Bad Week for Airbus

[Phil]

On top of last week's A340 incident, now an A330 experienced a sudden
depressurization on a shakedown flight. Among the injuries to
passengers were spinal injuries. Sounds like the pilot may have
abruptly dived the aircraft while some passengers were still standing
in the aisle. Or would people pass out so quickly that they fell and
injured themselves? It doesn't say what the altitude is, but I would
have thought that people would stay conscious long enough to get to a
seat and use the oxygen mask.


http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=a44e6be0-95b7-4c71-84d4-e79e5cbc3ce7&

[Mxsmanic]

Phil writes:

> On top of last week's A340 incident, now an A330 experienced a sudden
> depressurization on a shakedown flight. Among the injuries to
> passengers were spinal injuries. Sounds like the pilot may have
> abruptly dived the aircraft while some passengers were still standing
> in the aisle. Or would people pass out so quickly that they fell and
> injured themselves?

It depends on the altitude, but at typical cruising altitudes they might be
conscious for only fifteen to twenty seconds, which might not be long enough
for them to gather their wits and get to an oxygen mask if they are standing
and moving about.

> It doesn't say what the altitude is, but I would
> have thought that people would stay conscious long enough to get to a
> seat and use the oxygen mask.

At high altitudes there may not be enough time. That's what FAs always tell
parents to fasten their own masks before putting masks on their children: if
they try to fasten their children's masks first, they may pass out before they
succeed, and then both end up with hypoxia and unconsciousness. I think a lot
of parents are too stupid to understand this, however.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Phil writes:
>
>> On top of last week's A340 incident, now an A330 experienced a sudden
>> depressurization on a shakedown flight. Among the injuries to
>> passengers were spinal injuries. Sounds like the pilot may have
>> abruptly dived the aircraft while some passengers were still standing
>> in the aisle. Or would people pass out so quickly that they fell and
>> injured themselves?
>
> It depends on the altitude, but at typical cruising altitudes they might
> be
> conscious for only fifteen to twenty seconds, which might not be long
> enough
> for them to gather their wits and get to an oxygen mask if they are
> standing
> and moving about.
>
>> It doesn't say what the altitude is, but I would
>> have thought that people would stay conscious long enough to get to a
>> seat and use the oxygen mask.
>
> At high altitudes there may not be enough time. That's what FAs always
> tell
> parents to fasten their own masks before putting masks on their children:
> if
> they try to fasten their children's masks first, they may pass out before
> they
> succeed, and then both end up with hypoxia and unconsciousness. I think a
> lot
> of parents are too stupid to understand this, however.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Must resist...can't stop...ahhhh....

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Phil writes:
>
>> On top of last week's A340 incident, now an A330 experienced a sudden
>> depressurization on a shakedown flight. Among the injuries to
>> passengers were spinal injuries. Sounds like the pilot may have
>> abruptly dived the aircraft while some passengers were still standing
>> in the aisle. Or would people pass out so quickly that they fell and
>> injured themselves?
>
> It depends on the altitude, but at typical cruising altitudes they
> might be conscious for only fifteen to twenty seconds, which might not
> be long enough for them to gather their wits and get to an oxygen mask
> if they are standing and moving about.
>
>> It doesn't say what the altitude is, but I would
>> have thought that people would stay conscious long enough to get to a
>> seat and use the oxygen mask.
>
> At high altitudes there may not be enough time. That's what FAs
> always tell parents to fasten their own masks before putting masks on
> their children: if they try to fasten their children's masks first,
> they may pass out before they succeed, and then both end up with
> hypoxia and unconsciousness. I think a lot of parents are too stupid
> to understand this, however.
>

You're certainly too stuopid to understand it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in
:

> On top of last week's A340 incident, now an A330 experienced a sudden
> depressurization on a shakedown flight. Among the injuries to
> passengers were spinal injuries. Sounds like the pilot may have
> abruptly dived the aircraft while some passengers were still standing
> in the aisle.


No, you really can;'t abruptly do anything in an Airbus in the flight mode
he would have been in at cruise.


Or would people pass out so quickly that they fell and
> injured themselves?

Probably not that either. You're only slumping to the floor like you would
naywhere else.

It doesn't say what the altitude is, but I would
> have thought that people would stay conscious long enough to get to a
> seat and use the oxygen mask.

Mebbe, mebbe not.


An explosive decompression can do a lot of damage to the body. Sinuses,
ears lungs..


Makes you fart too.


Bertie

[Phil]

On Nov 24, 2:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> No, you really can;'t abruptly do anything in an Airbus in the flight mode
> he would have been in at cruise.
>

The computer won't let you? What if you need to maneuver abruptly to
avoid a collision?


> Or would people pass out so quickly that they fell and
>
> > injured themselves?
>
> Probably not that either. You're only slumping to the floor like you would
> naywhere else.
>
> It doesn't say what the altitude is, but I would
>
> > have thought that people would stay conscious long enough to get to a
> > seat and use the oxygen mask.
>
> Mebbe, mebbe not.
>
> An explosive decompression can do a lot of damage to the body. Sinuses,
> ears lungs..

Amazing. I never would have guessed that you could get a spinal
injury from the decompression itself.

>
> Makes you fart too.

Now that I would have guessed.

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in
:

> On Nov 24, 2:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> No, you really can;'t abruptly do anything in an Airbus in the flight
>> mode he would have been in at cruise.
>>
>
> The computer won't let you? What if you need to maneuver abruptly to
> avoid a collision?
>

That's right. It won't let you manuever more thna a given acceleration for
the flight mode you are in,particulaly at high alt due to mahc manuevering
considerations. Can't give you numbers because I'm not flying one at the
moment.

>
>> Or would people pass out so quickly that they fell and
>>
>> > injured themselves?
>>
>> Probably not that either. You're only slumping to the floor like you
>> would naywhere else.
>>
>> It doesn't say what the altitude is, but I would
>>
>> > have thought that people would stay conscious long enough to get to
>> > a seat and use the oxygen mask.
>>
>> Mebbe, mebbe not.
>>
>> An explosive decompression can do a lot of damage to the body.
>> Sinuses, ears lungs..
>
> Amazing. I never would have guessed that you could get a spinal
> injury from the decompression itself.


Didn't know about that one either. Could be just misreported or it may be
so. We get training in the physiological aspects of a blowout and some are
pretty nasty (an aneurism on the brain in several cases) but this is a new
one on me. It's not really something we need be to concerned about, it'll
either happen or it won't. Hopefully won't..


>
>>
>> Makes you fart too.
>
> Now that I would have guessed.
>
> Phil
>
>

[Stefan]

Phil schrieb:

> The computer won't let you? What if you need to maneuver abruptly to
> avoid a collision?

The computer prevents you to rip off the wings. But you can always
disengage this functionality, if you really want to do something stupid.

> Amazing. I never would have guessed that you could get a spinal
> injury from the decompression itself.

If a bubble forms and blocks a vessel, it can do so anywhere.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:6e9ce$4748a8da$54487377
:

> Phil schrieb:
>
>> The computer won't let you? What if you need to maneuver abruptly to
>> avoid a collision?
>
> The computer prevents you to rip off the wings. But you can always
> disengage this functionality, if you really want to do something stupid.


You can't do it quickly. It's a fairly intricate procedure, in fact..

And the computer does a lot more that protecting the airframe..






Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Nov 24, 1:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>
> At high altitudes there may not be enough time. That's what FAs always tell
> parents to fasten their own masks before putting masks on their children: if
> they try to fasten their children's masks first, they may pass out before they
> succeed, and then both end up with hypoxia and unconsciousness. I think a lot
> of parents are too stupid to understand this, however.

Maybe, but I think it's just an instinctive reaction to help your kid
first.

[nobody[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Nov 24, 1:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> I think a lot
>> of parents are too stupid to understand this, however.
>
> Maybe, but I think it's just an instinctive reaction to help your kid
> first.
>

It's really a pretty simple concept, but I've never had it explained on an
airline. I don't understand how someone could draw a conclusion that parents
are too 'stupid' to understand. Maybe if it's beyond someone's ability to
understand, they would project that 'stupidity' on anyone else who doesn't
understand, whether or not it's ever been explained.

[Phil]

On Nov 24, 6:02 pm, "nobody" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Nov 24, 1:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> I think a lot
> >> of parents are too stupid to understand this, however.
>
> > Maybe, but I think it's just an instinctive reaction to help your kid
> > first.
>
> It's really a pretty simple concept, but I've never had it explained on an
> airline. I don't understand how someone could draw a conclusion that parents
> are too 'stupid' to understand. Maybe if it's beyond someone's ability to
> understand, they would project that 'stupidity' on anyone else who doesn't
> understand, whether or not it's ever been explained.

Actually the flight attendant says it in every pre-flight emergency
briefing. You are right that it is a simple concept, and I don't know
anyone who is too stupid to understand it. Based on his posts, I
think Mxsmanic has a desperate need to try to make himself feel
superior. He just doesn't realize just how transparent it is. As you
implied, his comments say a lot more about him than anything else.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "BB" == Bertie the Bunyip > writes:

BB> An explosive decompression can do a lot of damage to the
BB> body. Sinuses, ears lungs..

"Explosive decompression (ED) refers to a sudden marked drop in the
pressure of a system that occurs in less than 0.1 seconds, associated
with explosive violence. Generally it results from some sort of
material fatigue or engineering failure, causing a contained system to
suddenly vent into the external atmosphere."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_decompression

Not a chance the Airbus experienced *explosive* decompression.

--
The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of
liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the
increase of it.
~ Woodrow Wilson

[Judah]

Phil > wrote in
:

> Actually the flight attendant says it in every pre-flight emergency
> briefing. You are right that it is a simple concept, and I don't know
> anyone who is too stupid to understand it. Based on his posts, I

It is explained on every pre-flight briefing, but I don't think it's because
they think people are too stupid to understand it. Just that there may be
people on board who don't fly frequently enough to remember it if there were
to be an actual emergency.

Now SEATBELTS they explain because they think people are stupid...

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Maybe, but I think it's just an instinctive reaction to help your kid
> first.

It's an emotional reaction, and people who are stupid are more likely to allow
their behavior to be directed by emotion. Unfortunately, in this case (and in
many other cases), yielding to emotion rather than reason leaves people dead.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> It's really a pretty simple concept, but I've never had it explained on an
> airline. I don't understand how someone could draw a conclusion that parents
> are too 'stupid' to understand.

If they aren't stupid, they'll figure out for themselves why they should put
on their own masks first.

[Mxsmanic]

Phil writes:

> Actually the flight attendant says it in every pre-flight emergency
> briefing. You are right that it is a simple concept, and I don't know
> anyone who is too stupid to understand it.

Then why do flight attendants point it out on every flight?

[Mxsmanic]

Phil writes:

> Amazing. I never would have guessed that you could get a spinal
> injury from the decompression itself.

Bubbles in the CNS after sudden decompression can cause serious neurological
symptoms and persistent sequelae, but it's a very rare complication.

[Judah]

Phil > wrote in
:

> On top of last week's A340 incident, now an A330 experienced a sudden
> depressurization on a shakedown flight. Among the injuries to


What exactly is a shakedown flight? Is that when a bunch of guys in white
suits with crooked noses make sure they get their vig of the flight time?

[Phil]

On Nov 24, 9:01 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Phil writes:
> > Actually the flight attendant says it in every pre-flight emergency
> > briefing. You are right that it is a simple concept, and I don't know
> > anyone who is too stupid to understand it.
>
> Then why do flight attendants point it out on every flight?

Ever heard of lawyers?

[Phil]

On Nov 24, 9:04 pm, Judah > wrote:
> Phil > wrote :
>
> > On top of last week's A340 incident, now an A330 experienced a sudden
> > depressurization on a shakedown flight. Among the injuries to
>
> What exactly is a shakedown flight? Is that when a bunch of guys in white
> suits with crooked noses make sure they get their vig of the flight time?

If they don't get their vig, they decompress the plane!

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Phil writes:
>
>> Amazing. I never would have guessed that you could get a spinal
>> injury from the decompression itself.
>
> Bubbles in the CNS after sudden decompression can cause serious
> neurological
> symptoms and persistent sequelae, but it's a very rare complication.

Is there anything you aren't an expert on??

[Darkwing]

"Phil" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 24, 9:04 pm, Judah > wrote:
>> Phil > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > On top of last week's A340 incident, now an A330 experienced a sudden
>> > depressurization on a shakedown flight. Among the injuries to
>>
>> What exactly is a shakedown flight? Is that when a bunch of guys in white
>> suits with crooked noses make sure they get their vig of the flight time?
>
> If they don't get their vig, they decompress the plane!

Oh at least break the landing gear struts.

[Darkwing]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Phil > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Nov 24, 2:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>> No, you really can;'t abruptly do anything in an Airbus in the flight
>>> mode he would have been in at cruise.
>>>
>>
>> The computer won't let you? What if you need to maneuver abruptly to
>> avoid a collision?
>>
>
> That's right. It won't let you manuever more thna a given acceleration for
> the flight mode you are in,particulaly at high alt due to mahc manuevering
> considerations. Can't give you numbers because I'm not flying one at the
> moment.
>

I know basically zero about high altitude flying, what are the
considerations? Does it have a lot to due with being close to the envelope
between flying and stalling in the thin air?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Phil > wrote in
>> news:dc605aa6-d47d-4121-bcdd-

>> :
>>
>>> On Nov 24, 2:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, you really can;'t abruptly do anything in an Airbus in the
>>>> flight mode he would have been in at cruise.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The computer won't let you? What if you need to maneuver abruptly
>>> to avoid a collision?
>>>
>>
>> That's right. It won't let you manuever more thna a given
>> acceleration for the flight mode you are in,particulaly at high alt
>> due to mahc manuevering considerations. Can't give you numbers
>> because I'm not flying one at the moment.
>>
>
> I know basically zero about high altitude flying, what are the
> considerations? Does it have a lot to due with being close to the
> envelope between flying and stalling in the thin air?
>


Not exactly. Indicated stall speed remains constant with altitude. What
does come into play is mach buffet. On the high end of the speed
envelope , obviously, you have the air accelerating around the airplane
and over the top of the wing and that gives you a buffet which destroys
lift. But if you slow the airplane down you have to increase alpha to
maintain your line of flight and the increased alpha will accelerate the
air over the top of the wing to supersonic even though the airplane is
going slower than it was in cruise.
Anything that increases the angle of attack, such as putting more weight
in the airplane will bring the minimum and maximum speed closer to your
cruise speed reducing yuor buffet margins. This means higher weights
bring the max altitude down. Loading the wing up with G either by
manuevering or an encounter with turbulence and even a forward CG will
bring the buffet on sooner, which is why some airplanes pump fuel into
the tail after takeoff once the autopilot is engaged. .
The one that comes into play here is the G consideration. They were
light, so they actually had quite a lot of G available to manuever, but
still, if you screw up at either end of the envelope, you have a big
problem. By the way, some airplanes operate with a margin of as little
as 1.25G. To give this some perspective, a thirty deg bank is 1.15 G.
These would be mostly medium long haul operators doing it to save fuel.
The margins depend on type.. most are more like 1.4 G.
If the airplane falls over, there's a good chance you'll end up through
the high end of envelope (too fast) and if that happens three things
happen to conspire to screw you. One, the center of pressure shifts back
on the wing bringing the nose down, which tends to increase speed, which
exacerbates the problem. Two, the center section of the wing is affected
more because of Area rule. the fuselage has already accelerated the air
when it meets the wing, so the center of the wing is affected more thsan
the tips, and since the center of the wing is mostly ahead of the CG the
loss of lift there brings the nose down and increases sped which
exacerbates the problem. This is mach tuck and though it isn't directly
caused by pulling excessive G it is the likely end result of an upset at
altitude.
The third factor in mach tuck is the stab. As you try pulling the nose
up as it's coming down, the increased camber of the stab (wrong way
round, f course) will accelerate the air to supersonic levels and buffet
the stab. Presto, no elevator control and you're dead.
Whatever it was that started that Egyptair airplane down over the
Atlantic, what finished them off was Mach tuck. If it develops past a
certain point there is almost nothing you can do.
So, Airbus have, for better or worse, decided to allow the airplane
itself to monitor these inflight parameters and not to allow it to do
anything too funky G wise. In reality, it hasn't worked so well. They
seem to have just as many upsets as any other aircraft.


BTW, a Cessna 172 would have these same problems if you were to get it
high enough! There are some high performance homebuilts with blowers
that need mach meters, but if you get any airplane up high enough you
have mach issues. The airplane they're planning on sending to Mars fits
into this category. It's going to be cruising at the equivelant of
somthing like a 150,000 even though it's near the surface. I thing
they're planning on a 250 knot TAS for it and that will be very tight at
those sorts of pressures.

Or maybe we should ask Anthony to check it out on his new version of
X-plane!
Version 9 is out now Anthony! Better get your order in! I'm sure the
outpouring of wisdom will wash us away like the great flood.






Bertie

[TheSmokingGnu]

Darkwing wrote:
> "Phil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Nov 24, 9:04 pm, Judah > wrote:
>> If they don't get their vig, they decompress the plane!
>
> Oh at least break the landing gear struts.

Or run the engines up and then loosen the chocks (!)

TheSmokingGnu

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Phil writes:
>
>> Amazing. I never would have guessed that you could get a spinal
>> injury from the decompression itself.
>
> Bubbles in the CNS after sudden decompression can cause serious
> neurological symptoms and persistent sequelae, but it's a very rare
> complication.
>

Get the newest computer edition of "operation" did you?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bob Fry > wrote in :

>>>>>> "BB" == Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>
> BB> An explosive decompression can do a lot of damage to the
> BB> body. Sinuses, ears lungs..
>
> "Explosive decompression (ED) refers to a sudden marked drop in the
> pressure of a system that occurs in less than 0.1 seconds, associated
> with explosive violence. Generally it results from some sort of
> material fatigue or engineering failure, causing a contained system to
> suddenly vent into the external atmosphere."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_decompression
>
> Not a chance the Airbus experienced *explosive* decompression.
>



Sure there is. Cargo door opening. Structural tear pulling a panel off.
Happens.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Phil writes:
>
>> Actually the flight attendant says it in every pre-flight emergency
>> briefing. You are right that it is a simple concept, and I don't know
>> anyone who is too stupid to understand it.
>
> Then why do flight attendants point it out on every flight?
>

Because they've considered that you might be on the flight.


Oh wait. that can't be it either. You don't fly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> It's really a pretty simple concept, but I've never had it explained
>> on an airline. I don't understand how someone could draw a conclusion
>> that parents are too 'stupid' to understand.
>
> If they aren't stupid, they'll figure out for themselves why they
> should put on their own masks first.
>
Bwawahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhhawhahwhahwhahwhahwh hahwhahwhahwhhawhhahwhahw
hahwhhahwhahwhahwhahwhhawhhawhhahwhahwhahwhahwhahw hahwhahwhahwhahwh!


Yeah, nost natural thing in the world, being thrust into a world where the
air is so thin the molecule have RFD postboxes.



Moron.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Maybe, but I think it's just an instinctive reaction to help your kid
>> first.
>
> It's an emotional reaction, and people who are stupid are more likely
> to allow their behavior to be directed by emotion. Unfortunately, in
> this case (and in many other cases), yielding to emotion rather than
> reason leaves people dead.




You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Phil writes:

> Ever heard of lawyers?

A lawsuit would only support the notion that parents are too stupid to figure
this out without being explicitly told.

[Mxsmanic]

Darkwing writes:

> Is there anything you aren't an expert on??

One need not be an expert to know such things. One need only crack open a
book from time to time. All this information is out there for people who are
interested in looking for it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Darkwing writes:
>
>> Is there anything you aren't an expert on??
>
> One need not be an expert to know such things.


No, but you don't know, it, you're only parroting what you have read with
no understanding of hos it works.

which makes you a fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Phil writes:
>
>> Ever heard of lawyers?
>
> A lawsuit would only support the notion that parents are too stupid to
> figure this out without being explicitly told.
>




Nope.


You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Tina]

This guy continues to bring knives to intelllectual gunfights.


On Nov 25, 7:11 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Darkwing writes:
> > Is there anything you aren't an expert on??
>
> One need not be an expert to know such things. One need only crack open a
> book from time to time. All this information is out there for people who are
> interested in looking for it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> This guy continues to bring knives to intelllectual gunfights.


Bananas, more like.


Bertie

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> It's really a pretty simple concept, but I've never had it explained on
>> an
>> airline. I don't understand how someone could draw a conclusion that
>> parents
>> are too 'stupid' to understand.
>
> If they aren't stupid, they'll figure out for themselves why they should
> put
> on their own masks first.

I guess you are simply incapable of understanding why someone would make a
sacrafice for someone else.

[Phil]

On Nov 25, 6:10 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Phil writes:
> > Ever heard of lawyers?
>
> A lawsuit would only support the notion that parents are too stupid to figure
> this out without being explicitly told.

No, a lawsuit supports the notion that people will sue if given _any_
excuse to sue, regardless of how ridiculous that excuse is. It has
nothing to do with the intelligence of the "victim", and everything to
do with their greed. Have you ever noticed the warnings on paper
coffee cups from fast food joints? Do you seriously think that those
warnings are there because people are too stupid to realize that
coffee is hot??

[Big John]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:55:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Darkwing" <theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote in
:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Phil > wrote in
>>> news:dc605aa6-d47d-4121-bcdd-

>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Nov 24, 2:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you really can;'t abruptly do anything in an Airbus in the
>>>>> flight mode he would have been in at cruise.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The computer won't let you? What if you need to maneuver abruptly
>>>> to avoid a collision?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's right. It won't let you manuever more thna a given
>>> acceleration for the flight mode you are in,particulaly at high alt
>>> due to mahc manuevering considerations. Can't give you numbers
>>> because I'm not flying one at the moment.
>>>
>>
>> I know basically zero about high altitude flying, what are the
>> considerations? Does it have a lot to due with being close to the
>> envelope between flying and stalling in the thin air?
>>
>
>
>Not exactly. Indicated stall speed remains constant with altitude. What
>does come into play is mach buffet. On the high end of the speed
>envelope , obviously, you have the air accelerating around the airplane
>and over the top of the wing and that gives you a buffet which destroys
>lift. But if you slow the airplane down you have to increase alpha to
>maintain your line of flight and the increased alpha will accelerate the
>air over the top of the wing to supersonic even though the airplane is
>going slower than it was in cruise.
>Anything that increases the angle of attack, such as putting more weight
>in the airplane will bring the minimum and maximum speed closer to your
>cruise speed reducing yuor buffet margins. This means higher weights
>bring the max altitude down. Loading the wing up with G either by
>manuevering or an encounter with turbulence and even a forward CG will
>bring the buffet on sooner, which is why some airplanes pump fuel into
>the tail after takeoff once the autopilot is engaged. .
>The one that comes into play here is the G consideration. They were
>light, so they actually had quite a lot of G available to manuever, but
>still, if you screw up at either end of the envelope, you have a big
>problem. By the way, some airplanes operate with a margin of as little
>as 1.25G. To give this some perspective, a thirty deg bank is 1.15 G.
>These would be mostly medium long haul operators doing it to save fuel.
>The margins depend on type.. most are more like 1.4 G.
>If the airplane falls over, there's a good chance you'll end up through
>the high end of envelope (too fast) and if that happens three things
>happen to conspire to screw you. One, the center of pressure shifts back
>on the wing bringing the nose down, which tends to increase speed, which
>exacerbates the problem. Two, the center section of the wing is affected
>more because of Area rule. the fuselage has already accelerated the air
>when it meets the wing, so the center of the wing is affected more thsan
>the tips, and since the center of the wing is mostly ahead of the CG the
>loss of lift there brings the nose down and increases sped which
>exacerbates the problem. This is mach tuck and though it isn't directly
>caused by pulling excessive G it is the likely end result of an upset at
>altitude.
>The third factor in mach tuck is the stab. As you try pulling the nose
>up as it's coming down, the increased camber of the stab (wrong way
>round, f course) will accelerate the air to supersonic levels and buffet
>the stab. Presto, no elevator control and you're dead.
>Whatever it was that started that Egyptair airplane down over the
>Atlantic, what finished them off was Mach tuck. If it develops past a
>certain point there is almost nothing you can do.
>So, Airbus have, for better or worse, decided to allow the airplane
>itself to monitor these inflight parameters and not to allow it to do
>anything too funky G wise. In reality, it hasn't worked so well. They
>seem to have just as many upsets as any other aircraft.
>
>
>BTW, a Cessna 172 would have these same problems if you were to get it
>high enough! There are some high performance homebuilts with blowers
>that need mach meters, but if you get any airplane up high enough you
>have mach issues. The airplane they're planning on sending to Mars fits
>into this category. It's going to be cruising at the equivelant of
>somthing like a 150,000 even though it's near the surface. I thing
>they're planning on a 250 knot TAS for it and that will be very tight at
>those sorts of pressures.
>
>Or maybe we should ask Anthony to check it out on his new version of
>X-plane!
>Version 9 is out now Anthony! Better get your order in! I'm sure the
>outpouring of wisdom will wash us away like the great flood.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Bertie


Bertie and all

To add some to your data.

The B-47 had what was called the "coffen corner". At high altitude the
airspeed was just above the stall and if you increased your airspeed
you were into Mach. This required very close attention by B-47
drivers.

Big John

[george]

On Nov 25, 4:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Phil writes:
> > Amazing. I never would have guessed that you could get a spinal
> > injury from the decompression itself.
>
> Bubbles in the CNS after sudden decompression can cause serious neurological
> symptoms and persistent sequelae, but it's a very rare complication.

Moron strikes again.
No diver suffering DS will be flying on a commercial airliner in that
state!.
Or is our resident clown now a specialist in Hyperbaric medicine ?

[george]

On Nov 26, 1:11 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Darkwing writes:
> > Is there anything you aren't an expert on??
>
> One need not be an expert to know such things. One need only crack open a
> book from time to time. All this information is out there for people who are
> interested in looking for it.

The thing about books isn't to 'crack them open' periodically.
It's to actually read them and assimilate the information gained.
And then use it !

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:


>
> The B-47 had what was called the "coffen corner". At high altitude the
> airspeed was just above the stall and if you increased your airspeed
> you were into Mach. This required very close attention by B-47
> drivers.
>


Yeah, it's petty much the same with any transonic aircraft. Technically,
though, what you had at the low end wasn't a stall, though it's commonly
referred to as such. The end result was the same (plummeting to earth) but
the biggest difference was that it happened well above indicated stall
speed and well below crit Alpha.
But even the FAA call it a stall in their advisory material.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0
/e04e9b9732ba93fd86256caa005ca97e/$FILE/AC61-107A.pdf

You probably flew looser margins than we do, in fact. I've flown with about
ten knots either direction to buffet, but it's a non-event with us in
coffin corner because of the more sophisticated autopilots and
autothrottles.

In the U2 they flew with a +/- 2 knot margin! The autopiot did th ework and
they let the altitude do what it wanted in deference to speedkeeping.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On Nov 26, 1:11 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Darkwing writes:
>> > Is there anything you aren't an expert on??
>>
>> One need not be an expert to know such things. One need only crack
>> open a book from time to time. All this information is out there for
>> people who are interested in looking for it.
>
> The thing about books isn't to 'crack them open' periodically.
> It's to actually read them and assimilate the information gained.
> And then use it !
>

Well said.


Bertie

[Stefan]

george schrieb:
> On Nov 25, 4:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Phil writes:
>>> Amazing. I never would have guessed that you could get a spinal
>>> injury from the decompression itself.
>> Bubbles in the CNS after sudden decompression can cause serious neurological
>> symptoms and persistent sequelae, but it's a very rare complication.
>
> Moron strikes again.
> No diver suffering DS will be flying on a commercial airliner in that
> state!.
> Or is our resident clown now a specialist in Hyperbaric medicine ?

Where did he mention divers and hyperbaric situations? You should at
least read his posting before bashing him. You may not understand it,
but what he wrote is absolutely correct and to the point, whether you
like it or not.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> I guess you are simply incapable of understanding why someone would make a
> sacrafice for someone else.

I'm capable of understanding that if Mommy and Daddy don't put on their masks
first, both they and their children will die. So they aren't sacrificing
_for_ someone else, they are sacrificing someone else, period. Not very
bright.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> The thing about books isn't to 'crack them open' periodically.
> It's to actually read them and assimilate the information gained.
> And then use it !

You'll never get that far if you don't open them first.

[george]

On Nov 26, 9:14 am, Stefan > wrote:
> george schrieb:
>
> > On Nov 25, 4:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Phil writes:
> >>> Amazing. I never would have guessed that you could get a spinal
> >>> injury from the decompression itself.
> >> Bubbles in the CNS after sudden decompression can cause serious neurological
> >> symptoms and persistent sequelae, but it's a very rare complication.
>
> > Moron strikes again.
> > No diver suffering DS will be flying on a commercial airliner in that
> > state!.
> > Or is our resident clown now a specialist in Hyperbaric medicine ?
>
> Where did he mention divers and hyperbaric situations?

He claimed a rare complication.
That is the only situation imo.
I taught that dive and fly same day situations were to be avoided.
Transporting 'bent' patients by air to the nearest Hyperbaric chamber
was -always- carried out at low altitude on oxygen!

>You should at
> least read his posting before bashing him. You may not understand it,
> but what he wrote is absolutely correct and to the point, whether you
> like it or not.

For some-one to have 'bubbles' develop in the CNS (or anywhere else)
in an aircraft decompression you would have to had been in a
compressed state before emplaning.

Mixedup is not correct.
he has never been correct on any point he has ever raised

[Stefan]

george schrieb:

>> Where did he mention divers and hyperbaric situations?

> He claimed a rare complication.
> That is the only situation imo.

You're wrong. It can happen in any decompression situation, if the
decompression is severe enough. Like e.g. in a pressurized airplane at
very high altitude which instantly looses its pressurisation.

> For some-one to have 'bubbles' develop in the CNS (or anywhere else)
> in an aircraft decompression you would have to had been in a
> compressed state before emplaning.

You're wrong again.

> Mixedup is not correct.
> he has never been correct on any point he has ever raised

And again you're wrong. You may or may not like him, but sometimes even
he is correct. But then, this is probably a tad too grey for your black
and white world.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> The thing about books isn't to 'crack them open' periodically.
>> It's to actually read them and assimilate the information gained.
>> And then use it !
>
> You'll never get that far if you don't open them first.
>

You're an idiot and a complete waste of space.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:2d8e1$4749e94b$54487377
:

> george schrieb:
>
>>> Where did he mention divers and hyperbaric situations?
>
>> He claimed a rare complication.
>> That is the only situation imo.
>
> You're wrong. It can happen in any decompression situation, if the
> decompression is severe enough. Like e.g. in a pressurized airplane at
> very high altitude which instantly looses its pressurisation.
>
>> For some-one to have 'bubbles' develop in the CNS (or anywhere else)
>> in an aircraft decompression you would have to had been in a
>> compressed state before emplaning.
>
> You're wrong again.
>
>> Mixedup is not correct.
>> he has never been correct on any point he has ever raised
>
> And again you're wrong. You may or may not like him, but sometimes even
> he is correct. But then, this is probably a tad too grey for your black
> and white world.
>

He's not correct, he's quoting stuff form books and has no understanding of
what' he's saying.
There's a difference.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> I guess you are simply incapable of understanding why someone would
>> make a sacrafice for someone else.
>
> I'm capable of understanding that if Mommy and Daddy don't put on
> their masks first, both they and their children will die.


No, you aren;'t



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> For some-one to have 'bubbles' develop in the CNS (or anywhere else)
> in an aircraft decompression you would have to had been in a
> compressed state before emplaning.

You are, because you're at a lower altitude. If you've been diving recently,
the risk is greatly increased, as there may still be extra nitrogen dissolved
in your blood, which might not come out of solution at sea level, but might do
so at 6000 feet.

Anyway, CNS complications are quite rare in all cases of decompression
sickness, fortunately.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> For some-one to have 'bubbles' develop in the CNS (or anywhere else)
>> in an aircraft decompression you would have to had been in a
>> compressed state before emplaning.
>
> You are, because you're at a lower altitude. If you've been diving
> recently, the risk is greatly increased, as there may still be extra
> nitrogen dissolved in your blood, which might not come out of solution
> at sea level, but might do so at 6000 feet.
>
> Anyway, CNS complications are quite rare in all cases of decompression
> sickness, fortunately.
>



Thanks you dr fjukktard



Bertie

[george]

On Nov 26, 10:29 am, Stefan > wrote:

> You're wrong. It can happen in any decompression situation, if the
> decompression is severe enough. Like e.g. in a pressurized airplane at
> very high altitude which instantly looses its pressurisation.

Okay.
The aircraft has an explosive decompression event at 35,000 feet.
The crew immediately initiate a high speed descent to 12.000 feet
And all in about 3 minutes.

That 23,000 feet pressure difference is less than sea level to the 30
feet underwater level.
A diver can spent 30 minutes at 30 feet with no decompression
required.
In other words he can return from 28-30 psi to 14.7 psi (or 1
atmosphere) without harm in around 2 minutes


> And again you're wrong. You may or may not like him, but sometimes even
> he is correct. But then, this is probably a tad too grey for your black
> and white world.

A pointer to one correct statement from mixedup at this point would
bolster your claim no end

[Stefan]

george schrieb:

> Okay.
> The aircraft has an explosive decompression event at 35,000 feet.
> The crew immediately initiate a high speed descent to 12.000 feet
> And all in about 3 minutes.
>
> That 23,000 feet pressure difference is less than sea level to the 30
> feet underwater level.
> A diver can spent 30 minutes at 30 feet with no decompression
> required.

Yo have no idea. You better inform yourself before bashing others.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:4572b$474a0b35$54487377
:

> george schrieb:
>
>> Okay.
>> The aircraft has an explosive decompression event at 35,000 feet.
>> The crew immediately initiate a high speed descent to 12.000 feet
>> And all in about 3 minutes.
>>
>> That 23,000 feet pressure difference is less than sea level to the 30
>> feet underwater level.
>> A diver can spent 30 minutes at 30 feet with no decompression
>> required.
>
> Yo have no idea. You better inform yourself before bashing others.

That's why Anthony comes here. There can;t be any other reason.


He can';t be left disappointed.



Bertie

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:58:09 +0000, Judah wrote:

> Now SEATBELTS they explain because they think people are stupid...

No. They explain seatbelts after the plane's already started to
move...which means that everyone is already belted.

It's not the passengers' stupidity that's at issue, I fear.

- Andrew

[Big John]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:19:25 -0800 (PST), george >
wrote:

>On Nov 26, 9:14 am, Stefan > wrote:
>> george schrieb:
>>
>> > On Nov 25, 4:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> Phil writes:
>> >>> Amazing. I never would have guessed that you could get a spinal
>> >>> injury from the decompression itself.
>> >> Bubbles in the CNS after sudden decompression can cause serious neurological
>> >> symptoms and persistent sequelae, but it's a very rare complication.
>>
>> > Moron strikes again.
>> > No diver suffering DS will be flying on a commercial airliner in that
>> > state!.
>> > Or is our resident clown now a specialist in Hyperbaric medicine ?
>>
>> Where did he mention divers and hyperbaric situations?
>
>He claimed a rare complication.
>That is the only situation imo.
>I taught that dive and fly same day situations were to be avoided.
>Transporting 'bent' patients by air to the nearest Hyperbaric chamber
>was -always- carried out at low altitude on oxygen!
>
>>You should at
>> least read his posting before bashing him. You may not understand it,
>> but what he wrote is absolutely correct and to the point, whether you
>> like it or not.
>
>For some-one to have 'bubbles' develop in the CNS (or anywhere else)
>in an aircraft decompression you would have to had been in a
>compressed state before emplaning.
>
>Mixedup is not correct.
>he has never been correct on any point he has ever raised
>


George

You are correcct. It is well documented that flying is prohibited for
24 hours after scuba diving.

Big John

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stefan"> wrote

> And again you're wrong. You may or may not like him, but sometimes even he
> is correct.

Even a stopped clock (12 hour type) is right twice a day. That doesn't make
him any more useful.
--
Jim in NC

[george]

On Nov 26, 12:54 pm, Stefan > wrote:
> george schrieb:
>
> > Okay.
> > The aircraft has an explosive decompression event at 35,000 feet.
> > The crew immediately initiate a high speed descent to 12.000 feet
> > And all in about 3 minutes.
>
> > That 23,000 feet pressure difference is less than sea level to the 30
> > feet underwater level.
> > A diver can spent 30 minutes at 30 feet with no decompression
> > required.
>
> Yo have no idea. You better inform yourself before bashing others.

Okay.
Point out to me where I am wrong...
and where I 'have no idea'
FYI the barometric pressure at 30,000 is somewhere about 300 mb and at
10,000 around 600mb.
Thats a pressure differentiation of 300mb which isn't going to do
anything but pop your ears!

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Phil writes:
>
>> Actually the flight attendant says it in every pre-flight emergency
>> briefing. You are right that it is a simple concept, and I don't know
>> anyone who is too stupid to understand it.
>
> Then why do flight attendants point it out on every flight?

Perhaps the airlines have considered the possibility that not every
passenger on every flight has researched this as much as you have. I
believe it reasonable to presume that not all passengers on all flights fly
frequently enough to remember this minute detail of aircraft emergency
procedures, and as such require a reminder during the emergency briefing.
This holds especially true for those people who have never flown before. I
further believe that unlike some of the pre-flight announcements, this
announcement is made in an effort to be thorough, prudent, and even
intentionally repetitve for the sake of parents who might otherwise
instinctively react differently what this instruction suggests.

A lack of knowledge or recall is not the same as a lack of intelligence or
aptitude. For example, the fact that you don't know or understand the
instinctive reaction that might cause a mother or father to attempt to put
his child's life before his own does not make you stupid.

It certainly makes you ignorant.

[Judah]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in news:fid82v$rr9$1
@taco.int.tagonline.com:

> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:58:09 +0000, Judah wrote:
>
>> Now SEATBELTS they explain because they think people are stupid...
>
> No. They explain seatbelts after the plane's already started to
> move...which means that everyone is already belted.
>
> It's not the passengers' stupidity that's at issue, I fear.
>
> - Andrew

I'm still trying to find the exact definition of a "Water Landing". I have
yet to be on an airliner with floats...

[[email protected]]

Judah > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :

> > Phil writes:
> >
> >> Actually the flight attendant says it in every pre-flight emergency
> >> briefing. You are right that it is a simple concept, and I don't know
> >> anyone who is too stupid to understand it.
> >
> > Then why do flight attendants point it out on every flight?

> Perhaps the airlines have considered the possibility that not every
> passenger on every flight has researched this as much as you have. I
> believe it reasonable to presume that not all passengers on all flights fly
> frequently enough to remember this minute detail of aircraft emergency
> procedures, and as such require a reminder during the emergency briefing.
> This holds especially true for those people who have never flown before. I
> further believe that unlike some of the pre-flight announcements, this
> announcement is made in an effort to be thorough, prudent, and even
> intentionally repetitve for the sake of parents who might otherwise
> instinctively react differently what this instruction suggests.

Or perhaps they do it because it is required by the FAR's.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

george wrote:
>> You're wrong. It can happen in any decompression situation, if the
>> decompression is severe enough. Like e.g. in a pressurized airplane
>> at very high altitude which instantly looses its pressurisation.
>
> Okay.
> The aircraft has an explosive decompression event at 35,000 feet.
> The crew immediately initiate a high speed descent to 12.000 feet
> And all in about 3 minutes.
>
> That 23,000 feet pressure difference is less than sea level to the 30
> feet underwater level.
> A diver can spent 30 minutes at 30 feet with no decompression
> required.
> In other words he can return from 28-30 psi to 14.7 psi (or 1
> atmosphere) without harm in around 2 minutes

I would expect that it is not the addititve difference but the
multiplicative quotient in pressure, that dictates whether nitrogen might
resolve from the blood (resp. potential bubbles). Although I'm not a medical
expert, I do remember that diving in lakes at higher altitudes requires much
more adjustment of allowable ground times than a difference of e.g. 200mbar
at 6000ft would warrant.

Going from a cabin pressure of 800mbar/12psi to an ambient pressure at
36000ft of 250mbar/4psi represents a reduction in pressure of factor 3, more
like a return from 60ft underwater to the surface, which certainly can
create harm, if too much time was spent at depth. Mind you, the people
aboard a plane have spent much more than 30 Minutes at the higher pressure,
probably all of their life so far.

regards,
Friedrich

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Morgans wrote:
> "Stefan"> wrote
>
>> And again you're wrong. You may or may not like him, but sometimes
>> even he is correct.
>
> Even a stopped clock (12 hour type) is right twice a day. That
> doesn't make him any more useful.

true. But why deny that it actually IS 12 o'clock (if it is), just because
this stopped clock happens to be stopped at 12 o'clock?

regards,
Friedrich

[Judah]

wrote in :

> Judah > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Phil writes:
>> >
>> >> Actually the flight attendant says it in every pre-flight emergency
>> >> briefing. You are right that it is a simple concept, and I don't
>> >> know anyone who is too stupid to understand it.
>> >
>> > Then why do flight attendants point it out on every flight?
>
>> Perhaps the airlines have considered the possibility that not every
>> passenger on every flight has researched this as much as you have. I
>> believe it reasonable to presume that not all passengers on all flights
>> fly frequently enough to remember this minute detail of aircraft
>> emergency procedures, and as such require a reminder during the
>> emergency briefing. This holds especially true for those people who
>> have never flown before. I further believe that unlike some of the
>> pre-flight announcements, this announcement is made in an effort to be
>> thorough, prudent, and even intentionally repetitve for the sake of
>> parents who might otherwise instinctively react differently what this
>> instruction suggests.
>
> Or perhaps they do it because it is required by the FAR's.

Technically, that's true. But what is the basis for putting it in the FARs?

If you've ever flown JetBlue or Song, where they generally mock the
seatbelt briefing, and even the "water landing" part, they generally don't
leave out this important tidbit or even joke about of it...

Perhaps this is one of those few portion of the FARs that people actually
think makes sense...

[Marty Shapiro]

Judah > wrote in
:

> If you've ever flown JetBlue or Song, where they generally mock the
> seatbelt briefing, and even the "water landing" part, they generally
> don't leave out this important tidbit or even joke about of it...
>
> Perhaps this is one of those few portion of the FARs that people
> actually think makes sense...
>

Did you ever fly People's Express? They mocked everything in the
announcements. People actually listened to them if for no other reason
than to hear the jokes. They probably had a higher percentage of
passengers, even frequent flyers, listen to the entire announcement than
anyone else did.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Stefan]

george schrieb:

> Point out to me where I am wrong...

Your mistake is, that the quantity of gas which can be solved in water
is proportional to pressure. So you mustn't think in absolute
quantities, but in relative.

Example: At flightlevel 360 (give or take a few) the atmospheric
pressure has dropped to roughly a quarter. So, solutionwise, climbing
from sea level to FL360 has roughly the same effect as a diver which
climbs from a water depth of 100ft to the surface (at sea level). Now if
you're saturated at 100ft (and we are saturated!), and then suddenly go
up to the surface, you *will* encounter serious decompression disease. I
would expect the same in a sudden pressure loss at FL360.

Of course the two situations are not exactly the same, because in
aviation there is a much smaller quantity of gas involved. (Besides that
the cabin pressure is usually not equal to sea level but to something
like 7000ft.) I would expect some air forces to have seriously studied
this, and plenty of literature to be available, because the climb rate
of fighter jets allow for such critical pressure changes. But frankly, I
don't know anything about it, except that your reasoning was wrong. But
then, at the climb rate my glider gives me, I guess that I needn't to
worry anyway, even in strong wave.

[Tina]

If you think of the preflight briefing as a checklist, the reasons for
including even obvious points becomes more clear. Pilots use
checklists all of the time, to help assure themselves that, for
example, the wheels are down when they should be. Does that use of
checklists make them stupid, or careful? Why mock their use when they
are used to remind people what to do in circumstances that occur less
frequently than the need to extend the gear, or retract it?


On Nov 25, 11:22 pm, Judah > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Phil writes:
>
> >> Actually the flight attendant says it in every pre-flight emergency
> >> briefing. You are right that it is a simple concept, and I don't know
> >> anyone who is too stupid to understand it.
>
> > Then why do flight attendants point it out on every flight?
>
> Perhaps the airlines have considered the possibility that not every
> passenger on every flight has researched this as much as you have. I
> believe it reasonable to presume that not all passengers on all flights fly
> frequently enough to remember this minute detail of aircraft emergency
> procedures, and as such require a reminder during the emergency briefing.
> This holds especially true for those people who have never flown before. I
> further believe that unlike some of the pre-flight announcements, this
> announcement is made in an effort to be thorough, prudent, and even
> intentionally repetitve for the sake of parents who might otherwise
> instinctively react differently what this instruction suggests.
>
> A lack of knowledge or recall is not the same as a lack of intelligence or
> aptitude. For example, the fact that you don't know or understand the
> instinctive reaction that might cause a mother or father to attempt to put
> his child's life before his own does not make you stupid.
>
> It certainly makes you ignorant.

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> I'm capable of understanding that if Mommy and Daddy don't put on their
masks
> first

And I'm capable of flying a REAL airplane.

Neither statement is germane to the issue at hand.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Judah wrote:

> If you've ever flown JetBlue or Song, where they generally mock the
> seatbelt briefing, and even the "water landing" part, they generally
> don't leave out this important tidbit or even joke about of it...

"... put on your own mask first before assisting children or adults behaving
like children..."

regards,
Friedrich

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Stefan wrote:
> george schrieb:
>
>> Point out to me where I am wrong...
>
> Your mistake is, that the quantity of gas which can be solved in water
> is proportional to pressure. So you mustn't think in absolute
> quantities, but in relative.

what I was thinking, but better explained, thanks.

regards,
Friedrich

[Tina]

It is actually true that to first order the amount of gas dissolved in
blood (with the exception of oxygen since it's subject to the
hemoglobin dissociation curve -- sort of an s shaped curve) is
proportional to the absolute pressure of the gas. The size of the
bubble that results from the serum's outgassing would depend first on
the difference in absolute pressure (that would tell you the mass of
gas that might no longer be in solution) and then on the ambient
pressure, since if the pressure was lower the bubble would expand
according to the gas laws (inversely proportional to pressure,
temperature is pretty fixed in the body. So, going from 34 feet deep
to the surface in water is a change of about one atmosphere. Going
from ground level to 18000 feet is a change of about a half an
atmosphere. The diver coming up from 34 feet would have twice the
potential mass of gas coming out of solution as would someone who went
from 0 to 18000 feet as suddenly.

It would, instead be like a diver coming up quickly after being at
17 feet deep. 0 to 18000 feet would be more or less the same as going
from a 7000 foot cabin pressure to one at 34000 feet. The pressure in
atmospheres is something like e^(-.034 A) where A is the altitude in
thousands of feet.

All of this is back of the envelope stuff done during a coffee break
so it could be very wrong. If 'feels' reasonable, though. I think
people die from explosive decompresssion because they don't get
oxygen, not from the bends.


. EURO On Nov 26, 1:09 pm, "Friedrich Ostertag"
> wrote:
> Stefan wrote:
> > george schrieb:
>
> >> Point out to me where I am wrong...
>
> > Your mistake is, that the quantity of gas which can be solved in water
> > is proportional to pressure. So you mustn't think in absolute
> > quantities, but in relative.
>
> what I was thinking, but better explained, thanks.
>
> regards,
> Friedrich

[george]

On Nov 26, 11:31 pm, Stefan > wrote:
> george schrieb:
>
> > Point out to me where I am wrong...
>
> Your mistake is, that the quantity of gas which can be solved in water
> is proportional to pressure. So you mustn't think in absolute
> quantities, but in relative.

Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases in
the bloos stream.
The only time that becomes a factor is if the subject has been SCUBA
diving and using decompression time.


> Example: At flightlevel 360 (give or take a few) the atmospheric
> pressure has dropped to roughly a quarter. So, solutionwise, climbing
> from sea level to FL360 has roughly the same effect as a diver which
> climbs from a water depth of 100ft to the surface (at sea level). Now if
> you're saturated at 100ft (and we are saturated!), and then suddenly go
> up to the surface, you *will* encounter serious decompression disease. I
> would expect the same in a sudden pressure loss at FL360.

The pressure at 100 feet (to use your figures) is approx 4 atmospheres
= 56 psi
The barometric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi.
A change of pressure of 44 psi. or about 4048 mb

Decompression at altitude is covered in the Regs that specify the
longest permitted time before descent has to be initiated.

The pressure difference between Fl30 and Fl10 is about 30 mb.

> Of course the two situations are not exactly the same, because in
> aviation there is a much smaller quantity of gas involved. (Besides that
> the cabin pressure is usually not equal to sea level but to something
> like 7000ft.) I would expect some air forces to have seriously studied
> this, and plenty of literature to be available, because the climb rate
> of fighter jets allow for such critical pressure changes. But frankly, I
> don't know anything about it, except that your reasoning was wrong. But
> then, at the climb rate my glider gives me, I guess that I needn't to
> worry anyway, even in strong wave.

The Diamond height is yet to come eh :-)

[Judah]

"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in
:

> Judah wrote:
>
>> If you've ever flown JetBlue or Song, where they generally mock the
>> seatbelt briefing, and even the "water landing" part, they generally
>> don't leave out this important tidbit or even joke about of it...
>
> "... put on your own mask first before assisting children or adults
> behaving like children..."

Oh, yes. I forgot. I don't fly jetblue enough I guess... :)

Admittedly, this doesn't eradicate the message (in fact it rather elucidats
it). I was on a flight once where the announcement went something like, "If
anyone has not existed on this planet for the last 100 years and doesn't know
how to buckle and unbuckle their seatbelt, please raise your hand."

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:06:26 +0100, "Friedrich Ostertag"
> wrote:

>Judah wrote:
>
>> If you've ever flown JetBlue or Song, where they generally mock the
>> seatbelt briefing, and even the "water landing" part, they generally
>> don't leave out this important tidbit or even joke about of it...
>
>"... put on your own mask first before assisting children or adults behaving
>like children..."

"And if you're flying with more than one child, please pick which one
you love more now."

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Clark writes:

> "And if you're flying with more than one child, please pick which one
> you love more now."

Why would you have to do that? If you put your mask on first, the children
will all survive.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> I think people die from explosive decompresssion because they don't get
> oxygen, not from the bends.

Explosive decompression is very rare (and very different from rapid
decompression), but when it occurs, many deaths occur due to direct physical
trauma from differences in air pressure. Ruptured hearts and lungs are not
unusual. This was seen in the early accidents with the Comet, which actually
did explosively decompress on several occasions when defects in its
construction yielded at altitude.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
> exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases in
> the bloos stream.

It will, however, add a bit more gas in solution to the blood and body
tissues.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Judah wrote:
> Admittedly, this doesn't eradicate the message (in fact it rather
> elucidats it). I was on a flight once where the announcement went
> something like, "If anyone has not existed on this planet for the
> last 100 years and doesn't know how to buckle and unbuckle their
> seatbelt, please raise your hand."

:-)

As of making fun of the safety issues, I'm all for it, as it will make ist
stick more.

regards,
Friedrich

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> I think people die from explosive decompresssion because they don't
>> get oxygen, not from the bends.
>
> Explosive decompression is very rare (and very different from rapid
> decompression), but when it occurs, many deaths occur due to direct
> physical trauma from differences in air pressure. Ruptured hearts and
> lungs are not unusual. This was seen in the early accidents with the
> Comet, which actually did explosively decompress on several occasions
> when defects in its construction yielded at altitude.



Wrong again, moron.



Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
>> exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases in
>> the bloos stream.
>
> It will, however, add a bit more gas in solution to the blood and body
> tissues.
>

nope

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Peter Clark writes:
>
>> "And if you're flying with more than one child, please pick which one
>> you love more now."
>
> Why would you have to do that? If you put your mask on first, the
> children will all survive.
>


what children You'll neve rhave children and you will never fly.



Bertie

[Tina]

Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
published in the 60s!).



Score: Bertie 2,531 Mx 1


On Nov 27, 1:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> >
>
> >> Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
> >> exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases in
> >> the bloos stream.
>
> > It will, however, add a bit more gas in solution to the blood and body
> > tissues.
>
> nope
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
> gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
> Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
> published in the 60s!).
>


I know, we had to do that in piloty school

He's still worng.


Bertie
>
>
> Score: Bertie 2,531 Mx 1
>
>
> On Nov 27, 1:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
>> >> exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases
>> >> in the bloos stream.
>>
>> > It will, however, add a bit more gas in solution to the blood and
>> > body tissues.
>>
>> nope
>>
>> Bertie
>
>

[george]

On Nov 27, 7:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > I think people die from explosive decompresssion because they don't get
> > oxygen, not from the bends.
>
> Explosive decompression is very rare (and very different from rapid
> decompression), but when it occurs, many deaths occur due to direct physical
> trauma from differences in air pressure. Ruptured hearts and lungs are not
> unusual. This was seen in the early accidents with the Comet, which actually
> did explosively decompress on several occasions when defects in its
> construction yielded at altitude.

Jeez. Mixedup does it again.

FYI The Comets broke up through metal fatigue because of a faulty
square window/hatch design.
The explosive decompression was accompanied with a sudden stop at sea
level
This proved fatal

[Tina]

I understand mx being wrong even when he happens to be correct. It's
the principle of the thing.


I will retract and correct the scoring, based on that.

On Nov 27, 11:32 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Tina > wrote :
>
> > Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
> > gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
> > Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
> > published in the 60s!).
>
> I know, we had to do that in piloty school
>
> He's still worng.
>
> Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
> > Score: Bertie 2,531 Mx 1
>
> > On Nov 27, 1:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
> >> :
>
> >> >> Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
> >> >> exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases
> >> >> in the bloos stream.
>
> >> > It will, however, add a bit more gas in solution to the blood and
> >> > body tissues.
>
> >> nope
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> FYI The Comets broke up through metal fatigue because of a faulty
> square window/hatch design.

That's what I said.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:00:25 -0800 (PST), Tina wrote:

> Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
> gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
> Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
> published in the 60s!).

Jeez, I still have the text on my shelf :(
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> I understand mx being wrong even when he happens to be correct. It's
> the principle of the thing.
>


Xachery.

>
> I will retract and correct the scoring, based on that.


Thenk yew.

At least it;s one bit of history that will be accurate.

Bertie

[Tina]

Well, it IS a good reference and reminder, isn't it?


On Nov 28, 2:18 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:00:25 -0800 (PST), Tina wrote:
> > Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
> > gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
> > Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
> > published in the 60s!).
>
> Jeez, I still have the text on my shelf :(
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[WJRFlyBoy]

No doubt, still use it, feeling older by the nanosecond now.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:40:31 -0800 (PST), Tina wrote:

> Well, it IS a good reference and reminder, isn't it?
>
> On Nov 28, 2:18 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:00:25 -0800 (PST), Tina wrote:
>>> Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
>>> gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
>>> Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
>>> published in the 60s!).
>>
>> Jeez, I still have the text on my shelf :(
>> --
>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!


--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!