Jeg vil tippe at det rapporteres minst ett tilfelle i uken. Jeg har her på bloggen reklamert med en konferanse vedr. emnet, og det gjør jeg igjen. Oljearbeiderforeningen SAFE har også jobbet med saken og samarbeidet om en video vedr. forgiftninger av gasser i oljeindustrien. (Red.)
 |
 |
| |
|
How we investigated
toxic chemicals on airplanes
For decades, the airline industry and its
regulators have known about incidents of toxic gases from jet engine oil and
other fluids leaking into the air supply on planes. But the Federal Aviation
Administration doesn’t track these fume events. And airlines aren’t required to
report information needed to answer basic questions: How many fume events are
there? How often are crew members and passengers sickened by fumes? How many
pilots have been impaired by fumes, potentially endangering everyone on
board?
To answer those questions, The Times first
turned to a database of safety reports voluntarily made to NASA by pilots and
flight attendants. NASA does not identify which reports involve a fume event, so
the newspaper’s first step was to identify ones classified in the database as
involving either “smoke/fire/fumes/odor” or an “illness” on a commercial plane.
Those included more than 900 incidents from January 2018 to December
2019.
‘We are slowly being poisoned.’ How toxic
fumes seep into the air you breathe on planes
A Times investigation found that vapors
from heated jet engine oil leak into planes with alarming frequency across all
airlines, sickening passengers and crew.
The Times modeled its analysis of those
reports after methodologies used in academic and government studies of fume
events. The newspaper counted incidents in which reports used terms such as
“fume event”; described smells in language the airline industry uses to identify
fume events, such as “dirty socks smell” or “acrid”; noted mechanical findings,
such as a leaky seal, that confirmed air supply contamination or procedures
completed by mechanics to decontaminate the air supply; or described smells and
physiological symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic fumes based on an
FAA-funded guide for treating fume event-related health problems. Incidents were
not counted if electrical or fan malfunctions were the suspected cause of fumes,
or if there wasn’t enough information to make a determination.
As NASA safety reports are made
voluntarily, the information is limited to whatever crew members decide to
include in their narratives. The Times used a conservative count of people who
received medical attention after fume events. For example, if a report noted
that an unspecified number of passengers were treated by paramedics, The Times
counted that as two. To calculate the number of times pilots were impaired by
fumes, the newspaper included cases in which a report mentioned a pilot
suffering partial incapacitation during flight; handing off the controls to a
copilot after becoming unfit; or declaring themselves unable to complete
scheduled flights following exposure to fumes. Dizzy or confused pilots were not
counted as impaired unless a report explicitly stated they were unable to
perform their duties.
The Times’ analysis of NASA safety reports
alone counted 362 fume events reported in 2018 and 2019, nearly 400 crew members
or passengers who received medical attention and four dozen pilots who were
described as impaired to the point of being unable to perform their
duties.
The safety reports are anonymized and do
not contain airline names or flight numbers. NASA would not provide identifying
information about incidents in its Aviation Safety Reporting System. In a
handful of cases, The Times was able to cross-check public records, social
media, local news coverage and other sources to identify incidents described in
NASA reports.
The Times also filed hundreds of public
records requests to identify fume events and determine whether passengers or
crew were sickened. The newspaper reviewed two types of mechanical reports that
airlines make to the FAA: Mechanical Interruption Summary reports and Service
Difficulty Reports. Additional fume events were identified from internal airline
mechanical records The Times obtained from sources. Paramedic reports requested
from airports helped determine what symptoms were reported and whether medical
attention was administered.
The Times spoke with several airline and
academic experts in conducting its analysis. Guidance on identifying fume events
was provided by an experienced pilot and airline mechanic who reviewed aviation
records.
While reporting this series of articles,
The Times reviewed thousands of pages of court filings from workers’
compensation cases and litigation against airlines and manufacturers. Much of
the Boeing reporting was based on a cache of depositions and exhibits from
recent lawsuits filed by flight attendants against the company. Additionally,
The Times obtained internal airline documents used by pilots and mechanics when
dealing with fume events. The newspaper interviewed dozens of people for this
story, including pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, union officials, academic
experts and medical professionals.
|
|
|
|
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar
Merk: Bare medlemmer av denne bloggen kan legge inn en kommentar.