Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Contaminated Cabin Air On (LH) A380  
User currently offlinesenchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 111 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 15729 times:

Lufthansa spokesperson Michael Lamberty told the "Welt am Sonntag" that they had to change engines on several A380s because there were "smells" in the cockpit and also cabin, which could be a result of leaking oil fumes that are lead into the cabin through the engines.

Rolls Royce was confronted by LH already and issued a modification for their engines. An additional piece of metal is inserted at the drive unit to avoid that leaking oil is pumped in. Until all aircraft are fitted with this modification, LH Technik is checking for leakage every time and removing it by hand if necessary.

Furthermore, the air shall not be sucked in through the engines during start up process to avoid leaked oil reaching the cabin. This has to be checked by LBA (german civil aviation board) and manufacturers first.

Additionally LH entrusted a Fraunhofer Institute with the research of a detection device that shall be fitted into the cabin.

As per Lamberty, this is not a reaction to recent incidents involving contaminated air but going on since more than a year already. On Friday, a report about a Germanwings crew inhaling toxic air and nearly becoming unconscious was released, starting public discussion about contaminated air inside aircraft.

Source (in German):
http://www.aero.de/news-15977/Luftha...rter-Kabinenluft-bei-A380-ein.html

BFU report about Germanwings:
http://www.aero.de/news/BFU-Schwerer...-Germanwings-Anflug-auf-Koeln.html

My questions are:
Why has this problem (which seems to be related to especially A380 at the moment) not been reported by other operators?
This problem about oil fumes in cabin/cockpit is known since many years - why is it just now that LH comes up with solutions?
To the technicians amongst us: I guess, they are talking about "burnt-oil-smoke", not the oil itself being lead into cabin air. Can anyone explain where the valve for the air intake is placed - as in my understanding it must be behind some point where it's hot enough for the oil to burn?!

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5944 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15210 times:

Quoting senchingo (Thread starter):
To the technicians amongst us: I guess, they are talking about "burnt-oil-smoke", not the oil itself being lead into cabin air. Can anyone explain where the valve for the air intake is placed - as in my understanding it must be behind some point where it's hot enough for the oil to burn?!

The bleed for "customer air" is located in two places, typically. At low engine RPM, such as at idle while taxying or during descent, bleed air is taken from the high pressure compressor. At high RPM, such as during cruise, bleed air is taken from the low pressure compressor.
So oil, in my mind, really only has an opportunity to get into the bleed air if it's leaking past the labyrinth seals at the front end bearings.

While I am a technician, I've never really understood why this "contaminated air" is such a huge issue in Europe. It doesn't seem to be on the forefront of the news media in the US, or in the respected Asian countries, either.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31393 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15073 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
While I am a technician, I've never really understood why this "contaminated air" is such a huge issue in Europe. It doesn't seem to be on the forefront of the news media in the US, or in the respected Asian countries, either.

Back in 2002, Alaska Airlines flight attendants sued AlliedSignal and McDonnell Douglas claiming they were seriously sickened by toxic leaks from the APU that fouled the air of MD-80 jet cabins. They had previously sued the airline in 1998, which settled for $725,000 in 2001.


User currently offlinen901wa From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15049 times:

Sounds like a issue on a A330 with Trents that had us puzzled. First they blamed the Apu, then the ducts being not fully cured, and making the smell. After we Boro the Eng, we found Oil leaking from a seal into the intermediate compressor on nbr 2 eng. We ended up changing the engine, and that fixed the problem. I am sure the issue was brought up the RR, because the Aircraft was only 3 months old, if I remember correctly.

User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 43
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14997 times:

In the cabin, it is a "dirty sock" smell, and it had been accepted as normal.

It is only starting to come to light in the last few years how very dangerous this actually is. It can be from an oil leak into the engine bleed air, or the apu bleed air. We have been instructed to perform the smoke/fumes checklist when this smell arises!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5944 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 14402 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 4):
In the cabin, it is a "dirty sock" smell, and it had been accepted as normal.

Meh. On the 737s, most of the time the dirty sock smell is just due to nasty coalescer bags getting mildewy. We change them, and the smell goes away.


User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13702 times:

Quoting senchingo (Thread starter):
(which seems to be related to especially A380 at the moment)

Same problems were reported from Air Berlin 737s and one incident with Germania:

http://avherald.com/h?article=44a16688&opt=0

[Edited 2012-10-01 01:38:06]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlinedairy From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13080 times:

and didn't they (Lufthansa) had the same problem since years with the old Avro-Jets (that now are gone?)


A318/A319/A320/A321 AB3/A306/A310/A333/A343/A346 732/733/735/736/744/752/763/764/772/773 DH3 F70 F100 CR2 CR1 CR7 ATR42
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11684 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):

While I am a technician, I've never really understood why this "contaminated air" is such a huge issue in Europe. It doesn't seem to be on the forefront of the news media in the US, or in the respected Asian countries, either.

It was a big issue in Australia a few years back.


User currently offlineAlnicocunife From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11684 times:

Should not be an issue on the 787! No pneumatic usage for the A/C system.

User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 43
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8719 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
Meh. On the 737s, most of the time the dirty sock smell is just due to nasty coalescer bags getting mildewy. We change them, and the smell goes away.

With over 6000 hours on the B737, that is exactly what I thought, and what I thought for years.

Until I was recently corrected. In fact, the "dirty sock" smell occurs on aircraft that don't even have coalescer bags, like the A320 series.

If one did a search on "dirty sock smell", one would find it is a hugely serious issue, of which all air crew should be aware. It is no surprise that airlines are trying to sweep this under the rug. It was only through the efforts of our union, that got the airline to recognize its severity, and agreeing that it is a "toxic fume event" and should be dealt as such.

http://www.aerotoxic.org/about-aerotoxic-syndrome



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4414 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7983 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 4):

In the cabin, it is a "dirty sock" smell, and it had been accepted as normal.

This is not a normal smell I have encountered, although when certain people take their shoes off it takes on a horrible odour in the cabin. Fresh air is a commodity that is not very common on the aircraft. Usually the odour is always the same. BO combined with horribly cheap cologne and perfume is more of what is the stench I have encountered recently.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineTbone354 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7671 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I love the smell of oil and kerosene in an aircraft cabin! Feet, vomit, cigarette smoke....no.

User currently offlinesenchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7671 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
Meh. On the 737s, most of the time the dirty sock smell is just due to nasty coalescer bags getting mildewy. We change them, and the smell goes away.

On longhauler's link (thanks for that BTW, pretty interesting) it is said:
"Slight leakage of oil into the cabin may be detected by smell (descriptions such as ‘sweaty socks’, ‘wet dog’, ‘vomit’, ‘sweet oily smell’ have been used)"

The thing that really got me was this:

Quoting aerotoxic.org (Reply 10):
For short exposures, the effects are usually reversible and will resolve themselves. But serious or repeated low dose exposures can lead to severe symptoms. Permanent neurological damage may be caused, which can not be recovered from. There are currently 30 UK pilots grounded due to toxic air

With such information and airlines clearly knowing about the problem, it suddenly seems almost unjustifiable to me that there is not more precaution taken by them.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):

While I am a technician, I've never really understood why this "contaminated air" is such a huge issue in Europe. It doesn't seem to be on the forefront of the news media in the US, or in the respected Asian countries, either.

Well, after reading the above website and other articles about breathing contaminated air, it seems it should be taken very seriously.
The difference about reports between EU and US/Asia can have different reasons - one of them maybe being that in certain countries the reports are withheld (i.e. China, India) while others (or their respective civil aviation board) must report every small incident (i.e. Canada, Germany, Australia). Another might be that it is not seen as a big problem at the moment for US authorities?


User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7462 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 11):

This is not a normal smell I have encountered, although when certain people take their shoes off it takes on a horrible odour in the cabin. Fresh air is a commodity that is not very common on the aircraft. Usually the odour is always the same. BO combined with horribly cheap cologne and perfume is more of what is the stench I have encountered recently.

A friend of mine who used to have a job that involved them being at the door of the jetway when the aircraft door opened, once told me this:
When meeting an arrival of a former US charter airline that operated both the L1011 and 757 on transatlantic ops, you got different smells as soon as the door was open.
The L1011 was not too bad, just stale air.
The 757 though you got a strong waft of BO,socks,sick,fart and toilet smells.


User currently offlineAlnicocunife From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7049 times:

Aerotoxic Syndrome first I have ever heard of it. I can see some of the concern about breathing "toxic" vapors over the long run, just like anything else long term exposure causes the most damage.

There are a couple of normative statements in the website.

"Any combination of the following may be experienced:" http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php?o...ion=com_content&view=article&id=78
This list is long and so general as to make me wonder, it could be symptoms of anything.


http://www.aerotoxic.org/index.php?o...ion=com_content&view=article&id=78
"Some aircraft have a worse history with the worst offenders being the BAe 146, Boeing 757 and Airbus 319"

Wow no MD aircraft where the hydraulic systems leaks constantly into the APU inlet? The B757, B767 as well as the 737NG have about the same pack system utilizing "air bearings" in the pack(no oil) The APU in the B757, B767 has two compressors, one for pneumatic air and one to run the APU. Helps keep the fumes away but it does happen.

The air we breath around the airport is always dirty (millions of gallons of fuel burned). A quick look into the aircraft duct system and you will find lots of soot from other aircraft as well as debris from the ground A/C connection. You could be pumping "toxic" air into the cabin from a poorly maintained ground A/C with the engines and APU OFF.


User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 670 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6950 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Back in 2002, Alaska Airlines flight attendants sued AlliedSignal and McDonnell Douglas claiming they were seriously sickened by toxic leaks from the APU that fouled the air of MD-80 jet cabins.

Never understood why they went after Allied Signal, other than another deep pocket. The problem with the MD-80 is that the inlet is below the APU, so any external leakage can be drawn into the APU intake. This also includes any hydraulic leak from the wheel well. The same basic APU is used on 737 classics and it doesn't have near the problems the MD-80 had.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
Meh. On the 737s, most of the time the dirty sock smell is just due to nasty coalescer bags getting mildewy. We change them, and the smell goes away.

Not all 737's have them. Of the models Iv'e worked on, the -200, -700, -900 has them. The -400 and -800 has a different water separator design that doesn't include coalescer bags.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 10):
With over 6000 hours on the B737, that is exactly what I thought, and what I thought for years.

Until I was recently corrected. In fact, the "dirty sock" smell occurs on aircraft that don't even have coalescer bags, like the A320 series.

Quite right, all aircraft that use bleed air that has a possibility of hot oil contamination is capable of a dirty sock smell writeup.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 4):
In the cabin, it is a "dirty sock" smell, and it had been accepted as normal.

Don't think it was ever considered normal, maybe a lower maintenance priority is more accurate.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 43
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6882 times:

Quoting senchingo (Reply 13):
The difference about reports between EU and US/Asia can have different reasons - one of them maybe being that in certain countries the reports are withheld (i.e. China, India) while others (or their respective civil aviation board) must report every small incident (i.e. Canada, Germany, Australia). Another might be that it is not seen as a big problem at the moment for US authorities?

Oddly enough, it is an issue in Canada, because Canadian workers have the Government defined right to safe work. And every Canadian worker has the "Right to Refuse Dangerous Work". It is law in Canada, perhaps not so in other countries.

I say it is "odd" as this came to light to protect airline employees, Pilots and Flight Attendants ... there is no mention of Passengers' right to clean air .... although I would like to think it is implied!  

Every AC Captain is trained in this concept, and as it varies by stage of flight and the country in which it occurs, I carry a laminated copy of the flow chart. Lucky, as I ran into this last winter on a turn to FLL. On descent into FLL, we got the "dirty sock" smell as we went through various moist cloud layers. Yup, dirty coalescer bags, I thought.

On the ground, one of the F/A's asked if she could talk to me. She said she was exercising her "Right to Refuse Dangerous Work". I pulled out the flow chart, and saw that in North America, and on the ground, she is to call her own Duty Manager and advise me of her intentions. She then mentioned the "dirty sock" smell, and I of course told her it was just a dirty coalescer bag, and we'll get it fixed in YYZ. She told me of this "toxic fume" story she heard, and it was the first time I had heard of it!

She decided to return to YYZ with us, on the promise that I would in fact tell Maintenance on the way north. I sent a data-link on the way north. My first indication of how severe this issue is, was when the response was that they were grounding the aircraft in YYZ, and asked if the crew would stay with the aircraft on arrival so we could fill out "statements"! (Say what you want about AC, but Safety is still Number One)

A few weeks later, we were all advised that we were to treat the "dirty sock" smell as a Toxic Fume event!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineSenchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6505 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 17):

Thanks for the feedback. Maybe i was not getting clear about the fact that indeed Canada is one of the countries with the highest/best covered reporting systems regarding incidents.
Glad to hear that AC is top notch when it comes to safety.

One thing i'd like to mention again is that LH is not a specific operator to have contamination problems. This report was just about LH aproaching the problem and taking it serious, which i appreciate very much.

Next questions:
As far as i know, during deicing cockpit crews are asked to switch off bleed air to avoid contamination with deicing liquid. Is this what LH also plans to do while spooling up engines for start? Why does LBA have any decision right when it comes to this procedure? Isn't it some kind of "operators variation"?
Does anyone have deeper insight if other airlines also take some kind of precaution regarding oil fumes?


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6304 times:

Quoting Alnicocunife (Reply 9):
Should not be an issue on the 787! No pneumatic usage for the A/C system.

The 787 A/C system is still pneumatic, it just doesn't get bleed air from the engines. The pneumatic source is four electric cabin air compressors located in the wing-to-body fairing (the two intakes are the big "supercharger" inlets just above the ram air inlets). Since the air compressors use air bearings, not oil, they have no internal oil leakage risk.

Part of the issue with "aerotoxic syndrome" is that it's *very* strongly correlated with flight crew/airline labour friction. Whether this is a coincidence or causal is open for extremely wide debate.

Tom.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 43
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5918 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 19):
Part of the issue with "aerotoxic syndrome" is that it's *very* strongly correlated with flight crew/airline labour friction. Whether this is a coincidence or causal is open for extremely wide debate.

So are you suggesting that the THOUSANDS of documented cases of ... tingling fingers, paralysis, nausea, dizziness, passing out, disorientation, etc. are the result of some sort of "job action"? Extraordinary!

I would expect something like that from an ill-informed airline. As this may/will cause delays and maintenance issues. It would be far easier to just dismiss it as the result of unhappy employees.

However ... it doesn't take very long for someone with a computer, and Internet access to sift through all the reports to see that this is a an issue that needs to be addressed. How serious it is, will come from investigation, but so far ... it looks pretty serious. I am not saying "the sky is falling" just that sometimes, very serious and dangerous issues in aviation start and come to light in such a way.

I can also use my own airline as an example. It is no secret that company/employee relations have been strained over the last few years. However, when this came to light, both sides quickly stepped up, set up an investigative committee and new SOPs were developed. BOTH sides ... not one side forcing the other!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5785 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 20):
So are you suggesting that the THOUSANDS of documented cases of ... tingling fingers, paralysis, nausea, dizziness, passing out, disorientation, etc. are the result of some sort of "job action"?

No, I'm making an observation about a pattern in the data. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether that pattern is real, coincidence, or they're both correlated to something else.

Keep in mind, given the number of flight & cabin crews around the world, the number of flights, and the fact that it's a common-mode failure, "THOUSANDS" is actually a relatively small N with respect to the overall population.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 20):
Extraordinary!

Yes, that level of correlation absent causation is extraordinary. It certainly bears investigation.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 20):
However ... it doesn't take very long for someone with a computer, and Internet access to sift through all the reports to see that this is a an issue that needs to be addressed.

The problem, right now, is that the vast majority of reports (of both incidents and symptoms) are anecdotal, we don't have any idea of the reporting frequency, so we don't know how many non-events happened. As a result, going through internet reports isn't at all helpful (it's a self-selecting data set).

Tom.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 43
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5671 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21):
The problem, right now, is that the vast majority of reports (of both incidents and symptoms) are anecdotal, we don't have any idea of the reporting frequency, so we don't know how many non-events happened. As a result, going through Internet reports isn't at all helpful (it's a self-selecting data set).

Yes, if one ignored the reports that did not back one's position. However, as I am on one side of the committee I mentioned, the thousands of reports I mentioned are not anecdotal, as they are actual reports reported through official safety committees of various governmental bodies around the world. Of those countries that so report.

But with regard to numbers, you are right. Even of those crew-members (and passengers) that were affected, there are millions that are not. And ... to make investigation more difficult, is that not everyone on the same aircraft when the event occurs is affected.

Also, as I said previously, I have been smelling the "dirty sock" smell for decades. I'd like to think I haven't been affected.  

The point I am making though, is that while these investigations are on-going, we really don't know how severe the consequences, or what actions should be taken right now. The only remedy right now is to ground the aircraft, and fix the oil leak. To date, my airline has only had to do that three times, an A319, an A320 and a B767-300.

And, I can assure you, this has nothing to do with "job action" nor "labour friction".



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6537 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5440 times:

Today a KLM B737 going AMS - SVG diverted to BLL due to smell in the cabin.

Pax told TV news that it was stinking really awfully. But there was no mention of "dirty socks".

Doctors were called to BLL to check the circumstances, but they found no serious problems. All 53 pax were eager to get re-booked for the last half on their journey on a less smelly plane.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1605 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5006 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 20):
So are you suggesting that the THOUSANDS of documented cases of ... tingling fingers, paralysis, nausea, dizziness, passing out, disorientation, etc. are the result of some sort of "job action"? Extraordinary!

The mechanism is that once a known problem (in this case fumes in the cabin), is detected it increases anxiety in some people..
In some people increased anxiety leads to hyperventilation.
This causes CO2 to be reduced in the blood, and the ph of the blood changes.
This results in various symptoms such a light headedness, and if the hyperventilation is severe will result in tingling of the fingers and toes, followed by tingling around the mouth, followed in the extreme by spasm in the hands, and if the hyperventilation continues, loss of consciousness, which of course fixes the problem.

The hyperventilation does not have to be obvious to get mild symptoms, and the person affected, and others around them may not notice it, and hence attribute the symptoms to the fumes, when there may be this other contributing cause..

This is why doctors sometimes get people to breath into a bag, to increase the CO2 in their blood and move the ph towards normal. By the way this rebreathing is dangerous so don't try it yourself unsupervised by someone who knows what they are doing.

Of course the whole thing could also be due to the toxic fumes, directly, I am just offering a potential alternative.

Cheers

Ruscoe


25 strfyr51 : This is Not a unique problem to the A380. Oil leaking into the engine bleed system has happened before with Rolls, Pratt and GE. The only airplane it
26 senchingo : Now German Minister for Traffic Peter Ramsauer wants to bring this topic up to Brussels in order to make it a European wide topic. German newspaper "D
27 strfyr51 : Are you sure it was ONLY a dirty sock smekk and not as well Acrid?? The Dirty sock smell is usually associated with a SKYDROL Hydreu;oc fluid leak in
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
LH Cabin Crew On Strike Friday 7th September posted Thu Sep 6 2012 10:21:33 by wilco737
LH Cabin Crew On Strike posted Tue Aug 28 2012 02:22:05 by PlaneInsomniac
LH A380 To PMI On 02/03 October posted Thu Sep 23 2010 07:04:31 by robffm2
LH A380 Documentation FRA - Tokio On TV - SAT1 posted Sun Jul 18 2010 00:03:56 by B738FlyUIA
LH A380 At Milan MXP On 14 July posted Thu Jul 8 2010 13:16:48 by janmnastami
LH A380 Delivery Ceremony On May 19 Live! posted Mon May 17 2010 13:26:34 by LHPII
Economist On Cabin Air: Propagating Myths? posted Mon Sep 21 2009 10:15:28 by ULMFlyer
LH A380 Cabin Config posted Sat Nov 17 2007 22:39:17 by NorthstarBoy
US Air Upgrade Vouchers On LH Codeshare? posted Wed Apr 28 2004 01:02:59 by Ua901
Cabin Air Hazards? Not On UAL posted Thu Jul 22 1999 08:43:45 by UA744Flagship