Injured On An Airplane?

.

On January 21, 2010, about 2340 Alaska standard time, a twin-engine turboprop Beech 1900C airplane, N112AX, was destroyed when it crashed in the ocean following a loss of control shortly after takeoff from Runway 31 at the Sand Point Airport, Sand Point, Alaska. The airplane was being operated as Flight 22, by Alaska Central Express, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, as an instrument flight rules (IFR) cargo flight under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135. The two flightcrew members, the airline transport certificated captain, and the commercial certificated first officer, sustained fatal injuries. Dark night, visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed, and an instrument flight plan had been filed for the flight to Anchorage. A postaccident review of the radio communication recordings maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), revealed that the captain contacted the Anchorage air route traffic control center (ARTCC), about 2336, to request an instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance for the flight from Sand Point to Anchorage. His request was granted, and he was instructed to contact ARTCC after departure from Sand Point. According to ARTCC specialist on duty, no further radio communications were received from the accident airplane.

During on-scene interviews by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge (IIC) on January 27, two witnesses that were standing outside a home situated along the shoreline, about 1 mile north of the Sand Point Airport, reported hearing what they believed was the accident airplane as it departed. Both witnesses reported that as the airplane’s takeoff progressed, the engine noise suddenly changed, followed by a very loud sound of impact, and then silence. One of the witnesses said that just before hearing the impact, he momentarily saw the lights of the airplane descend into the ocean. The witnesses called 911 to report the accident. Both witnesses said that winds at the time were very strong out of the north, estimated between 50 and 60 knots.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s Air Station Kodiak was notified that an airplane had crashed in the water just north of the departure end of Runway 31. The Coast Guard initiated an emergency response and immediately dispatched an HH-60J rescue helicopter from Air Station Kodiak. Volunteer search personnel located floating debris, including the first officer’s flight bag in the area north of the airport, but no survivors.

On January 24, recovery personnel located the submerged airplane wreckage in about 45 feet of water, about 1 mile north of the departure end of Runway 31. The bodies of both pilots were recovered.

On January 24 and 25, recovery crews and divers recovered the fragmented wreckage from the ocean floor, and transported it to Sand Point.

On January 26 and 27, a wreckage examination and layout was done under the direction of the NTSB IIC. Two FAA air safety inspectors from the Anchorage Flight Standards District Office, along with air safety investigators from Hawker Beechcraft and Pratt and Whitney, and representatives from Alaska Central Express, assisted the NTSB IIC.

The airplane was equipped with two Pratt and Whitney PT6A-65B turboshaft engines, each outfitted with a Hartzell HC-B4MP-3A propeller, with four-bladed composite propeller blades. The accident airplane’s left propeller was found in the “feathered” position at recovery. A postaccident examination of both engines and propellers are pending.

The closest official weather observation station is located at the Sand Point Airport. At 2356, an Aviation Routine Weather Report (METAR) was reporting, in part: Wind, 330 degrees (true) at 19 knots with gusts to 26 knots; visibility, 8 statute miles; clouds and sky condition, 2,000 feet broken, 2,800 feet overcast; temperature, 23 degrees F; dew point, 18 degrees F; altimeter, 29.91 inHg.

Residents of Sand Point reported that winds are consistently stronger to the north of the Sand Point Airport.

Updated on Feb 4 2010 5:39PM

The trucks weren’t needed, it turned out. The Boeing 767-300 jet landed safely, the pilot said in his account to NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System, which allows airline employees to report incidents confidentially and without identifying the airline or the flight.

The pilot reported that he later was told by mechanics that the incident was caused by a landing-gear wheel that was missing a part and had been installed incorrectly.

The passengers on the unidentified international flight were on a jet that should never have left the ground. Improper repair work made it unsafe to fly. It was no isolated incident.

During the past six years, millions of passengers have been on at least 65,000 U.S. airline flights that shouldn’t have taken off because planes weren’t properly maintained, a six-month USA TODAY investigation has found.

The investigation — which included an analysis of government fines against airlines for maintenance violations and penalty letters sent to them that were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act — reveals that substandard repairs, unqualified mechanics and lax oversight by airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are not unusual.

“Many repairs are not being done or done properly, and too many flights are leaving the ground in what the FAA calls ‘unairworthy,’ or unsafe, condition,” says John Goglia, a former airline mechanic who was a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) member from 1995 to 2004.

Airlines contract about 70% of their maintenance work to repair shops in the USA and abroad, where mistakes can be made by untrained and ill-equipped personnel, the Department of Transportation’s inspector general says. Airlines also disregard FAA inspectors’ findings to keep planes flying, defer necessary repairs beyond permissible time frames, use unapproved parts and perform their own sloppy maintenance work, according to FAA documents.

Though many maintenance problems go undetected, the FAA levied $28.2 million in fines and proposed fines against 25 U.S. airlines for maintenance violations that occurred during the past six years. In many cases, planes operated for months before the FAA found maintenance deficiencies. In some cases, airlines continued to fly planes after the FAA found deficiencies in them.

The 65,000 flights that took off when they shouldn’t have represent a fraction of the 63.8 million flights that all U.S. airlines flew during the past six years. The FAA doesn’t always document how many times planes with maintenance problems have flown.

The FAA says it “sets an exceptionally high bar” for the required level of safety for airlines and says the fines indicate that problems were detected and corrected. The airline industry also says its planes are safe and points to millions of incident-free flights.

U.S. airlines “regard safety as their highest responsibility,” and “their maintenance programs reflect that commitment to safety,” says Elizabeth Merida, a spokeswoman for the Air Transport Association, which represents big U.S. airlines. The ATA says members haven’t had a fatal accident “attributable to maintenance” since Jan. 1, 2000.

That year, an Alaska Airlines jet flying from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, to San Francisco, crashed into the Pacific Ocean about 3 miles north of Anacapa Island, Calif., killing all 88 people aboard. The accident was caused by a loss of plane pitch control after threads of a screw assembly on the tail failed, according to the NTSB, which investigates air accidents. Alaska Airlines didn’t sufficiently lubricate the assembly, causing excessive thread wear. The FAA had approved extending the time between lubrications, which contributed to the accident, the NTSB said.

A USA TODAY analysis of NTSB data shows that maintenance was “a cause, factor or finding” in 18 other accidents since Jan. 1, 2000. Some were on scheduled flights of airlines that are ATA members, some were on airlines that aren’t members. No one was killed or injured in 10 of the accidents; 43 people were killed and 60 injured in the others.

Putting fliers in jeopardy

Last April, the NTSB determined that American Airlines failed to catch mistakes by maintenance workers before an engine on a jet caught fire during takeoff from St. Louis on Sept. 28, 2007. The plane had substantial damage. After an emergency landing, passengers were safely evacuated on the runway.

Thirteen days before the flight, mechanics replaced the engine’s air turbine starter valve six times, but none of the replacements solved an engine-start problem, the NTSB said. At the gate prior to the flight, a mechanic used “an unapproved tool” to start the engine, and damaged a component.

In October, the FAA proposed a $3.8 million fine against United Airlines for allegedly operating a Boeing 737 jet “not in airworthy condition” on more than 200 flights Feb. 10-April 28, 2008.

After takeoff from Denver on April 28, pilots noticed low oil pressure, shut down an engine and returned to the airport. United mechanics inspecting the engine found that two towels, instead of required protective caps, had been used to cover openings in the oil sump area when maintenance was done four months earlier, the FAA says.

United immediately reported what it found to the FAA, says Megan McCarthy, the airline’s spokeswoman. United “took appropriate and necessary measures” to ensure its maintenance standards are met and “issues like this will not happen in the future,” she says.

FAA inspectors have found maintenance problems at many airlines.

A review of hundreds of pages of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act chronicles repeated instances in the past six years of shoddy maintenance and improper procedures done by ill-trained and ill-equipped workers, even some instances of coverups of bad repairs that put fliers’ safety in jeopardy:

•Before a Jan. 16, 2006, flight from El Paso, Continental Airlines contacted a certified repair station, Julie’s Aircraft Services, about a possible engine leak on a Boeing 737-500. Julie’s assigned three mechanics to assess the situation. They hadn’t received training from Continental on engine troubleshooting, had no Continental maintenance manuals to address problems and didn’t have the required tools or equipment, the FAA says.

The mechanics opened the cowling of one of the plane’s two engines and told pilots to start that engine. The FAA says the engine was run at excessive speed, contrary to Boeing’s caution to not go “above idle power with the fan cowls panels open,” and that the mechanics didn’t maintain required communication with the cockpit. One mechanic was “ingested” into the engine and killed. Continental was fined $45,000.

•In July 2008, the FAA revoked the flying certificate of Alaska-based L.A.B Flying Service after several accidents, incidents and maintenance violations dating to April 2002. The airline flew passengers on planes with missing, loose, corroded and damaged parts, and maintenance personnel put false repair entries into logbooks, according to FAA documents.

In June 2007, an aircraft was destroyed by a fire caused by a leaking exhaust system. Significant engine damage “may have occurred” during the fire, the FAA says, but a year later, L.A.B. installed the damaged engine on another plane. In 2002 and 2003, there were five instances of parts breaking or falling off L.A.B. planes in flight. Since 2004, L.A.B. “has committed an astounding number of maintenance and maintenance-related regulatory violations,” the FAA says.

•Shortly after takeoff on Jan. 19, 2004, an American Eagle plane returned to Bangor, Maine, because rudder pedals and the rudder “jammed in the full right rudder position.” The FAA, which fined the airline $600,000, found that the airline had “prior knowledge of an aircraft vibration, yet continued to dispatch and operate the aircraft until actual rudder control failure at Bangor.” The FAA says American Eagle “failed to employ competent personnel to ensure the highest degree of safety in its operations,” and flying the plane “in an unairworthy condition” on 20 flights with a vibration “was careless and endangered the life or property of another.”

•The FAA fined Atlantic Southeast Airlines $250,000 for operating a Canadair CL-600 aircraft on 20 flights in May 2005 in “unairworthy condition.” The plane earlier had been taken to a West Virginia repair station for “retrofitting of the ejector pump” and installation of a “communication addressing and reporting system,” the FAA says.

Knowing that the work “either had not been completed or that the documentation of these tasks had not been completed,” Atlantic Southeast nevertheless put the plane back in service on passenger flights.

•On 374 occasions from May 23 to June 23, 2004, JetBlue released jets from its New York and Long Beach, Calif., maintenance facilities without performing required work on their in-flight entertainment systems. The FAA said JetBlue flew passengers with planes in “unairworthy condition” and fined the airline $49,000.

•In October 2006, the FAA fined American Eagle $25,000 after a June 2005 inspection of its facility at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport found “inadequate” aircraft parts, supplies and materials “available for use” for maintenance and alterations. Unidentified items with expired shelf lives were found in cabinets and mechanics’ toolboxes.

Seven months after that inspection, the FAA did another inspection at the facility, and again found “inadequate” parts, supplies and materials. Expiration-date stickers had been removed from unidentified items. The FAA fined American Eagle $43,750.

The Department of Transportation’s inspector general also has identified maintenance deficiencies during the past nine years.

In November, Inspector General Calvin Scovel told a House subcommittee that more than 100 mechanics working on an unidentified airline’s planes at an unidentified repair station didn’t have sufficient training and lacked required tools. At other repair stations, the inspector general found untrained mechanics, lack of required tools and unsafe storage of aircraft parts.

Questions about uncertified work

Besides nearly 4,900 repair stations in the USA and abroad, uncertified repair stations and mechanics are doing maintenance work, including engine replacement and other critical repairs.

FAA regulations allow an airline to use uncertified repair facilities and mechanics if a certified mechanic approves the repairs and the airline oversees them. Such facilities aren’t required to be in aircraft hangars or to employ supervisors and inspectors to monitor repair work.

In a December 2005 report, the inspector general said it was widely believed that uncertified repair stations performed minor work, but the inspector general found the stations were performing work critical to aircraft safety without the FAA’s knowledge.

Use of uncertified facilities can “create safety vulnerabilities,” Scovel told the House in November. Of 10 uncertified repair facilities visited by the inspector general, two “were operated by only one mechanic with a truck and basic tools.”

Use of uncertified repair facilities — which can be less costly for airlines — was questioned in January 2003 after an Air Midwest plane operating on a US Airways Express flight crashed following takeoff from Charlotte. All 21 aboard were killed.

NTSB investigators said mechanics working for a maintenance contractor incorrectly adjusted a flight-control system that contributed to the accident. The mechanics were certified, but the contractor wasn’t, Scovel told a House subcommittee in 2007.

Outsourced repairs on rise

Cost-squeezed airlines also try to save money by farming out an increasing amount of maintenance work to foreign repair stations. The number of FAA-certified foreign repair stations increased from 344 in 1994 to 731 in 2009, according to Scovel.

FAA oversight of such stations is “weak at best,” and more than 90% of “people turning the wrenches” at foreign repair stations are not certified mechanics, says Goglia, the former NTSB board member.

Unions representing certified airline mechanics, including the Transport Workers Union of America and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, are angry about the loss of jobs to other countries and the quality of work abroad. In December in Washington, TWU mechanics distributed leaflets to members of Congress pointing out safety and security concerns with foreign repair work. The TWU thinks airlines “are fleeing federal oversight” and questions whether reliance on overseas repair work is “a disaster waiting to happen,” says Robert Gless, assistant director of the union’s Air Transport Division.

“Just because there’s an absence of disaster, it doesn’t mean you have a safe circumstance with overseas maintenance facilities,” he says. “What does it take — one or two planes to fall out of the sky — to say, ‘Why did this happen?’ “

The FAA says there’s no need to worry about work done abroad.

“Just as aviation safety is in no way compromised by allowing U.S. carriers to fly aircraft made in Europe, in Brazil or in Canada, safety is in no way compromised by allowing other countries’ facilities, which perform to our safety standards, to conduct repair and maintenance on our aircraft,” Doug Dalbey, an FAA deputy director, told a House subcommittee last November.

Besides maintenance issues, the inspector general’s office found “security vulnerabilities” — including susceptibility to sabotage — at airport and off-airport repair stations.

Concerns are so great that since August 2008, Congress has barred the FAA from certifying any new foreign repair station until the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issues a rule to improve security.

In November, the TSA said a proposed rule was open for comment. Congress has also introduced bills to close regulatory gaps between foreign and domestic repair stations.

Lax oversight ‘raises risk’

Shoddy work or failure to do repairs can often go undetected because of inconsistent or ineffective FAA and airline oversight.

In November, Scovel told a House subcommittee that it “may be months or even years” before FAA inspectors do an on-site review of a repair station after it’s approved for use by an airline.

FAA inspectors for an unidentified airline inspected only four of the carrier’s 15 main maintenance providers during a three-year period. And a major engine repair facility abroad, which worked on 39 of 53 engines repaired for an airline, wasn’t visited by FAA inspectors for five years after the facility was certified.

“As a result of FAA’s flawed approval and untimely inspection processes, maintenance problems either went undetected or reoccurred,” the inspector general said.

Scovel said his office made 23 recommendations to improve FAA oversight of domestic and foreign repair stations during the previous seven years. Sixteen have not been addressed — including “a number” that “are critical.”

In a written statement to USA TODAY, the FAA says it has made changes “when appropriate.” The agency says it is “confident that proper FAA oversight is being given to domestic and foreign repair stations, and our safety record underscores that point.”

In a September 2008 report, the inspector general’s office blamed airlines’ audits of repair stations for not detecting problems. At one heavy airframe repair station, two airline audits and two FAA inspections “failed to detect significant weaknesses” at the facility.

The problems, which were later discovered by another airline interested in contracting with the repair station, “were so serious” that the facility stopped operating for more than a month, the report says.

FAA documents also reveal poor airline oversight.

In July 2007, the agency fined United $15,000 for putting an unqualified person in charge of its engine overhaul shop in San Francisco “on multiple occasions” from Aug. 30 through Nov. 1, 2004. The person approving work wasn’t licensed to sign off on it.United spokeswoman McCarthy says the airline has changed how it reviews qualifications and certifies supervisors.

“All these departures from the rules,” Goglia says, “raise the risk little by little until there’s an incident or a crash.”

For Original follow the below link:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-02-02-1Aairmaintenance02_CV_N.htm

.

SAND POINT, Alaska — The body of a man and a Seattle woman, both pilots, were found after their plane crashed Friday near Sand Point, Alaska.

On Sunday, the Coast Guard and Alaska State Troopers told KIRO 7 that divers found wreckage of the ACE Air Beechcraft 1900C with two bodies inside.

The two were identified as 28-year-old Ameer Ali and 23-year-old Emily Lewis. A Lewis family spokeswoman said Lewis grew up in the Seattle area and was engaged to be married this year. Ellie Materi said the family would like people to know that Lewis “was a funny, sweet wonderful person who always loved flying.”

Lewis recently moved to Alaska to work as a pilot.

The Coast Guard said the aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff from the Sand Point airport.

The plane had been bound for Anchorage with a load of fish and mail.

The 28-year-old Ali grew up in New York and came to Alaska after serving as a flight mechanic in the Marines.

For the orginal article please follow the below link:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/22332190/detail.html

.

Written by Associated Press writers Zeina Karam,Elizabeth A. Kennedy in Beirut, Bassem Mroue in Hamaway, Lebanon, Slobodan Lekic in Brussels and Katharine Houreld in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Published by the Associated Press

EIRUT – The pilot of a doomed Ethiopian Airlines flight made a “fast and strange turn” minutes after takeoff from Beirut in a thunderstorm, but the transportation minister said it was far too early to know what caused the deadly crash.

All 90 people on board the plane bound for Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, were feared dead from the crash, which happened at around 2:30 a.m. Monday. A second day of rescue operations using sonar-equipped boats and divers turned up only a few body parts, extinguishing hope of finding any survivors.

While search teams scoured the sea floor trying to find the bulk of the wreckage as well as the black box and flight data recorder, which are critical to determining the cause of the crash, new clues emerged Tuesday about the plane’s few minutes of flight.

Transportation Minister Ghazi Aridi revealed that the plane flew in the opposite direction from the path recommended by the control tower after taking off in stormy weather.

He said the pilot initially followed the tower’s guidance, but then abruptly changed course and went in the opposite direction.

“They asked him to correct his path but he did a very fast and strange turn before disappearing completely from the radar,” Aridi told The Associated Press.

“Nobody is saying the pilot is to blame for not heeding orders,” Aridi said, adding: “There could have been many reasons for what happened. … Only the black box can tell.”

It was not clear why the pilot veered off the recommended path. Like most other airliners, the Boeing 737 is equipped with its own onboard weather radar, which the pilot may have used to avoid flying into thunderheads rather than following the flight tower’s recommendation.

Ethiopian Airlines said late Monday that the pilot had more than 20 years of experience.

Rescue teams and equipment sent from the U.N. and countries that included the United States and Cyprus were searching an area up to six miles (10 kilometers) out to sea. Conditions were chilly but relatively clear Tuesday — far better than Monday, when rain lashed the coast.

Ethiopian Airlines Chief Executive Girma Wake said the American vessel that the U.S. Navy has dispatched to help in search operation is capable of lifting the plane’s fuselage from the water.

“When they lift it up, we hope they will find trapped bodies in the fuselage,” Wake told journalists in Addis Ababa.

By mid-afternoon, part of the wreckage and some life rafts has been recovered from the area, the airline said.

Crews have pulled bodies from the sea; the numbers reported so far range from a dozen to more than 20. Several officials have revised their numbers, saying they miscounted.

Pieces of the plane and other debris were washing ashore, and emergency crews pulled a large piece of the plane, about 3 feet (1 meter) long, from the water. A recovery team member, Safi Sultaneh, identified it as a piece of a wing.

Lebanese officials have said there is no indication of terrorism or “sabotage.”

A senior security official involved in the crash investigation said the black box would provide more definitive answers, but he noted that conditions including the weather are more likely culprits than anyone bringing the plane down on purpose.

“The probability of sabotage in these circumstances is much less than all other probabilities,” he said, asking for anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly.

But experts said it was too early to rule out anything, even terrorism.

“Quite frankly you can’t say that at this stage,” aviation safety analyst Chris Yates said. “It’s a political statement at this point. You can’t rule out anything.”

Patrick Smith, a U.S.-based airline pilot and aviation writer, said there were many possible causes for the crash.

“Had the plane encountered extreme turbulence, or had it suffered a powerful lightning strike that knocked out instruments while penetrating strong turbulence, then structural failure or loss of control, followed by an in-flight breakup, are possible causes.”

The Lebanese army and witnesses say the plane was on fire shortly after takeoff. A defense official also said some witnesses reported the plane broke up into three pieces.

In the southern Lebanese village of Hanaway, hundreds of people gathered in the mansion of Hassan Tajeddine, 49, one of the few people whose bodies have been identified from the crash.

Tajeddine, a father of three boys and a girl, comes from a wealthy and influential Shiite family in southern Lebanon. Several prominent members of Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah group were attending the funeral.

“Why did they allow this plane to talk off?” asked Hussein Saad, the man’s uncle.

Tajeddine’s coffin was covered in black cloth with writings from the Muslim holy book.

At the Government Hospital in Beirut, the mood was somber Tuesday for families gathered outside hoping for news of loved ones.

“We don’t have much hope left,” said Adnan Bahr, a relative of 24-year-old Yasser al-Mahdi. “They’re all gone with the sea.”

For Original article follow the below link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_plane_crash

.

By Kyle Hopkins

Anchorage Daily News

.

“Furlong said his team is a few months away from finalizing a blood analysis test that will be able to definitely confirm whether the study participants were indeed poisoned by toxic fumes.”

A recent blog post outlines the research being done at the University of Washington that could scientifically prove that by flying on a plane you have a risk of being exposed to toxic air.

“Inside a freezer in a research laboratory at the University of Washington are blood and blood plasma samples from 92 people who suffer from mysterious illnesses, including tremors, memory loss and severe migraine headaches. ”

To read more follow the below link:

http://luminascjp.blog8.com/2010/01/21/scientists-analyze-blood-to-test-for-toxic-airplane-air-exposure/

.

Written by Beth Shayne
Published by WCNC.com

The US Airways Boeing 767 plane where 15 people got sick Jan. 16 had been taken out of service twice in recent weeks for a foul odor.

On Jan. 16, Flight 1041 from St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands was met by ambulances when it landed in Charlotte after passengers and crew complained of headaches and nausea they attributed to a suspicious smell. Eight passengers were treated on the scene. Seven crew members were taken to the hospital, where they were treated and released.

Maintenance logs show the plane — tail number 0251 — experienced a similar problem on Dec. 28 and Dec. 30 on flights to San Juan, Puerto Rico. One note in the report reads, “WHEN THRUST LEVERS WERE REDUCED TO IDLE FOR INITIAL DESCENT [sic ] A VERY STRONG ODOR SMELLING LIKE WET SOX AND/OR DIRTY FEET CIRCULATED THROUGH THE PASS. CABIN AND FLT DECK.”

Crew members got sick on board those flights, according to Judith Murawski, a scientist with the Association of Flight Attendants who studies cabin air contamination.

US Airways spokeswoman Michelle Mohr said the plane was grounded and serviced on both occasions. After the second incident, it was taken out of the rotation until Jan. 5, when it was cleared for flight. Mohr said mechanics determined that the problem was a leak of the hydraulic fluid Skydrol.

The plane flew 24 flights without incident in between Jan. 5 and Jan. 16. The Jan. 16 problem has not yet been officially diagnosed, though Mohr notes that a finding of a hydraulic fluid leak is likely. The plane is currently grounded.

Murawski said the problem is far more widespread. Her research indicates there are an average of 0.86 incidents of contamination in the cabin and flight deck per day.

“This happens fleet-wide,” she said.

It is standard industry practice to provide air to the cabin by compressing outside air in the plane’s engine, conditioning it, and then circulating it into the body of the plane. (The air inside the cabin is also constantly recirculated.)

“Your average passenger has no idea that the air that they’re breathing is coming off the engine,” Murawski explained. “Sometimes the engines leak oil and those oils are highly toxic.”

Engine oil contains toxic chemicals including tricresylphosphates (TCPs) and carbon monoxide. Hydraulic fuel, while slightly less serious, also contains toxic chemicals. Leaks involving those substances are often the source of a foul odor that many describe as a “dirty sock” smell.

“It came out of nowhere … lasted for about 5 minutes. Just a strong smell, like smelling in your shoe,” described one flight attendant, who experienced a cabin air contamination on a flight last year. She spoke to WCNC on the condition of anonymity, to protect her job. “Passengers noticed it. Flight attendants — immediately we were alarmed.”

That flight attendant says crew members on her flight suffered from headaches, loss of their sense of taste, and flu-like symptoms. Some are still experiencing health problems.

She believes passengers may never know what happened. “Flight attendants went off that plane sick, and most likely passengers did as well, but they have no idea,” she said.

“If they smell a dirty sock smell they think the person before them has taken off their shoes,” Murawski said. “It doesn’t occur to them that they are being exposed to engine oil fumes.”

Some people who have been exposed to the chemicals from engine leaks have complained of long-term neurological effects, including tremors, memory loss, and loss of vision. A pair of twins who were passengers on a Southwest flight have sued the airplane manufacturer. A former flight attendant is also involved in litigation against Boeing.

(Boeing told news partners at KING5 in Seattle that “cabin air in airplanes is safe.”)

Alisa Brodkowitz, who represents the plaintiffs in both suits, says the airlines and airplane manufacturers have simply refused to act.

“They have the science to monitor bleed air contamination on these planes, and they are not doing it. They have the science to install sensors on this aircraft, and they are not doing it,” Brodkowitz said.

For original article follow the below link:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/1191873.html

“This problem has been kept under the radar screen. Passengers are exposed to fumes and become sick on a flight and they scatter to the four corners of the world and no one ever tells them why they may be sick.”

.

Written by Ben Mutzabaugh

Published by USA Today

Ryanair’s proposed toilet fee is back in the news again. In case you missed it the story this past weekend, the Irish Times  writes “Ryanair says it will press ahead with plans to charge passengers to use its aircraft’s toilets. Despite admitting its announcement last year that it might install coin-operated facilities was a publicity stunt, chief executive Michael O’Leary is now revisiting the issue, according to the airline.”

Ryanair’s plan? The Times says Europe’s largest low-cost carrier wants to remove the two rear lavatories, making room for six additional seats while leaving just one bathroom on its planes. The carrier would charge €1 or £1 – roughly $1.60 – to use the bathroom. The fee would apply only on flights of one hour or less, according to the Times. Ryanair told customers via its in-flight magazine that coin-operated toilets would be “a cost-saving proposal” that could help cut fares by up to 5%. 

Ryanair’s outspoken O’Leary made waves when he first broached the idea last year, though he later admitted it was a good way to generate “cheap PR.” However, the carrier says it’s taking a more serious look this time around. “The funny thing about Michael is that he’ll say these things as an off-the-cuff remark, and then he’ll start to think about it more and more ..,” Ryanair spokesman Stephen McNamara tells the Times. 

Still, experts are skeptical. While Ryanair apparently has talked to Boeing about re-fitting 50 of Ryanair’s Boeing 737 jets with the one-bathroom layout, one unnamed industry expert tells the Times that doing so could prove costly and could run into safety certification issues. Additionally, if the changes were made, Ryanair may have trouble selling its one-bathroom jets once it was time to retire them from its fleet. 

For Original article follow the below link:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=16016.blog