SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Anderson J. Aerospace (Basel) 2021; 8(5): e122.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, MDPI: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute)

DOI

10.3390/aerospace8050122

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This paper describes the relative frequency of reports of oil and hydraulic fluid fumes in the ventilation supply air ("fume events") compared to other types of fumes and smoke reported by U.S. airlines over 10 years. The author reviewed and categorized 12,417 fume/smoke reports submitted to the aviation regulator to comply with the primary maintenance reporting regulation (14 CFR ยง 121.703) from 2002-2011. The most commonly documented category of onboard fumes/smoke was electrical (37%). Combining the categories of "bleed-sourced", "oil", and "hydraulic fluid" created the second most prevalent category (26%). The remaining sources of onboard fumes/smoke are also reported. To put the data in context, the fume event reporting regulations are described, along with examples of ways in which certain events are underreported. These data were reported by U.S. airlines, but aviation regulations are harmonized globally, so the data likely also reflect onboard sources of fumes and smoke reported in other countries with equivalent aviation systems. The data provide insight into the relative frequency of the types of reported fumes and smoke on aircraft, which should drive design, operational, and maintenance actions to mitigate onboard exposure. The data also provide insight into how to improve current fume event reporting rules.


Language: en

Keywords

aircraft; electrical; engine oil; fume event; hydraulic fluid; reporting

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print