The airline industry would be forced to adopt new measures to protect passengers and crew members from toxic aircraft fumes under a bill introduced in Congress this month.
The legislation seeks to address a basic fact of flight: the air we breathe in airplanes comes directly from jet engines. Under normal conditions, the air is safe, but if there is a mechanical problem, heated jet engine oil and other aviation fluids can leak into the air supply, and can release toxic gases into the airplane
While homes and offices across the country are required to have carbon monoxide detectors, airplanes do not have this requirement.
“We’re all breathing polluted air,” said Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., the House bill’s sponsor.
Like many members of Congress, Garamendi is a frequent traveler and has long been concerned about his own cumulative exposure to toxic gases, he said. Often, “there’s a strong smell that you’re breathing something you shouldn’t be breathing,” Garamendi said. “Anyone who’s been in an airplane when it starts the engine knows exactly what I’m talking about.”
The legislation would create new mandates for crew training and for reporting and investigating smoke events. Airplanes should be equipped with sensors to detect air pollution.
Lawmakers cited a Los Angeles Times investigation that found the hazardous vapors contaminate airplane air supplies with alarming frequency, sometimes sickening passengers and crew and incapacitating pilots during flights. Over a two-year period, nearly 400 pilots, flight attendants and passengers reported receiving medical attention after these “smoke events,” and four dozen pilots were described as impaired to the point of no able to perform their duties, The Times found.
“Our legislation takes action where the FAA and the airline industry have not, requiring air detector and surveillance equipment, incident reporting and investigations of these events to ensure a safer travel experience for every American,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, the bill’s Senate sponsor, said in a statement.
The bill is also co-sponsored by Senators Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, and Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and Representative Brian K. Fitzpatrick, R-Pennsylvania.
Major industry unions representing pilots, flight attendants and mechanics support the legislation.
“It is unacceptable that passengers and airline crew members can be exposed to toxins while flying, toxins that can cause respiratory and neurological conditions, including breathing difficulties, headaches and fatigue,” said the president of Transportation Workers of America International, John Samuelsen, in a statement.
Scientists have long warned of the potential dangers of breathing in heated jet engine oil, which contains tricresyl phosphate, or TCP, a highly toxic chemical that can damage the nervous system. According to experts, TCP can have immediate effects, such as headaches and dizziness, as well as long-term effects, such as tremors and memory problems. Some pilots and flight attendants have experienced serious health problems, including brain damage, after the fume events, The Times found.
The bill would require a major overhaul of current practices. No government agency tracks smoke events or how often people get sick or disabled.
Without sensors to measure air quality, planes rely on a low-tech method: the smell test. Internal documents from airlines and aircraft manufacturers provide detailed instructions for identifying oil and hydraulic fluid contamination in the air supply by odors such as “dirty socks”, “wet” and “acrid”, it found The Times.
The legislation would require planes to have sensors that would “alert the pilot and flight attendants of poor air quality that is hazardous to human health,” and would require airlines and manufacturers to develop procedures for how respond to alarms.
The proposed Cabin Air Safety Act is not the first time lawmakers have tackled the issue. Congress has twice held hearings on airplane air quality, in 1994 and 2003. Similar legislation has repeatedly languished in committee.
Supporters of the new bill hope it could be included in the FAA Reauthorization Act, a potentially easier vehicle than passing a single law.
It is unclear what, if any, opposition the bill may face. Aircraft makers Boeing and Airbus did not respond to questions about their positions on the legislation.
“Regulations and mandatory monitoring requirements are premature in the absence of scientific studies validating a health concern, reliable and accurate sensor technologies, and detection standards,” wrote Marli Collier, a spokeswoman for Airlines for America, on airline pressure arm. a statement
Aircraft air quality studies have only looked at normal flights where no smoke events have been reported. No major research has ever measured chemicals in smoke events as they occur.
In 2003, Congress ordered the FAA to measure levels of toxic chemicals at such events, but airlines refused to allow flight attendants to bring air samples on board, according to a funded research report by the FAA.
The FAA declined to comment on pending legislation. “Studies have shown that cabin air is as good or better than the air found in offices and homes,” the agency told The Times.
“Cabin air inside Boeing airplanes is safe,” a Boeing spokesman previously wrote in a statement to The Times. “Due to the high air change rate and HEPA recirculation filtration system, the air quality of Boeing aircraft compares favorably with other indoor air environments such as schools, office buildings and homes , as numerous unbiased third-party studies have found.”
But HEPA filters can only filter particles above a certain size. They are not effective against gases.
Boeing previously told The Times that scientific studies have not shown a link between fume events and health problems. The company previously said it has not equipped its planes with air sensors because suppliers have not “demonstrated the existence” of devices that could “reliably detect polluted air”.
But the Times’ investigation found that Boeing executives had legal concerns that went beyond technological shortcomings. Senior Boeing engineers worried that the sensor data could prove damaging if used as evidence in lawsuits brought by sick passengers and crew members, according to internal emails and affidavits.
An internal Boeing memo described it as a “risk” to give air sensors even to an airline, according to a statement from a Boeing executive.
“Flight attendant, pilot unions and congressional supporters could use this effort as evidence that sensors are needed and … to push their agenda to require purge air sensors on all aircraft” , said the 2015 memo, which Boeing turned over in litigation.
Garamendi, the House bill’s sponsor, noted that air monitoring equipment is “readily available.”
“For the airlines, ignorance is money. If the toxic exposure was known, you would have to look at the long-term health effects that can lead to workers’ compensation,” claims, lawsuits and requirements that manufacturers they change “the design of the planes”. ”, said Garamendi.
“So pay attention, Boeing.”
