If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:29:25 -0700, "Tex Houston"
wrote: "Johnny Bravo" wrote in message news Heh. The airliner in 1988 over Hawaii lost about 120 square feet of cabin roof at 24,000 feet and landed all passengers safely, except for one flight attendant who was blown out the crew survived as well. Last time I checked the flight attendant WAS part of the crew. Thus my use of the words "except for". -- "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole?
While I try to never say never, I think there's no such thing...or damned near no such thing at least. Yeah, one is reluctant to say "never" when random violence and complex systems come together. The obvious counterexample to the "convertible 737" that landed safely is the DC-10 that didn't do so after loss of its cargo door. However, with bullet holes, hopefully we're not talking about catastrophic failures of large chunks of airplane.[1] And as for air loss through bullet holes or even a failed window, consider WaltBJ's calculation in light of the fact that you don't have to maintain pressure in a holed cabin[2] *indefinitely* -- just long enough to keep everybody breathing while you divert. Finally, consider all this in post 9/11 perspective. We now know that the bad guys' goal might be to destroy a ground target with the aircraft. If the consequence of doing nothing is the loss of the aircraft and all souls aboard anyway, PLUS great death or destruction on the ground, that changes the sorts of risks you are willing to take in the name of prevention. If there is an armed marshal on board, you open the door not only for cases of intermediate severity (e.g., plane crashes but does not strike its target), but also for the best case -- he stops the bad guys, maybe if you're lucky one or more of them survive (dead people are hard to interrogate), and the aircraft makes a safe landing with all the good guys still in one piece. And it strikes me as a better than hand-to-hand by unarmed passengers -- which is still Plan B should the marshal fail. Hoping the deterrent effect will be enough, --Joe [1] I wonder how much of the popular imagination on this subject comes straight from "Goldfinger," whose eponymous villain (if memory serves) goes through the shot-out cabin window of a Lockheed Jetstar. I'd have thought someone of his luxuriant specifications would've self-patched almost anything short of complete loss of a door, but no. Whereupon our hero and the lady du jour set some kind of record for egress under duress. But I digress. [2] I think a reasonable further assumption is that the amount of ammo involved is modest. If there are a LOT of bad guys in one plane, or they have guns of their own and can fort up for an extended shootout, we have bigger problems than calculating the number of holes you can poke in an airplane before somebody hits something important that the flight crew can't settle with switchology. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Ad absurdum per aspera" wrote in message om... What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole? While I try to never say never, I think there's no such thing...or damned near no such thing at least. Yeah, one is reluctant to say "never" when random violence and complex systems come together. The obvious counterexample to the "convertible 737" that landed safely is the DC-10 that didn't do so after loss of its cargo door. The problem here was not the depressurisation but the collapse of the floor through which control cables were routed. Subsequent to that incident changes were mandated to prevent such recurrences. However, with bullet holes, hopefully we're not talking about catastrophic failures of large chunks of airplane.[1] And as for air loss through bullet holes or even a failed window, consider WaltBJ's calculation in light of the fact that you don't have to maintain pressure in a holed cabin[2] *indefinitely* -- just long enough to keep everybody breathing while you divert. Not even that long, just long enought to reduce altitude to 10,000 ft or so. Keith |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"Ad absurdum per aspera" wrote [1] I wonder how much of the popular imagination on this subject comes straight from "Goldfinger," whose eponymous villain (if memory serves) goes through the shot-out cabin window of a Lockheed Jetstar. And one of the "Airplane" disaster movies. George Kennedy describing loss of a window, or hole in the skin as 'catastrophic'. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Attn: Hydraulic experts - oil pressure relief fix? | MikeremlaP | Home Built | 7 | November 6th 04 08:34 PM |
Attn: Hydraulic experts - oil pressure relief fix? | MikeremlaP | Home Built | 0 | November 2nd 04 05:49 PM |
Vacuum pressure | Peter MacPherson | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | May 30th 04 04:01 PM |
Greatest Altitude without pressure cabin/suit | W. D. Allen Sr. | Military Aviation | 12 | July 26th 03 04:42 PM |
Pressure Differential in heat Exchangers | Bruce A. Frank | Home Built | 4 | July 3rd 03 05:18 AM |