Mythbusters and explosive decompression

"Jack" wrote in message Do you have other information?

Yes, but I am prohibited by TSA law from disclosing any more.

D.

I'd think that frangible bullets would be the better option to
minimize collateral damage and take the risk that the hijacker might
be wearing body armor.

This was pretty thoroughly hashed over on the newsgroups some months
ago. As it happens, I just recently posted one of the better responses
on my website:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/airliner.htm

To me, it pretty much demolished the notion of "explosive
decompression." The author also goes into the subject of bullets used
by sky marshals.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

The thing those guys missed was the effect of cold temps on the windows.
They did it in the desert, where it was likely above 80F.
At altitude, the windows would be over 100 degrees colder. Plastic windows
become much more fragile at those temperatures.

"MichaelR" wrote in message
...
The thing those guys missed was the effect of cold temps on the windows.
They did it in the desert, where it was likely above 80F.
At altitude, the windows would be over 100 degrees colder.

On one side.

Plastic windows
become much more fragile at those temperatures.

On one side.

Why do airliner cockpit windows have heaters?
The answer is to keep the windows warm enough and flexible enough so they
don't shatter if they hit a bird.
If Mythbusters had cooled that side window to -50C, it would have
disintegrated when the bullet hit it.

"MichaelR" wrote in message
...
Why do airliner cockpit windows have heaters?
The answer is to keep the windows warm enough and flexible enough so they
don't shatter if they hit a bird.

Why do they run them at altitudes that birds don't fly?

If Mythbusters had cooled that side window to -50C, it would have
disintegrated when the bullet hit it.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

[ heated airliner windscreens]

Why do they run them at altitudes that birds don't fly?

I assume your question is rhetorical, but the range of altitudes at
which birds may be found is far greater than most people suspect. I have
seen them 14,000 msl over the lower 48, and that is no record.

Other reasons: ice & snow, FOD (balloons and their payloads, kites,
model aircraft, wind- and vertical current-borne objects and material),
and of course the ever-present possibility of mid air collision -- all
of which must be considered at all altitudes within the operating envelope.

But these considerations have little to do with the advisability of
preventing skyjacking by any means necessary, including the use of
firearms by Federal Sky Marshals. As a cockpit crew member, a blown out
window is something I can deal with -- a medium sized problem: a team of
terrorists controlling the cabin is going to be a much bigger problem,
and it will have ramifications well beyond anything we are likely to
include in our discussions here.


--
Jack

"Cave ab homine unius libri"

They don't. They turn them on during descent because otherwise they would
still be cold enough to be fragile even after getting down into warmer air.



Why do they run them at altitudes that birds don't fly?

If Mythbusters had cooled that side window to -50C, it would have
disintegrated when the bullet hit it.