How does a wet cloth really help (scientifically) to survive an airplane crash?

On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:05:39 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

Was there any mention of the radiated heat from these fires?

Yes.

We noted that this flight safety PDF, which was all about
protecting your airways in a cabin fire, explicitly said
that the dry heat of a cabin fire isn't a major concern
when it comes to protecting your breathing airways:
http://flightsafety.org/download_fil...t06_p28-30.pdf

As already noted, they said, verbatim:
"the human body¢s upper airway naturally provides significant
protection to the lower airway and lungs against extreme
heat from hot, dry air."

Absolutely none of the air-safety PDFs yet mentioned *anything*
about the wet cloth having anything to do with cooling hot
air, so, we can safely assume the only *safety* purpose of
the wet cloth is to trap some of the hydrogen cyanide gas.

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:34:21 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:05:39 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

Was there any mention of the radiated heat from these fires?

Yes.

We noted that this flight safety PDF, which was all about
protecting your airways in a cabin fire, explicitly said
that the dry heat of a cabin fire isn't a major concern
when it comes to protecting your breathing airways:
http://flightsafety.org/download_fil...t06_p28-30.pdf

As already noted, they said, verbatim:
"the human body’s upper airway naturally provides significant
protection to the lower airway and lungs against extreme
heat from hot, dry air."

Absolutely none of the air-safety PDFs yet mentioned *anything*
about the wet cloth having anything to do with cooling hot
air, so, we can safely assume the only *safety* purpose of

Your career is not in science, is it? Neither is mine, but I still know
we can't safely assume things like this from the absence of mentioning
cooling hot air. There are other good reasons but the simplest is
that the pdf files might be crap. There is plenty of crap on the web,
and even peer reviewed journals occasionally publish crap.

Here's an extreme case, but other circumstances yield similar resutls.
My roommate was a biology PhD candidate doing research in a foreign
county. A bunch of grad students all stayed at the same rural room &
board place and did there research in the jungle that surrounded them.
One of them would stop by where someone else was working and he'd chat.
Embedded in the conversation was "What experiement are you doing? What
kind of results are you getting?" And then he'd go back to his room and
write a journal article, send it to a journal, and because his writing
style was good, clear etc. it often got published.

Other times, he didn't go out of his room. He just sat back and asked
himself, What would a good experiement be? And what kind of results
might I get? And then he'd write an article based on those two
things.

He was published in every peer-reviewed journal in his field (and
non-peer-reviewed if there were such things then).

It was only after his artcles appeared that sometimes people would write
in, "I did that experiment and my results were nolthing like his." But
before many people were aware of his habits he had his PhD and no one
could take it away. Eventually he was drummed out of any faculty job
and end up working in a biology library at a university library.

Not all articles are as felonious as his, but some are crap or
semi-crap.. Others are good except they omit things, important things.

So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.






the wet cloth is to trap some of the hydrogen cyanide gas.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 00:44:27 -0700, micky wrote:

...snip excellent presentation....
So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.


I HATE the 'expert' syndrome where we all must disavow ourselves of any
knowledge, or input; the concepts are just too lofty for our peasant
brains to fathom; and we must believe everything that has been written.
That stuff is just like 'NEWS', can't always be trusted. One has to 'cull'
for truth.

Some other real examples: some of the experimental research done during
the Communist era in Russia. Wasn't that experiment where the 'scientists'
took a baby duck out into a submarine, hit it [the duck, not the
submarine] with a hammer, and caused simultneous great distress to the
mother duck all faked? just to continue funding for their 'research'.
Sounded reasonable, too.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 07:03:04 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

I HATE the 'expert' syndrome where we all must disavow ourselves of any
knowledge, or input; the concepts are just too lofty for our peasant
brains to fathom; and we must believe everything that has been written.
That stuff is just like 'NEWS', can't always be trusted. One has to 'cull'
for truth.

I think you missed the point, and again, I apologize for misleading you.

It's the LACK OF PROOF that is dominant here.
Not proof taken out of context (which is what your example is portraying).

For the hydrogen-cyanide-wet-cloth theory, I provided oodles of PDFs
(from the FAA, from airplane manufacturers, from Fire Departments, and
from universities) which backed up my statements.

The alternate view has ZERO articles backing it up.

What am I *supposed* to conclude about the fact that the alternative
view has absolutely ZERO references backing it up?

Given your example, it's like something that never happened that
was also never printed in the NEWS.

Since it never happened, and, likewise, since it never made it
into the news, what does that make it (besides an urban myth)?

I'm sorry if I'm not clear - so I repeat.

What am I *supposed* to conclude from the proposed alternative
view which has absolutely ZERO references backing it up?

On Sat, 17 May 2014 08:59:59 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 07:03:04 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

I HATE the 'expert' syndrome where we all must disavow ourselves of any
knowledge, or input; the concepts are just too lofty for our peasant
brains to fathom; and we must believe everything that has been written.
That stuff is just like 'NEWS', can't always be trusted. One has to
'cull'
for truth.

I think you missed the point, and again, I apologize for misleading you.

I understood exactly what you are saying. That does not in anyway change
the basis for my comment, nor the 'value' of my comment [value to me,
anyway].

Given that it is not possible to conduct experiments yourself, what else
can be relied upon? except the results of others, possibly purported,
experiments. Good idea to go find as much 'literature' on the subject as
possible. Kudoes to you.

Though, I was surprised to find that you found a lack of
literature/evidence supporting hot gases searing the lungs causing mortal
injuries. Growing up, I had always been warned about that potential hazard
from house fire, and especially 'body' fire. Giving the warning of mortal
damage to your lungs to justify becoming prone. - as in, keep low to exit,
or roll to put out your body fire. But ALWAYS do not position your head
high up or above 'fire'. Instead you seemed to find evidence that the body
cools those hot gases so fast that it is not worth considering them as a
source of risk.

My thought processes regarding safety around aircraft fire warnings kind
of stopped paying attention to information after what seemed to me to be
the completely asinine instructions of 'take off your shoes in preparation
for a crash' and 'ok, now run through molten aluminum' types of
instructions. Why are you asked to remove your shoes? What basis is that?
After aircraft fuel sprays everywhere and igniting doesn't strike me as a
potential win-win situation. Rather, keeping the strategy of 'move your
bloomin' arse' seems the appropriate attitude to maintain. And of course,
pause/check yourself out, be ready to roll on the ground at a distance,
because you may not even know/realize you're on fire.

From personal experience, 'pain' is one of the FIRST sensations to
disappear [also hearing], especially during duress. Thus, keep in mind to
be 'self aware and self-careful' You may be burning, or missing
extremities/limbs which you might try to rely upon to be functioning for
an emergency egress, so act accordingly. [I don't have the literature
reference to support this, but was always told] This sounds gross, but
don't pull injured people unless absolutely necessary, you might pull them
apart, instead try to coerce them into moving themselves. The human body
has a tendency to not hurt itself and moving under self volition is the
preferred manner of moving an injured person.

And please don't come back suggesting to wake up an unconscious injured
person by 'slapping them silly' just to coerce them into moving themselves.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 11:42:17 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

...snip....
And please don't come back suggesting to wake up an unconscious injured
person by 'slapping them silly' just to coerce them into moving
themselves.

that should have read, "....please, people, don't..."

not pointed towards the OP.

In article op.xf0owsc22cx0wh@ajm,
RobertMacy wrote:


My thought processes regarding safety around aircraft fire warnings kind
of stopped paying attention to information after what seemed to me to be
the completely asinine instructions of 'take off your shoes in preparation
for a crash' and 'ok, now run through molten aluminum' types of
instructions. Why are you asked to remove your shoes? What basis is that?

The basis of that is that there have been instances where shoes have
punctured the slides, especially high heels. Although I do have to
admit, that may be left over from earlier experience.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On 5/17/2014 5:02 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article op.xf0owsc22cx0wh@ajm,
RobertMacy wrote:


My thought processes regarding safety around aircraft fire warnings kind
of stopped paying attention to information after what seemed to me to be
the completely asinine instructions of 'take off your shoes in preparation
for a crash' and 'ok, now run through molten aluminum' types of
instructions. Why are you asked to remove your shoes? What basis is that?

The basis of that is that there have been instances where shoes have
punctured the slides, especially high heels. Although I do have to
admit, that may be left over from earlier experience.


Given a choice, I'd be the last man out. And I'd be
throwing shoes out of the plane, for people to put
on. Yes, I'm that kind of guy. Next, I throw my own
shoes out. Of course, I'd have to beat the stewardess
into unconscious, they are trained like ambulance guys
to be a real pest when you aren't doing what they want.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Sat, 17 May 2014 17:02:10 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article op.xf0owsc22cx0wh@ajm,
RobertMacy wrote:


My thought processes regarding safety around aircraft fire warnings kind
of stopped paying attention to information after what seemed to me to be
the completely asinine instructions of 'take off your shoes in preparation
for a crash' and 'ok, now run through molten aluminum' types of
instructions. Why are you asked to remove your shoes? What basis is that?

The basis of that is that there have been instances where shoes have
punctured the slides, especially high heels. Although I do have to
admit, that may be left over from earlier experience.

Okay. What about the rule against bringing your carry-on. I've assume
that is to save time, but I think I'd be willing to go last if I could
take my carry-on bag with me. I'd hug it so it wouldn't touch
anything.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:

So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.

Again I must have not made myself clear.

Clearly I googled and found plenty of articles which said that hydrogen
cyanide is the killer and that the wet rag dissolved it - but that isn't
my point to you in this post.

Some of those articles I quoted were FAA summaries, others were air-safety
brochures from the likes of Airbus & Boeing, while still others were
peer-reviewed scientific papers (all of which were referenced).

My point, that I must be not saying clearly, is that the alternate
view (which you, and others espouse) has absolutely zero references
backing it up.

Again, I hope I am being clear here. I'm not saying the points that you
and others espouse are wrong. I'm just saying that not one single paper
has been provided in support of that alternate view.

I think it's unfortunate that I said "we can safely assume" since
you keep thinking that I'm assuming something that you don't assume.

Again, trying to be very clear about what my point is, it's simply
that nobody yet has provided a single reference that backs up the
alternate view.

Whether we can safely assume anything about that alternate view
seems to be your point - but it's not mine. My point is that the
alternative view is not supported by any facts which have been
presented in this thread.

Again, to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying that those facts
don't exist. I'm just saying NOBODY can find a paper which
supports those facts.

I apologize for saying 'we can safely assume' because that sentence
seems to throw people into a defensive mode. Remove that and
replace it with something like "I have not seen any references
which back up the view espoused" or something like that which
simply says that the opinion has been stated but not backed up
with anything concrete.

So, I only concluded what I could conclude from the papers
which I found, and referenced.

Is my point clear yet? (If not, I apologize.)