A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Catastophic depressurization in a commercial airliner



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 18th 03, 08:58 PM
av8r
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Hi

There was an incident involving an R.C.A.F. Station Namao-based S.A.C.
KC-135 Stratotanker back in 1961. (S.A.C. maintained a standing tanker
detachment at R.C.A.F. Station Namao, located just north of the city of
Edmonton, Alberta.

The aircraft had been involved in refueling a B-52 north of R.C.A.F.
Station Namao, when one of the windows blew out at altitude and
partially sucked one of the crew out of the aircraft. Apparently the
resulting trauma to his body allowed all the blood to be sucked out. I
talked to an old boomer who recalled the incident and said that when the
plane landed at Namao, there was a stream of frozen blood running along
the side of the fuselage.

Cheers...Chris


  #13  
Old October 19th 03, 01:36 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
om...
We all have seen the movies were one pistol shot or what not causes
the side of an airliner explode sucking the people, seats, etc. into
the void. What would happen in the reality? Let's assume the plane is
at the cruising altitude.


Not much unless a window was taken out and even then while
pillows , papers and magazines would be thrown about
people wouldnt be.

The extreme case is the Aloha airlines 737 which last about 20 ft of cabin
and
managed a safe landing, although some people were killed
on that one.

Keith


I believe there have been accident reports of much smaller holes than
that Aloha example where passengers were indeed sucked out. The
following sites, taken together, indicate a September 2001 accident
involving a Brazilian Fokker 100 involved one passenger being sucked
out through a window after two windows were taken out due to an
uncontained turbine failu

www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/ others/cowdied.html
www.pyramid.ch/airsafety_fatal.htm

Obviously a rare case, but it can indeed happen. Likewise, relatively
small fuselage holes caused by bombs have resulted in passenger
loss--ISTR that was the case over Greece a few years back?

Brooks
  #16  
Old October 19th 03, 04:19 AM
Peter Kemp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On or about Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:45:11 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) allegedly uttered:

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
om...
We all have seen the movies were one pistol shot or what not causes
the side of an airliner explode sucking the people, seats, etc. into
the void. What would happen in the reality? Let's assume the plane is
at the cruising altitude.

Not much unless a window was taken out and even then while
pillows , papers and magazines would be thrown about
people wouldnt be.

The extreme case is the Aloha airlines 737 which last about 20 ft of cabin
and
managed a safe landing, although some people were killed
on that one.

Keith


I believe there have been accident reports of much smaller holes than
that Aloha example where passengers were indeed sucked out.


I've been following this thread for awhile and have heard of most
of these incidents before. I notice that 'all' the posts refer to
"People etc being sucked out". Isn't the proper term "Blown out"
by the higher air pressure inside?, rather than being "Sucked out
by the lower air pressure outside?.

I realize that the same effect would be realized in either case
but it seems to go against my grain to call it "Sucked out". Any
thoughts?.


Well, from my point of view, I remember my Physics degree well - every
time we used the word "suck", my tutor would fail us - surprisingly
hard habit to get out of :-)
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster
  #17  
Old October 19th 03, 05:26 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote:

On or about Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:45:11 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) allegedly uttered:

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
om...
We all have seen the movies were one pistol shot or what not causes
the side of an airliner explode sucking the people, seats, etc. into
the void. What would happen in the reality? Let's assume the plane is
at the cruising altitude.

Not much unless a window was taken out and even then while
pillows , papers and magazines would be thrown about
people wouldnt be.

The extreme case is the Aloha airlines 737 which last about 20 ft of cabin
and
managed a safe landing, although some people were killed
on that one.

Keith

I believe there have been accident reports of much smaller holes than
that Aloha example where passengers were indeed sucked out.


I've been following this thread for awhile and have heard of most
of these incidents before. I notice that 'all' the posts refer to
"People etc being sucked out". Isn't the proper term "Blown out"
by the higher air pressure inside?, rather than being "Sucked out
by the lower air pressure outside?.

I realize that the same effect would be realized in either case
but it seems to go against my grain to call it "Sucked out". Any
thoughts?.


Well, from my point of view, I remember my Physics degree well - every
time we used the word "suck", my tutor would fail us - surprisingly
hard habit to get out of :-)
---
Peter Kemp


I agree with him, I think it's a poor way to describe that
action...the outside air molecules are pressing against the
aircraft windows with a certain force, if a window 'ruptures'
then the higher inside air pressure will force itself (and any
objects that it may contain) out into this comparatively lower
pressure.

'Suck' doesn't sound right for this action. (Or perhaps 'any'
action?)
--

-Gord.
  #18  
Old October 19th 03, 10:04 AM
John Keeney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message

...
wrote in message
om...
We all have seen the movies were one pistol shot or what not causes
the side of an airliner explode sucking the people, seats, etc. into
the void. What would happen in the reality? Let's assume the plane is
at the cruising altitude.

Not much unless a window was taken out and even then while
pillows , papers and magazines would be thrown about
people wouldnt be.

The extreme case is the Aloha airlines 737 which last about 20 ft of

cabin
and
managed a safe landing, although some people were killed
on that one.

Keith


I believe there have been accident reports of much smaller holes than
that Aloha example where passengers were indeed sucked out.


I've been following this thread for awhile and have heard of most
of these incidents before. I notice that 'all' the posts refer to
"People etc being sucked out". Isn't the proper term "Blown out"
by the higher air pressure inside?, rather than being "Sucked out
by the lower air pressure outside?.

I realize that the same effect would be realized in either case
but it seems to go against my grain to call it "Sucked out". Any
thoughts?.


You are right in the sense that vacuum cleaners do not "suck", the
rest of the world blows into them.
You are right in the sense that you don't "suck" drinks through
straws, the atmosphere blows the drinks through.
There is no sucking, only blowing ("blowing" may involve
pressures other than atmospheric.)

Or at least that's what a physicist with the tendencies of a
theoretical mathematician would say. Personally, I understand
that something being "sucked" from one place to another involves
differential pressures with the higher pressure providing the
work but gladly accept either term when the idea is to convey
ideas and the idea was conveyed.


  #19  
Old October 19th 03, 06:41 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Keeney" wrote:

but gladly accept either term when the idea is to convey
ideas and the idea was conveyed.


Good point John, why does it really matter what the vehicle is as
long as the idea gets across?

Mind you, it does give those of us who have pedantic tendencies
something to do.

But then, why travel in a pickup when one could have ridden in
style in a Porche?

Sorry, lost control for a minute there...
--

-Gord.
  #20  
Old October 19th 03, 08:11 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The subject of your query puzzles me as this is a military aviation forum
but will attempt an answer for you. If it hits nothing vital (electrical,
hydraulic, etc) the answer is...pretty much nothing.

Tex


The reason I posted it here is that here is the place where the people
who think about this kind of crap congregate. Like me.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best Option for Private Pilot to Multi Commercial Instrument Ratings Hudson Valley Amusement Instrument Flight Rules 34 December 17th 04 10:25 PM
Another Addition to the Rec.Aviation Rogue's Gallery! Jay Honeck Home Built 125 February 1st 04 06:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.