Can you say: Payne Stewart ? - Explosive Decompression? Try it yourself, numbnuts.

From: "= Vox Populi ©" Vox Populi ©"
Date: 1/14/2004 1:31 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Arnold Wolfcaste wrote:
"Yardpilot" wrote in message
news:zhpMb.29488$na.23347@attbi_s04...
Those delightfully quirky fellows on Myth Busters decided to play
explosive
decompression from a gunshot with a DC-9. They pressurized it and
fired
through the skin from the inside. Nothing. They pressurized it and
fired
through a window. Nothing. Oh, well. Looks like a big, "Neener!
Neener" goes
out to certain folks.

Sure numbnuts, try it in actual flight and see:

By Brian Knowlton International Herald Tribune
WASHINGTON - Investigators were sifting Tuesday through a small, blackened
crater in a South Dakota pasture where the private jet carrying the golfer
Payne
Stewart and five other people had crashed, ending an eerie flight that
millions
of people, including Mr. Stewart's wife, had followed live on television.
Bodies still were being recovered from the site.

The Lear 35 had taken off Monday in Orlando, Florida, on a flight that was
supposed to carry Mr. Stewart, a two-time U.S. Open champion, to a Houston
golf
tournament.

But it soon deviated from its flight plan, heading due northwest and
apparently
soaring far above the altitudes for which it normally is certified.
Air-traffic
controllers were unable to summon any response by radio.

As the plane continued on a doomed 1,400-mile (2250-kilometer) trajectory
across
the U.S. heartland, its windows frozen over and its passengers quite possibly
dead, military jets were scrambled to shadow it, and news reports followed
its
progress. People in the Dakotas, directly on its path, kept one wary eye on
their televisions, another on the skies.

Among those listening in horror was Mr. Stewart's wife, Tracey, a native of
Australia. From their home in Orlando, she tried to reach her husband via
cellular phone, according to her brother, Mike Ferguson.

''It's just really bad for my sister to be watching it on CNN, knowing that
it
was her husband on board,'' he told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.

Mr. Stewart, whose knickers and colorful tam-o'-shanters made him one of the
most recognized of professional golfers, was co-owner of the plane.

Also on the plane were his agents, Robert Fraley and Van Ardan, and the
pilots,
Michael Kling and Stephanie Bellegarrigue. Bruce Borland, a golf-course
designer
who worked for the professional golfer Jack Nicklaus, was aboard as well, Mr.
Nicklaus said.

Officials with the National Transportation Safety Board, who flew Monday to
Mina, South Dakota, in the north-central part of the state, said it might be
some time before an explanation emerged.

''It's not going to be an easy investigation,'' said Robert Francis, vice
chairman of the safety board. ''It looks like the aircraft was pretty much
vertical when it hit the ground. The ground is soft, and it went in fairly
deep.''

The crash site, in the middle of a flat wheat field, was cordoned off. Black
cows grazed nearby as about 20 investigators in blue, yellow and white
jumpsuits
sifted through the tangled debris.

Aviation specialists speculated that the plane might have suffered a sudden
decompression at high altitude, which could have rendered the two pilots, as
well as the passengers, unconscious within seconds. In that scenario,
bitterly
cold stratospheric air, minus 70 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 56 centigrade) at
the
altitudes involved, could have rushed into the plane, causing windows to fog
and
freeze.


"Aviation specialists" also speculated the aircraft's pressurization had failed
at a low altitude and the passengers and crew simply went to sleep not knowing
why.

If your "aviation specialists" were correct at least one pilot would have had
time to put his oxygen mask on. Please note the USAF pilots saw no evidence of
explosive decompression which should have left some evidence on the exterior:
ripped skin, blown window, blown hatch etc. There is a big difference between
explosive and sudden decompressions.

Now how about quoting from the final accident report?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

(Rick Durden) wrote:

Evidence examined thus far indicates that the Payne Stewart crash was
decompression, but not explosive. The old Lears had some interesting
systems and according to some reports the company had not maintained
its airplanes all that well or worked off some of the squawks. Those
who have flown the old Lears can give a number of different scenarios
that would generate the gradual loss of cabin pressure that doomed the
Stewart flight.

Back in 1999 I happened to be renting hangar space from the pilot
who trained the Capt. of the Learjet that Stewart was flying in when
it crashed.

Stewart's Capt. was a highly experienced ex-military type who flew
tankers in the Air Force. My pilot friend whom I was renting hangar
space from had also flown the exact same jet (47BA) to the Caribbean
the previous week.

According to him, the jet was well maintained and he was absolutely
baffled by the whole Payne Stewart incident. A sudden decompression
at FL 230 should still give a person more than enough time to don a
mask and the only thing he knew was that the Learjet had just taken
off from Orlando and was at FL 230 over Gainseville (Florida) and
cleared to FL 390 when they lost radio contact with ATC.

In any event, it must've been an eerie sight for the F-16 jocks who
interecepted the Learjet and saw the bodies slumped over, frost on
the windows from the frozen water vapor inside the cabin.

Yes,
I agree, and as an undergrad of ERAU, and now grad student, along with
22 years active duty, the Payne Stewart accident has been gone over
time and again, if I ever see another Power Point presentation on it,
I'll puke. (that and the aloha air incident, concorde, TWA flight 800,
swissair 111, etc.) but, with a failure (leak) in the
pressurization/oxygen system at a lower level, it would have induced
hypoxia, and in a lot of cases, unless you know it is happening,
everyone that has ever experienced this or looked at test results know
that the reactions to hypoxia are totally uncontrolled. Who is to say
that anyone would have donned an O2 mask if they didn't know what was
happening?? The crew then passed out, and the aircraft continued to
climb and cruise until the leak resulted in internal freezing of the
cabin. I agree there was no "explosive decompression".
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:36:28 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

(Rick Durden) wrote:

Evidence examined thus far indicates that the Payne Stewart crash was
decompression, but not explosive. The old Lears had some interesting
systems and according to some reports the company had not maintained
its airplanes all that well or worked off some of the squawks. Those
who have flown the old Lears can give a number of different scenarios
that would generate the gradual loss of cabin pressure that doomed the
Stewart flight.

Back in 1999 I happened to be renting hangar space from the pilot
who trained the Capt. of the Learjet that Stewart was flying in when
it crashed.

Stewart's Capt. was a highly experienced ex-military type who flew
tankers in the Air Force. My pilot friend whom I was renting hangar
space from had also flown the exact same jet (47BA) to the Caribbean
the previous week.

According to him, the jet was well maintained and he was absolutely
baffled by the whole Payne Stewart incident. A sudden decompression
at FL 230 should still give a person more than enough time to don a
mask and the only thing he knew was that the Learjet had just taken
off from Orlando and was at FL 230 over Gainseville (Florida) and
cleared to FL 390 when they lost radio contact with ATC.

In any event, it must've been an eerie sight for the F-16 jocks who
interecepted the Learjet and saw the bodies slumped over, frost on
the windows from the frozen water vapor inside the cabin.

fudog50 wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Back in 1999 I happened to be renting hangar space from the pilot
who trained the Capt. of the Learjet that Stewart was flying in when
it crashed.

Stewart's Capt. was a highly experienced ex-military type who flew
tankers in the Air Force. My pilot friend whom I was renting hangar
space from had also flown the exact same jet (47BA) to the Caribbean
the previous week.

According to him, the jet was well maintained and he was absolutely
baffled by the whole Payne Stewart incident. A sudden decompression
at FL 230 should still give a person more than enough time to don a
mask and the only thing he knew was that the Learjet had just taken
off from Orlando and was at FL 230 over Gainseville (Florida) and
cleared to FL 390 when they lost radio contact with ATC.

In any event, it must've been an eerie sight for the F-16 jocks who
interecepted the Learjet and saw the bodies slumped over, frost on
the windows from the frozen water vapor inside the cabin.

Yes,
I agree, and as an undergrad of ERAU, and now grad student, along with
22 years active duty, the Payne Stewart accident has been gone over
time and again, if I ever see another Power Point presentation on it,
I'll puke. (that and the aloha air incident, concorde, TWA flight 800,
swissair 111, etc.) but, with a failure (leak) in the
pressurization/oxygen system at a lower level, it would have induced
hypoxia, and in a lot of cases, unless you know it is happening,
everyone that has ever experienced this or looked at test results know
that the reactions to hypoxia are totally uncontrolled. Who is to say
that anyone would have donned an O2 mask if they didn't know what was
happening?? The crew then passed out, and the aircraft continued to
climb and cruise until the leak resulted in internal freezing of the
cabin. I agree there was no "explosive decompression".

As I mentioned, the Capt. was a highly trained, extremely experienced
ex-military pilot whom had undergone chamber training so no matter
how insidious, he undoubtedly knew how to recognize the telltale
symptoms of hypoxia (e.g: degraded vision, lightheadedness,
discoloration of the fingernails and lips, etc.) AFAIK, it remains a
mystery as to precisely what happened on that incredibly strange day
in 1999.

Mike Marron wrote:

fudog50 wrote:

Mike Marron wrote:


Back in 1999 I happened to be renting hangar space from the pilot
who trained the Capt. of the Learjet that Stewart was flying in when
it crashed.


Stewart's Capt. was a highly experienced ex-military type who flew
tankers in the Air Force. My pilot friend whom I was renting hangar
space from had also flown the exact same jet (47BA) to the Caribbean
the previous week.


According to him, the jet was well maintained and he was absolutely
baffled by the whole Payne Stewart incident. A sudden decompression
at FL 230 should still give a person more than enough time to don a
mask and the only thing he knew was that the Learjet had just taken
off from Orlando and was at FL 230 over Gainseville (Florida) and
cleared to FL 390 when they lost radio contact with ATC.


In any event, it must've been an eerie sight for the F-16 jocks who
interecepted the Learjet and saw the bodies slumped over, frost on
the windows from the frozen water vapor inside the cabin.


Yes,
I agree, and as an undergrad of ERAU, and now grad student, along with
22 years active duty, the Payne Stewart accident has been gone over
time and again, if I ever see another Power Point presentation on it,
I'll puke. (that and the aloha air incident, concorde, TWA flight 800,
swissair 111, etc.) but, with a failure (leak) in the
pressurization/oxygen system at a lower level, it would have induced
hypoxia, and in a lot of cases, unless you know it is happening,
everyone that has ever experienced this or looked at test results know
that the reactions to hypoxia are totally uncontrolled. Who is to say
that anyone would have donned an O2 mask if they didn't know what was
happening?? The crew then passed out, and the aircraft continued to
climb and cruise until the leak resulted in internal freezing of the
cabin. I agree there was no "explosive decompression".


As I mentioned, the Capt. was a highly trained, extremely experienced
ex-military pilot whom had undergone chamber training so no matter
how insidious, he undoubtedly knew how to recognize the telltale
symptoms of hypoxia (e.g: degraded vision, lightheadedness,
discoloration of the fingernails and lips, etc.) AFAIK, it remains a
mystery as to precisely what happened on that incredibly strange day
in 1999.

I reckon the pilots weren't wearing O2 masks. ISTR on a small plane at
high alt, at least one is supposed to wear one at all times, to prevent
just this type of crash.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1999/991025-1.htm

Crew incapacitation due to a loss of cabin pressurization about 20mins
after departure. Continued flight for almost 2h40min before spiralling
out of control, crashing in an open field. Among the passengers was
professional golfer Payne Stewart.
PROBABLE CAUSE: "Incapacitation of the flight crewmembers as a result of
their failure to receive supplemental oxygen following a loss of cabin
pressurization, for undetermined reasons. "

Mike Marron wrote:
fudog50 wrote:

As I mentioned, the Capt. was a highly trained, extremely experienced
ex-military pilot whom had undergone chamber training so no matter
how insidious, he undoubtedly knew how to recognize the telltale
symptoms of hypoxia (e.g: degraded vision, lightheadedness,
discoloration of the fingernails and lips, etc.) AFAIK, it remains a
mystery as to precisely what happened on that incredibly strange day
in 1999.


It is especially strange given that there is an altitude alerter
horn which goes off when the cabin exceeds about 10,000' pressure
altitude (IIRC, one thing the recovered CVR tape showed was that
the warning horn was sounding, confirming that the cabin pressure
had in fact exceeded 10,000'), which should have warned the crew of
any insidious problem before they became unable to respond.

Mike

(Arnold Wolfcaste) wrote:

Stewart's plane supposedly had a slow leak due to poor maintainance.
The crew and passengers passed out due to lack of oxygen.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/10/26/stewart.crash.sp/

Keyword: "supposedly." And what was the final outcome of the Stewart
families lawsuit against SunJet Aviation?

I know someone who has worked on military jets, small exec jets like
lears and high end modern sorts cars. He said modern sports cars like
Porsches are light years ahead of Lears and other exec jets in
technology.

Your friend is wrong. Recall Porsche's failed attempt to build a
successful reciprocating aviation engine back in the late 80's.
Yeah, it was a giant leap forward in technology alright -- and
it crashed and burned with a resounding THUD.

The Porsche engine was a dismal failure because it offered an
increase in weight but a decrease in performance. Not only that, the
Porsche engine cost more and burned more gas than a Continental
or Lycoming aircraft engine.

In other words, what your mechanic friend doesn't seem to understand
is that unlike car drivers, airplane drivers couldn't care less about
how flashy or modern a piece of technology is. What we care about is
how well it does its job. The so-called "high-tech" Porsche engine
was just another seemingly good idea to introduce "high-tech"
automotive technology into aviation only to collide with the need for
stark simplicity in aircraft development.

Now, where you CAN see useful advances in aircraft technology that
the automobile world drools over is in avionics. For example, Chelton
Flight Systems has received FAA approval for its "Highway in the Sky"
aircraft navigation pictoral. NASA has been able to teach non-pilots
to navigate an airplane in only a few hours using this new technology.
The Chelton Heads Up Display (HUD) symbology used in the FlightLogic
system for General Aviation aircraft rivals that of even the most
sophisticated jet fighters.

He left commercial aviation because companies would cut corners on
maintaining the exec jets. This is why Payne Stewart died.

As an former commercial, single-pilot IFR guy I'm thoroughly familiar
with how charter outfits and flight training schools routinely cut
corners on maintenance. However, I haven't seen any definitive proof
that this is the reason Payne Stewart died.

--
Mike Marron
CFII, Commercial, Multi-Engine, Instrument, A&P

Mike Marron wrote:


As I mentioned, the Capt. was a highly trained, extremely experienced
ex-military pilot whom had undergone chamber training so no matter
how insidious, he undoubtedly knew how to recognize the telltale
symptoms of hypoxia (e.g: degraded vision, lightheadedness,
discoloration of the fingernails and lips, etc.) AFAIK, it remains a
mystery as to precisely what happened on that incredibly strange day
in 1999.


Gee...this makes no sense to me, mind you I know very little
about the Lear 35 but isn't there any indications of the cabin
altitude built into the pressurization controller?, Or do you
suppose that two experienced pilots would just ignore their cabin
altitude?, doesn't compute to me.

What you say about hypoxia effects aren't noticeable by the
victim, an observer (not so affected) may see some however.
You should try a 'chambre ride' sometime, quite surprising.
--

-Gord.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:35:52 GMT, S. R. Sheffield wrote:

On 16 Jan 2004 12:46:26 -0800, (Jim) wrote:

Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in message . ..

They are, but if one slips through, would you rather the NEXT response
be a Glock-armed pilot, or an AMRAAM-armed F-16?

Remember that the passengers themselves are a line of defense too. I
expect that the pilots will only hear of a hijacking attempt after the
passengers finish tying him up.

Fine, They are, but if one slips through, would you rather the NEXT response
be a Glock-armed pilot, or an AMRAAM-armed F-16?

Jim
Glock armed pilot.

SRS

(There's always THAT last response)

Actually, I would prefer a pilot armed with a *real* weapon.

Al Minyard

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:46:41 GMT, "LawsonE" wrote:

All I've been pointing out is that there is no "absolute" verdict you
can
give on this subject since it would depend on what was hit, where, and
with
what. The worst case would be shooting holes in avionics, or causing
some
kind of engine trouble that might lead to further destruction. A
slightly
less dangerous case (I'm guessing) would be where a bullet hit the
forward
windscreen, punching a hole in it. Anyone who wants to tell me that the
structural integrity of any material with a hole punched in it is the
same
as the non-damaged material, is full of it. No-one has cited a test or
incident where a bullet was shot into the front windscreen while the
plane
was travelling 500mph, and even if there are such incidents, the
conditions
are so extreme that one or two examples probably don't say anything
about
the "average" case.

There are airplanes, including 747s, that have continued to fly quite
nicely, if rather noisily in the cockpit, after striking Canada geese
with the windscreens, cracking them.

Horrible mental image of a bird reaching up and goosing a 747...

Aircraft windscreens are a)
over-designed for bird strikes, b) made of numerous layers laminated
with the same sort of stuff used in car windshields, and c) backed up
by cockpit/cabin pressurization systems with considerably more
capacity than they use in normal flight.

I might also point out that the windscreen in front of the captain is
entirely separate from the windscreen in front of the first officer,
so damage on one side won't affect the other side. The side
windscreens are also separate, as are the eyebrow windscreens, where
present. Since forward vision is not required to land an airplane,
particularly a highly-automated airliner, damage to one windscreen is
not any big deal.

Mary, are there any provisions to protect the pilot on the damaged from
at least the annoyance of wind? If nothing else, it's going to be COLD.

I freely concede that a windscreen with a bullet hole in it is not the
same as an undamaged windscreen, but the undamaged windscreen is
sufficiently strong that the damage from the bullet hole is not enough
to render the damaged windscreen useless or hazardous.