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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote Put fat people in the window seats. Maybe they can serve as a plug, and save the rest of us. Pete Pete, I happen to be fat and I do sit near the windows. If you were sitting near me and the window blew I'd seriously consider plugging it with your rude body. Whoa. I thought the smiley would have been assumed. Sorry if I stepped on any toes. Such is typed conversations... Pete While many would not consider me 'fat', i *am* much rounder than I need to be. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
[round loose..]
It depends on what it passes through on the way out. The skin? No big deal Control cables/wiring/fuel/hydraulics...? The windscreen? I donno... -- A host is a host from coast to & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in
: "John R Weiss" wrote in message news:Am_Ib.187918$8y1.596348@attbi_s52... AFAIK, all current airliners have sufficient blow-out doors in interior bulkheads to prevent that sort of structural failure. That's the theory... Most aircraft accidents happen because of a sequence of events that, according to the theories adhered to be the designers, should not have occurred... A single inert bullet into a fuel tank would not likely cause a fire. Probably not. I would be more worried about bullets striking cabling and causing short-circuits. Cabling and most vital stuff will be under the passenger deck.It would be very unusual for a stray round to hit something vital,and without a backup. Considering the alternative of an uncontrolled crash into the ground, which do you prefer? The vast majority of hijacks have not ended in crashes, but in safe landings, and were resolved on the ground by negotiation if possible, and in the worst case by security forces storming the plane. Well,that is no longer the case,post 9-11. Those planes never reached an airfield for the security teams to be ABLE to storm the aircraft. And negotiation was never a possibility. Seems to me that the presence of the sky marshall could perhaps prevent the rare event, but significantly increases the probability that the more common event ends in disaster. The presence of sky marshalls can have a certain deterrent effect, but I doubt their effectiveness in a real incident. Considering the layout of most large airliners, it would be difficult enough for the officer to remain aware of what is happening (the pilot can signal that there is an attempt to take control of the aircraft, but probably little else) and even more difficult to approach the terrorists close enough to deal with them. The ability of a single officer to tackle multiple hijackers and resolve the crisis is also dubious. It appears to be fairly common for hijackers to have a 'silent' member of the team among the passengers, so the sky marshall would not even be able to identify all his opponents. It's my understanding that Marshals are deployed a minimum of TWO per plane.Although that may still be inadequate against 5 or more hijackers. It's sound like a promising theoretical concept, but I think the money and resources would be far better spent on measures to prevent terrorists getting on board. Too large a system for that(25K+ flights per day in the US alone),and not enough data on who could be a terrorist.And who wants a police state? First, the training is NOT "minimal"! It is intense and specialized. It is, as far as I know, only one week. Far too little to deal with a complex and psychologically very demanding situation, in which pilots would be dealing with pressure exerted on them from the other side of a closed door, while the terrorists hold the passengers hostage. The notion that the pilots could defend the cockpit as a kind of fortress seems far too simplistic to me. If terrorists hold the pax hostage,the pilots land the plane at the nearest airfield,and let SWAT take care of it.The problem is with hijackings intended to use the plane as a weapon,requiring control of the plane from the cockpit.Keeping terrorists out of the cockpit is the primary way to prevent this. And post9-11,one must consider any hijack attempt as the worst case,use of the plane as a weapon. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel.Gustin" writes:
IIRC there have been incidents with the cargo hatches of DC-10s, but not limited to the loss of a number of seats; the entire aircraft was lost --- depressurisation of the cargo bay caused the cabin floor to collapse, destroying the control runs. Turkish Airways.... -- A host is a host from coast to & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote in
: I don't think it is wise at all to give guns to pilots after minimal training. First, the training is NOT "minimal"! It is intense and specialized. Most American pilots now flying were trained in the military. Furthermore, most American men have used firearms at one time or another. The training (I think it is two weeks, for which the pilot pays out of his pocket) is more of a refresher course for the pilots who take it, and presumably a course in the wise use of airborne firearms. all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com I would NOT say that "most American men have used firearms" at one time or another.Firearms are not politically correct,and far too many people grow up in urban environments where firearms are uncommon(legal usage),and most don't join the military anymore.Many grade schools no longer have rifle/gun clubs. The military was my first encounter with a firearm. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in
: "Cub Driver" wrote in message ... I think that the sky marshal would choose to err on the side of caution--i.e., to kill or wound the hijacker rather than worry about his motives. No American jury would fault him for that. I think that in a multiple-hijacker situation the odds are against the marshall, so the logical approach would be to remain passive and wait until a very good opportunity presents itself, the situation has become really desperate, or the aircraft has been safely landed by the pilot. Well,you don't want to wait until the terrorists have slaughtered the pilots.That alone is one damn good reason for the pilots to have guns themselves. There are no spares or backups for the pilots. The only exception would be in the confused seconds between the moment when the hijackers make their intentions clear, and they gain actual control of the aircraft. That may present a too good opportunity to intervene to be missed. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"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...s.htm&lp=pt_en Brooks Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote: I would NOT say that "most American men have used firearms" at one time or another. Since about 45% of American homes have firearms in them, it would only take a few more percent of people going shooting with their gun-owning friends to put that into the "most" category. Gun ownership has actually been going up for most of the last decade or so. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
When you consider the source of the air for pressurization, LP/HP air
bled from the engines' compressors, and note that just one engine or, on most transports, the APU as a last resort, can supply enough air for normal operation of the pressurization system, it becomes obvious several bullet holes will not materially affect cabin altitude. Note also that there is constant flow through the pressurization/dump valves; they will normally never be fully closed. In sum, the valves' normal open area could be compared to the aggregate area of the bullet holes so that when the p/d valves do fully close trying to maintain pressure one could calculate the number of bullet holes they could compensate for. A nice experiment waiting to be accomplished. BTW keep your seat belt fastened and carry a nice sharp 6H drafting pencil in your kit. Walt BJ |
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 |