heated from -50C before it can be pumped into the cabin. In economy class, passengers may be getting only seven cubic feet a minute of fresh air compared with the pilots' 150 cubic feet a minute and about 50 for first-class passengers. Worse, if someone is suffering a fatal disease, such as tuberculosis, and is seated even 30 rows away there is a risk you could catch it. The danger is that bacteria, instead of being expelled from the plane, may be recycled through the air conditioning. The CAA, which was among the expert groups giving evidence to the House of Lords committee last week, recommends that passengers with health problems seek advice before travelling, but it is largely dismissive of many of the supposed hazards. It says there is "little research or knowledge" linking blood clots with air travel. It also maintains that the airlines comply with tight regulations on the amount of fresh air supplied to cabins and denies ventilation units may infect passengers. "There's no evidence recycled air spreads disease," said Jonathan Nicholson, of the CAA. "The filters in air cabins stop everything, even viruses. You catch diseases on a plane purely from one-to-one contact." Despite the CAA's assurances, it emerged last week that British Airways is among a number of airlines investigating reports of adverse symptoms suffered by cabin staff working on Boeing 777s. "Nine times out of 10 that I go on that plane, I suffer some side effects," said one stewardess. "I usually get headaches, a dizzy spell and feel I can't breathe properly. Often on a flight the cabin staff will be on extra oxygen." Other staff have complained of nosebleeds, periods of confusion or disorientation and nausea. They have been told for months by British Airways that the matter is being dealt with "urgently", but until inquiries were made by The Sunday Times last week the safety investigation was not even made public. The CAA's assurances over air-conditioning units are also being questioned. "Viruses can certainly pass through air filters on planes," said Harriet Burge, professor of environmental microbiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in America, who has carried out tests on aircraft. "There can be a movement of air from the front to the back of the plane which can carry pathogens. The problem is there is very little research." In one investigation, air filters in various aircraft, including transatlantic jets, were found to have become clogged with fungus and moulds, so rendering them ineffective. "Some of these filters are probably creating a greater biological hazard than they are taking out of the air," said John Moorehead, of the Battelle Memorial Institute, an Ohio-based research body. Swabs taken from 10 locations on four different aircraft revealed counts of micro-organisms higher than you would expect to find on the floor of a shower room. Among the organisms detected were aspergillus, which can cause lung infections and kill people with weak immune systems, and bacillus cereus, which is associated with food poisoning. Airlines insist they change their air filters regularly to ensure they operate efficiently, but the dangers of ventilation units spreading disease comes as no surprise to Rhoda Macdonald, a television producer. When she boarded a flight to New York there was, unbeknown to her, a 21-year-old Liberian woman with tuberculosis 15 rows away. Six weeks later, she was contacted by her travel agency and warned of the risk of infection. She discovered she was infected but had treatment that prevented the disease from developing. "They recycle air to save money, but it's at the expense of safety," said Macdonald. "I'm convinced I was infected through the ventilation system. They ask if you packed your own bags before you board, but they don't ask if you've got a deadly disease." Even if, as the airlines insist, the ventilation systems do block viruses and bacteria, there can be other dangers. Passengers and crew on some aircraft have been poisoned by organophosphates from oil or hydraulic fluids leaking into the air-conditioning system. Two widely used planes - the British Aerospace 146 and the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 - are both alleged to have suffered problems. Pilots and crews in America and Australia are claiming compensation for long-term damage to their nervous systems. Documents obtained by The Sunday Times suggest oil vapours contaminating cabins may be even more widespread. They reveal that an auxiliary power unit manufactured by AlliedSignal and used on several planes, including Boeing 737s, has suffered a series of problems, though none has been publicised. "Reports of oil leaks and smoke or odour in cabins increased in the 1990s," reveal the documents. A spokesman for the manufacturer said last week it did not believe its power units were responsible for any "injurious airborne contamination". FOR Kahn, the health risks from flying have been overlooked, even though as many people die in-flight each year as they do in crashes. He says the industry has failed to fund proper research. Kahn believes regular fliers may also be at risk from higher radiation at high altitude. His stance is backed by employee organisations. "People are increasingly walking off aircraft feeling a lot worse than when they got on and it's becoming accepted as the norm," said Shane Enright, of the International Transport Workers' Federation. While campaigners are demanding better standards, there are fears the industry may adopt further money-saving schemes that could pose even more health problems. In America, a proposal has been put forward to cut the amount of fresh air pumped into cabins to five cubic feet of fresh air per minute, which would mean up to 75% of the cabin air would be recirculated. Several airlines are suspected of already reducing the oxygen in the cabin further by shutting down air-conditioning units during part of the flight to save fuel. One United Airlines document says "a [ventilation] pack shutdown can reduce fuel burn". United Airlines says pilots would never shut down ventilation packs to save money, but unions are now lobbying regulatory organisations in Europe and America to ensure air-quality standards are improved. Passengers such as Anne Lewis simply want a clear explanation of what the risks are. "Maybe what happened to us was a fault with the ventilation system, but if it wasn't, where is the protection for your family? I just hope the House of Lords inquiry will find some of the answers." How passengers get ill : 1. Fresh air is taken in through the jet engines. It is compressed and heated before entering the cabin. In some cases it can become contaminated with toxic vapours from oils and hydraulic fluids 2. Half the air is re-circulated after it has been through the cabin. There is a risk airborne bacteria and viruses may not be caught by the filters which recycle the air 3. A passenger at the rear of the aircraft is likely to have less oxygen and may be more at risk from bacteria from other passengers 4. Pilots are given only fresh air and have up to 150 cubic feet per minute, compared to passengers in economy class who may get as little as seven cubic feet per minute 5. The cabin atmosphere has 20% less oxygen than air at sea level because it is pressurised to the equivalent of being at an altitude of 6,000 feet. This ensures less of a pressure differential between the inside of the cabin and outside of the plane 6. Radiation: The thinner atmosphere at altitude creates a greater risk of radiation from the sun. A frequent flyer on long-haul routes may be getting the equivalent of more than 100 X-rays a year. © THE LONDON SUNDAY TIMES : SUNDAY, 7th MAY 2000. |
Bacteria and oil polluted air, not enough even of that, radiation sickness, and - on certain airlines - pilots either arguing or not talking to each other!
Why do we do it :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ------------------ Flight Sims, very expensive toys - but real fun to play with! |
Skylark
I started a thread relating to this newsaper article in 'Rumours & News' [Are Airlines risking people's health]. You might be interested in going in & taking a look; there are some good replies. Eh there appears to be a bit of overlapping http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif SIERRA [This message has been edited by Sierra (edited 10 May 2000).] |
Thank you
Just read the above post on oxygen quality and I would like to say thank you for posting it.
A couple of days ago, I posted a story on this site about how I flew to Vancouver (Zoom) from London. As a well controlled asthmatic on one inhaler, I became very short of breath and dizzy. It took 3 weeks to recover from both flights. My husband was ill as were a couple of others on the flight. The response I was met with was 'You are on the wrong site, see a chest physician. It had nothing to do with your flight' Which I found quite patronising. I have since spoken to a friend that flew with her friend to Australia. She became short of breath on the flight and fainted. Her friend is a pilot, who said it was to do with the oxygen levels on the plane. So to the first person that gave me that reply, you are patronising me and I dont like it. There is proof that poor air recycling systems will affect oxygen saturations on planes, if you would like some scientific papers about what can happen, then let me know and I will email them to you. I have more respect for people keeping an open mind than categorically denying it happens. To the person that wrote the above post, thank you. Very informative. |
Couple things come to mind. One the Aircraft is pressurized for altitudes some are not used too. 6-8000' MSL. Yes the air has little things in it and is re-circulated through the cabin.
Best suggestion for those with Medical conditions is not to fly, take an Oxygen Bottle( some are Approved) or rent a Private Jet. Not a lot of options |
After flying as crew for nearly 26 years now, you might expect that I would be reporting sick quite frequently, based on the above.
Since I'm not doing so, I'm curious as to why - anybody know? |
"Since I'm not doing so, I'm curious as to why - anybody know?"
Probably because your special..............ha ha Seriously some MD should answer that, but Im betting its due to a build up in the immune system. The folks mentioned or that We hear about usually have one foot in the grave before they board. |
As a well controlled asthmatic on one inhaler, Most poeple are not aware of the pressurisation being at an altitude like this, and I guess if you were to go up Mont Blanc in the alps, that you would have similar problems. Regards, SD.. |
When flying as flight crew for many years I never got unduly sick (as Tightslot stated) however since starting to fly as pax I would say I pick up a cold/throat bug or sinus infection about every other return flight so say about 25% chance on each sector I fly (and rarely/never get these conditions under normal circumstance)...I can only assume that as flight deck I was either not as exposed to the germs and/or the constant exposure gave me some form of immunity - cant explain it either - but what I do know is being exposed to the recirculated germs of 200 other people in a confined space directly relates to the frequency of these bugs with me.
|
My guess is that 99% of pax imagine that the cabin is pressurised to "the exact same pressure as the point of embarkation". They would be surprised to discover that, even before the a/c has reached the cruise, the cabin has gone up to 6~8,000.
It would be interesting to ask them how they think the cabin is balanced if you embark at sea level and disembark at, say, JNB which is some 5,500'. := |
The cabin atmosphere has 20% less oxygen than air at sea level Air has one component that varies according to altitude, and that's water vapour. The percentage (partial pressure) of oxygen remains unchanged. There'd be a small % reduction in recycled air, but no worse than in an unventilated room. Granted, there'd be fewer molecules of air at a lower cabin pressure, but you'd have to be pretty ill for your respitory system to struggle, given you're at rest. There was an age when newspapers would share this info, rather than conjure up rubbish. :( |
Nope, the partial pressure of O2 (what matters to us humans) does infact drop as you ascend. Water vapour changes in inspired air is not relevant to respiratory physiology calculations because you can safely assume the air in your alveolae is 100% saturated at any altitude you are likely to find yourself at.
Got a few spare minutes to edited to provide some figures. Sea level. Partial Pressure 02 = 760mmHg * 20% (approx O2 concentration) = 152mmHg 6000ft. Partial Pressure O2 = 609mmHg * 20% = 122 mmHg 8000ft. Partial Pressure O2 = 564mmHg * 20% = 112mmHg Therefore at 6000 cabin altitude there is indeed 20% less O2 in the air available to us humans, and (as this is not PC to say and I take the risk of having my account terminated :)) the journo is correct! Due to the marvellous and elegant design of the haemoglobin molecule humans can compensate for this extremely effectively and blood O2 levels for a healthy individual will remain safe. There will always be borderline humans where this increase in cabin altitude will cause them distress. If you want some more figures and graphs showing how haemoglobin affects things then go to the USAF Flight Surgeon Guide |
It can't be any worse than the London Underground in winter.
However, it occurs to me that this might be a splendid way of getting an on-board upgrade. Arrive on board, strap in to you 17 x 28 inch economy class box and immediately put on a surgical mask. When questioned about the mask by the cabin crew (who are immune to all this?) say in a loud voice that you understand the company is screwing around with the "air conditioning" in order to save money and that you are taking no chances. Bet you get an upgrade ;) |
Bet you get an upgrade |
You said it evening star....an upgrade?? I think not!!:E
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:55. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.