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

On Sun, 18 May 2014 09:20:12 -0400, Robert Green wrote:

I think it's been a generally useful thread where at least some people have
learned about the nature of toxic gases produced in modern fires where
there's a lot of plastic about. It's a good idea to know that now in a fire
the concern is more than just soot and smoke, but inhaling poisonous fumes.
I'm covered because I always have at least one cotton handkerchief with me.
And my bladder.

I agree. And I thank everyone for helping us come to the supported conclusions.

You may notice that I've put the obnoxious kids posting here in my killfile,
so, that helps weed out the garbage (and save us all time & effort).

The chance of a cabin fire is extremely rare, but, the whole question was
answered well, which is why the recommendation for the wet cloth.

Who knows. Perhaps armed with this knowledge, your handkerchief and bladder
might help save your life!

It's always better to know, than to be ignorant.

On Sun, 18 May 2014 06:20:56 -0700, Chuck Duvernay wrote:

The airlines need to install shoulder harnesses & passenger airbags.

Or relocate all the seats to the back of the plane!

On December 1, 1984, NASA & the FAA crashed a Boeing 720 into the Mojave
Desert for their joint report on their "Controlled Impact Demonstration".

Likewise, on April 27, 2012, a Singapore Airlines 727-200 was purposefully
crashed into the Mexican desert for a television documentary first aired
on October 7, 2012 (and numerous times thereafter).

In both tests, about 3/4 of the "dummy" passengers might have survived,
particularly those in the rear seats.

"Ann Marie Brest" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 May 2014 06:20:56 -0700, Chuck Duvernay wrote:

The airlines need to install shoulder harnesses & passenger airbags.

Or relocate all the seats to the back of the plane!

On December 1, 1984, NASA & the FAA crashed a Boeing 720 into the Mojave
Desert for their joint report on their "Controlled Impact Demonstration".

Likewise, on April 27, 2012, a Singapore Airlines 727-200 was purposefully
crashed into the Mexican desert for a television documentary first aired
on October 7, 2012 (and numerous times thereafter).

In both tests, about 3/4 of the "dummy" passengers might have survived,
particularly those in the rear seats.


What was most interesting was how fast the fire moved through the passenger
section. You literally have seconds to escape. It really is important to
remember where the exits are and have a plan on using them.

"Ann Marie Brest" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 May 2014 09:20:12 -0400, Robert Green wrote:

Who knows. Perhaps armed with this knowledge, your handkerchief and
bladder
might help save your life!

I'm going to try to remember to always have one of those little 8oz bottles
of water with me when I fly because I'd rather not have to depend on my
bladder to wet the handkerchief. (-: Eeeeewww

I knew, before this thread, that airplane cabin fires produce toxins but I
didn't know the fumes had large amounts of hydrogen cyanide gas. Some
people might remember that it's the primary component of Zyklon-B which was
used in the Nazi death chambers

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

Hydrogen cyanide was also used for jural homicide in the US for many years,
so it's kind of creepy to realize that our jetliners have the capacity to
turn into lethal flying gas chambers in the event of a serious fire. That
and the TSA "touching my junk" are two more good reasons to take the train
instead!

This thread has helped explain why I believe the missing Malaysia flight
might have suffered a cabin fire (that model plane had a known oxygen supply
hose defect that caused a very serious fire on the ground in another plane).
I have not been able to discover if that plane had the necessary repair work
done to eliminate that threat. In an oxygen-fueled fire, even things not
normally very flammable like Velcro burns. The citations here make it clear
that there's very little time to act in the event of a cabin fire.

If the cabin's filled with cyanide gas, death for everyone would occur in
very short order. The autopilot, since it doesn't breathe, would have flown
the plane until it ran out of fuel. We may never know the truth of what
happened to MH370 but this thread reinforces my belief that a cabin fire
could spread so quick and be so lethal that it could kill everyone on board
in a matter of minutes.

--
Bobby G.

On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Just because someone writing a brief article doesn't specifically
mention something, doesn't constitute science.

Science isn't what you are I guess.
Science is what can be tested & proven.

I'd be glad if you can find a tested/proven article on airplane fires
which says that smoke particles, in and of themselves, constitute a
life-threatening danger in the time it takes to exit a burning airplane.

We found more than a half dozen sources, including scientific papers,
none of which said that the smoke particles were the immediate danger in
cabin fires - nor did we find anything that said a wet cloth filters them
out.

If we are to assume smoke particles are a life-threatening danger, we'd
have to find at least one scientific article that said that the
particulate matter itself could kill us in the time of a cabin fire.

If I read an article that said that, I wouldn't have to *assume*
anything. Relying on a seemingly competently-written article is not
assuming.

Even then, we'd have to know that a wet towel would filter out those
particles.

.....

On Sat, 17 May 2014 17:02:10 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

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.

Okay. What about the rule against bringing your carry-on. I've assume
that is to save time, but I think I'd be willing to go last if I could
take my carry-on bag with me. I'd hug it so it wouldn't touch
anything.

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,

Actually, the rest of what I wrote was more important, but when I wrote
this, I was particularly annoyed by someone trying say what I could
safely assume.

you should stop saying, WE
can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.

Again I must have not made myself clear.

I think you were clear.

Clearly I googled and found plenty of articles

OTOH, I don't know how many articles like this you found. ......

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.

.....but it doesn't matter, because it's not my point either. I think
everyone agrees that cyanide is bad for a person and no one challenges
the idea that a wet rag helps avoid it (helps a lot, apparently). So
let's just drop the subject of cynaide, about which no one disagrees.

Some of those articles I quoted were FAA summaries, others were air-safety
brochures from the likes of Airbus & Boeing, while still others were
peer-reviewed scientific papers (all of which were referenced).

My point, that I must be not saying clearly, is that the alternate
view (which you, and others espouse)

Apparenly I wasn't clear, or you weren't reading carefullly. I, at
least, am not not espousing any alternate point, but I'm taking issue
with the flimsy to non-existent basis for your conclusions.

I'm saying a few things, 1) You draw conclusions for no good reason,
and I'm pointing that out. When something isn't warned against
strongly, you say we can safely assume it's not a health hazard. We
shouldn't be assuming anything. There's no reason we have to reach any
conclusion at all on most of these things. Since we don't know if a
given fire is producing cyanide or not, it might be helpful to think a
wet rag protects against hydrocholoric acid, because that will be one
more reminder of the value of wet rags.

2) Right now I don't remember what 2 was.

3 About smoke inhalation only. You say things like this "but, nobody
has reported any real evidence that "smoke inhalation" (presumably that
means particulate inhalation) is either immediately dangerous, or the
*reason* for the wet cloth." As if only if something is *immediately*
dangerous does it matter. That merely being dangerous is of no
importance. That's nonsense.

And why are you presuming that smoke inhalation means particulate
inhalation? None of the things you have cited have said that
specifically, have they? Trader?

has absolutely zero references
backing it up.

Trader says otherwise. He quoted them, from articles you posted and
articles he found. I didnt' read the whole articles. I'm not very
interested in the topic. I am interested in why you draw conclusions for
no good reason, and why you think if something isn't harmful
immediately, it's not harmful enough to worry about.

Again, I hope I am being clear here. I'm not saying the points that you
and others espouse are wrong. I'm just saying that not one single paper
has been provided in support of that alternate view.

I don't care. My point was never to prove any alternate view. It was
to say that you jumped to conclusions to support your view. The
exception was smoke inhalation and no one but you needs a research paper
to know that smoke inhalation kills people. It's in the newspaper every
week, and for the entire USA, every day.

I think it's unfortunate that I said "we can safely assume" since
you keep thinking that I'm assuming something that you don't assume.

It wasn't a matter of fortune. It was a mistake on your part. So stop
trying to speak in the name of others. If you said it when it was
true, you might get away with it, but you say it when even your should
not be assuming what you assume and when you certainly can't do it
safely.

Again, trying to be very clear about what my point is, it's simply
that nobody yet has provided a single reference that backs up the
alternate view.

Again, trying to be clear about what my point is, I DON"T CARE about any
alternate view. I care, for some reason, that you draw conclusions for
the wrong reasons.

Whether we can safely assume anything about that alternate view
seems to be your point

Find a place where I said anything supportive of any alternate view,
except that smoke inhalation can kill you. That 's so damn obvious to
everyone but you I had to mention it.

- but it's not mine. My point is that the
alternative view is not supported by any facts which have been
presented in this thread.

You keep saying that. Trader says otherwise. You ignore him when he
says otherwise. When he gives quotes you don't try to refute the
meaning he attributes to those quotes. So you look like you can't be
relied on to examine things closely. I don't care enough to go read
his quotes in context, but you sure seem to. Yet you don't reply to his
citations.

Again, to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying that those facts
don't exist. I'm just saying NOBODY can find a paper which

Now you've exaggerated from nobody has found to nobody CAN find. You
shouldn't make statements like this. They make you look like a dummy
or a liar. (Have you worked in politics?) . I haven't spent any time
looking, and I haven't claimed to look, so you have no basis to say I
can't find something. Plus trader says he has found such things and
you ignore his statements to that effect.

supports those facts.

I apologize for saying 'we can safely assume' because that sentence
seems to throw people into a defensive mode.

Claiming someone is in a defensive mode is a poplular method for trying
to put them in a defensive mode. We're just setting the record
straight and trying to keep you from making a false statement.

Remove that and
replace it with something like "I have not seen any references
which back up the view espoused"

That woudl be false. WRT what I've written, you have seen such
refrences. People are frequently reported to have died of smoke
inhalation. These reports come from pathologists and coroners all
over the country. Given the hot potato that some are trying to make
out of Ambassador Stevens's death, do you think the sources that say his
death was from smoke inhalation were not trying to be accurate? Does
anyone say his death was not from smoke inhalation?

Trader has more reasons why the statement above would be false.

or something like that which
simply says that the opinion has been stated but not backed up
with anything concrete.

Again false.

But at least you're not trying to drag me into agreeing with you when
you don't use "we" or "us", and I will appreciate that if you continue
to do so.

So, I only concluded what I could conclude from the papers
which I found, and referenced.

Is my point clear yet? (If not, I apologize.)

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:54:50 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

As others have said, they focused on the main cause of deaths in fires
and that is the gases. That doesn't mean that particles are not also
dangerous and life threatening.

Nothing I found, so far, says that the particles are life
threatening.

The HCN gas can kill you in a couple of minutes, for example.

There was one reference which did say the wet cloth trapped particulate
matter:
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/8abb4621...fcc220e6f.html

So, we can safetly assume that a wet cloth does trap particles,
but, nobody has reported any real evidence that "smoke inhalation"
(presumably that means particulate inhalation) is either immediately
dangerous, or the *reason* for the wet cloth.

News reports of people who died from smoke inhalation, incuding
Ambassador Stevens, certainly count as real evidence.

I reed and hear such reports frequently but I'm not going to take the
time to find any now. If you want to read some, search the web. There
are plenty.


Based on the evidence repoted to date, the reason for the wet rag
seems to be to trap water soluble gases, of which HCN is the most
dangerous in a cabin fire (according to all the references).

Why do you worry only about the most dangerous gas? If 3 people mug
you, and one has a .45 caliber gun, another a rifle, and the third a
Derringer, with two small bullets, and you can stop the guy with the
rifle from shooting you, will you happily let the other two guys shoot
you?

On Sat, 17 May 2014 20:02:50 -0400, micky
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 16:09:22 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 02:06:44 -0400, micky wrote:

Why do you think all that
matters is if something is *immediately* dangerous?

You're joking right?

This line made me really angry.

You didn't answer the question. What's wrong with you?

Read trader for details.

We're talking about an airplane crash cabin fire.

And, you're saying all our conclusions are wrong because your

All *YOUR* conclusions. Not ours. No one here has agreed with your
nonsense.

aunt got cancer 30 years after moving downwind from a factory?

I apologize, but I don't get the connection at all.

And this 3-line sentence made me angrier. Snipping so readers could't
understand my point. And because you were making light of the death
of a woman I cared about.

If you don't see the connection, you're blind, or intentionally blind,
or lying, or stupid.

To try to make up for what Ms. Brest had snipped and to make my previous
post more clear: If you don't see the connection between my
brother's aunt's death because of where she lived but years after she
moved downwind from a steel plant and my ridiculing your insistence that
it only matters if something is *immediately* dangerous, you're blind,
or intentionally blind, or lying, or stupid.

She didn't want to die, and her family didn't want her to die from
mesothelioma, at all. Of course it didnt' happen immediately. It never
does with asbestos.

Maybe health insurance shouldn't pay expenses of someone who doesn't get
sick immediately? Maybe life insurance shouldn't pay when someone dies,
but not immediately. Heck, maybe we shouldn't even bury the people who
don't die immediately after the cause of their death. Because
immediate danger and death is all that matters, it seems, to you. None
of these is more stupid than your attitude.

Maybe when you're dying from some long term poison, you'll understand
it, but until you do, you're stupid.

On Mon, 19 May 2014 07:38:02 -0400, micky
wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Just because someone writing a brief article doesn't specifically
mention something, doesn't constitute science.

Science isn't what you are I guess.
Science is what can be tested & proven.

I'd be glad if you can find a tested/proven article on airplane fires
which says that smoke particles, in and of themselves, constitute a
life-threatening danger in the time it takes to exit a burning airplane.

We found more than a half dozen sources, including scientific papers,
none of which said that the smoke particles were the immediate danger in
cabin fires - nor did we find anything that said a wet cloth filters them
out.

If we are to assume smoke particles are a life-threatening danger, we'd
have to find at least one scientific article that said that the
particulate matter itself could kill us in the time of a cabin fire.

If I read an article that said that, I wouldn't have to *assume*
anything. Relying on a seemingly competently-written article is not
assuming.

OTOH, if we are going to *assume* smoke particles are a life-threatening
danger, we don't need to read anything. We've already assumed it.

Even then, we'd have to know that a wet towel would filter out those
particles.

....