Covid19 passenger aircraft zircon filtration
Discussion
Would anyone in the aerospace industry like to comment on whether or not aircraft air-conditioning systems can filter out the virus such that a trip will not spread the infection to passengers? My first instinct is that it would indeed likely infect many in this closed environment, but I'd like to know from experts
Thanks
ETA: aircon in title
Thanks
ETA: aircon in title
Edited by tgr on Wednesday 15th April 08:39
No it won't.
From what I'm seeing mentioned from within, it's very likely that if 'social distancing' is deemed still neccessary for some time, any likely resumption of non-essential travel will require flights being no more than 60-70% capacity to leave at least one empty seat distance between each passenger.
The likeyhood will mean flight costs will rise dramatically which is what industry experts are predicting in articles in past few days.
Its not just onboard that will cause problems, as check-in gates, dutyfree areas, security search lanes, baggage collection and aircraft gate areas and everything in pretty much all airports will be an issue that will require rethink and reworking.
No one knows how long that would be for as no one really knows what will happen with this virus. The Spanish Flu pandemic lasted 3 years and 3 seperate peaks in infections before it died out. We maybe more medically adavnced to 100 years ago, but we have a much bigger world population that can travel around the world far more easily.....which is what is going to have to be curtailed pretty dramatically if medical science can't help.
From what I'm seeing mentioned from within, it's very likely that if 'social distancing' is deemed still neccessary for some time, any likely resumption of non-essential travel will require flights being no more than 60-70% capacity to leave at least one empty seat distance between each passenger.
The likeyhood will mean flight costs will rise dramatically which is what industry experts are predicting in articles in past few days.
Its not just onboard that will cause problems, as check-in gates, dutyfree areas, security search lanes, baggage collection and aircraft gate areas and everything in pretty much all airports will be an issue that will require rethink and reworking.
No one knows how long that would be for as no one really knows what will happen with this virus. The Spanish Flu pandemic lasted 3 years and 3 seperate peaks in infections before it died out. We maybe more medically adavnced to 100 years ago, but we have a much bigger world population that can travel around the world far more easily.....which is what is going to have to be curtailed pretty dramatically if medical science can't help.
Simpo Two said:
Viruses are bloody small and there's nothing like an aeroplane for distributing all known germs evenly among everyone. No matter social distancing, it's basically an infection box.
I have often wondered about this, why at the end of your 2 hour flight are you not infected with all sorts, the pilots should only have a life span of 12months max. With a brother who is a pilot, a sister who is a doctor a father who is an engineer and me an ex waitress you would think I get to an answer. Well I have learnt that the filtration system on aircraft is highly effective and equal to that of a filtration system of operating theater in a hospital, if so why can't I have my peanuts when someone with an allergy is on board too.
ConwyC said:
Well I have learnt that the filtration system on aircraft is highly effective and equal to that of a filtration system of operating theater in a hospital, if so why can't I have my peanuts when someone with an allergy is on board too.
It is. However......the problem is its also at very low humidity levels, usually around 12% which is usually drier than even most deserts, because the air is drawn from the outside at high altitude where there is very little moisture.
This is bad where this coronavirus is concerned where research already has indicated it can be 'projected' from a human far further in less humid air than high humidity air, plus while the air is clean, the dryness is bad for sinuses and can break down mucous barriers, making it easier to catch what bugs might be present.....again, something that has already been identified as bad when this virus is concerned.
Coupled with the problems of touching lavs, door handles, arm rests and what not during a 10+ hour flight and I can forsee that masks and gloves might be mandatory for flying in the immediate future. I always used to have a 100ml squeezy containing hand sanitiser with me when taking a flight, for years before this as it was.
It might be compulsory in the future?
Steve_D said:
aeropilot said:
....................... I always used to have a 100ml squeezy containing hand sanitiser with me when taking a flight, for years before this as it was. It might be compulsory in the future?
Then the catch 22 will be not being allowed fluids on an aircraft.Steve
The problem now is you cant get the bloody hand gel from anywhere for love nor money!!
Not that I'll be flying anywhere from now on.
The filters we use are known as hepa filters and are indeed meant to remove virus and bacteria sized stuff from all the recirc air on board.
I'm on shorthaul Airbus. I'm pretty certain the long haul Boeing I was on before had the same so I'd think it's pretty standard above a certain size of aircraft.
Hard to say how effective they stay and if they're taken care of maintenance wise but it is thought of and in theory at least it's effective.
Atb
I'm on shorthaul Airbus. I'm pretty certain the long haul Boeing I was on before had the same so I'd think it's pretty standard above a certain size of aircraft.
Hard to say how effective they stay and if they're taken care of maintenance wise but it is thought of and in theory at least it's effective.
Atb
Edited by Mabbs9 on Thursday 16th April 17:34
aeropilot said:
ConwyC said:
However......the problem is its also at very low humidity levels, usually around 12% which is usually drier than even most deserts, because the air is drawn from the outside at high altitude where there is very little moisture.
This is bad where this coronavirus is concerned where research already has indicated it can be 'projected' from a human far further in less humid air than high humidity air, plus while the air is clean, the dryness is bad for sinuses and can break down mucous barriers, making it easier to catch what bugs might be present.....again, something that has already been identified as bad when this virus is concerned.
Is an onboard humidifier system feasible?This is bad where this coronavirus is concerned where research already has indicated it can be 'projected' from a human far further in less humid air than high humidity air, plus while the air is clean, the dryness is bad for sinuses and can break down mucous barriers, making it easier to catch what bugs might be present.....again, something that has already been identified as bad when this virus is concerned.
A 747 probably has around 1000 m^3 (say 1000 kg) of air in the cabin at at any given point. At typical cabin temperatures/pressures my guess is it would take around 5 kg of water per 1000 kg of air to achieve 50% humidity. The water would have to be carried, so the question is, how many volume changes occur on a typical flight?
GT119 said:
Is an onboard humidifier system feasible?
A 747 probably has around 1000 m^3 (say 1000 kg) of air in the cabin at at any given point. At typical cabin temperatures/pressures my guess is it would take around 5 kg of water per 1000 kg of air to achieve 50% humidity. The water would have to be carried, so the question is, how many volume changes occur on a typical flight?
We had humidifiers on the 747-400 but they were de-activated. I can't remember the actual reason but I recall there was a negative effect on component life somewhere onboard.A 747 probably has around 1000 m^3 (say 1000 kg) of air in the cabin at at any given point. At typical cabin temperatures/pressures my guess is it would take around 5 kg of water per 1000 kg of air to achieve 50% humidity. The water would have to be carried, so the question is, how many volume changes occur on a typical flight?
Mabbs9 said:
GT119 said:
Is an onboard humidifier system feasible?
A 747 probably has around 1000 m^3 (say 1000 kg) of air in the cabin at at any given point. At typical cabin temperatures/pressures my guess is it would take around 5 kg of water per 1000 kg of air to achieve 50% humidity. The water would have to be carried, so the question is, how many volume changes occur on a typical flight?
We had humidifiers on the 747-400 but they were de-activated. I can't remember the actual reason but I recall there was a negative effect on component life somewhere onboard.A 747 probably has around 1000 m^3 (say 1000 kg) of air in the cabin at at any given point. At typical cabin temperatures/pressures my guess is it would take around 5 kg of water per 1000 kg of air to achieve 50% humidity. The water would have to be carried, so the question is, how many volume changes occur on a typical flight?
On the newer airliners with much greater composite structure, this becomes less of an issue, although the weight penalty is still an issue of course.
I've heard the air system on the 787 is supposedly the best one with about a 99.something% filtration rate and a higher humidity level than other aircraft, again as a result of its largely composite construction.
I would guess new A350 might be comparable?
We’re looking at travel safety at the minute, particularly airline travel.
A HEPA filter is great, but not much use if the bloke sat next to you sneezes in your lap.
And so far airlines are saying they’ll distance passengers where possible, but if they get bums on seats they’ll cram them in.
A HEPA filter is great, but not much use if the bloke sat next to you sneezes in your lap.
And so far airlines are saying they’ll distance passengers where possible, but if they get bums on seats they’ll cram them in.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff