Punctured pressure cabin.

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:



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.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"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.

[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

"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

"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

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

"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

"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

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.

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