Re: TB spread through aircraft air

From:         rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft)
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date:         08 Mar 95 02:59:50 
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

I'm cross posting this to sci.aeronautics.airliners, because you've
made it a technical question (followups to s.a.a).  I have a tough
time believing that getting sufficient fresh air into the cabin
to have 100% fresh air would be a problem.  I can understand it
might cost a little more, but other than that, what is the technical
problem?

RNA


In article <D4zp03.Gxz@eskimo.com>, Jim Hogan <jimh@eskimo.com> wrote:
>In article <3j7r0v$2ch@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>, 
>rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU says...
>>
>>The first known case of the spread of TB in an aircraft has been
>>confirmed.
>>
>>This will have immense implications both for the airlines and for
>>public health in general.
>>
>>The airlines will find it harder than ever to justify recycling
>>air on board airplanes.
>>
>How could they ever justify NOT having recycled air?  Today's high bypass 
>engines just cannot handle the bleed penalty of a 100 percent fresh air 
>cabin.  There is no free lunch, either we have 50% recircuated cabin air 
>or we do away with the quiet, fuel efficient Stage 3 engines that the 
>industry depends on.
>
>As far as TB goes, it is a VERY easy size virus to filter (Greater than 
>99.9% capture for the filters used in Boeing planes - I understand that 
>MD & Airbus are equivalent).  If you were to catch TB on an airplane, it 
>would be from an interpersonal contact, not from the cabin air 
>distribution system, regardless of whether you were on a 100% fresh, or a 
>50/50 recirc plane.
>
>As for travellers with TB - my vote would be some type of govt. 
>restrictions and/or quarantine.
>
>Jim
>
>My comments do not represent the opinions of the Boeing Company.
>