Toxic fumes on planes are rising, investigation finds

Toxic fumes on planes are rising, investigation finds

A Wall Street Journal investigation published Sept. 13, 2025, says toxic fumes from jet engines are entering aircraft cabins more often, sickening flight attendants, pilots and some passengers. The problem stems from the “bleed air” system that draws pressurization air through engines; when oil or hydraulic fluid leaks past worn seals, vaporized chemicals can reach the cockpit and cabin. Airlines and planemakers say cabins are safe and incidents remain infrequent.

What the data shows

Analysing more than a million FAA and NASA records, the Journal found reported fume events have climbed sharply over the past decade, peaking in 2024 at nearly 108 per million departures in the U.S., far above a 2015 FAA estimate. The trend is most pronounced on Airbus A320-family jets, where incident rates at major U.S. carriers were more than seven times those on Boeing 737s last year. JetBlue and Spirit saw a 660% rise since 2016.

Inside the incidents

Most episodes involve odours likened to sweaty socks, wet dog or solvents and pass without smoke. Others have forced diversions, emergency declarations and oxygen-mask use. In February, a Delta Boeing 717 returned to Atlanta after white haze filled the cabin; investigators later found an oil reservoir nearly empty, with leaked oil contaminating the bleed-air stream. While dramatic smoke is unusual, doctors and crew say odour-only events can still impair vision, cognition and reaction times.

Health toll on crews

Neurologists and occupational physicians cited clusters of aircrew with symptoms resembling “chemical concussions”: migraines, tremors, stuttering, memory gaps and light or sound sensitivity. Some patients deteriorated after repeated lower-level exposures before a major event. An FAA-funded study detected formaldehyde and tridecane above worker safety thresholds at certain temperatures, and tributyl phosphate near limits, suggesting real-world leaks could deliver higher doses. Industry groups argue typical concentrations are low and long-term harm is unproven.

Why it’s getting worse

The rise coincided with the A320neo’s introduction in 2016 and seal-degradation issues on new-generation engines, according to the Journal. Under pressure to keep aircraft flying, Airbus relaxed some troubleshooting rules, allowing airlines to defer deep cleaning or inspections after “transient” odours if certain criteria were met. Internal documents warned that inadequate fixes lead to repeat events. Airlines say they follow manufacturer guidance; Airbus says its aircraft meet all airworthiness standards.

Regulators under scrutiny

The FAA calls incidents “rare” but has revamped reporting and acknowledged the toxicity of bleed-air contaminants in internal reviews. Boards have often favoured procedural mitigations over immediate design mandates, advising airlines on training and checklists. In Congress, repeated attempts to require sensors, filtration and a phase-out of bleed air have been watered down after industry objections. A new bipartisan bill would require filters and move away from bleed-air systems within seven years.

What manufacturers say

Boeing and Airbus maintain that cabin air meets safety norms and that no indoor environment is contaminant-free. Boeing points to the 787’s electrically driven compressors, which avoid routing engine air directly into the cabin, as a different design path. Airbus has briefed operators on “Project Fresh,” an A320 modification to relocate an external inlet that it says could cut “smell in cabin” events by about 85 percent starting in 2026 on newly built aircraft.

What travellers should know

For any given passenger, absolute risk remains low and commercial flying is still statistically the safest mode of transport. Crews are trained to don oxygen, descend and divert if necessary. If you experience a strong chemical odour, headaches, dizziness or metallic taste, note the flight number and time, inform crew, and seek medical care if symptoms persist. For crews, advocates say detectors, stricter maintenance triggers and retrofittable filtration would provide clearer, faster protection.

The bottom line

The evidence base—rising reports, medical casework and toxicology signals—now challenges the industry’s reassurances. While planemakers and regulators emphasize compliance and overall safety, practical fixes exist: better seals, onboard detectors, filtration and, in new designs, non-bleed systems. The policy debate is shifting from whether harmful exposures occur to how quickly aviation will engineer them down—and who pays for the overhaul.