b1lanc

This sound incredulous;
Capt nearly incapacitated on landing (while on O2);
Descent started early (at 20 min prior to landing?);
CO levels near lethal for some crew;
One crew suffered heart condition (which may be permanent);
All FAs in hospital for 3 days;
One FA with nerve-ending inflammation;
No Pax ill;
Full engine wet seal breach.

I don't dispute fume events or the cumulative effects of combustion contamination of air on crew, but unless independent confirmation is made available, my view of this other site's reporting will forever be jaded.

CargoOne

I was wondering why majority of fumes reports on that site are related to various German airlines, it can't be that their mx practices are any worse compared to others - there is obviously an agenda behind it.

miles_high

It is probably related to the fact that owner is Austrian with good ties to Germany.

I do not see any agenda there since the vast majority of fume events is not even mentioned on the site (1 in 2000 flights = daily, source: Lufthansa).

In any case, you can hardly make an argument against the reporting of fume events and the slight chance that this will positively impact the safety of professionals and passengers alike.

Less Hair

Fume events are a touchy subject. No wonder they were ignored for so long. Glad the topic is coming up more open now.
There must be a way to separate the cabin air flow from any possible contamination.

Some easy thing to begin with would be to install cabin air monitors onboard.

lomapaseo

They are called passengers and crew. but their discernability is not calibrated against any standard

Kerosene Kraut

You'd need to data record any possible cabin air substances and quantities over all flights. Feasable.

SamYeager

I think it's more a case of no pax being examined rather than no pax being ill. I've noticed that in other fume events there's mention of crew being examined but nothing similar about pax. Presumably they're expected to arrange, and pay, for it themselves.

wiedehopf

For most airborne stuff putting active charcoal in the airstream and checking it on the suspicion of a problem would be a viable solution in my eyes.
One could also check those samples randomly every X flights.
Don't think it would catch carbonmonoxide though.

OldLurker

This incident sounds much like the one at Vancouver 13 months ago. The title of the thread on PPRuNe was
British Airways flight diverted to YVR after passengers suffer smoke inhalation
but IIRC it was all the crew and one passenger who went to hospital.

This time the airline admitted a fault with an engine (after being chelleged by the captain).

b1lanc

Well, allegedly after being challenged by the captain. Again, no source other than one website (unless you have other data).

But question. About 9 hours at FLL and about 15 hours in MCO for N902NK. To BWI and later DTW on the 30th (assuming both were revenue flights). Then a quick 8 minute check flight out of DTW on 1/31 with a diversion to ATL. What's the maintenance time for wet seal replacement?

tdracer

If it's an engine oil seal, it's an engine replacement - so however long that takes (I've heard some operators say they can do it in shift).
If it's in the pack (yes, it happens), I suspect it's a pack replacement with a similar turn time to an engine replacement.

old freightdog

I payed little attention to this when it poped up on the herald, thinking it was the usual bus fume event, but this indeed seemed to be more serious. Good on the skipper for putting his foot down when MX wanted to release the plane!

Mark 1

Another Spirit flight had an emergency return to base shortly after take-off from LAS yesterday - https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...607Z/KLAS/KLAS

I've not seen any other reports about this.

Is there any news re. cause? RElated to the OP incident?

b1lanc

Number 2 engine vibrations or engine out depending upon the source.

Dream Buster

http://aerotoxic.org/pdfs/RMontmayeur-testimony.pdf

A passenger testimony from an Airbus 320 flight in 2000

b1lanc

Actually, same AC as the fume event - N902NK
Wonder if it was the No 2 engine that was the cause of the fume event?

Hotel Mode

No they didn't.

hoss183

Another one today: Incident: Delta B763 over Greenland on Feb 5th 2018, 5 flight attendants becoming sick in flight

My theory about why we see this more in CC than Pax is that CC are more active, thus higher breathing and heart rate, which may mean more absorbtion of toxins. Also they are standing more often than pax, and if the toxins are lighter than air will be more often with their heads in it....? (CO is less dense than air)

Evey_Hammond

Also CC spend more time on planes than the majority of passengers so it could be a gradual build up of "something" that makes them more susceptible to fume events maybe.

IcePack

Trouble is with that statement, that in flight the airflow in the cabin is somewhat different. Usually ceiling to floor and about 50lbs weight per (allowed) person. Each type is different & each certification authority requires different volumes but essentially the manufacturers do a lot of testing where air/smoke goes in flight.