"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/1/2004 9:11 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/webdata
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/1/2004 5:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"

snip

Dan, you are forgetting that there was indeed documented
evidence
of a
passenger being sucked out of a blown window brought out during
that
discussion--a TAM Fokker F28 turboprop somwhere over Brazil
(see:
www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/

webdata_crashdatabase.cgi?cgifunction=Search&Airl ine=%5ETAM%24 ).
There
was
also a fatality during a 1989 Piedmont Airlines 737 rapid
decompression
(www.canard.com/ntsb/ATL/89A099.htm ). As to the non-fatal
effexcts,
the
experience of an Aer Lingus 737 tends to point to some rather
significant
injuries during a 1999 depressurization accident, with lots of
ruptured
eardrums and severe nosebleeds, etc. I would not disagree that
these
potential problems are far outweighed by the threat of some
whacko
with a
knife/bomb/etc., said whacko being dispatched by an air marshal,
even
with
the remote potential of causing a rapid decompression being
preferrable
to
the alternative. But the effect of such a decompression is
likely
going
to a
bit worse than cleaning your tray table off and causing a few
earaches.

Brooks



Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

I was referring to the blown out window. The passenger you refer
to
was
blown
out a six foot hole according to your cite.

Heh? "Pressurization was lost at an altitude of 33,000 feet when
the
right
engine disintegrated, causing pieces of the engine to break two
cabin
windows." That does not a six foot hole equal.

OK, mia culpa, I was reading the incident just below the flight to
which
you
referred.

In the incident you cite I wonder what he actually died of
considering
the
only
other injuries were "minor." Heart attack maybe?

I think you are mixing up the *two* incidents I cited specifically. In
the
one you are discussing involving the windows blowing out (TAM F-28
over
Brazil), the fatality left the aircraft rather abruptly via one of
those
windows, from what I gathered based upon looking at a few sources.

I am not confusing anything. I am going by your own citation:

I had not even noticed the other incident (the one involving the bomb).




crashDATABASE.com

Results are displayed by date in descending order (most recent to least
recent).

Date: 09/15/2001
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Airline: TAM
Aircraft: Fokker F-28-100
Registration: PT-MRN
Fatalities/No. Aboard: 1:82
Details: While the aircraft was over Belo Horizonte, the cabin
depressurized,
causing the death of one passenger. The aircraft made an emergency
landing
at
Cofins. Three of the other 77 passengers aboard suffered minor
injuries.
Pressurization was lost at an altitude of 33,000 feet when the right
engine
disintegrated, causing pieces of the engine to break two cabin windows.

Date: 07/09/1997
Location: Suzano, Brazil
Airline: TAM
Aircraft: Fokker F-100
Registration: PT-MRK
Fatalities/No. Aboard: 1:60
Details: An explosion caused explosive decompression and a six-foot
hole
in the
side of the fuselage. One passenger was sucked out and killed. A small
bomb
containing only 7 ounces of explosives was placed under a passenger
seat.

I initially confused the two quoted here, but never mentioned the
Piedmont
case. Show me where it says the fatality departed the Fokker F-28-100
aircraft.

After much searching, I found that apparently the victim in the 9-15-01
event (a Marlene Dos Santos if you want to do your own search--recommend
use of Yahoo on this one, with "TAM Marlene Dos Santos" in the search
criteria(minus quotes)), located in seat 19E (?), died due to head trauma
after being partially sucked throught one of the windows--a couple of
Brazilian press accounts indicate that she was prevented from completely
leaving the aircraft by her husband holding onto her legs. One of the
accounts can be found at the following (translation sucks, but so did the
translations of the other press accounts):

http://tools.search.yahoo.com/langua...edPage.php?tt=

url&text=http%3a//www.connect.com.br/~cultura/portugues/noticias.htm&lp=pt_e
n

Brooks


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

A) you said the person departed the aircraft.

I so sorry--she was only partially sucked out courtesy of her hubby putting
a stranglehold on her legs. Big deal. And a far cry from your assertion: "It
would still be only annoying. A few ear aches and a lot of noise along with
oxygen masks dropping. The person sitting next to the window might lose his
reading material or dinner." IMHO.


B) you gave me a citation that didn't say that.

Dan, face it--the loss of a window can cause a hell of a lot more than you
asserted.


C) you blamed me for being confused about a Piedmont flight which had
nothing
to do with the citation you gave me.

So sorry again--we apparently both were getting a bit confused, as your
earlier mea culpa indicated.


D) you found another citation saying the victim was not blown out of the
aircraft. I might add that unless she had very narrow shoulders she was in
no
real danger of having been blown out of the aircraft.

Tell that to the hubby who was hanging onto her legs according to the press
reports in Brazil. In the end, it matters not a whit--she DIED. As did that
Piedmont passenger, due to whatever causes related to the decompression.
That is one HELL of a lot more serious than, "A few ear aches and a lot of
noise...", OK?


I am no longer sure what started this, but I have lost interest.

What started this is your continued assertion that rapid decompression is no
big deal, in spite of there having been related fatalities, and rather
substantial injuries as noted in the Aer Lingus case.

Brooks


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired