Punctured pressure cabin.

"Henry Bibb" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
news



That is the problem with overgeneralization--it is usually wrong. It
"could"
indeed cause more than terror and discomfort. The Brazilian airliner
lost
a
passenger when it had two windows taken out; a Piedmont airliner
suffered
a
passenger fatality during a rapid decompression that did not involve any
large opening at all. Having been through a few nasty eardrum ruptures,
I

Brooks


Direct quote from NTSB report ATL89IA099 concerning the Piedmont
incident: (emphasis added)

THE PASSENGER WAS TAKEN TO A DAYTON HOSPITAL AND
DIED AT ABOUT 6 HOURS AND 50 MINUTES LATER. THE
MONTGOMERY COUNTY CORONER RULED THAT DEATH WAS
DUE TO NATURAL CAUSES.
-----------------------

Henry Bibb

Yep. Natural causes brought on by rapid decompression, no doubt. Trauma
induced, in other words, whether it be too much strain on the poor guy's
ticker or respiratory arrest. Or are you thinking his requirement for
immediate hospitalization just *happened* to be simultaneous to the
decompression event? Rather unlikely it was not tied to it, IMO.

Brooks

FWIW, tomorrow (Friday) night on The Discovery Channel's "Myth Busters"
program, one of their projects is rapid decomp of an airliner.

Will somebody summarize the findings here, for the sake of us pathetic
losers with antennas in the attic?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

That is the problem with overgeneralization--it is usually wrong. It "could"
indeed cause more than terror and discomfort. The Brazilian airliner lost a
passenger when it had two windows taken out; a Piedmont airliner suffered a
passenger fatality during a rapid decompression that did not involve any
large opening at all. Having been through a few nasty eardrum ruptures, I
can tell you that the pain involved adds up to a bit more than "discomfort"
(when blood and pus are ejected a couple of inches out of the ear you can
imagine the sensation involved)--the passengers on that Aer Lingus 737 might
attest to that.

Still, you are surely not preferring to see your airplane go down into
Times Square?

Losing a passenger or an eardrum is a heck of a lot better than losing
200 passengers, the crew, and the people on the ground.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

(IIRC military aircraft were designed to maintain
lower cabin pressure than airliners, to limit the damage
amplification following a hit)

I was pondering this possibility also, but then I remembered that the
B-36 was supposed to be *depressurized* when the plane moved into a
combat situation.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

He or she also has to distinguish between a
conventional hijack best dealt with by negotiation (are
sky marshalls trained to conduct hostage-release
negotiations?) which are the vast majority of cases,
and a rare attempt to use an airliner as a suicide bomb.

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.

You have touched on a sore spot: the training. Whenever I look at
police officers, I see a heart attack waiting to happen. They are
mostly overweight; they mostly spend their days sitting down (the sky
marshal would be required to sit down!); their diet is mostly awful;
and if they have to go into action, it is likely to be sudden and
stressful.

Bam!

How well trained are these sky-marhsal guys (and girls, of course:
likely the hiring ratio was 50/50 by fiat)? What kind of shape are
they in after a year or two on the job?

I seem to remember an incident where a passenger kept returning to a
suitcase in the overhead bin, and the sky marshal put everyone in a
state of terror by waving his pistol around and requiring the
passengers to freeze in their seats. Not very reassuring.


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 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

The notion that the pilots could defend
the cockpit as a kind of fortress seems far too simplistic to me.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

it is very simple, the pilots have the ULTIMATE control, you cannot fight if
you cannot stand, and it is very hard to stand in a plane being thrown around
the sky, also, it is hard to fight when there is no air in the cabin, there is
another use for the cabin pressurization system, bleed off the pressure, and
everyone goes to sleep.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

That is the problem with overgeneralization--it is usually wrong. It
"could"
indeed cause more than terror and discomfort. The Brazilian airliner lost
a
passenger when it had two windows taken out; a Piedmont airliner suffered
a
passenger fatality during a rapid decompression that did not involve any
large opening at all. Having been through a few nasty eardrum ruptures, I
can tell you that the pain involved adds up to a bit more than
"discomfort"
(when blood and pus are ejected a couple of inches out of the ear you can
imagine the sensation involved)--the passengers on that Aer Lingus 737
might
attest to that.

Still, you are surely not preferring to see your airplane go down into
Times Square?

Losing a passenger or an eardrum is a heck of a lot better than losing
200 passengers, the crew, and the people on the ground.

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--you are going to suffer
injuries, some possibly serious ones, and yes, there have been deaths
attributed to, or related to, it. That said, and for one last time--the
danger of such a decompression resulting from a bullet, even one that might
take out a window, is less than the danger involved in a successful hijack.
Get it?

Brooks

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote

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. 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.

Pre-9/11, yes.

But the "Take me to Cuba" or "release our glorious leader from prison"
scenarios have changed. Now, the passengers and crew *must* assume that the
hijackers wish to commit suicide and mass homicide by flying the a/c into a
high value target on the ground. To assume anything less is foolish.

Pete

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?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired