Senate Approves Measure to Protect Flying Public From Toxic Cabin Air

Author: Alisa Brodkowitz  |  Category: Fumes


Copyright 2010 Congressional Quarterly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Congressional Press Releases
March 22, 2010 Monday
1132 words


For Immediate Release 

Senate Approves Feinstein Measure to Protect the Flying Public From Harmful Toxins in Cabin Air on U.S. Airliners 

Contact: Gil Duran (202) 224-9629

March 22, 2010 

Washington, DC – The U.S. Senate today approved an amendment by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would require the FAA to conduct a study of air quality in the cabins of U.S. airliners. The amendment is designed to ensure that the FAA has the information it needs to protect the public from harmful toxins in ventilation systems on commercial aircraft. 

Senator Feinstein’s amendment was included in the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. 

This broader legislation authorizes $17 billion for major activities that would spur thousands of jobs, including the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program, which includes runway and taxiway construction; investments in FAA facilities and equipment; and funding of FAA operations. 

Following is Senator Feinstein’s statement entered into the Congressional Record: 

“Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment that addresses the issue of toxins entering the ventilation systems on commercial aircraft. 

This amendment is designed to ensure the FAA has the necessary information to protect the American public from exposure to harmful contaminants while flying. 

Specifically, here what the amendment would do: 

— First it would require FAA to complete a study of cabin air quality within one year. 

— Second, the amendment would provide FAA with the authority to mandate that airlines allow air quality monitoring on their aircraft for the purposes of the study. 

This amendment is necessary because the air in the passenger cabin is a mixture of re-circulated cabin air and fresh air that is compressed in the airplane engine. 

Sometimes the air you breathe on an airplane gets contaminated with engine oils or hydraulic fluids that get heated to very high temperatures, often appearing as a smelly haze or smoke. 

That haze or smoke that enters the cabin air is a toxic soup and can contain carbon monoxide gas as well as chemicals that can damage your nervous system called tricresylphosphates (TCPs). 

Exposure to TCPs can initially cause stomach ache and muscle weakness, followed by delayed memory loss, tremors, confusion, and many other symptoms. 

Exposure to this and other air toxics in cabin air is a serious matter. 

In 2004, the FAA concluded that the problem was so ‘unsafe’ that it needed to do thorough inspections of certain aircraft. 

In a Federal Register notice, FAA called for ‘repetitive detailed inspections of the inside of each air conditioning … duct,’ which FAA stated was ‘necessary to prevent impairment of the operational skills and abilities of the flight crew caused by the inhalation of agents released from oil or oil breakdown products, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.’ 

Let me take moment to explain how these broad findings impact people who happen to be exposed to toxic air in aircraft cabins. 

Terry Williams is a mother of two and a former flight attendant, who knows firsthand the dangers associated with exposure to toxic fumes while onboard an airplane. 

As Terry was working on April 11, 2007, she noticed a ‘misty haze type of smoke’ on the plane as it taxied toward its gate. 

Since then, she has experienced chronic migraines and twitching. 

Terry made repeated visits to the emergency room before a neurologist told her she had been the victim of toxic exposure. 

Terry is not alone. 

Although several flight attendants and passengers have related similar stories to the FAA of smelling chemicals and then experiencing serious illnesses, the FAA has never conducted a large-scale study to measure the frequency or severity of such toxic fume events in aircraft. 

Moreover, there appears to be no FAA standard for identifying or preventing the presence of toxic fumes in aircraft cabins. 

This FAA reauthorization bill pending before the Senate addresses this very important public health and safety issue. 

Specifically, Section 613 of the Commerce Committee’s bill would require that the Federal Aviation Administration implement a research program to identify appropriate and effective air cleaning technology and sensor technology for the engine and auxiliary power unit air supplied to the passenger cabin and flight deck of all pressurized aircraft. 

This is a very good and important provision. FAA should absolutely study what equipment most effectively fixes this air quality problem. 

But my amendment would go further than the establishment of a “research program.” 

It lays out a clear framework for protecting the public from what could be a serious risk. 

First, it requires that FAA study the nature of this risk by thoroughly and comprehensively monitoring the frequency of exposure on aircraft, so that we understand whether toxic exposure is a common occurrence. 

Second, the FAA must assemble records of passenger illness complaints to determine the specific health risks associated with harmful contaminants in airplane ventilation systems. 

By gathering this information, I am confident that FAA will develop a clear picture of the level of health risk posed by toxins in cabin air, and the ways to protect the American travelling public and the hardworking men and women who make air travel possible. 

In March 2009, the President of The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), which in 2007 developed voluntary model standards to protect aircraft cabin air quality, called on FAA to ‘investigate and determine the requirements for bleed air contaminant monitoring and solutions to prevent bleed air contamination.’ 

I would like to submit a copy of this full letter for the record. 

But I also want to read ASHRAE’s conclusion, which states: 

Although no systematic fleet-wide or industry-wide audits have been conducted, the UK Committee on Toxicity recently calculated the incidence of oil/hydraulic fluid events as 1% of flights based on pilots reports and 0.05% of flights based on engineering investigations…. 

‘Still, no aviation regulator requires either bleed air monitoring or bleed air treatment. 

‘To this end, the ASHRAE committee that developed (the model air quality standard) is writing to ask you … to investigate the technical implications and flight safety benefits of addressing bleed air contamination, and to determine the requirements for bleed air contaminant detection systems and solutions to prevent bleed air contamination.’ 

I agree with the ASHREA recommendation that we need to study this problem and take steps to protect public health and safety. 

I offer this amendment in order to implement ASHRAE’s very sound recommendations, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.”

March 23, 2010

Flight crews still out after sickness: US Airways passengers might have been exposed unknowingly to toxic fumes on previous flight

Author: Alisa Brodkowitz  |  Category: Other Events




Republished from: The Charlotte Observer – McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX

Crew members from three previous flights of the US Airwaysplane that made people sick this week in Charlotte still have not returned to work because of illness related to those flights.


Researchers say passengers on those previous flights might have unknowingly been exposed to toxic fumes, and symptoms might not show up for days or weeks.

Eight pilots and crew members on flights in December and January have not returned to work due to their symptoms, a flight attendant union representative said Wednesday.

“They’re all breathing in the same air,” said Judith Murawski, a safety researcher for the Association of Flight Attendants. “There’s no question that passengers might be affected, and they just have no idea.”

U.S. Airways spokeswoman Michelle Mohr said Wednesday that passengers on at least one of the previous flights — Flight 1041 from St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, to Charlotte on Jan. 16 — were notified of possible exposure.

The plane involved in all four incidents, a Boeing 767, caused nine people to be taken to Carolinas Medical Center on Tuesday morning after they complained of symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic fumes. Two pilots, five flight attendants and two passengers were taken from Flight 985, which was scheduled to leave for Jamaica but returned to the gate after an electrical smell was reported in the cabin.

US Airways mechanics determined Wednesday that two bad seals on a rear door of the plane — tail No. 0251 — caused the problem, said Kathleen Bergen, spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration’s southern office in Atlanta.

“The bad seals, combined with a strong tailwind, allowed engine exhaust into the plane,” said Bergen.

Mohr said the seals probably would have performed properly when the cabin became pressurized. She said the airline will not clear the plane for flights until it conducts a “deeper review,” given the plane’s recent history of problems.

The incident is the aircraft’s fourth in three months. On Dec. 28 and 30, crew members were sickened from a leak of hydraulic fluid on flights to Puerto Rico, Mohr said. No one was taken to a hospital then.

The plane was cleared for flight in early January, but on Jan. 16, eight passengers and seven crew members complained of headaches and nausea on a flight to Charlotte from St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands. Several were taken to a hospital in Charlotte. The plane was grounded while workers searched for and repaired what the company described in an e-mail to flight attendants as a leak of oil fumes into the cabin air system.

Crew members from each of those three flights remain out of work — including all but one of the seven crew members from the Jan. 16 incident, said Murawski. Crew members, including one based in Charlotte, are complaining of several symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic fumes, said Murawski, who remains in regular contact. Those symptoms, which have not improved for some, include severe headaches, memory loss and respiratory problems.

Crew members also have sent blood samples to Clem Furlong, a University of Washington scientist who is doing research to determine if they were exposed to toxic engine oil fumes. Factors such as diet and medications may explain why some people are more vulnerable to toxin exposure, Furlong said, but passengers would be susceptible to exposure.

If passengers experience similar symptoms, Furlong said, they should let their doctor know they may have been exposed to potentially toxic fumes.

On the Jan. 16 flights, attendants noticed that passengers asked for more icepacks and tissues than usual on the flight from Charlotte to St. Thomas, said Murawski. Those passengers were not notified of the possibility of exposure to toxic fumes, said Mohr. The complaints about headaches and nausea happened on the return flight.

Murawski said problems involving oil fumes in planes are more common across the industry than people think. She researched 18 months of FAA reports this decade and found almost one report per day of incidents involving oil fumes and odors.

“When pilots are exposed to these fumes, there’s a flight safety issue,” she said.

The FAA could not immediately provide statistics Wednesday on how frequently fumes are reported on aircraft.

The issue of fumes prompted union complaints last fall to US Airways — as well as a February letter from the leaders of pilot and flight attendant unions complaining about problems on aircraft No. 0251. The letter, which called for a formal investigation into the incidents, said that crew members had gone through a “great deal of suffering,” and “There is no way of knowing how many passengers who flew on AC251 during that period are also experiencing neurological or respiratory symptoms, but have not yet connected their symptoms to the aircraft.”

A union representative in Charlotte was skeptical Wednesday that the US Airways diagnosis of rear seal problems in Tuesday’s incident would solve the issues.

“I’m not saying they’re lying, or that didn’t happen,” said Mike Flores, an official with the US Airways chapter of the flight attendants union. “But I’m not a believer that this plane is fit to fly.”

Flores said crew members might refuse to fly on the plane.

“This airplane has had four separate incidents, and crew members are still out of work,” he said. “What are we waiting for, a fifth?” Staff Writer Steve Lyttle contributed.

To see more of The Charlotte Observer, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to

Nine fall sick amid ‘foul odor’ on plane

Author: Alisa Brodkowitz  |  Category: Other Events

Flight from Charlotte, N.C., to Jamaica forced to return to gate. staff and news service reports
updated 1 hour, 35 minutes ago

Nine people on board a US Airways flight from North Carolina to Jamaica were taken to the hospital Tuesday after they felt sick amid a “foul odor” on the plane, officials said.

The passengers were complaining of symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic fumes, the NBC-affiliated WCNC news channel reported, citing medics. At least one of the patients was a US Airways employee.

Flight 985 was scheduled to depart Charlotte Douglas Airport at 9:35 a.m. and was due to go to Montego Bay on the Caribbean island.

The Federal Aviation Administration told that there were reports of a bad smell shortly after the Boeing 767 left the gate.

“The plane pushed back from the gate and was taxiing on the ramp. Several persons on board complained of a foul-smelling odor. The aircraft returned to the gate and those persons were checked out by medics,” Kathleen Bergen, a spokeswoman for the FAA, said.

The plane did not reach the point where pilots check-in with air traffic control, the FAA said.

Mecklenburg County ambulance spokesman Jeff Keith said nine people were taken to Carolinas Medical Center, but added their conditions did not appear to be life-threatening.

In January, 15 people were treated after complaining of sickness associated with a foul odor on a US Airways Boeing 767 flight, WCNC reported.

Maintenance logs obtained by WCNC showed that plane experienced a similar problem on Dec. 28 and Dec. 30 on flights to San Juan, Puerto Rico.

FAA requires inspection of 600 Boeing 737’s

Author: Alisa Brodkowitz  |  Category: Turbulence


Written by Dominic Gates

Republished from Seattle Times, Aerospace

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an emergency airworthiness directive Friday requiring that airlines inspect about 600 Boeing 737s to check a mechanism that controls the flap on the horizontal tails of the jets.

Some of the jets must be inspected within 12 days, and the rest within 30 days. FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer said about half the affected airplanes are operating in the U.S.

He said the directive stems from an in-flight incident on March 2, when a Ryanair 737-800 en route from Eindhoven in the Netherlands to Madrid, Spain, with 146 passengers aboard experienced “severe vibration” in flight.

The flight crew diverted the airplane, which landed safely and uneventfully in Brussels, Belgium.

An inspection afterward found “extensive damage” to the left elevator, which is a movable flap on the horizontal tail that controls the pitch of the airplane, up or down.

The FAA airworthiness directive described the damage as “failure of the aft attach lugs on the left elevator tab control mechanism.”

“Severe vibration in this attach point is suspected of allowing rapid wear of the joint and resulted in failure of the attach lugs,” the FAA report said. “This condition, if not corrected, could result in a loss of aircraft control and structural integrity.”

During the required inspection of affected planes, mechanics are instructed to look for damage to the attachment points of the elevator-control mechanism. If they find these lugs damaged, the plane must be grounded until the mechanism is replaced.

The Ryanair jet that experienced the vibration in March was a relatively new airplane.

It was delivered from Boeing’s Renton plant in April 2008 and had completed 4,233 flight cycles. Kenitzer, the FAA spokesman, said the elevator tab on the jet’s horizontal tail was the latest design, one mandated by a previous FAA directive in 2003 that was intended “to prevent severe vibration of the elevator and elevator tab assembly.”

That earlier directive required a retrofit redesign involving 88 hours of work at a cost of more than $5,000 per jet. The FAA said then it was necessary to prevent “severe damage to the horizontal stabilizer followed by possible loss of the elevator tab and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.”

However, Boeing spokeswoman Sandy Angers said the problem that has now come to light with the elevator tab attachment lugs “is a separate issue.”

Boeing issued a service bulletin earlier Friday recommending that airlines inspect the mounting lugs on all its newer-generation 737s, more than 3,000 of which are flying.

However, the emergency FAA directive mandating the inspections applies only to about 600 of those jets considered more at risk and that must be inspected within a month. Whether a jet must be checked within 12 days or within 30 days depends upon its age, its total accumulated flight cycles and if it is approved to fly extended flights.

Same plane sickens US Airways passengers and pilot

Author: Alisa Brodkowitz  |  Category: Other Events


Written by Peter St. Onge

Republished from

Toxic cabin air accepted as reality, but illness still denied

Author: Alisa Brodkowitz  |  Category: Other Events


Written by David Learmont

Republished from

Government departments in the UK and USA seem to be on the verge of making a U-turn on whether heated oil fumes in aircraft cabin air can severely damage crew and passenger health. Having previously denied it, now they seem to be preparing to admit the possibility.

Meanwhile, some airlines are fitting air treatment systems to clean up engine bleed air supplied to the cabin and teaching pilots handling techniques to reduce the number and severity of fume events.

Lufthansa CityLine is in the vanguard among airlines tackling the problem in its BAE Avro RJ85 fleet. The RJ85 is one of the BAe 146 series aircraft with a poor record of fume events, a fact established by the Australian Senate in 2000. CityLine has devised engine-operating techniques to reduce the number of incidents. Cargo carrier DHL also provides its crew with similar instructions for its Rolls-Royce-engined Boeing 757 fleet, which too has a relatively poor record with fume events. But whereas Lufthansa encourages reporting of incidents, DHL has advised its pilots that the occasional fume event is “normal”.

The “fume” or “smell” events occur when oil seeps from faulty engine oil seals into the compressor bleed air used to ventilate and pressurise the cabin. The air is heated in the compression process, turning the oil into aerosol particulates and fumes that are inhaled by crew and passengers. Anti-wear additives in aeroengine oil contain organophosphates that are neurotoxic if heated and inhaled. Organo­phosphates that could come into contact with humans are banned in other industries for health and safety reasons.

But although government agencies now admit that neurotoxins – for example isomers of tri-cresyl phosphate – are present in these fumes, they claim their quantities pose no threat to health. But they admit they do not know in what concentration or form (vapour or droplets) the chemicals are present.

In a re-released frequently asked question list about “cabin air quality” on its website, the UK Department for Transport now says: “The evidence available did not establish a link between cabin air and pilot ill-health, but nor did it rule one out.”

It adds: “Some pilots who have experienced these events report a variety of short- or long-term symptoms or ill- health. But it is not certain that these symptoms are work related.” This avoids mention of the hundreds of pilots all over the world, recorded by the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE) and the Aerotoxic Association with symptoms of serious long-term sickness from organophosphate poisoning that went undiagnosed for years because pilots and most doctors did not know about it. The DfT does not mention cabin crew, who have also suffered.

Explaining its current inquiry, the DfT says: “The Committee on Toxicity and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology have identified a knowledge gap. We are now trying to fill that gap. No-one has previously captured samples of cabin air during normal conditions and fume events and analysed them to see what substances they contain and in what concentrations.”

Meanwhile, as the principal researcher for the GCAQE Susan Michaelis points out, there is a massive body of scientifically gathered evidence available to the DfT, but it is selective about the information it chooses. Michaelis was refused entry to a recent Aviation Health Working Group meeting.

Since then the Aerotoxic Association has called for the resignation of the chairman of the UK AHWG Sandra Webber, on the grounds that she has been colluding with British Airways‘ health services head Dr Nigel Dowdall to “counter the impact of lobby groups” on the fume and health issue. Dowdall also holds a senior position at the DfT. Flightglobal has seen Dowdall’s letter to Webber, but BA has not replied to an invitation to comment.

The Countess Mar is a member of the UK House of Lords and has campaigned for the recognition of organophosphate poisoning among sheep farmers contaminated by sheep-dip. Her address to the annual GCAQE meeting in May 2008 described the typical behaviour of government and the scientific establishment when the status quo is challenged: “Since 1992 I have campaigned to have [organophosphates’] toxic effects recognised, and I have been through the [familiar routine]: ‘It is perfectly safe’, then – ‘if it is making you sick it must be your fault’, followed by – ‘well, there may be a little problem, but we need to look into it scientifically, taking as long as we possibly can by being as devious as it is possible to be’. There was once a time when policy was made to fit the science. With changes in research funding provision, science is now more and more often manipulated to justify the policy.”


Meanwhile, BAE is promoting a new bleed air treatment system, AirManager, but does not, in its publicity material, explain why it is needed. Lufthansa CityLine, which has fitted the system in some of its RJ85s, says that it seems to make the problem worse.

Lufthansa said in January that it had decided to accept the equipment without testing it, because it was so keen to neutralise fume events. And the equipment had been approved by BAE and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

Lufthansa added: “Shortly after the modification of a further three aircraft, an increase in smell events was noticed, especially in the modified aircraft. Therefore we have to question the effectiveness and reliability of the new filters. As we have encountered problems we have decided to discontinue the modifications for the moment…The already modified aircraft will continue to fly with the new filter system. [But] the air treatment system of D-AVRG, which experienced an increased number of smell reports after modification, has been de-installed and replaced with the old filter system.”

The airline has also advised on engine handling technique to reduce fume events: “The labyrinth seals [in the engines] operate pneumatically and there is a time delay. If an engine spools up from idle to take-off thrust, first the oil pressure has to increase before the seal closes completely. So it is possible for a small quantity of oil particles to enter the air conditioning system. By applying the thrust increase more slowly the seals will have time to close.”

To give the auxiliary power unit oil seals time, Lufthansa reminds pilots to wait 2-5min after APU start-up before opening the APU bleed air supply to the air conditioning system.

By contrast, an EASA A-NPA is considering whether cabin air quality management needs regulating. The UK Civil Aviation Authority says fume events can be dealt with by instructing pilots to don oxygen masks immediately, and that it is not its duty to protect the health of cabin crew or passengers. The CAA and the UK Health and Safety Executive effectively disagree over which has responsibility for the enforcement of health and safety standards on aircraft – so no-one in the UK is overseeing it.

In her submission to EASA on behalf of the GCAQE, Michaelis says: “The content of the A-NPA is of concern as it shows an appreciable lack of understanding of the currently available data on the subject, and a significant industry bias. Given that contaminated air is an airworthiness issue this, of course, is a major area of responsibility for EASA.” The A-NPA finally concedes: “If deemed necessary, a rulemaking phase could be launched to create new airworthiness standards to limit as much as possible the occurrence of this kind of event.”

Michaelis’ submission includes an eight-page appendix of referenced studies, academic publications and scientific inquiry findings, all addressing the issue of contaminated cabin air and the associated hazards to crew and passenger health. There are 168 studies and inquiry findings listed. Michaelis has also sent EASA her book, the Contaminated Air Reference Manual. But EASA says studies should be pursued as if nothing has been established. The UK Committee on Toxicity has taken the same line, as has the UK DfT. No action is to be taken as a result of existing knowledge about the health dangers of organophosphates.

Surprised that no aircraft has cabin air contamination detection and warning systems, the standards-setting American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has sent this statement to the Federal Aviation Adminstration, EASA and the International Civil Aviation Organisation: “Still, no aviation regulator requires either bleed air monitoring or bleed air treatment.

“To this end, the ASHRAE committee…is writing to ask you to establish a joint independent committee this year to investigate the technical implications and flight safety benefits of addressing bleed air contamination, and to determine the requirements for bleed air contaminant detection systems and solutions to prevent bleed air contamination, as described.” By contrast, submarines, spacecraft and mines have contaminated air detection and warning systems.

Publication of an ongoing DfT-funded study of fume events was expected by May, but that date may have slipped. Five unnamed airlines flying 146 series aircraft and 757s are involved, and about 100 flights with each are to be tested.

The anticipated collection of 100 samples “showing not only presence but concentration of substances” is interesting, because if the original DfT statements about reported fume events occurring about once in every 2,000 flights are correct, 500 flights would not produce 100 samples.

The original target was to have completed sample collection by February/March, and peer review was to be complete by May, but there has been no confirmation that this has been achieved.

The changes in the past two years are small but significant. There is no longer denial that fume events occur, nor that toxic organophosphates are present. The remaining hurdle is to connect the hundreds of sick pilots and cabin crew with the events. Some, like Michaelis, say that is obvious.

Air travel can Damage Your Health

Author: Alisa Brodkowitz  |  Category: Fumes

The British news comapny Channel 4 News investigated into the claim that pilots were suffering neorological damage due to repeated exposure to fumes in the cockpit. Follow the below link to watch the full report.



Cabin-air Treatment System suffers early in-service problems

Author: Alisa Brodkowitz  |  Category: Fumes


Republished from: Flight Global

Written by: David Learmount

BAE Systems has admitted that early customers have encountered problems with its Quest AirManager cabin-air treatment system, launched in September 2009 for the Avro RJ and British Aerospace 146.

Lufthansa CityLine has suspended the installation of AirManager in its RJ85 fleet, having reported an increase in cabin ‘smell’ or ‘fume’ events, associated with engine oil and de-icing fluid contaminants, in aircraft fitted with the system.

BAE insists AirManager remains “a step change” in cabin-air treatment technology, but says the system will not “mask” a smell or fume event, and says it is working with customers to resolve the problem.

AirManager is new in terms of technology, and unique in that it is fitted in trunking delivering engine compressor bleed-air for cabin ventilation and pressurisation. Only recirculated air has previously been treated or filtered – bleed air has not.

The system is available for any aircraft type, but the first installations have been prepared for the RJ and 146 series, as well as Rolls-Royce-powered Boeing 757s, which have suffered the highest incidence of bleed-air contamination by toxic organophosphates from compression-heated engine oil additives.

UK-based air treatment specialist Quest says the system processes cabin air in two stages: the first sees the air passed through an electrical field, known as a ‘close-coupled’ field, which “eliminates smells and breaks down and destroys airborne pathogens, contaminants and toxins”.

Particulates pick up an electrical charge as they pass through the air-treatment unit. The treated air, and recirculated air, is drawn through a high air-flow filter that attracts the charged particulates and traps them.

Lufthansa CityLine, which says it accepted the systems without testing them itself because it wanted to cope quickly with the regular ‘smell’ incidents suffered in its RJ85 fleet, is testing AirManager, hoping to understand and correct the problems.

Inflight Scare for the Same Plane, same flight two days in a row: ‘Brace…for hard impact’

Author: Alisa Brodkowitz  |  Category: Other Events

Is Airplane Cabin Air Making You Sick?

Author: Alisa Brodkowitz  |  Category: Fumes

Fox 5 News covers the story of how a U.S. Airways flight sickened 8 passengers and 7 crew members. Some were rushed to the hospital.

U.S.  Airway’s Representative said there was a leak on the seal of the right engine of the Boeing 767 that, “allowed toxic engine oil mist to enter the cabin and that is what caused the symptoms of the passengers.”

To watch the story follow the below link:


For the follow up investigation follow the below link.