How does a wet cloth really help (scientifically) to survive an airplane crash?

On Fri, 16 May 2014 22:45:08 -0700, David Platt wrote:

The Halon suppresses
some of the flame reactions and stops the fire, but it doesn't get rid
of the poisonous partially-combusted plastics and other decomposed
flammables.

This is very interesting. It makes sense.

Here's an airplane lithium battery fire article that partially backs up
your observation that the halon itself doesn't prevent the toxic fumes
from killing us.

http://www.highwaterinnovations.com/...ment-FINAL.pdf

On Sat, 17 May 2014 05:39:45 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

The reason you want to get heck out of a Halon environment is that is
displaces the oxygen so you have nothing to breathe. (It works on the
"air" part of the old fire triangle).

Hmmmmmm... isn't that the *opposite* of how Halon works in a fire?

I tried to find an airplane cabin fire article that backed you up.

For example, this was the first hit:
http://www.h3raviation.com/news_avoiding_mayday.htm

But, all that article said was that the carbon monoxide from the
aircraft cabin fire would displace the oxygen.

And, specifically, it said that halon does *not* "displace the oxygen"
which is how carbon dioxide extinguishers work.

Here's what the article said, verbatim (in part) about the benefits:
---------------------------------
Halon is an effective agent on Class B and C fires, the ones you're most
likely to see in an aircraft.

It works in gas form, so it will not obscure your vision like the powder
emitted from dry chemical extinguishers. Basically, it's invisible.

As a gas, it's capable of getting into hard-to-reach places like the
inner workings of your instrument panel.

It's a non-corrosive clean agent, which means it won't damage items
it comes into contact with.

It won't shock-cool your avionics.

It's lighter and more efficient than CO2.
Halons are low-toxicity, chemically stable compounds.

Sounds perfect, right? Well, there are a few drawbacks.

We said that Halon has low toxicity. But it's not benign or entirely non-toxic,
and you wouldn't want to introduce it to your respiratory system given the choice.
"But everyone, including the FAA, recognizes that it's better to put out the fire
effectively than to worry about breathing the Halon,"

On Sat, 17 May 2014 06:53:49 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:

There were some system using carbon dioxide, and
those displace oxygen.

Halon works on the fourth side of the triangle,
sustained chemical reaction. Actually fire
tetrahedron.

Thank you Stormin' Mormon, for explaining that the proposed
supposition that halon displaced oxygen was not supported in the
literature.

I found a similar explanation to yours in this FAA book on
aircraft Fire Protection Systems:
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...a/ama_Ch17.pdf

It's pretty troubling that some people believe stuff that has
absolutely zero references in the literature that backs up their
claims.

I'm glad you're not one of them!

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:

So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.

Again I must have not made myself clear.

Clearly I googled and found plenty of articles which said that hydrogen
cyanide is the killer and that the wet rag dissolved it - but that isn't
my point to you in this post.

So, why do they take away our water bottles?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation

In article ,
Ann Marie Brest wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 05:39:45 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

The reason you want to get heck out of a Halon environment is that is
displaces the oxygen so you have nothing to breathe. (It works on the
"air" part of the old fire triangle).

Hmmmmmm... isn't that the *opposite* of how Halon works in a fire?

Yep. As I mentioned I was trying to go with 30 year old memories.
That, and I never did inspections....
--
“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.�
— Aaron Levenstein

On Sat, 17 May 2014 08:59:59 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 07:03:04 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

I HATE the 'expert' syndrome where we all must disavow ourselves of any
knowledge, or input; the concepts are just too lofty for our peasant
brains to fathom; and we must believe everything that has been written.
That stuff is just like 'NEWS', can't always be trusted. One has to
'cull'
for truth.

I think you missed the point, and again, I apologize for misleading you.

I understood exactly what you are saying. That does not in anyway change
the basis for my comment, nor the 'value' of my comment [value to me,
anyway].

Given that it is not possible to conduct experiments yourself, what else
can be relied upon? except the results of others, possibly purported,
experiments. Good idea to go find as much 'literature' on the subject as
possible. Kudoes to you.

Though, I was surprised to find that you found a lack of
literature/evidence supporting hot gases searing the lungs causing mortal
injuries. Growing up, I had always been warned about that potential hazard
from house fire, and especially 'body' fire. Giving the warning of mortal
damage to your lungs to justify becoming prone. - as in, keep low to exit,
or roll to put out your body fire. But ALWAYS do not position your head
high up or above 'fire'. Instead you seemed to find evidence that the body
cools those hot gases so fast that it is not worth considering them as a
source of risk.

My thought processes regarding safety around aircraft fire warnings kind
of stopped paying attention to information after what seemed to me to be
the completely asinine instructions of 'take off your shoes in preparation
for a crash' and 'ok, now run through molten aluminum' types of
instructions. Why are you asked to remove your shoes? What basis is that?
After aircraft fuel sprays everywhere and igniting doesn't strike me as a
potential win-win situation. Rather, keeping the strategy of 'move your
bloomin' arse' seems the appropriate attitude to maintain. And of course,
pause/check yourself out, be ready to roll on the ground at a distance,
because you may not even know/realize you're on fire.

From personal experience, 'pain' is one of the FIRST sensations to
disappear [also hearing], especially during duress. Thus, keep in mind to
be 'self aware and self-careful' You may be burning, or missing
extremities/limbs which you might try to rely upon to be functioning for
an emergency egress, so act accordingly. [I don't have the literature
reference to support this, but was always told] This sounds gross, but
don't pull injured people unless absolutely necessary, you might pull them
apart, instead try to coerce them into moving themselves. The human body
has a tendency to not hurt itself and moving under self volition is the
preferred manner of moving an injured person.

And please don't come back suggesting to wake up an unconscious injured
person by 'slapping them silly' just to coerce them into moving themselves.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 11:42:17 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

...snip....
And please don't come back suggesting to wake up an unconscious injured
person by 'slapping them silly' just to coerce them into moving
themselves.

that should have read, "....please, people, don't..."

not pointed towards the OP.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:48:52 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:

So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.

Again I must have not made myself clear.

Clearly I googled and found plenty of articles which said that hydrogen
cyanide is the killer and that the wet rag dissolved it - but that isn't
my point to you in this post.

So, why do they take away our water bottles?

As long as you buy the water from their concessionaires, they don't
take it away.

In article op.xf0owsc22cx0wh@ajm,
RobertMacy wrote:


My thought processes regarding safety around aircraft fire warnings kind
of stopped paying attention to information after what seemed to me to be
the completely asinine instructions of 'take off your shoes in preparation
for a crash' and 'ok, now run through molten aluminum' types of
instructions. Why are you asked to remove your shoes? What basis is that?

The basis of that is that there have been instances where shoes have
punctured the slides, especially high heels. Although I do have to
admit, that may be left over from earlier experience.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:21:09 -0400, krw wrote:

As long as you buy the water from their concessionaires,
they don't take it away.

Seems to me, an emergency kit for an airplane, could include
a wash cloth of a size sufficient to cover both your nose and
mouth, in a plastic bag.

The use model would be that you go through airport security
with the wash cloth dry.

Then, when you get to the gate, you soak it from a nearby
water fountain or bathroom wash sink.

What else would you put in the cabin-fire emergency kit
that makes sense (note that a smoke hood doesn't really
make economic sense, as outlined in the papers reported).