Sanitizing Business Aircraft FAQ

Updated June 15, 2020

NBAA has hosted several NBAA News Hour webinars about of business aircraft sanitization in the era of COVID-19. Review answers to frequently asked questions from webinar attendees and review NBAA’s resources on the topic.

How are operators addressing car service sanitation?

Most car companies, as well as other transportation methods, are taking measures to disinfect and clean their vehicles. The best mitigation for this particular risk is to have your dispatchers, handling service or coordinating crew members ask what disinfection methods are in use when they are booking ground transportation. If this booking is happening outside of the flight department, spend some time educating your passengers and their staff. 

Is an ionization system or equipment effective for disinfecting the aircraft?

Ionization, while showing independent studies for efficacy, has no method for regulation. So, how do you know for sure that it’s working and killing viruses? You don’t. You need to consider that using products outside of government regulations offers you little protection against ill effects of the product, and ultimately liability since there is no baseline for success. In addition, there are no real peer-reviewed studies from reputable journals or periodicals proving ionization’s effectiveness, furthering concerns for users. 

Additionally, although these units are not ozone generators, ozone is a byproduct of the ionization process which may have some cumulative effects in lung tissue of users, particularly concerning because there is no way to measure output of ozone. The FDA limits for ozone is 0.05ppm. The CDC states there are NO controlled studies confirming effectiveness of ozone on organisms. 

I conduct business aviation audits (ISBAO, ISBAH, ACFS) of 135 and 91 operators. What take-away guidance materials can I consult, so I can do a better assessment, especially when I survey an aircraft in the audit phase, as well as OS&H program/procedures updates, and security concerns of international flight operations?

At present, OSHA is working at both a federal and state level to establish processes for businesses, including transportation guidance. That said, it will be a period of time before we see rulemaking. For a more customized and specific pathogen monitoring and mitigation program, there are a range of services in the marketplace. 

NBAA’s Business Aviation Management Committee (BAMC) has developed this resource to outline best practices operators should consider while developing their protocols for flying during the COVID-19 outbreak. Review the COVID-19 Risk Mitigation for Business Aircraft Operations.

Our flight department has been solicited to purchase a bipolar ionization unit to set in the aircraft to sanitize the air and surfaces. The company says they have scientific proof it works. Is there scientific proof?

According to the CDC, there are no controlled studies proving efficacy of this device against organisms. These devices are also not EPA registered, therefore it cannot legally claim that it is sanitizing the aircraft. Any organization using this claim who uses the device is in violation of FIRA guidelines, since it is not an EPA-approved sanitizer. 

Are there any studies on the effectiveness of ozone (o3) in disinfecting surfaces?

Ozone has been proven effective in third-party studies in water. There are also some studies on surfaces showing efficacy. 

However, Sharper Image store produced an Ionic Breeze device, which led to a class action lawsuit questioning the validity of the efficacy and also the dangerous levels of ozone it was emitting. Ultimately this lawsuit led to the company filing for bankruptcy.  The new federal mandate states that ozone emission cannot exceed 50ppb (parts per billion). 

The use of ozone for surface disinfection has not been approved by the EPA or FDA.

Ozone generator devices are also hard to use because of the size and weight of the device, particularly when treating rooms or transport vehicles.

For those that are using an ionization method to disinfect, would you suggest that it should be proceeded or complemented by manual cleaning?

Ionization should be complemented by manual cleaning.

Is there potential for COVID-19 to live/transmit via water (i.e. potable or otherwise)?

The coronavirus can be detected for long periods in fecal material from some patients with COVID-19. Therefore, there would be a theoretical risk for transmission via contaminated water, just like in other viral diseases. However, more recent studies have shown no evidence for this.

Good hygiene practices around water handling, already adopted by the aviation industry, are certainly enough to eliminate the already very low risk. 

How do you know what percentage your product is at 99.9, 99.99,99.999 etc.?

It should be clearly stated on the label and or SDS sheet. If not, request it from the manufacturer. If they can’t answer, buy something else. 

Is the ozone discussed similar to ionization?

Ozone devices and ionizers are different apparatuses, but are similar in that the byproduct is ozone for both. Ionization would be used in inflight applications. Ozone devices would typically be utilized after an aircraft has landed and needs decontamination. When using these devices, the aircraft usually requires a 24-hour period to be considered safe to enter because 03 levels need time to get down to a safe level of PPM. 

All electrical discharges, such as lightning, produce ozone by splitting normal oxygen and creating single oxygen atoms, which then attach themselves to O2 to form ozone (O3).

Are UV devices effective for cleaning aircraft?

UV is only effective where it can reach. Anything in the shadows, on the bottom of components like armrests, or between seats and sidewalls will not be treated. Additionally, there are a number of concerns from aircraft manufacturers on the use of UV and the effects on interior furnishings, wiring, and any plastics or plastic like coverings. 

How long can the virus live on a surface? Is increasing time between flights an effective additional measure to be used?

A well-conducted recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that the coronavirus can be recovered in aerosols up to 3 hours post aerosolization, up to 4 hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to 2-3 days on plastic and stainless steel. The study was performed in ‘ideal’ laboratory conditions, with controlled lighting, ventilation, humidity and temperature, therefore not necessarily applicable for real world aircraft scenarios. 

It’s important to note, that there was a progressive decay on the viral count as time elapses. Also important, the detection of the virus (or any other micro-organism) on a surface does not imply that it is viable and able to infect someone. Recently, the CDC stated that the secondary means of transmission, i.e. surface to person, although possible, is not the main issue. Direct person to person transmission remains the most important mechanism in play. 

Are you seeing operators who incorporate these long-term treatments (micro-shield) making aircraft logbook entries documenting the treatment?

Not in logbooks, but definitely in maintenance tracking programs and work orders. 

Is UVC exposure in the correct range effective in an aircraft interior and public spaces?

UVC can be effective if used properly. The latest studies indicate that achieving the efficacy of 4-5 log reduction happens with continuous exposure to UVC at a distance of 4 feet, one position, 40 minutes and direct light. To achieve this in a large area as an aircraft the light should be moved around several times for 40 minutes each position or use multiple lights. Knowing shaded areas where light does not touch will be challenging. (American Journal of Epidemiology). 

Is fogging effective with HOCL, Hypochlorous Acid? I have seen this used in commercial aircraft and in terminals.

The shelf life on these systems is short, and it becomes chlorinated water. When you’re done your aircraft smells like a swimming pool. An example of the long-term effects of chlorine on repeated usage can be found in a typical public restroom stall. 

The ionization unit I was thinking of states that it produces no ozone and kills up to 99.7% airborne and surface pathogens. Based on your need of 99.9%+ would you say this unit will not be effective for viruses like Corona?

There is no way to know this since according to the CDC there are no real controlled studies for ionizing. In this case, be careful that you are not the victim of good marketing. 

Do you suggest baggage compartment decontamination?

Yes. Follow the same procedures for the cabin and ensure avionic components are properly protected during the process. 

It’s recommended that you follow a risk assessment approach. Frequent cleaning and decontamination will interfere with residual disinfection products that may have been applied by certain countries regulatory requirements to control the spread of mosquitoes vector of certain diseases like Zika, malaria and dengue fever. 

What material is best for flight attendants clothing, that doesn’t hold the virus in its fabric?

Fabrics with natural fibers are better because they have been shown to shorten the viral particle life. 

Any thoughts on the use of UVC light on aircraft surfaces? Particularly soft furnishings?

UVC is not completely effective in an environment with shadows and changes in range from the light source. Also, there are many unintended consequences with the UVC light use. Consult the OEM documents on the NBAA site, and you will find most of them do not recommend its use. 

Where do we obtain surface testing swabs?

There are a variety of manufacturers and distributors. NBAA recommends contacting the webinar presenters for commercially available options. 

Again, it is important to understand that the mere recovery of certain micro- organisms does not equally reduce the risk for acquiring a disease. For example, certain bacteria are normally present in human skin, saliva, etc. Skin residues and other surface contaminants can yield micro-organisms and do not represent any contagion risk to the otherwise healthy person. 

You say we should “swab” the aircraft to measure the level of contamination. How do we do that?

Using biological indicators and test kits. 

Use caution in interpreting your results, and do not jump into precipitated conclusions and subsequent actions until you have done through research. 

For smaller single plane King Air operators, do disinfectants like off-the-shelf aerosol sprays and wipes have any benefit? 

While the CDC recommends some of these products, the kill rate is still not sufficient to constitute decontamination. Additionally, all OEMs and avionic manufacturers have published disinfection guidelines, and many prohibit the use of those wipes. In addition, almost all leather manufacturers do not support the use of wipes. 

Does the air movement in the aircraft transform droplets into aerosols?

This is well documented in many studies that refer to the aerosol travel of viral particles. However, there are no studies on the cabin air movement as a contributing factor to aerosolizing viral particles. 

What do you recommend for Part 91 operators flying the same people over and over?

Have a regular monitoring program that is underpinned by an effective disinfection protocol. 

There doesn’t seem to be an “agreed upon” temperature threshold for COVID-19 screening. What are your thoughts?

The WHO’s definition of fever is a temperature equal or above 100.4 F (38.0 C). However, for screening purposes, it is prudent to lower the threshold to 99.5 F (37.5 C), therefore increasing the sensitivity of the process and escalating the cases so-detected to additional evaluation. 

Can we speak on the efficacy of doing temperature tests? If the individual is asymptomatic and does not have a fever, then is temperature monitoring effective?

It is well known that temperature screening has a very low yield of positive cases from previous experiences with H1N1, Ebola and now COVID-19. But a few cases of COVID-19 were detected in this way. 

Nonetheless, it seems to have some deterrent effect on people who are ill and afraid of being detected. Therefore, the consensus is that temperature screening should be a component within a multi-layered approach to prevent ill passengers from getting on board.