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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote:
(Again: the above is quoted from rec.aviation.piloting) ...which doesn't mean anything as far as credibility goes! Who wrote that?!? I am almost ROTFL at some of the assertions made up there (salient parts retained)! I agree...I'm very familiar with the 9MM Parabellum round having owned a Waltzer P-38 for a few years had having access to a practically unending supply of ammo from the RCAF for it. (having a good buddy who was also a gun nut AND an armourer in the RCAF didn't hurt) plus being quite familiar with a/c I can attest to your views here. -- -Gord. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"M. J. Powell" wrote:
In message , Cub Driver writes What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole? snip So are you worse off risking explosive decompression, or of crashing into Times Square at midnight? As to the possibility of explosive decompression, as I understand the matter, it could happen if a bullet fractured a window (though not if it went through the skin). That's a mere possibility, as opposed to the certainty of a suicide dive, absent the sky marshal. A normal bullet hole would be no problem. There's already a much larger vent to the outside, which stabilizes cabin pressure against the fresh & heated air being pumped in from the engines. People smarter than I say that this hole is about three inches in diameter. I'm glad you mentioned 3" in diameter. During my RAF service my wireless mechanics had to pass a camera cable from a bomb bay into the pressure cabin in a Valiant. To my surprise they found a hole about 3" diameter in a convenient place. I said 'surprise' because I was in Signals and knew nothing about the structural properties of the aircraft. I imagined that the pressure cabin would be tightly sealed. It is Mike (comparitevely at least)...they sure didn't use the 'outflow valve' nor the 'dump valve' (right beside it) to pass a cable (unless they did it for testing on the ground or somesuch. These valves need to 'modulate' the pressure inside the cabin while climbing and during flight so you couldn't use them for passing cables through during flight What about the loss of a window due to bullet strike? Would there be structural failure? Mike Most unlikely, the window frame is pretty strong and likely wouldn't propagate cracks. -- -Gord. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"M. J. Powell" wrote: 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. -- -Gord. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote:
"Gord Beaman" wrote... Dunno about smart but yes the 'hole' is indeed 3 or 4 inches wide (and there's two usually) but they're not wide open all the time (only when 'dump' is selected). They have another valve portion which mates with them and regulates the 'outflow' to regulate the cabin pressure which controls the 'cabin altitude'. On the 747 the outflow valves that regulate cabin pressure are about 1 x 3 feet, and there are 2 of them. Normal opening is in the range of 12-19%, or about 103-164 square inches. A .40 cal bullet has a cross-sectional area of about 0.126 square inches, or about 1/1000 of the normal outflow area. Even a full pax window, at about 6x8 inches, has less area. Though it would be noisy and breezy if a window disintegrated (until a serving tray or something got stuck in it), rapid depressurization would not occur, as the outflow valves would adjust over the course of about 2 seconds. Of course, the size of the outflow valves in smaller airplanes would be somewhat smaller, but the net result would be similar. I agree...the size of valves that I quoted belong to a Convair 580...VERY much smaller than a 747, but I'm still surprised by how large the 747 ones are. Anyhow, I agree with you about the outflow valve compensating for a blown out window. Pretty well a 'nonevent' as far as disaster is concerned. -- -Gord. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
But you cannot classify the loss of a window (or two) as a nominal event, as others apparently have. I don['t think anyone said it was trivial, only that it was not catastrophic, and no reason to ban armed sky marshals (or pilots). all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Could you guys clip a bit more heavily, or else put your replies at the top? I rarely page down for a reply, and I suspect that many others are equally impatient. (I won't be reading this post, either, even though I'm replying to it.) On 02 Jan 2004 05:26:19 GMT, (B2431) wrote: From: "Kevin Brooks" Date: 1/1/2004 9:11 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "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...edPage.php?tt= url&text=http%3a//www.connect.com.br/~cultura/portugues/noticias.htm&lp=pt_en Brooks Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired A) you said the person departed the aircraft. B) you gave me a citation that didn't say that. C) you blamed me for being confused about a Piedmont flight which had nothing to do with the citation you gave me. D) you found another citation saying the victim was not blown out of the aircraft. I might add that unless she had very narrow shoulders she was in no real danger of having been blown out of the aircraft. I am no longer sure what started this, but I have lost interest. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Damnit, for the last time--I HAVE NOT DISAGREED WITH THAT CONCLUSION! What I have disagreed with is the assertion that the loss of a window, or any other RAPID decompression scenario, is a trivial affair- Then what the hell are we talking about here? Me, I'm marking this thread Ignore. all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:55 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
wrote: There has been a bit of a furore over here concerning the new US requirement to airlines to supply air marshals when requested. The concern is mainly over the possible puncture of a pressure cabin. What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole? Boeing engineers estimate that a 9-inch diameter hole would be necessary before the automatic pressurizing equipment of a 767 would be unable to maintain cabin pressure. Or roughly 650 holes, each 9mm across. I can't imagine a gunfight inside an airliner that would end up with 650 holes in the outer skin of the plane since most of the rounds are going to be fired to the front or rear. Even so, most of those holes can easily be plugged for the short duration of the flight to the nearest airport, just put one of those stupid platic covered "In case of Emergency" cards over them. That would take care of about 250 of them on a 767, I'm sure the in-flight magazines would easily take care of 600-700 more. Bubble gum would be good for another 100 or so. What's that, about 5,000 total rounds fired (assuming 1/3 of them hit a wall and leave a hole)? An average of 20 per passenger, two whole post-ban clips before the air pressure of the cabin becomes compromised and requires a decent, which would be in progress anyway once the flight crew becomes aware of 5,000 rounds fired inside the plane. -- "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: "Kevin Brooks" Date: 1/1/2004 9:11 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "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...edPage.php?tt= url&text=http%3a//www.connect.com.br/~cultura/portugues/noticias.htm&lp=pt_e n Brooks Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired A) you said the person departed the aircraft. I so sorry--she was only partially sucked out courtesy of her hubby putting a stranglehold on her legs. Big deal. And a far cry from your assertion: "It would still be only annoying. A few ear aches and a lot of noise along with oxygen masks dropping. The person sitting next to the window might lose his reading material or dinner." IMHO. B) you gave me a citation that didn't say that. Dan, face it--the loss of a window can cause a hell of a lot more than you asserted. C) you blamed me for being confused about a Piedmont flight which had nothing to do with the citation you gave me. So sorry again--we apparently both were getting a bit confused, as your earlier mea culpa indicated. D) you found another citation saying the victim was not blown out of the aircraft. I might add that unless she had very narrow shoulders she was in no real danger of having been blown out of the aircraft. Tell that to the hubby who was hanging onto her legs according to the press reports in Brazil. In the end, it matters not a whit--she DIED. As did that Piedmont passenger, due to whatever causes related to the decompression. That is one HELL of a lot more serious than, "A few ear aches and a lot of noise...", OK? I am no longer sure what started this, but I have lost interest. What started this is your continued assertion that rapid decompression is no big deal, in spite of there having been related fatalities, and rather substantial injuries as noted in the Aer Lingus case. Brooks Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
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 |