Punctured pressure cabin. [Archive]

Kevin Brooks

January 1st 04, 07:01 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Cub Driver
>
> <snip>
>
> >As to the possibility of explosive decompression, as I understand the
> >matter, it could happen if a bullet fractured a window
>
> It would still be only annoying. A few ear aches and a lot of noise along
with
> oxygen masks dropping. The person sitting next to the window might lose
his
> reading material or dinner.
>
> This has been discussed here before and a Google search would turn up a
lot of
> information.

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&Airline=%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

B2431

January 1st 04, 07:31 AM

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 1/1/2004 1:01 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: Cub Driver
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >As to the possibility of explosive decompression, as I understand the
>> >matter, it could happen if a bullet fractured a window
>>
>> It would still be only annoying. A few ear aches and a lot of noise along
>with
>> oxygen masks dropping. The person sitting next to the window might lose
>his
>> reading material or dinner.
>>
>> This has been discussed here before and a Google search would turn up a
>lot of
>> information.
>
>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&Airline=%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.

I agree a big chunk of skin suddenly departing the aircraft can cause major
damage and fatalities like the Hawaii Air stewardess deplaning prematurely.
There was also a case in the 1970s of a DC-10(?) where the aft cargo hatch blew
and took a row or two of seats with it.

On the other hand in the late 1980s a C-141B departed Eglin AFB and a hatch
over the cargo compartment blew. One of my men was standing directly below it
at the time. He noticed sudden day light, very loud noise and a bit of pain. I
believe the aircraft was at approximately 30 kilofeet at the time. It returned
to Eglin, made a safe landing and everyone sent to the base hospital for
evaluation.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Cub Driver

January 1st 04, 11:01 AM

>A normal bullet hole would be no problem. There's already a much
>larger vent to the outside, which stabilizes cabin pressure against
>the fresh & heated air being pumped in from the engines. People
>smarter than I say that this hole is about three inches in diameter.

More detail on this: over on rec.aviation.piloting, there's a parallel
and very busy thread on this same subject. Here's what a Big Spam Can
Driver had to say on the subject of the vent hole(s):

"Actually, a little bigger. There are two outflow valves that work in
tandem. On the 747 they're located on the aft belly, and each is a
touch smaller in area than one aircraft window -- an oval about 4in by
12in. There are also two relief valves on the left side of the
airplane, and they are about 8" in diameter."

So upon reflection it doesn't seem that even the blow-out of a window
could cause more than terror and discomfort, especially since it would
almost certainly be followed by an emergency descent to lower
altitude.

One of the pilots commented: "I always wear my seat-belt when flying.
Don't you?" Something to add to your resolutions for 2004 :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Cub Driver

January 1st 04, 11:03 AM

>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

I'd rather give up the guy in the window seat than go down with the
airplane onto Times Square.

Again I say: fasten your seat-belt when flying!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Cub Driver

January 1st 04, 11:06 AM

>Another question is if the terrorist is female will she still get the 72
>virgins when she is "martyred?"

Perhaps she gets multiplied into 72 virgins.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Cub Driver

January 1st 04, 11:13 AM

And more detail yet. This too from rec.aviation.piloting:

************************************************** **********************

The comments below are applicable to modern commercial Pax A/C. Anyone
familiar with the structure of an A/C will immediately ROFL at the
idea of a 9mm bullet penetrating the external skin if fired from
inside the cabin.

It would take a substantially more powerful weapon than a 9mm to cause
a "Window Failure", even then impact would have to be near 90 degrees
because of their "Plug design, plus they are thicker in the center
than the edge This curvature is on the inside.

The same applies to a bullet exiting through the A/C skin. Consider
between what is seen as the interior cabin wall & the "External Skin"
of the A/C is a layer of insulation, assorted wiring, plumbing in
some places, plus untold ribs, stiffeners, & other assorted structural
components all of which have some "Curvature" to them. All these
components are riveted together through "Lap Joints". All
joints/connections are sealed with "Sealant" of varying strengths.

The structure of an A/C is designed to flex, expand, & contract as the
A/C goes thru pressurization/de-pressurization cycles.

There are a few places a "Very High Velocity Bullet" of large caliber
could possibly exit the external skin if it the internal point of
impact was at a "very specific angle, very close to 90 degrees to
external skin" if fired from close range internally. Consider all the
materials described above a bullet would have to impact/penetrate,
without its path being diverted by some degree of ricochet.

************************************************** ******

(Again: the above is quoted from rec.aviation.piloting)

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

January 1st 04, 11:37 AM

B2431 > wrote:

: I agree a big chunk of skin suddenly departing the aircraft can cause major
: damage and fatalities like the Hawaii Air stewardess deplaning prematurely.
: There was also a case in the 1970s of a DC-10(?) where the aft cargo hatch blew
: and took a row or two of seats with it.

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.

As a result, modern aircraft were designed to have vents around
the cabin floor.

Emmanuel Gustin

M. J. Powell

January 1st 04, 12:23 PM

In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>
>>What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole?

snip
>
>So are you worse off risking explosive decompression, or of crashing
>into Times Square at midnight?
>
>As to the possibility of explosive decompression, as I understand the
>matter, it could happen if a bullet fractured a window (though not if
>it went through the skin). That's a mere possibility, as opposed to
>the certainty of a suicide dive, absent the sky marshal.
>
>A normal bullet hole would be no problem. There's already a much
>larger vent to the outside, which stabilizes cabin pressure against
>the fresh & heated air being pumped in from the engines. People
>smarter than I say that this hole is about three inches in diameter.

I'm glad you mentioned 3" in diameter. During my RAF service my wireless
mechanics had to pass a camera cable from a bomb bay into the pressure
cabin in a Valiant. To my surprise they found a hole about 3" diameter
in a convenient place.

I said 'surprise' because I was in Signals and knew nothing about the
structural properties of the aircraft. I imagined that the pressure
cabin would be tightly sealed.

What about the loss of a window due to bullet strike? Would there be
structural failure?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

B2431

January 1st 04, 12:30 PM

>From: "Emmanuel.Gustin"
>
>B2431 > wrote:
>
>: I agree a big chunk of skin suddenly departing the aircraft can cause major
>: damage and fatalities like the Hawaii Air stewardess deplaning prematurely.
>: There was also a case in the 1970s of a DC-10(?) where the aft cargo hatch
>blew
>: and took a row or two of seats with it.
>
>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.
>
>As a result, modern aircraft were designed to have vents around
>the cabin floor.
>
>Emmanuel Gustin
>
>
You are correct. The only one I could think of off the top of my head was where
the last row or two caved. I don't recall if the aircraft landed safely. If
memory serves it occurred near or over Turkey.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

January 1st 04, 12:31 PM

>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 1/1/2004 5:06 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>>Another question is if the terrorist is female will she still get the 72
>>virgins when she is "martyred?"
>
>Perhaps she gets multiplied into 72 virgins.
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
OK, if she dies a virgin does her obituary say "returned unopened?"

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dave Kearton

January 1st 04, 12:39 PM

Emmanuel.Gustin

January 1st 04, 01:05 PM

M. J. Powell > wrote:

: There has been a bit of a furore over here concerning the new US
: requirement to airlines to supply air marshals when requested. The
: concern is mainly over the possible puncture of a pressure cabin.
: What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole?

A bullet hole would not in itself cause for much concern.
The loss of a cabin window would be more serious, not
because the pressurisation system would be unable to cope,
but because the strong air current could move (in the worst
case, blow out through the window) or wound passengers. In
extreme cases, rapid pressure loss (or perhaps
more accurately, an internal pressure differential) can
lead to major structural failures, especially around
bulkheads that are insufficiently vented -- the pressure
differential is enough to make these collapse -- or in
fuselages that are already 'tired'. Apart from the Comet
disasters, I know of no loss of aircraft caused by the
loss of windows (although some passengers have been lost)
but a number of aircraft have been lost when doors failed.

There is also the risk of bullets bouncing around inside
the plane and doing damage to power lines, fuel systems,
etc. Historically, fire has been the major killer of
aircraft following projectile damage.

Seems to me that although loss of cabin pressure is serious
concern (IIRC military aircraft were designed to maintain
lower cabin pressure than airliners, to limit the damage
amplification following a hit) but not the most serious one.
The worst problem is the prospect of a gun battle in a cabin
packed with people. Almost every stray bullet is going to
hit someone; even if the sky marshall hits the right man
(or woman) the bullet seems likely to hit others as well.

This is going to require very fine judgment by the sky
marshall. 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.
This seems to be a job requiring very extensive training,
a very cool head, and fine judgment. I am not convinced
that the large number of sky marshalls rapidly trained
and deployed now have the right capabilities, and I don't
think it is wise at all to give guns to pilots after
minimal training.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

Chad Irby

January 1st 04, 01:20 PM

In article >,
"Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:

> This is going to require very fine judgment by the sky
> marshall. 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.

No one is ever going to be able to hijack an airliner anywhere in the
world any more and expect people to believe that they're merely going to
hold the passengers and plane hostage.

The stakes have been upped to the max for all future hijack attempts,
and nobody can *afford* to assume "good" motives by anyone who tries to
take over a plane, *ever*.

From here on out, a hijack attempt will, by any rational person, be
treated as an attempt at mass murder. If you want to make a political
statement, hijack a ferry or a bus.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Kevin Brooks

January 1st 04, 03:28 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 1/1/2004 1:01 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: Cub Driver
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >As to the possibility of explosive decompression, as I understand the
> >> >matter, it could happen if a bullet fractured a window
> >>
> >> It would still be only annoying. A few ear aches and a lot of noise
along
> >with
> >> oxygen masks dropping. The person sitting next to the window might lose
> >his
> >> reading material or dinner.
> >>
> >> This has been discussed here before and a Google search would turn up a
> >lot of
> >> information.
> >
> >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&Airline=%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.

>
> I agree a big chunk of skin suddenly departing the aircraft can cause
major
> damage and fatalities like the Hawaii Air stewardess deplaning
prematurely.
> There was also a case in the 1970s of a DC-10(?) where the aft cargo hatch
blew
> and took a row or two of seats with it.

Two windows is not a big chunk of skin. Neither was the Piedmont accident a
"big chunk of skin", and a passenger still died.

>
> On the other hand in the late 1980s a C-141B departed Eglin AFB and a
hatch
> over the cargo compartment blew. One of my men was standing directly below
it
> at the time. He noticed sudden day light, very loud noise and a bit of
pain. I
> believe the aircraft was at approximately 30 kilofeet at the time. It
returned
> to Eglin, made a safe landing and everyone sent to the base hospital for
> evaluation.

A cargo hatch blew out of a DC-10 in 1974, and it took a big chunk of the
cabin floor above, with passengers, out of the aircraft--the rest of the
aircraft then augered in. Face it, rapid decompression *can* (does not mean
*will be*) be a very bad thing, even when it may just involve a window.

Brooks

>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Kevin Brooks

January 1st 04, 03:30 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Emmanuel.Gustin"
> >
> >B2431 > wrote:
> >
> >: I agree a big chunk of skin suddenly departing the aircraft can cause
major
> >: damage and fatalities like the Hawaii Air stewardess deplaning
prematurely.
> >: There was also a case in the 1970s of a DC-10(?) where the aft cargo
hatch
> >blew
> >: and took a row or two of seats with it.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >As a result, modern aircraft were designed to have vents around
> >the cabin floor.
> >
> >Emmanuel Gustin
> >
> >
> You are correct. The only one I could think of off the top of my head was
where
> the last row or two caved. I don't recall if the aircraft landed safely.
If
> memory serves it occurred near or over Turkey.

It went down (occured in '74). ISTR another incident over Japan with similar
results?

Brooks
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Kevin Brooks

January 1st 04, 03:31 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >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
>
> I'd rather give up the guy in the window seat than go down with the
> airplane onto Times Square.
>
> Again I say: fasten your seat-belt when flying!

You must have missed the rest of the message where I acknowledged that the
decompression threat did not outweigh the threat from hijacker(s).

Brooks

>
> all the best -- Dan Ford

Kevin Brooks

January 1st 04, 03:36 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >A normal bullet hole would be no problem. There's already a much
> >larger vent to the outside, which stabilizes cabin pressure against
> >the fresh & heated air being pumped in from the engines. People
> >smarter than I say that this hole is about three inches in diameter.
>
> More detail on this: over on rec.aviation.piloting, there's a parallel
> and very busy thread on this same subject. Here's what a Big Spam Can
> Driver had to say on the subject of the vent hole(s):
>
> "Actually, a little bigger. There are two outflow valves that work in
> tandem. On the 747 they're located on the aft belly, and each is a
> touch smaller in area than one aircraft window -- an oval about 4in by
> 12in. There are also two relief valves on the left side of the
> airplane, and they are about 8" in diameter."
>
> So upon reflection it doesn't seem that even the blow-out of a window
> could cause more than terror and discomfort, especially since it would
> almost certainly be followed by an emergency descent to lower
> altitude.

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.

Brooks

>
> One of the pilots commented: "I always wear my seat-belt when flying.
> Don't you?" Something to add to your resolutions for 2004 :)
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Pete

January 1st 04, 04:12 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >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
>
> I'd rather give up the guy in the window seat than go down with the
> airplane onto Times Square.

Put fat people in the window seats. Maybe they can serve as a plug, and save
the rest of us.

Pete

John R Weiss

January 1st 04, 06:39 PM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote...
>
> Dunno about smart but yes the 'hole' is indeed 3 or 4 inches wide
> (and there's two usually) but they're not wide open all the time
> (only when 'dump' is selected). They have another valve portion
> which mates with them and regulates the 'outflow' to regulate the
> cabin pressure which controls the 'cabin altitude'.

On the 747 the outflow valves that regulate cabin pressure are about 1 x 3 feet,
and there are 2 of them. Normal opening is in the range of 12-19%, or about
103-164 square inches. A .40 cal bullet has a cross-sectional area of about
0.126 square inches, or about 1/1000 of the normal outflow area.

Even a full pax window, at about 6x8 inches, has less area. Though it would be
noisy and breezy if a window disintegrated (until a serving tray or something
got stuck in it), rapid depressurization would not occur, as the outflow valves
would adjust over the course of about 2 seconds.

Of course, the size of the outflow valves in smaller airplanes would be somewhat
smaller, but the net result would be similar.

John R Weiss

January 1st 04, 06:46 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote...
>
> A cargo hatch blew out of a DC-10 in 1974, and it took a big chunk of the
> cabin floor above, with passengers, out of the aircraft--the rest of the
> aircraft then augered in. Face it, rapid decompression *can* (does not mean
> *will be*) be a very bad thing, even when it may just involve a window.

The belly cargo door in a DC-10 is on the order of 6x8 feet, or 7,000 square
inches. A window is on the order of 100 sq in or less, and a bullet hole 0.2 sq
in or less.

You cannot compare the rapid decompression from the instantaneous loss of the
cargo door to the outflow from a bullet hole or loss of a window.

Further, the loss of that cargo door caused secondary structural damage --
buckling of the main deck -- which compromised the structural integrity and
controllability of the entire aircraft. Neither of those would occur with a
single bullet hole in the fuselage -- no matter WHERE or WHAT it hit -- or loss
of a cabin window.

John R Weiss

January 1st 04, 06:56 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote...
>
> "Actually, a little bigger. There are two outflow valves that work in
> tandem. On the 747 they're located on the aft belly, and each is a
> touch smaller in area than one aircraft window -- an oval about 4in by
> 12in. There are also two relief valves on the left side of the
> airplane, and they are about 8" in diameter."

I don't know about the 747 Classic, but the -400 has 2 rectangular outflow
valves, each about 1 x 3 feet. The -400 also also has 3 A/C packs vs the 2 in
the Classic for pressurization.

Henry Bibb

January 1st 04, 06:56 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > 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
>
> 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

John R Weiss

January 1st 04, 07:06 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote...
>
> And more detail yet. This too from rec.aviation.piloting:
>
> ************************************************** **********************
>
> Anyone
> familiar with the structure of an A/C will immediately ROFL at the
> idea of a 9mm bullet penetrating the external skin if fired from
> inside the cabin.
>
> It would take a substantially more powerful weapon than a 9mm to cause
> a "Window Failure",
.. . .
>
> The same applies to a bullet exiting through the A/C skin. Consider
> between what is seen as the interior cabin wall & the "External Skin"
> of the A/C is a layer of insulation, assorted wiring, plumbing in
> some places, plus untold ribs, stiffeners, & other assorted structural
> components all of which have some "Curvature" to them.
.. . .

> There are a few places a "Very High Velocity Bullet" of large caliber
> could possibly exit the external skin if it the internal point of
> impact was at a "very specific angle, very close to 90 degrees to
> external skin" if fired from close range internally.
.. . .

> ************************************************** ******
>
> (Again: the above is quoted from rec.aviation.piloting)

....which doesn't mean anything as far as credibility goes! Who wrote that?!? I
am almost ROTFL at some of the assertions made up there (salient parts
retained)!

Though the plexiglass in the cabin windows is tough, it isn't THAT tough! A 9mm
or .40 S&W round would EASILY penetrate both layers! The flattened edge of a
JHP round would help prevent ricochet when it hit the thin inside layer, and
mushrooming would probably start without any substantial decrease in velocity.
The net result would be a hole of about 1/2" in diameter. Whether or not the
window would fail immediately or eventually is a matter of conjecture, but is
entirely within the realm of possibility.

As for the aluminum skin, it is already stressed by the differential pressure,
and could not resist a similar round. The interior trim and insulation would,
again, start the JHP mushrooming, and maybe slow it down somewhat, but not
enough to prevent it from penetrating the thin aluminum skin.

IF the bullet happened to hit a rib, it may well be stopped. An overlapped skin
section would not stop it, however. Air ducts wouldn't affect it much at all;
hydraulic lines would deflect it rather than stop it or cause it to "ricochet";
and a THICK wire bundle MIGHT slow it enough to prevent penetration.

---------------------
John Weiss
Retired Naval Aviator
current 747-400 pilot

[email protected]

January 1st 04, 07:13 PM

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

John R Weiss

January 1st 04, 07:16 PM

"Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote...
>
> In
> extreme cases, rapid pressure loss (or perhaps
> more accurately, an internal pressure differential) can
> lead to major structural failures, especially around
> bulkheads that are insufficiently vented -- the pressure
> differential is enough to make these collapse -- or in
> fuselages that are already 'tired'.

AFAIK, all current airliners have sufficient blow-out doors in interior
bulkheads to prevent that sort of structural failure.

> There is also the risk of bullets bouncing around inside
> the plane and doing damage to power lines, fuel systems,
> etc. Historically, fire has been the major killer of
> aircraft following projectile damage.

Since almost everything aft of the cockpit in an airliner is "soft" (aluminum,
fabric, plastic, fiberglass...), the likelihood of multiple ricochets is
extremely low. Also, the likelihood of hitting a pressurized fuel line in a
low-wing airliner is negligible. Even in a high-wing airplane like a BAE-146 or
ATR, it is also unlikely in any credible scenario I can think of. A single
inert bullet into a fuel tank would not likely cause a fire.

> The worst problem is the prospect of a gun battle in a cabin
> packed with people. Almost every stray bullet is going to
> hit someone; even if the sky marshall hits the right man
> (or woman) the bullet seems likely to hit others as well.

Considering the alternative of an uncontrolled crash into the ground, which do
you prefer?

> 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.

Second, the pilots' use of their weapon is restricted to the case where the
terrorist already has gained access to the cockpit (likely in an airplane where
there are NO Air Marshals). Again, there is only one credible alternative
today. Which do you prefer?

Chad Irby

January 1st 04, 07:16 PM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >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
> >
> > I'd rather give up the guy in the window seat than go down with the
> > airplane onto Times Square.
> >
> > Again I say: fasten your seat-belt when flying!
>
> You must have missed the rest of the message where I acknowledged that the
> decompression threat did not outweigh the threat from hijacker(s).

Here's the thing: if it takes you more than about a second to unlock
your seat belt to go after a hijacker, you're not exactly the first
string. Wait for the coordinated people to go first, then help if you
can.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Mary Shafer

January 1st 04, 07:20 PM

Kevin Brooks

January 1st 04, 07:51 PM

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:LVZIb.187838$8y1.595561@attbi_s52...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote...
> >
> > A cargo hatch blew out of a DC-10 in 1974, and it took a big chunk of
the
> > cabin floor above, with passengers, out of the aircraft--the rest of the
> > aircraft then augered in. Face it, rapid decompression *can* (does not
mean
> > *will be*) be a very bad thing, even when it may just involve a window.
>
> The belly cargo door in a DC-10 is on the order of 6x8 feet, or 7,000
square
> inches. A window is on the order of 100 sq in or less, and a bullet hole
0.2 sq
> in or less.
>
> You cannot compare the rapid decompression from the instantaneous loss of
the
> cargo door to the outflow from a bullet hole or loss of a window.

Nobody has said you could. What I have said, repeatedly, is that evidence
does indeed exist that rapid decompression from relatively small "holes"
(used vicariously--I don't know that the Piedmont 737 decompression incident
even involved a "hole") can be fatal, with two cases cited. The DC-10
incident was mentioned as just another example of the possible consequences
of *rapid* decompression, though in that case the door in question was
indeed quite a bit larger than a window (but then again, it was not directly
accessing the passenger compartment, either).

>
> Further, the loss of that cargo door caused secondary structural damage --
> buckling of the main deck -- which compromised the structural integrity
and
> controllability of the entire aircraft. Neither of those would occur with
a
> single bullet hole in the fuselage -- no matter WHERE or WHAT it hit -- or
loss
> of a cabin window.

But you cannot classify the loss of a window (or two) as a nominal event, as
others apparently have. That Brazilian passenger who left that TAM Fokker at
altitude would have disagreed with you if you did, as would also the poor
fellow who died in the Piedmont incident, and as would those folks who
suffered ruptured eardroms and the like during the Aer Lingus 737
decompression. A bulet hole in the fuselage is a minor inconvenience and not
arapid decompression cause--a bullet hole in a window that leads to rapid
decompression is quite a bit more serious, and potentially fatal.

Brooks
>

Kevin Brooks

January 1st 04, 07:54 PM

"Henry Bibb" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > 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
> >
> > 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

>
>
>

Cub Driver

January 1st 04, 08:00 PM

>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

Cub Driver

January 1st 04, 08:02 PM

>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

Cub Driver

January 1st 04, 08:05 PM

>(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

Cub Driver

January 1st 04, 08:12 PM

> 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

Cub Driver

January 1st 04, 08:15 PM

>> 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

N329DF

January 1st 04, 08:19 PM

>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

Kevin Brooks

January 1st 04, 08:27 PM

"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

Pete

January 1st 04, 08:55 PM

"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

B2431

January 1st 04, 09:52 PM

>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&Airline=%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

B2431

January 1st 04, 09:58 PM

>From: "Pete"
>Date: 1/1/2004 10:12 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >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
>>
>> I'd rather give up the guy in the window seat than go down with the
>> airplane onto Times Square.
>
>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.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

B2431

January 1st 04, 10:19 PM

>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 1/1/2004 2:00 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>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:
>

The urban myth in question was that a passenger heard a funny noise coming from
the window. He summoned a stewardess who leaned forward to listen and was blown
through the window when it blew. Supposedly she exited the window like
"toothpaste from a tube."

The show has experts, altitude chambers etc all of which proved it could never
happen.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

KenG

January 1st 04, 10:39 PM

Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:
> M. J. Powell > wrote:
>
> : There has been a bit of a furore over here concerning the new US
> : requirement to airlines to supply air marshals when requested. The
> : concern is mainly over the possible puncture of a pressure cabin.
> : What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole?
>
> A bullet hole would not in itself cause for much concern.
> The loss of a cabin window would be more serious, not
> because the pressurisation system would be unable to cope,
> but because the strong air current could move (in the worst
> case, blow out through the window) or wound passengers. In
> extreme cases, rapid pressure loss (or perhaps
> more accurately, an internal pressure differential) can
> lead to major structural failures, especially around
> bulkheads that are insufficiently vented -- the pressure
> differential is enough to make these collapse -- or in
> fuselages that are already 'tired'. Apart from the Comet
> disasters, I know of no loss of aircraft caused by the
> loss of windows (although some passengers have been lost)
> but a number of aircraft have been lost when doors failed.
>
> There is also the risk of bullets bouncing around inside
> the plane and doing damage to power lines, fuel systems,
> etc. Historically, fire has been the major killer of
> aircraft following projectile damage.
>
> Seems to me that although loss of cabin pressure is serious
> concern (IIRC military aircraft were designed to maintain
> lower cabin pressure than airliners, to limit the damage
> amplification following a hit) but not the most serious one.
> The worst problem is the prospect of a gun battle in a cabin
> packed with people. Almost every stray bullet is going to
> hit someone; even if the sky marshall hits the right man
> (or woman) the bullet seems likely to hit others as well.
>
> This is going to require very fine judgment by the sky
> marshall. 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.
> This seems to be a job requiring very extensive training,
> a very cool head, and fine judgment. I am not convinced
> that the large number of sky marshalls rapidly trained
> and deployed now have the right capabilities, and I don't
> think it is wise at all to give guns to pilots after
> minimal training.
>
You have touched a sore spot here on this last point. You seem
to be under the impression that there might be "conventional"
highjackings. These are a thing of the past. The minute that
passengers and cabin crew subdued Richard Reid, it was clear that
"conventional" highjackings, were no longer. There is no negotiation
skill required. Kill anyone that is attempting to commandeer an
aircraft. Time has to be divided into pre 9/11 and post 9/11. Your
statement applies to pre 9/11 highjackings only. The judgement required
of the sky marshal--- Is this person an unruly/drunk passenger, or is he
intent on mischief. If he is a drunk, or unruly passenger, subdue, and
restrain him. If he (or she) is intent on mischief, deadly force is
mandatory.
KenG

KenG

January 1st 04, 10:53 PM

Thanks, you said what I should have.

B2431 wrote:

>>From: "Pete"
>>Date: 1/1/2004 10:12 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>I'd rather give up the guy in the window seat than go down with the
>>>airplane onto Times Square.
>>
>>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.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

John R Weiss

January 1st 04, 10:56 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote...
>
> Probably not. I would be more worried about bullets striking
> cabling and causing short-circuits.

They're all protected by circuit breakers. Any fire would be short lived.

> 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.

Sorry, but the past is no indicator of the future in this case. The events of
9-11 have proven beyond ANY doubt that NO airborne hijacker can be allowed into
ANY cockpit for ANY reason EVER AGAIN! There is NO reason to believe ANY
hijacker will have ANY purpose but similar acts of mass destruction!

> The presence of sky marshalls can have a certain deterrent
> effect, but I doubt their effectiveness in a real incident.

They have already proven effective in several incidents.

> 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)

If a sky marshall is so "out of it" that he is not aware that a hijacker has
passed him and is at the cockpit door, attempting entry, he is probably already
dead. In that case, the pilots DO have options to try to prevent entry. If
those fail, their weapons may be the only alternative.

> 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.

So far, all of them have failed.

> 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.

Well, I guess you aren't an airline pilot, then...

Mary Shafer

January 1st 04, 11:05 PM

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:15:30 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
> >> 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.

I think you're still safe if you say "many" or "over half", but not
"most". The demographics have changed markedly, with new hires being
about 70% civil only for the last decade or so.

> Furthermore, most American men have used firearms at one time or
> another.

Are you sure about this? And what about women pilots?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

John R Weiss

January 1st 04, 11:06 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote...
>
>>(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.

For a couple data points, the A-4 and A-6 had cabin pressure differentials of
about 4 and 5 psi (8,000' cockpit at about 23,000'). There was no
depressurization procedure for combat. The 747-400 runs normally at 8.9 psi
(6,700' cabin at about 43,000').

The B-36 was an early pressurized aircraft, developed during war time. I
suspect engineers' knowledge of the aircraft reaction to combat damage and rapid
depressurization was a lot less than now...

Kevin Brooks

January 1st 04, 11:21 PM

"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&Airline=%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. The other
fatality occured on a Piedmont 737, which underwent an unspecified rapid
decompression with the one individual later dying at the hospital--I would
imagine likely heart or respiratory failure, or a combination thereof.

Brooks
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Kevin Brooks

January 1st 04, 11:26 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Cub Driver
> >Date: 1/1/2004 2:00 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >>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:
> >
>
> The urban myth in question was that a passenger heard a funny noise coming
from
> the window. He summoned a stewardess who leaned forward to listen and was
blown
> through the window when it blew. Supposedly she exited the window like
> "toothpaste from a tube."
>
> The show has experts, altitude chambers etc all of which proved it could
never
> happen.

I would take the TAM F-28 accident as a departure from that "could not
happen". Unlikely, yes; impossible, no, as we have already seen. I keep
racking my head for the info regarding an incident back in the 80's where a
USAF C-130 (or maybe EC-130) was fired upon by a Columbian or Venezuelan
fighter (mistaken identity case), and IIRC a crewmember of the Herky Bird
was ejected from the aircraft...?

Brooks

>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>

Kevin Brooks

January 1st 04, 11:32 PM

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:NJ1Jb.24583$I07.64369@attbi_s53...
> "Cub Driver" > wrote...
> >
> >>(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.
>
> For a couple data points, the A-4 and A-6 had cabin pressure differentials
of
> about 4 and 5 psi (8,000' cockpit at about 23,000'). There was no
> depressurization procedure for combat. The 747-400 runs normally at 8.9
psi
> (6,700' cabin at about 43,000').
>
> The B-36 was an early pressurized aircraft, developed during war time. I
> suspect engineers' knowledge of the aircraft reaction to combat damage and
rapid
> depressurization was a lot less than now...

I wonder where this depressurization before entering combat thing came from?
IIRC my father never mentioned any routine depressurization during the
combat missions he pulled during WWII on the even earlier designed B-29.

Brooks
>

B2431

January 2nd 04, 12:13 AM

>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&Airline=%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

Pete

January 2nd 04, 01:57 AM

"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.

David Lesher

January 2nd 04, 02:28 AM

[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

Jim Yanik

January 2nd 04, 02:34 AM

"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

David Lesher

January 2nd 04, 02:35 AM

"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

Jim Yanik

January 2nd 04, 02:38 AM

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

Jim Yanik

January 2nd 04, 02:43 AM

"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

Kevin Brooks

January 2nd 04, 03:11 AM

"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&Airline=%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/language/translation/translatedPage.php?tt=url&text=http%3a//www.connect.com.br/~cultura/portugues/noticias.htm&lp=pt_en

Brooks

>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Chad Irby

January 2nd 04, 03:37 AM

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.

WaltBJ

January 2nd 04, 04:06 AM

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

[email protected]

January 2nd 04, 04:44 AM

"John R Weiss" > wrote:

>>
>> (Again: the above is quoted from rec.aviation.piloting)
>
>...which doesn't mean anything as far as credibility goes! Who wrote that?!? I
>am almost ROTFL at some of the assertions made up there (salient parts
>retained)!
>

I agree...I'm very familiar with the 9MM Parabellum round having
owned a Waltzer P-38 for a few years had having access to a
practically unending supply of ammo from the RCAF for it. (having
a good buddy who was also a gun nut AND an armourer in the RCAF
didn't hurt) plus being quite familiar with a/c I can attest to
your views here.
--

-Gord.

[email protected]

January 2nd 04, 04:58 AM

"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

>In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>>
>>>What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole?
>
>snip
>>
>>So are you worse off risking explosive decompression, or of crashing
>>into Times Square at midnight?
>>
>>As to the possibility of explosive decompression, as I understand the
>>matter, it could happen if a bullet fractured a window (though not if
>>it went through the skin). That's a mere possibility, as opposed to
>>the certainty of a suicide dive, absent the sky marshal.
>>
>>A normal bullet hole would be no problem. There's already a much
>>larger vent to the outside, which stabilizes cabin pressure against
>>the fresh & heated air being pumped in from the engines. People
>>smarter than I say that this hole is about three inches in diameter.
>
>I'm glad you mentioned 3" in diameter. During my RAF service my wireless
>mechanics had to pass a camera cable from a bomb bay into the pressure
>cabin in a Valiant. To my surprise they found a hole about 3" diameter
>in a convenient place.
>
>I said 'surprise' because I was in Signals and knew nothing about the
>structural properties of the aircraft. I imagined that the pressure
>cabin would be tightly sealed.
>

It is Mike (comparitevely at least)...they sure didn't use the
'outflow valve' nor the 'dump valve' (right beside it) to pass a
cable (unless they did it for testing on the ground or somesuch.
These valves need to 'modulate' the pressure inside the cabin
while climbing and during flight so you couldn't use them for
passing cables through during flight

>What about the loss of a window due to bullet strike? Would there be
>structural failure?
>
>Mike

Most unlikely, the window frame is pretty strong and likely
wouldn't propagate cracks.
--

-Gord.

[email protected]

January 2nd 04, 05:23 AM

> "M. J. Powell" wrote:

>> What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole?
>

While I try to never say never, I think there's no such
thing...or damned near no such thing at least.
--

-Gord.

B2431

January 2nd 04, 05:26 AM

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 1/1/2004 9:11 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/webdata
>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>> >Date: 1/1/2004 5:21 PM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>> >> >
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >> >Dan, you are forgetting that there was indeed documented evidence
>of a
>> >> >> >passenger being sucked out of a blown window brought out during
>that
>> >> >> >discussion--a TAM Fokker F28 turboprop somwhere over Brazil (see:
>> >> >> >www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/
>> >> >> >webdata_crashdatabase.cgi?cgifunction=Search&Airline=%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/language/translation/translatedPage.php?tt=
url&text=http%3a//www.connect.com.br/~cultura/portugues/noticias.htm&lp=pt_en
>
> Brooks
>
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
A) you said the person departed the aircraft.

B) you gave me a citation that didn't say that.

C) you blamed me for being confused about a Piedmont flight which had nothing
to do with the citation you gave me.

D) you found another citation saying the victim was not blown out of the
aircraft. I might add that unless she had very narrow shoulders she was in no
real danger of having been blown out of the aircraft.

I am no longer sure what started this, but I have lost interest.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[email protected]

January 2nd 04, 05:39 AM

"John R Weiss" > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" > wrote...
>>
>> Dunno about smart but yes the 'hole' is indeed 3 or 4 inches wide
>> (and there's two usually) but they're not wide open all the time
>> (only when 'dump' is selected). They have another valve portion
>> which mates with them and regulates the 'outflow' to regulate the
>> cabin pressure which controls the 'cabin altitude'.
>
>On the 747 the outflow valves that regulate cabin pressure are about 1 x 3 feet,
>and there are 2 of them. Normal opening is in the range of 12-19%, or about
>103-164 square inches. A .40 cal bullet has a cross-sectional area of about
>0.126 square inches, or about 1/1000 of the normal outflow area.
>
>Even a full pax window, at about 6x8 inches, has less area. Though it would be
>noisy and breezy if a window disintegrated (until a serving tray or something
>got stuck in it), rapid depressurization would not occur, as the outflow valves
>would adjust over the course of about 2 seconds.
>
>Of course, the size of the outflow valves in smaller airplanes would be somewhat
>smaller, but the net result would be similar.

I agree...the size of valves that I quoted belong to a Convair
580...VERY much smaller than a 747, but I'm still surprised by
how large the 747 ones are. Anyhow, I agree with you about the
outflow valve compensating for a blown out window. Pretty well a
'nonevent' as far as disaster is concerned.
--

-Gord.

Cub Driver

January 2nd 04, 10:38 AM

>But you cannot classify the loss of a window (or two) as a nominal event, as
>others apparently have.

I don['t think anyone said it was trivial, only that it was not
catastrophic, and no reason to ban armed sky marshals (or pilots).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Cub Driver

January 2nd 04, 10:40 AM

Could you guys clip a bit more heavily, or else put your replies at
the top?

I rarely page down for a reply, and I suspect that many others are
equally impatient. (I won't be reading this post, either, even though
I'm replying to it.)

On 02 Jan 2004 05:26:19 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>>Date: 1/1/2004 9:11 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>> >www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/webdata
>>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>>> >Date: 1/1/2004 5:21 PM Central Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>>> >> >
>>> >> <snip>
>>> >>
>>> >> >> >Dan, you are forgetting that there was indeed documented evidence
>>of a
>>> >> >> >passenger being sucked out of a blown window brought out during
>>that
>>> >> >> >discussion--a TAM Fokker F28 turboprop somwhere over Brazil (see:
>>> >> >> >www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/
>>> >> >> >webdata_crashdatabase.cgi?cgifunction=Search&Airline=%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/language/translation/translatedPage.php?tt=
>url&text=http%3a//www.connect.com.br/~cultura/portugues/noticias.htm&lp=pt_en
>>
>> Brooks
>>
>>>
>>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>
>A) you said the person departed the aircraft.
>
>B) you gave me a citation that didn't say that.
>
>C) you blamed me for being confused about a Piedmont flight which had nothing
>to do with the citation you gave me.
>
>D) you found another citation saying the victim was not blown out of the
>aircraft. I might add that unless she had very narrow shoulders she was in no
>real danger of having been blown out of the aircraft.
>
>I am no longer sure what started this, but I have lost interest.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Cub Driver

January 2nd 04, 10:43 AM

>Damnit, for the last time--I HAVE NOT DISAGREED WITH THAT CONCLUSION! What I
>have disagreed with is the assertion that the loss of a window, or any other
>RAPID decompression scenario, is a trivial affair-

Then what the hell are we talking about here?

Me, I'm marking this thread Ignore.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Johnny Bravo

January 2nd 04, 02:23 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:55 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
> wrote:

>
>There has been a bit of a furore over here concerning the new US
>requirement to airlines to supply air marshals when requested. The
>concern is mainly over the possible puncture of a pressure cabin.
>What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole?

Boeing engineers estimate that a 9-inch diameter hole would be
necessary before the automatic pressurizing equipment of a 767 would
be unable to maintain cabin pressure.

Or roughly 650 holes, each 9mm across. I can't imagine a gunfight
inside an airliner that would end up with 650 holes in the outer skin
of the plane since most of the rounds are going to be fired to the
front or rear. Even so, most of those holes can easily be plugged for
the short duration of the flight to the nearest airport, just put one
of those stupid platic covered "In case of Emergency" cards over them.
That would take care of about 250 of them on a 767, I'm sure the
in-flight magazines would easily take care of 600-700 more. Bubble
gum would be good for another 100 or so. What's that, about 5,000
total rounds fired (assuming 1/3 of them hit a wall and leave a hole)?
An average of 20 per passenger, two whole post-ban clips before the
air pressure of the cabin becomes compromised and requires a decent,
which would be in progress anyway once the flight crew becomes aware
of 5,000 rounds fired inside the plane. :)

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

Kevin Brooks

January 2nd 04, 03:27 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 1/1/2004 9:11 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/webdata
> >> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >> >Date: 1/1/2004 5:21 PM Central Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >> >> >
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Dan, you are forgetting that there was indeed documented
evidence
> >of a
> >> >> >> >passenger being sucked out of a blown window brought out during
> >that
> >> >> >> >discussion--a TAM Fokker F28 turboprop somwhere over Brazil
(see:
> >> >> >> >www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/
> >> >> >>
>webdata_crashdatabase.cgi?cgifunction=Search&Airline=%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/language/translation/translatedPage.php?tt=
>
url&text=http%3a//www.connect.com.br/~cultura/portugues/noticias.htm&lp=pt_e
n
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> >>
> >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >
> A) you said the person departed the aircraft.

I so sorry--she was only partially sucked out courtesy of her hubby putting
a stranglehold on her legs. Big deal. And a far cry from your assertion: "It
would still be only annoying. A few ear aches and a lot of noise along with
oxygen masks dropping. The person sitting next to the window might lose his
reading material or dinner." IMHO.

>
> B) you gave me a citation that didn't say that.

Dan, face it--the loss of a window can cause a hell of a lot more than you
asserted.

>
> C) you blamed me for being confused about a Piedmont flight which had
nothing
> to do with the citation you gave me.

So sorry again--we apparently both were getting a bit confused, as your
earlier mea culpa indicated.

>
> D) you found another citation saying the victim was not blown out of the
> aircraft. I might add that unless she had very narrow shoulders she was in
no
> real danger of having been blown out of the aircraft.

Tell that to the hubby who was hanging onto her legs according to the press
reports in Brazil. In the end, it matters not a whit--she DIED. As did that
Piedmont passenger, due to whatever causes related to the decompression.
That is one HELL of a lot more serious than, "A few ear aches and a lot of
noise...", OK?

>
> I am no longer sure what started this, but I have lost interest.

What started this is your continued assertion that rapid decompression is no
big deal, in spite of there having been related fatalities, and rather
substantial injuries as noted in the Aer Lingus case.

Brooks

>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>

M. J. Powell

January 2nd 04, 03:35 PM

In message >, Johnny Bravo
> writes
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:55 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>There has been a bit of a furore over here concerning the new US
>>requirement to airlines to supply air marshals when requested. The
>>concern is mainly over the possible puncture of a pressure cabin.
>>What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole?
>
> Boeing engineers estimate that a 9-inch diameter hole would be
>necessary before the automatic pressurizing equipment of a 767 would
>be unable to maintain cabin pressure.
>
> Or roughly 650 holes, each 9mm across. I can't imagine a gunfight
>inside an airliner that would end up with 650 holes in the outer skin
>of the plane since most of the rounds are going to be fired to the
>front or rear. Even so, most of those holes can easily be plugged for
>the short duration of the flight to the nearest airport, just put one
>of those stupid platic covered "In case of Emergency" cards over them.
>That would take care of about 250 of them on a 767, I'm sure the
>in-flight magazines would easily take care of 600-700 more. Bubble
>gum would be good for another 100 or so. What's that, about 5,000
>total rounds fired (assuming 1/3 of them hit a wall and leave a hole)?
>An average of 20 per passenger, two whole post-ban clips before the
>air pressure of the cabin becomes compromised and requires a decent,
>which would be in progress anyway once the flight crew becomes aware
>of 5,000 rounds fired inside the plane. :)

Wow!

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Chad Irby

January 2nd 04, 04:47 PM

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:

> Could you guys clip a bit more heavily, or else put your replies at
> the top?

Top posting is a bad thing.

Just teach them how to edit.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Laurence Doering

January 2nd 04, 06:54 PM

On 01 Jan 2004 22:19:37 GMT, B2431 > wrote:
>>From: Cub Driver
>>Date: 1/1/2004 2:00 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>>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:
>
> The urban myth in question was that a passenger heard a funny noise coming from
> the window. He summoned a stewardess who leaned forward to listen and was blown
> through the window when it blew. Supposedly she exited the window like
> "toothpaste from a tube."
>
> The show has experts, altitude chambers etc all of which proved it could never
> happen.

Something like that did happen, though, on 3 November 1973.

A National Airlines DC-10 (flight 27, between Houston and Las
Vegas) was cruising at 39,000 feet over New Mexico when the number
3 engine's fan assembly disintegrated. Fan blades penetrated the
fuselage and one of the cabin windows, and a passenger seated in
seat 17H was forced out through the missing window. The victim's
seatbelt was fastened, and briefly prevented him from going
completely out the window. Another passenger tried to pull
him back in, but was unsuccessful.

After an emergency descent, the DC-10 landed safely at Albuquerque.
An extensive ground search for the passenger's body was conducted,
but his remains were never found.

As far as I know, this is the only case of a person being blown
(sucked, pulled, whatever) completely through a missing aircraft
window during a rapid decompression.

ljd

Chad Irby

January 2nd 04, 07:15 PM

In article >,
Laurence Doering > wrote:

> Something like that did happen, though, on 3 November 1973.
>
> A National Airlines DC-10 (flight 27, between Houston and Las
> Vegas) was cruising at 39,000 feet over New Mexico when the number
> 3 engine's fan assembly disintegrated. Fan blades penetrated the
> fuselage and one of the cabin windows, and a passenger seated in
> seat 17H was forced out through the missing window. The victim's
> seatbelt was fastened, and briefly prevented him from going
> completely out the window. Another passenger tried to pull
> him back in, but was unsuccessful.
>
> After an emergency descent, the DC-10 landed safely at Albuquerque.
> An extensive ground search for the passenger's body was conducted,
> but his remains were never found.
>
> As far as I know, this is the only case of a person being blown
> (sucked, pulled, whatever) completely through a missing aircraft
> window during a rapid decompression.

In 1990, a British Airways pilot almost got sucked out of his plane at
17,000 feet when a piece of the windshield fell off. He was wearing his
seatbelt, but got pulled under it. A flight steward held on to him
until another steward strapped into the seat and helped hold on. The
co-pilot landed the plane, and the pilot survived with some broken bones
and a case of frostbite.

And, one would assume, a need for clean underwear.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Keith Willshaw

January 2nd 04, 07:30 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>

>
> It went down (occured in '74). ISTR another incident over Japan with
similar
> results?
>
> Brooks

Not quite

There were 2 DC-10 depressurusation events

The first happened over Ontario , the cargo hatch opened
in flight due to a damaged latch which wasnt fully closed. The
floor collapsed damaging control cables , the crew managed to make
an emergency landing and a bulletin was sent out recommending
changes be made but no mandatory notice was issued.

The second incident involved a Turkish airlines DC-10 over
France. The hatch again opened and this time the aircraft
crashed killing 346 people

The Japanese incident involved the failure of the incorrectly
repaired tail pressure bulkhead on a 747. The repair was carried
out under Boeing supervision and their engineer screwed up.

The pressure vented into the tail fin blowing off most of the vertical
stabiliser.

Keith

Keith Willshaw

January 2nd 04, 07:35 PM

"Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> M. J. Powell > wrote:
>

>
> There is also the risk of bullets bouncing around inside
> the plane and doing damage to power lines, fuel systems,
> etc. Historically, fire has been the major killer of
> aircraft following projectile damage.
>

The chances of bullets bouncing around is pretty low especially
if low velocity and/or frangible rounds are used. I doubt anyone
has shot down an aircraft larger than a Sopwith Camel using
a pistol

> Seems to me that although loss of cabin pressure is serious
> concern (IIRC military aircraft were designed to maintain
> lower cabin pressure than airliners, to limit the damage
> amplification following a hit) but not the most serious one.
> The worst problem is the prospect of a gun battle in a cabin
> packed with people. Almost every stray bullet is going to
> hit someone; even if the sky marshall hits the right man
> (or woman) the bullet seems likely to hit others as well.
>
> This is going to require very fine judgment by the sky
> marshall. 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?)

I'm afraid since Sept 11 all hijackings have to be considered
suicide actions and treated accordingly. The hijackers that
day acted as would be expected of conventional hijackers
right up to the last minute.

Keith

M. J. Powell

January 2nd 04, 07:51 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> Laurence Doering > wrote:
>
>> Something like that did happen, though, on 3 November 1973.
>>
>> A National Airlines DC-10 (flight 27, between Houston and Las
>> Vegas) was cruising at 39,000 feet over New Mexico when the number
>> 3 engine's fan assembly disintegrated. Fan blades penetrated the
>> fuselage and one of the cabin windows, and a passenger seated in
>> seat 17H was forced out through the missing window. The victim's
>> seatbelt was fastened, and briefly prevented him from going
>> completely out the window. Another passenger tried to pull
>> him back in, but was unsuccessful.
>>
>> After an emergency descent, the DC-10 landed safely at Albuquerque.
>> An extensive ground search for the passenger's body was conducted,
>> but his remains were never found.
>>
>> As far as I know, this is the only case of a person being blown
>> (sucked, pulled, whatever) completely through a missing aircraft
>> window during a rapid decompression.
>
>In 1990, a British Airways pilot almost got sucked out of his plane at
>17,000 feet when a piece of the windshield fell off. He was wearing his
>seatbelt, but got pulled under it. A flight steward held on to him
>until another steward strapped into the seat and helped hold on. The
>co-pilot landed the plane, and the pilot survived with some broken bones
>and a case of frostbite.
>
>And, one would assume, a need for clean underwear.

There was also the case of the Yugoslav air stewardess who left the
plane at about 30k and survived.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Chad Irby

January 2nd 04, 09:07 PM

In article >,
"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

> There was also the case of the Yugoslav air stewardess who left the
> plane at about 30k and survived.

It wasn't so much a case of her leaving the plane as the plane leaving
her, since she was in the tail of the plane when a bomb went off and
blew the tail off.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

M. J. Powell

January 2nd 04, 10:55 PM

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "M. J. Powell" > wrote:
>
>> There was also the case of the Yugoslav air stewardess who left the
>> plane at about 30k and survived.
>
>It wasn't so much a case of her leaving the plane as the plane leaving
>her, since she was in the tail of the plane when a bomb went off and
>blew the tail off.

Oh, right. There was also the case of the RAF rear-gunner who dropped
about 15k w/o a parachute. I believe the Germans gave him a certificate
to certify the fact.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

B2431

January 2nd 04, 11:09 PM

>From: "Kevin Brooks"

>
>What started this is your continued assertion that rapid decompression is no
>big deal, in spite of there having been related fatalities, and rather
>substantial injuries as noted in the Aer Lingus case.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
No, go back and see what I said in the first place. I said a blown out window
would not be catastrophic.

I have been unable to find a single case of a blown out window being
catastrophic.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Chad Irby

January 2nd 04, 11:28 PM

In article >,
"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

> Oh, right. There was also the case of the RAF rear-gunner who dropped
> about 15k w/o a parachute. I believe the Germans gave him a certificate
> to certify the fact.

Yeah, a few people have managed to fall long distances without dying.

Not that it would seem to be a lot of fun after that last tenth of a
second or so... that stewardess who fell 33,000 feet and survived got
several broken bones and paraplegia in the bargain.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Keith Willshaw

January 3rd 04, 12:26 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "M. J. Powell" > wrote:
>

> Not that it would seem to be a lot of fun after that last tenth of a
> second or so... that stewardess who fell 33,000 feet and survived got
> several broken bones and paraplegia in the bargain.
>

IRC the RAF tailgunner survived with minor injuries. His
survival was put down to his falling through dense foliage
into a deep snowdrift.

Keith

IBM

January 3rd 04, 01:17 AM

"M. J. Powell" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> Oh, right. There was also the case of the RAF rear-gunner who dropped
> about 15k w/o a parachute. I believe the Germans gave him a certificate
> to certify the fact.

Tailgunner in a Sunderland Flying Boat over Norway IIRC.
The whole turret was blown off the back of the aircraft
hit a steep slope covered with deep snow and rolled to a stop.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Kevin Brooks

January 3rd 04, 02:06 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
> >
> >What started this is your continued assertion that rapid decompression is
no
> >big deal, in spite of there having been related fatalities, and rather
> >substantial injuries as noted in the Aer Lingus case.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >>
> No, go back and see what I said in the first place. I said a blown out
window
> would not be catastrophic.

No, you went beyond that, saying: "It would still be only annoying. A few
ear aches and a lot of noise along
with oxygen masks dropping. The person sitting next to the window might lose
his reading material or dinner." "Only annoying..."?

>
> I have been unable to find a single case of a blown out window being
> catastrophic.

To the individual sucked out, whether partially or totally (see the other
posters' comments regarding another case where an individual was reportedly
completely ejected), that statement might appear sort of minimalist, to say
the least.

Brooks

>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Johnny Bravo

January 3rd 04, 06:14 AM

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:35:00 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
> wrote:

>Wow!

Heh. The airliner in 1988 over Hawaii lost about 120 square feet of
cabin roof at 24,000 feet and landed all passengers safely, except for
one flight attendant who was blown out the crew survived as well.

It's going to take a lot more than a handful of bullet holes in the
wall or windows to take out an airliner.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

tadaa

January 3rd 04, 11:35 AM

> Heh. The airliner in 1988 over Hawaii lost about 120 square feet of
> cabin roof at 24,000 feet and landed all passengers safely, except for
> one flight attendant who was blown out the crew survived as well.
>
> It's going to take a lot more than a handful of bullet holes in the
> wall or windows to take out an airliner.

Was it cabriolet?

M. J. Powell

January 3rd 04, 12:42 PM

In message >, Johnny Bravo
> writes
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:35:00 +0000, "M. J. Powell"
> wrote:
>
>>Wow!
>
> Heh. The airliner in 1988 over Hawaii lost about 120 square feet of
>cabin roof at 24,000 feet and landed all passengers safely, except for
>one flight attendant who was blown out the crew survived as well.

I saw the newspaper photo. Amazing.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

M. J. Powell

January 3rd 04, 12:45 PM

In message >, IBM
> writes
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote in
:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Oh, right. There was also the case of the RAF rear-gunner who dropped
>> about 15k w/o a parachute. I believe the Germans gave him a certificate
>> to certify the fact.
>
> Tailgunner in a Sunderland Flying Boat over Norway IIRC.
> The whole turret was blown off the back of the aircraft
> hit a steep slope covered with deep snow and rolled to a stop.

Sunderland in Scotland hit high ground, rear turret broken off. The
gunner was the only survivor. (The 'Hess' and 'Duke of Kent'
Sunderland.)

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Tex Houston

January 3rd 04, 06:29 PM

"Johnny Bravo" > wrote in message
...
> Heh. The airliner in 1988 over Hawaii lost about 120 square feet of
> cabin roof at 24,000 feet and landed all passengers safely, except for
> one flight attendant who was blown out the crew survived as well.

Last time I checked the flight attendant WAS part of the crew.

Tex Houston

David Lesher

January 3rd 04, 09:49 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > writes:

>There were 2 DC-10 depressurusation events

>The first happened over Ontario , the cargo hatch opened
>in flight due to a damaged latch which wasnt fully closed. The
>floor collapsed damaging control cables , the crew managed to make
>an emergency landing and a bulletin was sent out recommending
>changes be made but no mandatory notice was issued.

As I recall, there WAS an AD issued by one FAA regional
office but HQ pulled it after political pressure from Mc-D.

--
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

Johnny Bravo

January 4th 04, 10:14 AM

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:29:25 -0700, "Tex Houston"
> wrote:

>
>"Johnny Bravo" > wrote in message
...
>> Heh. The airliner in 1988 over Hawaii lost about 120 square feet of
>> cabin roof at 24,000 feet and landed all passengers safely, except for
>> one flight attendant who was blown out the crew survived as well.
>
>
>Last time I checked the flight attendant WAS part of the crew.

Thus my use of the words "except for". :)

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

Ad absurdum per aspera

January 4th 04, 07:15 PM

> >> What do readers think is the result of decompression via a bullet hole?

> While I try to never say never, I think there's no such
> thing...or damned near no such thing at least.

Yeah, one is reluctant to say "never" when random violence and complex
systems come together. The obvious counterexample to the
"convertible 737" that landed safely is the DC-10 that didn't do so
after loss of its cargo door.

However, with bullet holes, hopefully we're not talking about
catastrophic failures of large chunks of airplane.[1] And as for air
loss through bullet holes or even a failed window, consider WaltBJ's
calculation in light of the fact that you don't have to maintain
pressure in a holed cabin[2] *indefinitely* -- just long enough to
keep everybody breathing while you divert.

Finally, consider all this in post 9/11 perspective. We now know that
the bad guys' goal might be to destroy a ground target with the
aircraft. If the consequence of doing nothing is the loss of the
aircraft and all souls aboard anyway, PLUS great death or destruction
on the ground, that changes the sorts of risks you are willing to take
in the name of prevention.

If there is an armed marshal on board, you open the door not only for
cases of intermediate severity (e.g., plane crashes but does not
strike its target), but also for the best case -- he stops the bad
guys, maybe if you're lucky one or more of them survive (dead people
are hard to interrogate), and the aircraft makes a safe landing with
all the good guys still in one piece. And it strikes me as a better
than hand-to-hand by unarmed passengers -- which is still Plan B
should the marshal fail.

Hoping the deterrent effect will be enough,
--Joe

[1] I wonder how much of the popular imagination on this subject comes
straight from "Goldfinger," whose eponymous villain (if memory serves)
goes through the shot-out cabin window of a Lockheed Jetstar. I'd have
thought someone of his luxuriant specifications would've self-patched
almost anything short of complete loss of a door, but no. Whereupon
our hero and the lady du jour set some kind of record for egress under
duress. But I digress.

[2] I think a reasonable further assumption is that the amount of ammo
involved is modest. If there are a LOT of bad guys in one plane, or
they have guns of their own and can fort up for an extended shootout,
we have bigger problems than calculating the number of holes you can
poke in an airplane before somebody hits something important that the
flight crew can't settle with switchology.