Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1814 times:
Oh boy... nothing gives false alarms like aircraft mounted chemical sensors. They do not do well with changes in cabin pressure. I expect to see quite a bit of false alarms during this research. I hope they do not react on these false alarms. Its very typical, due to the cabin pressure changes, to see zero offsets of 50% of the IDLH. Talk about a problem ready to happen.
IDLH: OSHA's "Imidiate Danger to Life and Health" threshold.
FWIW, this is a subject I have worked before. Should research be done? Do I expect a government agency to over-react and impose an undue and expensive burden on the airlines? Step one will be to develop a chemical sensor that works through the flight envelope that can hold a three month calibration. Currently, none of the ones out there will. (They promise they will... they won't.) Trust me, you do not want to impose a weekly calibration on chemical sensors for the airlines as even with expect techs, 2% of the calibrations go awry. I know my post is mostly my opinion... but this is a regulation that could do more damage to airline demand than the TSA lines.
For the record, I do not believe in exposing anyone to toxic chemicals. This must be thought out before implimented with the understanding that chem sensors are currently designed for little changes in barometric pressure in a fixed factory, not for the rapid cabin pressure changes in a commercial aircraft. Heck, chem sensors mounted in trucks have this issue to a lesser degree.
Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.