Next time you catch a cold on a long flight, think about Standard 161-2007. It’s a minimum rule for air quality aboard commercial airlines proposed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) .
It’s a rule they’re pushing the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt. And it’s a rule the airline industry, which reflexively opposes any kind of regulation, is no doubt fighting with every lobbyist it can afford.
Cabin air quality could be a lot better. An exhaustive study (PDF) commissioned by the British government recommended taking a more active role in regulating cabin air quality, including, for instance “limiting the the amount of time that passengers can remain in an aircraft when the ventilation systems are non-operational to 30 minutes.”
Passengers are exposed to all kinds of toxins and bacteria when they fly. Those include carbon monoxide, lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, deicing fluids, and pesticides. Jeff Myers, a principal investigator for Battelle, which is conducting research on cabin air, says staying healthy on a plane isn’t easy.
The aircraft cabin is a challenging microenvironment for maintaining the health, comfort and well-being of passengers and crew. Space is limited, conditions can feel cramped, the outside environment is extreme, and travelers may experience anxiety over loss of control over their situation and environment.
But why should the government impose its standards on the airline industry? Particularly when there’s no imminent health hazard?
Byron Jones, chair of the committee that wrote Standard 161-2007, says the aircraft cabin is a unique environment, and therefore must be subjected to stricter regulations.
Unlike many other indoor environments, occupants do not have the ability to remove themselves from the environment, which is at a lower pressure and relative humidity than that found in many other environments. Standard 161 will help create a healthier, more enjoyable ride for the great variety of passengers on board.
Standard 161 would affect any commercial passenger air-carrier aircraft carrying 20 or more passengers. It is intended to apply to all phases of flight operations and to ground operations when the aircraft is occupied by passengers or crew members, and to address chemical, physical and biological contaminants that could affect air quality.
As someone who has caught numerous colds and a case or two of the flu, I can’t think of any reason not to establish minimum standards for air quality on a plane.
Can you?
Sign up for my 
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t have any special knowledge of the quality of the air inside an airplane. But I do subscribe to the maxim of follow the money. I find it curious that the supporters of this legislation would be the main people to reap a windfall if airlines were required to upgrade the existing atmospheric systems.
I’d feel alot more comfortable if this legislation was being promoted by a non-biased group.
My “special knowledge” of the quality of the air inside an airplane has to do with the fact that I, too, catch a cold often when I fly. I’ve taken to rubbing a little lip balm underneath my nose. My theory is that if I can catch those germs before they get into my system I’ll be better off and it has worked every time I’ve remembered to do it – no cold. Who knows. Maybe it’s a coincidence.
But I can tell you that the fuel, lubricating oils and whatever else it is that I’m breathing in as we sit on the tarmac makes me feel sick to my stomach and I’m sure it’s not good for me.
I don’t care WHO is pushing for this law – it should go into effect for the sake of all fliers.
Beth
I agree – when I was working as a flight attendant I caught everything, despite washing my hands and using hand sanitizer regularly. As soon as I stopped flying, I felt so much better. In fact, I hardly got sick the two years I wasn’t flying regularly. Now that I fly at least monthly I find I’m getting sick again. There must be a correlation.
There should be a minimum air quality standard. I’ve gotten really bad colds the last two times I flew. And as much as I used the hand sanitizer on my last trip, I still wasn’t able to dodge that cold.
We already have the Clean Air Act, which has standards for carbon monoxide and other pollutants. While cabin air is a special case, I see no reason why there shouldn’t be quality standards there as well.
BTW, I think ASHRAE is more impartial than you realize. The engineers who are members of societies like that are generally volunteers on panels. The people who make the real money are the companies who employ them.
I’m all for the best air quality we can have.
That said, I’ve flown about 100K miles this year, and I ride public transit regularly. I have not had a cold or other illness since early in the year. I think I’ve been fortunate.
once again the airlines right superseed our the most basic rights of humans.the Humane Society would not let an animal be subjected to the indignities and treatment that we as humans LET the airline impose on us and our families dialy.sitting in a plane for many hours with no air flow and the air turned off is cruel torture that the GENEVA CONVENTION does not allow for POWs. amazing.thank you
Chris, your readers might be interested in a column I did about the myths and realities of aircraft cabin air:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/03/09/askthepilot224/
- Patrick Smith