nocharge

Totally agree. There is absolutely nothing in the language of the rule that prohibits you from wearing a mask with vents or any other type of mask (Halloween mask, scuba mask, whatever). All the rule says is what you are required to wear. As long as you wear something that meets that requirement, you are complying with the rule.

I think the only reasonable interpretation of the no vent requirement for a mask to qualify is that there has to be no functional vents. It's not meant to disqualify masks with decorations that vaguely resemble vents; or masks with paintings of vents; or masks with the word "vent" written on them. So that brings up the following question: If we take a mask that originally has a vent and modify it so that it no longer has a functional vent, what kind of modification would suffice? Let's say we cut out the vent and cover the hole with a plastic disk that we glue to the mask. Clearly, the mask no longer has a vent and would qualify according to the rule. What if we don't cut out the vent but just cover it with the disk? Same as cutting out the vent in the sense that the mask no longer has a functioning vent. And from the outside, nobody would be able to tell whether the vent had been cut out or not. So the question is what it would take to make a vent sufficiently inoperative for the mask to qualify. Would covering the vent with duct tape suffice? I think questions about covering a vent with a mask could be seen from that perspective.

Hipplewm

That is why I put a mask over the exit vents - MY portable acts a bit different than my home model as to where it exits. My home model exits on the nose cup, my portable exits about 10" down the hose. I cover that area with a mask.

Ari

That is one possible reasonable interpretation, but if everyone could come up with their own reasonable interpretations of rules, then rules as written would mean noting. That is why it is best to go by the plain language of rules.

In this case, the plain language does not imply a patchwork in which part of the face can be covered with one device which has vents and that those vents can be covered with another device which has no vents. The plain language of the rule implies one device with no vents that covers the nose and the mouth. If someone wants to put something under or over that one device; fine. But cobbling together a patchwork doesn't seem to fit within the plain language of the rule. The analogy is saying that gentleman are expected to wear pants in the dining room and swimwear is not acceptable attire. Someone walks in wearing swim shorts under their pants; that would obviously be fine. Showing up in a Speedo, dress shoes and a polo would probably not be acceptable attire.

WineCountryUA

While I agree that such masking of vents could be effective, you are asking a front-line employees with no training to make such an evaluation. It becomes a subjective decision -- is that vent is properly covered? Not sure about that vent, ..... We regularly discuss inconsistencies of front line employees in many other areas. These jury-ridged modification will be very problematic and likely lead to disputes.

nocharge

If the vent is covered by duct tape, how would the employee even know that there is a vent underneath the duct tape?

WineCountryUA

Because it is a mask type that generally has a vent?
Are there respirators without vents?

Handling the unusual is not generally a trait of front-line employees.

fumje

If the vent is sealed, how does the wearer exhale?

nocharge

The problem with that is that the plain rule in all its glory doesn't make it clear what it means not to have a vent. If I cut out the vent and glue on a plastic disk to cover the hole, clearly the mask has no vent. But what if I glue on the disk without having cut out the vent underneath?

cmd320

Actually, N95s even without vents are referred to as respirators.

Exhaust passes thought the mask or around the outside of the seal, same as with any other mask.

nocharge

Through the filters. Same as if there was no vent.

nocharge

So you expect the front-line employees to know what types of masks typically have vents, including possibly weird-looking half masks? I have plenty of N95s made by 3M, some with vents, some without. I only have one P100 half mask. It has a vent, but I have no idea if that applies to all possible half masks. Are you suggesting that the rule implies that employees should refuse boarding to passengers who wear masks that based on the employees vast knowledge of different brands of respirators could be suspected of having a vent?

WineCountryUA

In context of this discussion, not sure the common person would call an N95 a respirator. Technically that appears correct. This thread as been about the fancier respirators, with large bulbous filters, ... those are not the norm being used and therefore are likely to get more scrutiny -- and the employee may have heard from another employee those weirdo's have vents.

You are trying to apply logic / common sense -- that is not how it works for the front-line folks, they have rules to follow (and their interpretation of the rules will not be the same as yours)

You are free to try what you think works for you, just have an acceptable backup in case you are challenged. You will not win the argument at the gate or on the plane. You will be back in the airport lobby.

Would it be nice of the airline to provide enhanced guidelines, perhaps -- the complexities and variations are probably too much to think that is realistic. Perhaps a surgical mask over an vented N95 is possible enhancement (my guess is most would accept that today). The fancier respirators -- not so realistic to have a simple written rule on covering those vents.

Ari

That's how I recommend traveling if you can.

malgudi

Lots of options here

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/s...re-of-ppe.html

kthomas

That's what they did at JFK about an hour ago-- announced that you could not use a mask with a valve, if you had one please come see the gate agent (and you got a wonderful Delta mask! which you could put on top of it).

I had no problem boarding with 3M gear similar to the respirator pictured above, with round filters covered by a surgical mask. (The mask fully covers the venting area at the bottom).

Allowing the people using gaiters, homemade cloth etc does not meet Delta's standard, and is likely ineffective, but I doubt we're going to get the level of social enforcement in the US that we have in Europe. (Plenty of people in the JFK T4 SkyClub using food as an opportunity to keep their masks off, and one guy staring at his phone with the mask pulled down. Over at CDG, they have agents walking around periodically, reminding people to keep their mask on.)

Equally, letting people use food/drink as an excuse to keep masks off / down / etc on flights is probably not great-- but so far, AFAIK, contact tracing in Europe has revealed little in-flight transmission. (I'm three conference call videos behind, so maybe we've got new data, but haven't heard anything).

Only 4 FAs here today, Delta One on the 757s is kinda cramped (but the extra seat next to me is a plus), none of the FAs have homemade masks or valves today, at least-- but we still have a few hours to go .