Punctured pressure cabin.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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

"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.

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

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

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

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

"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