Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on February 09, 2006, 10:39:05 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20060209/ts_nm/bush_plot_dc_2
Does anyone here think it's still possible to hijack a plane in this country?
-
I seriously doubt anyone could hijack a plane in the US anymore. :)
-
United 911 heavy, freecall 121.5, squawk 7500, have a nice day! :cool:
-
If they used women hi-jackers beatle could play a roll in putting the smack down on them.
-
Dunno. Good question. Sure hope not. I'm glad those guys in the article were found out and stopped.
Les
-
They know were fools.... if they push to far they will fool with "Boom in the desert"
TJ
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
If they used women hi-jackers beatle could play a roll in putting the smack down on them.
Z I N G ! :rofl
-
Originally posted by Sandman
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20060209/ts_nm/bush_plot_dc_2
Does anyone here think it's still possible to hijack a plane in this country?
reading the story, it sounds like the flight was not going to originate in the US, along with the asian operatives, it sounds like a plane from China or something.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
If they used women hi-jackers beatle could play a roll in putting the smack down on them.
What a damn shame, can't even beat your old-lady anymore without people throwing it back in your face. What kind of country have we become?!
Ok, that was pretty damn funny.
-
Someone call an ambulance and take this man to the burn ward!
:rofl
-
The plot was apparently dreamt up by Khalid Sheik Mohammed in October 2001 and intended to follow on the successes of the earlier hijacking. As I recall, this was before it had become widely known that the flight 93 passengers had fought to take back the airplane after they realized the hijackers were planning to fly it into a building. At that time their scenarios still probably envisaged the passengers being a bunch of docile sheep who wouldn't fight to stop hijackers.
Interestingly enough, Richard Reid was successfull in "walking" a pair of bomb-laden shoes onto a AA flight in December of 2001, so both the use of non-Arab muslims and the getting the bombs on board part of the plan would have worked at the time. The problem, as Reid found, was that passengers are no longer inclined to allow you to set fuses coming out of your shoes alight.
Had Reid been quicker on the draw and seated next to a pair of sleeping geriatrics, things might have gone differently however.
-
Originally posted by texace
Someone call an ambulance and take this man to the burn ward!
:rofl
I question the use of the term "man" in this case here Texace. Seems inapropriate..........
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Interestingly enough, Richard Reid was successfull in "walking" a pair of bomb-laden shoes onto a AA flight in December of 2001, so both the use of non-Arab muslims and the getting the bombs on board part of the plan would have worked at the time.
So after this statement above, you admit that quote:
Now since we are forbidden to act on what we know about the likely religious and ethnic profile of potential Islamic terrorists, we are forced to screen every passenger. Now because the same terrorists have attempted to use trucks, you get screened and checked instead of just the likely terrorists.
Wouldn't have worked in the case of Reid and the LA plot. That profiling would not have stopped the attempt.
My point is, if we profiled, we'd have been looking the wrong direction, we would have given ourselves a false sense of security, and we wouldn't have stopped the attempt because our adversery had already made the adjustment to his tactics.
El Al screens every passenger and has found and stopped bombing attempts because of this. From people who had no idea they were being used to transport bombs onto planes (a young jewish women being used by her "boyfriend" to carry a bomb unwittingly onto a plane. The bomb was hidden in a radio.)
We just have to decide if El Al's very lengthy process is worth the trouble. Up till now, we have decided it is not. And of course El Al's doesn't carry near the passenger load as our system does.
When I flew in and out of Sri Lanka, every passenger went through a very intense screening process as well. While I felt apprehension of the why I had to go through this process, I felt safer because of the thoroughness of the process.
-
Does this mean we can now deny liberties cause we got us a thwart. Is a thwart equal to one right? What exactly is the proper 'thwart to rights' ratio anyway?
-
Oy Vey. :rolleyes:
-
Hi Stringer,
Originally posted by Stringer
So after this statement above, you admit that quote:
Wouldn't have worked in the case of Reid and the LA plot. That profiling would not have stopped the attempt.
Not at all, I said "we are forbidden to act on what we know about the likely religious and ethnic profile of potential Islamic terrorists". Even a cursory background check of Richard Reid, or the Southeast Asians that AQ hoped to use would have revealed that they were Muslims.
To date, no Muslim Brotherhood organization has recruited and trained a non-Muslim (lets say a Methodist for instance) to carry out a Martyrdom attack. It would be rather counterproductive and pointless: "You see Fred we want you to carry out a suicide attack in the name of Islam aimed ultimately at moving us closer to the subjugation of all the world under one unified caliphate, ruled by Sharia law, and by the way as a non-Muslim Ape you will not enter into paradise with the rest of the Martyrs, but rather go straight to Hell. Good Luck."
So no, while we know that the common link between Zarqawi, Reid, Lindh, Bin-Laden, Malvo, Hasan Akbar, Muriel Degauque, is not race or country or politics, but Islam, we are not allowed to act on that information.
Stringer, I accept the fact that we will all have to be inconvenienced because we in the West will never be able to bring ourselves to answer the relatively simple question, "what do all Islamic terrorists have in common?"
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon,
I think all terrorist's should be wiped off the map, including the IRA ones (I'm christian, btw).
But I will not accept being asked what my religious belief is when boarding an airplane, and have that be a determining factor as to whether I board or not. Today it is the Muslim flavor of choice, tomorrow it could be a different religion.
But Seagoon, forget about adding Islamic...just ask, what do all terrorists have in common. Remember not all Muslims belong to the same sect, and as demonstrated on this very board not everyone can even correctly identify those that are Muslim and those that are not (I'm referring to the Haji comment made in another thread). That's what you are going to get. Folks going after Hindu's because they are too stupid to know the difference. So forget about discerning the different Muslim Sects. Since the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, wouldn't make more sense to go after Saudi nationals?
I honestly hope that we in the west never take action on the rights of individuals based upon their religion (that happened to some 6 million people not too long ago). You will play into their hands if you do, and you will become that which you hope to erradicate.
I just struggle with the notion that in order to protect our values and rights, we are willing to trample on or destroy them.
As a man of faith and a preacher, are you seriously advocating prejudice based on one's religious faith?
-
Well, if christians suddenly started attacking major centers of business all across europe, I wouldn't get pissed if I get checked (i'm a sorta christian) when I'm flying in europe.
I would know that the christians are causing the problems, and that since I'm christian, I *SHOULD* be profiled into being a problem. Now, since I am clean, they wouldn't find anything, but I wouldn't even think twice if they did profile against me.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Does anyone here think it's still possible to hijack a plane in this country?
Because the cockpit door is locked it makes it impossible? We should apply this technology to the car theft problem.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Because the cockpit door is locked it makes it impossible?
No. Death is a given. Nothing left to lose by resisting the hijackers.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
If they used women hi-jackers beatle could play a roll in putting the smack down on them.
...ouch...
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I honestly hope that we in the west never take action on the rights of individuals based upon their religion
We're doing that already, unfortunately. babtist church burnings, for one small example.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
If they used women hi-jackers beatle could play a roll in putting the smack down on them.
That was stone cold! Funny, but stone cold! :rofl
-
Hi Stringer,
I really wish I had more time to discuss this issue, because I think it really exposes the problems with the reigning philosophical paradigm of our culture, relativism and the problems that occur when we come into conflict with a culture that still believes in absolutes. Unfortunately, I'm insanely busy, so all I have time for is the following lame reply...
Originally posted by Stringer
Seagoon,
I think all terrorist's should be wiped off the map, including the IRA ones (I'm christian, btw).
Stringer, that might work if there were a fixed number of terrorists whom we could get to. That isn't the case however.
Terrorism is not an end in and of itself. Terrorism is the violent application of a particular ideology. The ideology is central, terrorism is viewed as a tool in furthering the aims of the ideology the terrorist confesses. So for the Muslim terrorist, Islam is central, Jihad is just a key to realizing the ultimate aims of Islam. So even if we could kill all the presently active terrorists, that wouldn't end the world problem of terrorism.
As the men of my congregation have found, you can kill any number of Taliban in Afghanistan, the problem is more are being churned out every day as boys leave the Madrassas in Pakistan and cross the border to join the Taliban (which literally means 'student of Islam') in Afghanistan. You'd have to wipe out that which promulgates the ideology in Pakistan, and then replace it with a winsome alternative, in order to get rid of the Terrorists in Afghanistan, and we certainly aren't allowed to go after Pakistani Imams or replace Islam with a religion that eschews and condemns the use of Jihad. So we aren't going to run out of Jihadis, especially when one considers that being killed in the war against the infidels is a victory for them and something they are actively pursuing. Killing them isn't the disincentive that it would be to you or me. Quite the opposite.
But I will not accept being asked what my religious belief is when boarding an airplane, and have that be a determining factor as to whether I board or not. Today it is the Muslim flavor of choice, tomorrow it could be a different religion.
[snip]
As a man of faith and a preacher, are you seriously advocating prejudice based on one's religious faith?
You see here is where the relativism issue really becomes a stumbling block. For you and probably most other Westerners, religion is a relative issue, it is not something that can be "true" or "false" and certainly we are militantly committed as a society to the idea that all religions must be viewed as equal. In fact one of the many reasons I irritate so many people on this board is I am an absolutist who believes that religions should be judged ultimately on the veracity of both their truth claims and the fruit that the most authentic living out of that religion produces.
Interestingly enough, the members of this board make those distinctions daily about something they consider far more important (and I consider far less important) namely political and economic systems. Members of the board have no problems labeling Communism or Capitalism, Democracy or Socialism, and their associated parties wrong or right, good or bad, unjust or stupid, and judging them according to their claims and their fruit.
Now that practice of discernment isn't necessarily wrong. It would have been ridiculous for instance for us to have concluded "all political systems are the same and must be respected" and concluded that by that standard whether you were a Democrat or a Nazi didn't matter and attempted to conduct the fight the Second World War on that basis. Oh we definitely have a problem with the Germans who are attacking us, but since Nazism is a political viewpoint and must be respected, we can't have a problem with that. So we'll leave the Nazi school masters, scientists, and politicians in place and just attempt to wipe out their fighting men. Clearly that wouldn't have worked.
Unfortunately we are fighting "the war on terror" on exactly that basis and when we are reminded that "its the ideology, stupid" by events like the umma (not terrorists) throughout the Muslim world rising up and acting violently in "defense" of their ideology and threatening to behead and burn if their religion isn't given accorded a status no other religion enjoys in the West, we either twiddle our thumbs and refuse to draw any conclusions or worse yet cave in and give them "most favored religion" treatment.
As a Christian, I am called to discernment, I am told by Christ regarding how to discern a false prophet "You will know them by their fruits" I am also called upon to consider their truth claims. We have had almost 1400 years to judge the fruit of the teaching of Muhammed and you may disagree with me, but I don't think they've been good in any sense. I've also had time to analyze and judge their truth claims, and aside from the fact that the claims of Christ and the claims of Muhammad are irreconcilable, I don't believe them to be true or accurate. I certainly am not in favor of the society that the Quran and Sharia are seek to establish and do not want that to be the society my children have to live in, either as Dhimmis or worse as converts.
- SEAGOON
-
I'm sorry but "I'm insanely busy" followed by 8 paragraphs of text made me chuckle.
but that's just me.
-
I don't know why we are talking about this. Profiling is effective. Even when countermeasures are taken to defeat profiling - there are still many factors to base the profiling on, including behavior, for example. It's always been used and it always will be.
Public acceptance of profiling will depend on how imminent is the danger they percieve.
I will be the first to admit that profiling is often unfair to some innocent people. The purpose is for the greater good and safety of the most people - balanced against the inconvenience of a few people.
We saw in NYC when they had the last terrorism intel alert, how quickly the police dropped the stupidity of politically correct "random" searches.
When there is limited time, limited resources, and sufficient threat, even citizens will be profiling.
Edited to add: I don't want this to be confused with any discussions about police racial profiling in routine law enforcement. I'm talking about profiling specifically related to terrorism.
-
profiling makes good sense to me
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Does this mean we can now deny liberties cause we got us a thwart. Is a thwart equal to one right? What exactly is the proper 'thwart to rights' ratio anyway?
The fact that this wasn't used during the '04 election raises more than a few eyebrows.
A question was asked of Scotty at the press conference today to the effect of:
"is there something missing from the L.A. bombing story? The President said that someone was going to hijack a plane with a shoe bomb to fly it into a building. A shoe bomb implies that he would blow up the plane. How would he fly it into the building then?"
Scotty stumbled and abruptly ended the press conference.
-
Yes, they think we are fools. They think we are subhuman, and beneath them. You uh, just now getting that, or what?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
No. Death is a given. Nothing left to lose by resisting the hijackers.
Resisting a hijack is reactionary. When the passengers of flight 93 resisted, the airliner was already hijacked.
Some psycho brings something onboard that kills everybody but him, he could successfully hijack with no resistance.
I would prefer preempting a hijack with appropriate intel so the food on the flight is my only gripe.
-
Religious profiling making us safe...
Airport Security: What religion are you?
Habib the suicide bomber: ...Christian.
Airport Security: Okay, go on through.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
A question was asked of Scotty at the press conference today to the effect of:
"is there something missing from the L.A. bombing story? The President said that someone was going to hijack a plane with a shoe bomb to fly it into a building. A shoe bomb implies that he would blow up the plane. How would he fly it into the building then?"
The story I heard was that they intended to use the shoe bombs to penetrate the cockpit door.
-
Betcha people who answer Jedi are persecuted!
-
Yeah, I think it would be possible to hijack a plane in this country.
I do not, however, think you could do it the way they did it last time.
-
Do ya think waving your shoe at the cockpit would do it?
-
No. Waving your hankie probably wouldn't do it either.
OTOH, there might be a place for a Reid-type "shoe bomb" in such a scenario, although I can think of other ways.
-
Why is this news now? It's been quite a while since they "thwarted" these attacks.
Approval rating dipped too far?
-
Im sure something will happen within the next 5 years or so. Never say never. Whether or not this is true wtf knows.
-
"Why is this news now?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/02/09/BL2006020901085.html
-
"Justify"? That's what's wrong with congress these days and, of course, the media.
Congress feels there's wrong and right reasons for illegal wiretaps. Results speak louder than words. Congress isn't, and hasn't argued it simply on the grounds of the constitution. That would make it more difficult to justify the changes they're going to have to make so that their results are justified.
The sad thing is that most people think this is a party based mentality.
-
After 911 I suggested that we resart the airmarshall program again big time and at the same time we make the pilots cabin doors heavier and arm the pilots.
I would prefer that passangers with cc permits and the training be allowed to be armed but..
In any case.. the guns made us safe from skyjacking.. nothing will make us safe from bombing or getting shot down.
My guess is that the next skyjacking will be by someone getting on the pilots frequency and telling him that they have one if his loved ones hostage and will kill them if he doesn't do as he is told.
they (bank robbers)did it when time locks in banks started being popular.. Desperate people will allways find a way.
But.... I'm with MT.... No more loss of rights. They have allready made it so that flying is not worth it to me.
The thought of Americans in their stocking feet being searched makes me gag.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
They have allready made it so that flying is not worth it to me.
Bah, come on Lazs - that's a defeatist attitude. If we all took that stance, it would be victory to the terrorists.
I'm going to keep flying. I may get captured, I may get killed, the tail might fall off my plane, or the roof might peel off. Who knows. But I'm not going to quiver under my bunk over it. The thought of Americans in their stocking feet being searched makes me gag.
Me too! :rofl
-
i don't know about arming pilots with guns..maybe tazers or something
-
Originally posted by Sandman
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20060209/ts_nm/bush_plot_dc_2
Does anyone here think it's still possible to hijack a plane in this country?
Whats funny is recently the left was whining that what we're doing to prevent airline terrorism was not enough! Now here I see you saying "do you still believe its possible?
Well what is it? Are we doing a sufficient job in regards to security at the airport or not? Make up your minds! (not you, Sandy...the left in general)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whats funny is recently the left was whining that what we're doing to prevent airline terrorism was not enough!
Please provide some evidence.... . I know this is asking a lot.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
i don't know about arming pilots with guns..maybe tazers or something
http://kwc.org/blog/archives/2004/2004-01-18.mythbusters_explosive_decompression.html
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
i don't know about arming pilots with guns..maybe tazers or something
What's not to know about it? You trust a pilot to pilot you through the stratosphere at 600mph, but you don't trust 'em to repsonsibly use a gun?
-
Was worried about a bullet(or bullets) causing explosive decompression in a plane that is at 44k alt with a cabin pressure of 8000'...that's all
-
Had Bush been as Machiavellian* as the left believes he is, then he actually would have let some of the Al Qaeda attempts through the security grid rather than systematically shutting them down. This would have had the added benefit of reminding the American people that they really are at war. As it is, too many media cycles have passed since 9/11 and it all seems like a bad dream we once had. As it is, we've actually passed on to the point of believing that because the Jihadis haven't succeeded in striking the US again, that they aren't really trying. In that sense the government is being hamstrung by their own success.
- SEAGOON
* That's the odd thing, thing, the left alternates between portraying Bush as Robber Baron, Machiavelli, Hitler, Jerry Fallwell, Tony Montana, George Wallace, J. Edgar Hoover, and Gomer Pyle. Which makes for an interesting, but self-contradictory composite.
-
If you aim and hit what you're aiming at, and use the proper expanding ammunition, you don't have to worry about decompression. ;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Please provide some evidence.... . I know this is asking a lot.
This was a topic of most talking heads about 2 years ago. The left kept saying bush was not doing enough and breaches were quite common.
Here is a couple articles:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5941454/
Here's one Federal agency that really knows its stuff: the Secret Service. Why? Rigorous screening, training, and continuity. Rehearsal, grooming, constant monitoring. All the things that we don't have in the crapshoot that is airport security today...
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=1903
Many articles on this here:
http://www.union-network.org/uniproperty.nsf/5afe972c01882f38c1256acb003d1ae1/aebc1e28ee486658c1256ad1004d5cc9?OpenDocument
-
OK, you gave me one MSNBC article that said we needed more bomb sniffers, (2 years old), one op-ed piece that says the Secret Service would do a better job than the TSA. duh! And a slew of articles about airlines from September 2001.
funny, but hardly makes your point.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
OK, you gave me one MSNBC article that said we needed more bomb sniffers, (2 years old), one op-ed piece that says the Secret Service would do a better job than the TSA. duh! And a slew of articles about airlines from September 2001.
funny, but hardly makes your point.
I could never give you enough to be satisfied, MT. Tough to argue a point when ones head is in the sand.
-
Somebody's head is in the sand, it ain't mine.
I’m getting real tired of this "Left" BS. The left said this, the left said that, the left wants this or even the left is out to push that!
What a load of crap. This is the head numbing propaganda that the RIGHT WING MEDIA has brought down on this Country. Too many of you have swallowed this drivel hook line and sinker and are nibbling your way up the line to chew on the rod.
Liberal is bad... how sad.
I promise from here on out to never write "the right" as if it were an entity. I'm tired of this stupidity and am going to do my part to stop it. You want to debate an issue, go for it. You want to create a boogie man and call him "the left" to try and create a point... I'm calling it BS.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You want to create a boogie man and call him "the left" to try and create a point... I'm calling it BS.
All you on the left are the same.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
All you on the left are the same.
hehe
-
beet... I am not sure that you got my point. The terrorists didn't beat me... they beat the airlines. I was never afraid to fly.... still not. What I am is...
I am sick of being treated like a criminal when all I want to do is travel. I refuse to be searched and delayed and whatever else they think of.. It just isn't worth it.
The terrorists didn't do this to me.... the government and the airlines did.
If they (the government and airlines)would have acted like men from the start instead of PC wussies... we woulda had armed pilots and airmarshalls and we woulda never even had 911. Flying was never all that enjoyable but now.... it is an enormous drag.
lazs
-
Lazs - yes I know the security procedures are tedious. And for local journeys (top half of France, Holland, Belgium) I'd rather just take the car on a ferry, or through the EuroTunnel - not really an option when travelling to tiny little islands off the coast of Africa, as I did last week.
Sirloin - I think the weapons carried by the sky marshalls/US pilots are low velocity weapons, designed not to penetrate the aircraft's outer skin. I found this article in today's paper: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/10/walq10.xml
In addition, some American pilots now have side-arms and flights can also carry sky marshals, who are armed with low-velocity weapons to avoid piercing an aircraft's outer skin.
-
Any idiot knows you can blow a hole in an airliner with a 44 Magnum and not suffer explosive decompression. IF they are carrying reduced power loads, it is to avoid overpenetrating their target and killing an innocent passenger behind the target. The biggest thing any air marshall is likely to carry is a 45ACP, same for pilots. Dirty Harry retired, no one carries a big hogleg anymore. Hell, I never carried anything bigger than a 357 Magnum in any agency I worked for, and never a bigger backup than a 45ACP. Even one of the VERY hot loads I hunt with would not cause explosive decompression in an airliner.
-
Anyone watch "Mythbusters" recently? They did just that, pumped up a "surplus" DC-10 and shot holes in it...fuselage, window...no explaosive decompression. They even blew the window out with det cord.
Now, when they stuck a pound of semtex on the wall...that was different :)
-
I heard about the mythbusters show. They did a poor simulation, IMO. The pressure differential between the cabin and atmosphere would pale in comparison to the vacuum created by rushing air past a small hole at 500mph.
-
TY Beetle
:aok
-
It's funny. Every year in the sim I practiced the explosive decompression procedure. Usually the simulation was of a cabin window blowing out.
The procedure was to descend as rapidly as possible to 10K (because the pax don't require oxygen at 10k).
Somehow somebody forgot to tell us we'd all instantly die and get sucked out into the atmosphere if a window blew out. We know that's true now because Hollywood has showed us all exactly how it would happen so many times.
You do realize the cabin already has a big hole in right? Bigger than a cabin window? It's called the outflow valve and it modulates in flight to maintain the selected pressure.
Wonder how come everyone and everything doesn't get sucked out the outflow valve.
-
Because there's a valve?
I don't recall seeing anything where everyone would be sucked through a small hole, but there is definately such a thing as explosive decompression. Anyone that's worked with any kind of sub-atmospheric chamber knows this.
Would everyone be sucked out? Nope. Could worse damage occur because of the forces of differential pressure combined with a venturi vacuum effect? Yes.
Mythbusters concluded the violent effect was a myth because they pressurized an airplane that was sitting on the ground and then punched a small hole in it. I still think this test was flawed since it left out a large number of factors that could also contribute to more violent reactions. That's not saying they would or would not occur, but mythbusters simply could not duplicate them.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I heard about the mythbusters show. They did a poor simulation, IMO. The pressure differential between the cabin and atmosphere would pale in comparison to the vacuum created by rushing air past a small hole at 500mph.
You need to reexaming your figures. A vacuum is a vacuum is a vacuum. They simulated it with an 8 psi differential. Vacuum is a 14psi differential from one standard atmosphere, so there's not that much of a difference.
-
BTW... that's not implying that a bullet hole would provide anything near enough of an area for anyone to be sucked out... or even for there to be more structural damage. I do believe that very idea is silly.
-
All in the know, did the following happen according to this story?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811
This one we've all seen photos of :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Flight_243
One results in rows being sucked out, one doesn't.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You need to reexaming your figures. A vacuum is a vacuum is a vacuum. They simulated it with an 8 psi differential. Vacuum is a 14psi differential from one standard atmosphere, so there's not that much of a difference.
You don't work with high vacuum... do you? Say in the <1 mtorr range?
-
One other thing about vacuum... it doesn't pull anything out of a chamber other than air and anything the air might be carrying. The initial rush of air would have force, but that force would reside quite quickly. That is, unless, it was enough vacuum to start pulling things out of your body.
-
you don't really have to worry about decompression if they just arm the pilots with combat knives they just stab the terrorist and besides I thought they reinforced the cockpit doors of all aircraft since 9-11
-
Originally posted by NattyIced
All in the know, did the following happen according to this story?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811
This one we've all seen photos of :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Flight_243
One results in rows being sucked out, one doesn't.
NEITHER of those is even REMOTELY similar to a bullet hole, or multiple bullet holes, in the fuselage.
The first was an improperly latched CARGO DOOR. When you can get my 44 Magnum to open a hole in the side of a Boeing airliner the size of a cargo door, let me know, because I'm going to go hunt Bradley APC's and Abrahms M1 tanks with my Dan Wesson 44 Magnum. I'll put it to you like this, I shoot the hottest loads any revolver would take, and they'll make a hole about 0.430" in diameter when shot into the skin of an airliner. MAYBE about 0.600" IF it hits a brace or a gusset. And we're talking a 180 grain jacketed hollow cavity 0.430" diameter bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1800 FPS . Even the 300 grain bullets, hard cast lead or jacketed, at a velocity of 1350 FPS, which will penetrate 3/16" steel, will only make holes less than 0.600" in diameter when shot through the skin of an airliner.
The second incident you cite was a major stress crack failure in the structure of the cabin. Meaning the framework fatigued until a large crack formed. Again, FAR more damage than ANY handgun could do, even the new S&W 500, or a 500 Linebaugh Maximum. Handgun bullets punch neat little holes in aluminum skin, even when passing through two layers.
You simply cannot create explosive decompression with anything you can fire out of a handgun, and most rifles won't do it either. I don't know if any handgun, rifle, or shotgun could cause explosive decompression.
-
Many years ago, I read of an in flight fatality which occurred somewhere over the desert area of Arizona. One of the aircraft's engines malfunctioned in such a way that a piece of metal from the engine was thrown off and made impact with one of the windows, which broke instantly. The passenger seated next to the window was sucked out, even though he'd been wearing his seatbelt. AFAIK, his body was never found.
-
I believe the outflow valve closes at 8,000ft and maintains that pressure all the way up...and upon touchdown there is a squat switch that opens the outflow valve to ensure pressure equalization on landing.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The procedure was to descend as rapidly as possible to 10K (because the pax don't require oxygen at 10k).
Is that value true for smokers as well as nonsmokers?
-
mt... if I were a lefty I wouldn't want people to talk about lefties either.... much better that they be allowed to do their work in secret. If people know about it then well.... they just wouldn't understand.
Airlines want my bussines then they can start treating me like I am the one paying them. Till then.... I live on a huge continent.
lazs
-
(http://www.learntofly.de/bre_t3/2_werft_ham/DSC04387.JPG)
That's an outflow valve; roughly the size of a cabin window.
It almost never should fully close in flight, as the differential pressure is what keeps the air flowing thru the cabin and bag bins and out the valve. At higher altitudes it does modulate towards the closed position but unless you lose a bleed air source (less air available coming in) it shouldn't fully close.
In general, at all certificated altitudes, there is enough "supply" air coming in off the engines and through the air cycle machines (think "air conditioners") to overpressurize the aircraft. This valve modulates open and close to maintain a desired psi differential, usually somewhere around 8 psi in the upper range of normal cruise altitudes.
Wind rushes by this big hole at 500+ mph. Nothing gets sucked out except cabin air.
If you lost a cabin window, this valve would rather quickly modulate full closed. You might not be able to maintain cabin pressure but OTOH, it isn't necessarily the horrendous explosive decompression that Hollywood likes to portray with people blowing horizontally in the wind, hanging on to a seat belt strap.
-
See Rule #4
-
BTW toad... we had a fatal accident at the base where I was located because a co-pilot did not latch his gullwing hatch. Once they hit a certain speed, a vacuum was generated in the cabin sufficient enough to tear all of the pages out of the TO they had and fligh half of it out of the cockpit and the rest of the pages all over the inside of the cockpit. As the plan changed angle, it moved from a vacuum to a direct force and the wind slammed the cockpit down on the copilots hand.
Hell... drive down the road with the back window of your truck open and watch what happens to papers on the floor... then turn your fans on inside and watch what happens to them.
Never underestimate the power of the venturi.
-
One other thing toad... you seem to be hung up on the "sucked through a small hole" syndrome here. I'm not advocating that at all. I am saying that a situation that can cause a rapid depressurization will lead to a more violent reaction due to the forces involved. More things could give way, **** will be pulled out the opening.
Hell, look at the link in this thread. A stewardess was sucked up and then plugged a crack in the fuselage until it finally tore open and she traveled through the opening. How do you figure that is possible? Not just that she was sucked up off of her feet, but that she then stopped at the opening? Small enough to stop her, enough force to lift her. The reason it's just one is because only one person was in the highest wind rush area generated by the pressure differential. Even the passengers in the seat would be protected (since 1st class all wind would be coming from behind).
It's not even remotely common occurance because in the past it has relied on aircraft structural failure to occur simply as an act of fatigue. But it's far from being impossible, and the risk of it being catastrophic are very real.
An airplain can have leaks and fly just fine. As long as they can meet the monitored pressures. It only matters if those leaks are something that can develop into something worse. Systems and structures are designed to prevent that from happening, but they aren't the absolute on the subject and throwing variables into the equation is the surest way to demonstrate that.
-
And I don't think you fully appreciate how cabin pressurization works.
A pistol bullet hole or even losing a window isn't a Hollywood catastrophe.
The amount of "input" air is variable through bleed valves. The amount of "output" air is regulated and variable too. The system is designed to compensate for fluctuations in both input and output.
Now, can you lose a piece or create a hole big enough to overcome the system's ability to cope? Yes, you can.
OTOH, the public's apparent belief that a stray round through the fuselage, just making a hole and hitting no vital lines/cables/etc. can bring down an airliner is based in Hollywood fiction.
Crack in the fuselage? I flew an L-1011 that had a crack about 10 inches long that was about a finger wide, ~ 1". Big crack. It was in the lower galley area, within the pressure hull. Guess what....nothing unusual was noted. There was ONE reason and ONE reason alone it was found. The Captain was a smoker and smoking had just been banned on board. It was his habit to go down into the lower galley near the oven exhaust fans and have a smoke on the long 4 hours flights. This time, he notice his smoke was drifting away from the fans, followed it and saw daylight through the hull. The aircraft maintained pressurization perfectly. It was determined that the aircraft had flown about a week like that when the catering driver that put the hole in the hull finally 'fessed up.
Now if you have a big enough hole...and we're talking several square feet or better.... and it happens suddenly, you'd get an explosive decompression that might move things around. However, it doesn't last long, as the pressure will equalize pretty quickly at 8 psi differential or less.
That is designed to equalize pressure. The pressure in the cabin would be much higher if it weren't functioning.
[/b]
Which is why there are both positive and negative pressure relief valves on an aircraft.
Sucking pages out of a tech order doesn't take all that much force. I lost a page out of a T-38 checklist binder while taxing with the canopy open in a light crosswind; of course the page was loose to begin with.
I am saying that a situation that can cause a rapid depressurization will lead to a more violent reaction due to the forces involved. More things could give way, **** will be pulled out the opening.
[/b]
I guess if you weren't set on
Originally posted by MiniD:
being stupid
[/b]
and weren't
Originally posted by MiniD: chosing to be about as ignorant as I've seen you
[/b]
you'd realize we're saying pretty much the same thing.
A stray bullet or two going through the cabin wall is no big deal. OTOH, a bomb or some other highly explosive device could cause a serious problem with the aircraft, primarily due to structural failure but which would also generate a short period of intense decompression.
-
Mini D,
The scenario you are worrying about has already been tested many many times. It involves putting holes in non designed areas. The holes were of non uniform shape and size and rather randomly placed in pressurized aircraft at both high and low speed.
It started with the B29 in WW2. It continued with the B52 much later on. While you do get some "peeling" of the skin and a rapid loss of pressure you do not get a catastrophic failure of the skin and or airframe due to a small hole. Pressure would equalize very rapidly and be unable to maintain a pressure differential if the hole is large.
The airlines are not a pressurized sealed bottle. They are a pressurized semi sealed bottle with only a 5 to 8 PSI differential. They are not in a vacuum and if they were then there would be no "peel back" of the skin as there is no atmosphere to peel it back due to friction.
-
Maybe I'm missing something here... did you two not read the article about the lady sucked up... clogging a crack and then sucked out of the plane?
In your perfect world... how is this accounted for?
I can put a hole in a panel or glass and it won't make a difference. If I hit a support structure, what happens? You think there have been studies, there have not been nearly enough. This I guarantee you.
And all of this boils down to the rapid loss of pressure and it's impact on the area of highest velocity. It is a far stretch to say "it wouldn't matter" or "it wouldn't be an issue". By a long shot. You cannot gather data to prove a negative. History has shown this to be the case. For someone who prides themselves on it, it's amazing how quickly they forget it.
And Toad... the relief valves are designed for reactive equalization, not constant equalization in the event of a catostrophic event. The whole goal is to maintain pressure within limits. This does not prevent events.
Let me put it another way: How does a pressure equalization system maintain pressure in case of a leak? What if the leak gets bigger? What if the leak get's bigger?
-
MiniD,
If the leak is beyond the ability of the bleed air system to compensate for you get less than adequate pressurization. That's one of the reasons there is a pressurization indicator in the cockpit. The fuselage is not pressurized and held as a closed system. It's a constant flow pressurization with the bleed air being used for heating / cooling as well as pressurization.
I'll never forget the story told to me by a vet from WW2 when I was on a visit to the Pima Space and Air Muiseum (Tucson). He was a radio man in a B29 flying missions to Japan. He said he had complained several times that his station didn't have a window. Later on when the Japanese provided him with one he decided he didn't like it and covered it up with his empty glove. That allowed the leak to be stopped and maintained the pressurization of the aircraft. He wasn't belted in and didn't get sucked out of his seat much less the aircraft.
If you create enough damage particularly to a supprt structure you will lose the aircraft. That has already been shown to be the case especially with the first British jets. That is not the situation that was under discussion however. The question was regarding putting a bullet hole in the skin of a jet at altitude. Quite different.
-
Look at what I said in regards to bullet holes.
Now look at how it's expanding to cover just about every opening. Windows... gaping holes... yeppers.
You can cite numerous examples where small leaks were contained. A bullet hole through a skin would be an easy one to contain. A bullet into an alluminum spar and then through the skin... well... that's another story. Structural weakening combined with depressurization.
The truth is, that there is an extra added risk with firearms in the aircraft. This simply cannot be denied. "It shouldn't cause depressurization" is a bit of a straw-man argument. It "can" cause depressurization is much more accurate and you will lose the argument as a result of it.
I'm all for firearms in the aircraft in the hands of highly trained personel like air marshalls. I'm even for the pilots having sidearms provided there are advanced training courses that accompany their presence. I'm just not about to pretend that there wouldn't be an unintended consequence as a result of discharging the weapon in an aircraft.
-
United Flight 811 (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1992/aar9202.htm)
(http://www.warman.demon.co.uk/anna/united.jpg)
Aloha Airlines flight 243 (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1989/AAR8903.htm)
(http://www.baaa-acro.com/photos/B737-200-Aloha-Hawaii.jpg)
this should interest toad and mini d
-
The most interesting thing Raider is that those pictures were taken after landing.
I those pics pretty well sum it up right there. Catastrophic structural failure FIRST, coupled with explosive decompression AFTER the structural failure and the pictures are taken after landing albeit with what can only be regarded as minimal loss of life.
The Aloha suddenly lost 18 feet of the top half of it's fuselage. ONE Flight Attendant was "sucked out"...except the accident report states:
The No. 1 flight attendant had been standing at row 5 and was immediately swept out of the cabin through a hole in the left side of the fuselage. The No. 2 flight attendant had been standing by row 15 and was thrown to floor, sustaining small bruises.
A "hole" in the left side of the fuselage? There was no "left side" of the fuselage left in First Class. The "hole" was 18 feet long. Note also that the No. 1 F/A was the ONLY fatality:
After the flight, there were seven serious injuries to the passengers, one serious injury to the No. 3 flight attendant, and one apparent fatality to the No. 1 flight attendant.
There you have the "Hollywood scenario"; 18 feet of fuselage missing. However, one fatality on an aircraft with 95 souls on board.
In the case of United 811, examination of the airplane revealed that the forward lower lobe cargo door had separated in flight and had caused extensive damage to the fuselage and cabin structure adjacent to the door. Five rows of business class seats, located at the top of the cargo door (the area with the most structural damage) were blown out of the aircraft, along with nine passengers. It is key to note that standing Flight Attendants were thrown to the floor but not sucked out. Passengers in the remaining seats adjacent to the hole were saved by their seatbelts.
This from a 15x3 hole in the fuselage.
I will take issue with the idea that a single bullet, even if it hit a structural fuselage member, would cause that degree of a problem.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
And Toad... the relief valves are designed for reactive equalization, not constant equalization in the event of a catostrophic event.
Don't forget the blow-out panels.
-
The floor will always be a good place to be. Sitting would be a decent place too... unless the seats give way. The air flow is strongest down the center and towards the opening. People farthest away will feel the effects less, closer will feel it much more since the air actually has to rush past them. This is all typical of any pressure variation situation. Once the air rush is over, you only have to deal with the low pressure problems such as fighting for air until the plane is slowed and drops in altitude.
You'd know that if you took a bit of time to actually think about it instead of just shaking your head.
-
The No. 2 flight attendant had been standing by row 15
Amazing she didn't get "sucked out" isn't it? Seeing as how she started out with just two feet on the floor. One would think the power of the venturi would have taken over. Same for the F/A's standing up in biz class on the United jumbo.
A bullet into an alluminum spar and then through the skin... well... that's another story. Structural weakening combined with depressurization.
Tell, which spar would you have to hit with one bullet to cause damage like that done to the Aloha or the UAL? Or would any spar do, you think?
-
(http://www.boeing.com/commercial/safety/images/cabin_pressure_schedule.jpg)
Cabin Pressure (http://avstop.com/AC/FlightTraingHandbook/PressurizedAirplanes.html)
Cabin Pressure 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization)
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Ah.. Intel, Guns and the mythical "Explosive Decompression."
I LOVE reading this stuff. Very entertaining ;-)
Almost as good as CNN ... Keep it coming ;-)
Thanks.
Softail
-
The aircraft was packed and bound for Spain. Then the windscreen blew and the captain was sucked out. Nigel Ogden, who saved him by hanging on to his legs, tells his story for the first time to Julia Llewellyn Smith.
It was like something from a disaster movie and I still find it hard to believe I was at the centre of it all. An aircraft full of passengers, out of control at 17,000 feet with the captain stuck outside.
I think about what happened every day. It was Sunday, June 10, 1990. It was a beautiful morning and I was up early because I was working on the British Airways 7.30am flight from Birmingham to Malaga. I was 36, had been an air steward with BA for 12 years, and loved my job with a passion.
I expected that day to be especially enjoyable. It was a holiday flight, so the 81 passengers would be relaxed, and the crew - Captain Tim Lancaster, stewards Simon Rogers and John Heward, and stewardess Sue Prince - had worked together, on and off, for years. The only member of the crew new to us was the co-pilot, Alistair Atcheson. The aircraft was a 43-tonne BAC 1-11, which was known as the jeep of the skies, because it was a workhorse - reliable and easy to maintain.
The flight was delayed for an hour, so I wandered up and down the plane, making sure everyone knew what was going on. Tim made an announcement - "You'll be pleased to know the weather is sunny and dry in Malaga and we should be on our way shortly" - then the dispatcher told us we could leave. We did the safety briefing and Simon and I strapped ourselves into our jump seats, chatting about which team had lost at rugby the previous day. We heard the roaring of the engines and then we were up in the air.
It was 13 minutes after take-off and we had just reached 17,300 feet, 5000 feet beneath our assigned altitude. I went onto the flight deck and asked if they'd like tea. I was just stepping out, with my hand on the door handle, when there was an enormous explosion and the door was blown out of my hands. I thought, "My God. It's a bomb." Explosive decompression made the whole cabin mist up like fog for a second - then the plane started to plummet.
I whipped round, peering through the mist, and saw the front windscreen had disappeared and Tim, the pilot, was going out through it. He had been sucked out of his seatbelt and all I could see were his legs. I jumped over the control column and grabbed him round his waist to avoid him going out completely. His shirt had been pulled off his back and his body was bent upwards, doubled over round the top of the aircraft. His legs were jammed forward, disconnecting the autopilot, and the flight door was resting on the controls, sending the plane hurtling down at nearly 643km/h through some of the most congested skies in the world.
Everything was being sucked out of the aircraft: even an oxygen bottle that had been bolted down went flying and nearly knocked my head off. I was holding on for grim death but I could feel myself being sucked out too. John rushed in behind me and saw me disappearing, so he grabbed my trouser belt to stop me slipping further, then wrapped the captain's shoulder strap around me. Luckily, Alistair, the co-pilot, was still wearing his safety harness from take-off, otherwise he would have gone, too.
The aircraft was losing height so quickly that the pressure soon equalised and the wind started rushing in - at 627km/h and -17C. Paper was blowing round all over the place and it was impossible for Alistair to hear air-traffic control. We were spiralling down at 80 feet per second with no autopilot and no radio.
I was still holding on to Tim but the pressure made him weigh the equivalent of 226 kilograms. It was a good thing I'd had so much training at rugby tackles, but my arms were getting colder and colder and I could feel them being pulled out of their sockets.
Simon came rushing through and, with John, managed to unwrap Tim's legs and the remains of the doors from the controls, and Alistair got the autopilot back on. But still he continued to increase speed, to lessen the risk of a mid-air collision and to get us down to an altitude where there was more oxygen. He dived to 11,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, then finally got the speed down to 300km/h.
I was still holding Tim, but my arms were getting weaker, and then he slipped. I thought I was going to lose him, but he ended up bent in a U-shape around the windows. His face was banging against the windscreen with blood coming out of his nose and the side of his head, his arms were flailing and seemed about 1.8 metre long. Most terrifyingly, although his face was hitting the side screen, his eyes were wide open. I'll never forget that sight as long as I live.
I couldn't hold on any more, so Simon strapped himself into the third pilot's seat and hooked Tim's feet over the back of the captain's seat and held on to his ankles. One of the others said: "We're going to have to let him go." I said: "I'll never do that." I knew I wouldn't be able to face his family, handing them a matchbox and saying: "This is what is left of your husband." If we'd let go of his body, it might have got jammed in a wing or the engines.
I left Simon hanging on to Tim and staggered back into the main cabin. For a moment, I just sat totally exhausted in a jump seat, my head in my hands, then Sue came up to me, very shaken. In front of all the passengers, I put my arms around her and whispered in her ear: "I think the Captain's dead." But then I said: "Come on, love, we've got a job to do."
By now, Alistair was talking to air-traffic control, who were talking him through landing at Southampton airport. All pilot training is done on the basis of two pilots, one to fly and one doing the emergency drill, but Alistair was alone, with a crew he didn't know and relying entirely on memory, because all the manuals and charts had blown away. He asked for a runway of 2500 metres because he was worried that the plane was so heavy with fuel, a tyre would burst or it would go off the runway, but they said all they could offer was 1800m.
Over the intercom he told the passengers we'd lost the windscreen. Some of them could see Tim out of the window but the cabin was silent as the grave. We walked up and down, preparing the passengers for an emergency landing. People gasped as they saw the blood on my face. The place was very shuddery, very rocky. I remember one man at the very back, with a little baby on his knee, saying to me: "We're going to die," and I said: "No, we are not," lying through my teeth.
All I could see out of the windows was a line of trees, and I thought we'd either smash into those or into the housing estate beyond. I had a partner, Jean, and a stepson, Jamie, but I was thinking most about my mum. She'd lost my brother in a car crash the year before, and I couldn't bear to think how she'd take the news. But, in spite of everything, Alistair did the most amazing landing, what we call a greaser - completely smooth and stopping the aircraft only three-quarters of the way down the runway.
There wasn't even any need to use the emergency chutes. We got all the passengers down the steps in an orderly fashion, although I did have to shout at a couple of people who were trying to get their handbags from the lockers. The whole time from the explosion to the landing had been 18 minutes, but it seemed like hours.
I got back on board to check everyone had left. The paramedics had Tim in the cockpit on a stretcher and I went in to see him. He was lying there, covered in blood, but to my amazement I heard him say: "I want to eat." I just exclaimed: "Typical bloody pilot." Luckily, he'd been in a coma throughout the ordeal, his body had just shut down. I went out onto the front steps, and shouted at the others "He's alive!" and then I cried my eyes out.
We learned that all but six of the passengers were still going to travel on to Malaga that afternoon. John and I went into the departure area to see them. I applauded them and they applauded us. I said: "I'm sorry, don't fly British Airways again."
I was left with a dislocated shoulder, a frostbitten face and some frostbite damage to my left eye that still persists. Amazingly, Tim only suffered from frostbite, fractures in his arm and wrist and a broken thumb. Within five months he was flying again and today he's a pilot for easyJet. Alistair and John are still with BA, but Sue and Simon no longer fly.
My mother and I went on a round-the-world trip and I was back at work by October, but it was never the same. I started getting spots all over my body. In February, I had to be hospitalised with psoriasis brought on by post-traumatic stress. It made it difficult for me to work with people as it was so unsightly, and then I started to have a problem with alcohol as well. I used to love going into work - now I hated it.
In 1992, a report was published about the accident. It turned out that a BA engineer, working under pressure, had fitted a new windscreen with bolts that were too small. I was absolutely livid, and withdrew into myself. It took us nine years of fighting to get some small compensation from the airline. Eventually, in 2001, I took early retirement on grounds of ill health. Now I'm a night watchman at a Salvation Army hospital.
This was the fourth time in my career that I had laid my life on the line. There had been an incident leaving Gerona in a thunderstorm, when we found ourselves flying at only 2000 feet above mountains. Another time, the engine blew out on take-off from Perth and we nearly hit a pylon; a third time a hold door fell out just as we were coming off the ground at Zurich. Some people tell me I must be jinxed to have had so many bad experiences. But I think it's amazing I've been through all this and am still alive. I'm not jinxed, I'm a survivor.
- Sunday Telegraph
-
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/06/7e_plane1_wideweb__430x299.jpg)
An official inspects the hole in the British Airways jet where the windsreen used to be.
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/06/pt_7e_plane2_ent-lead__200x154.jpg)
Pilot Tim Lancaster (third from left) recovers in hospital. Nigel Ogden is standing on the right.
Hmm ... 17000 feet. What would have happened at 30000?
-
Originally posted by Toad
IF there's a dip**** in here, that would be you. And thanks for repeatedly proving it. Let's see....your best arguments so far have been that:
Shows your true skills, nature and personality, doesn't it, along with your confidence in your argument? Went for the ad hominem right off the bat. Congrats, you are a mental giant that we worship.
Ummm... right... as you continue being obtuse.
ONE...repeat one....ONE Aloha F/A got "sucked out" because she was standing 5 feet from the initial skin separation according to the NTSB report. The others, standing about 20 feet from the hole got knocked down. Sort of ruins your entire "hollywood disaster movie" scenario doesn't it?
Actually, that's your "hollywood disaster movie" scenario. I never said anything like that. You keep insisting I did. See the definition of "obtuse" again.
There was enough force, to pick her up off of her feet. The hole was small enough that she did not fit through it and got stuck. I've repeatedly said that it wouldn't be as bad away from the actual penetration, but the collection of rushing air will have higher forces near it. You keep saying "hollywood says different" and then pretend that's my view.The Aloha, like the UAL, landed AFTER catastrophic structural damage AND decompression. Got that? No crash, minimal loss of life and a safe landing.
Where did I say everyone would die? Where did I say the plane could not make it back down? And what the hell is this "minimal loss of life"? Are you even comprehending what you're writing here?
The case you are trying to make doesn't stand up against real life actual incidents. There have been flights with near instantaneous structural damage coupled with explosive decompression at altitude. NEITHER aircraft was lost and there was relatively minimal loss of life. Both of these aircraft were high time, with 15,028 flight cycles/58K hours on the 747 and 89,680 flight cycles/35,496 hours on the 737.
Actually, these incidents do support my view on the subject. They also make you go from words like "impossible" to "minimal". Nobody said it was a frequently occuring event. But any situation that is brought on by the stress of wear and vibration is going to face the same risks as an impact.
These were old aircraft, old structures. The suffered catastrophic structural failure AND explosive decompresson and landed safely.
Got it figured out yet?
After people were sucked out of them. I guess that it wasn't everyone makes it OK? Got that?
As for your "one bullet" theory, go ahead and tell me which spar, amongst the literally thousands of spars in an aircraft, is THE critical one. The one that will cause serious structural failure and possible loss of the aircraft if a .45 hole suddenly appears in it and its covering aluminum skin.
Which one is that?
Ask murphy. And look up the meaning of "golden bb".
In considering your answer, please remember that almost every spar is already drilled, several times, with holes to reduce weight. Most of the holes are quite a bit larger than .45 caliber.
Have you ever worked on aircraft before toad? I mean really? I wish I'd seen this when you originally posted it, because it exemplifies your ignorance. What do you do when you have a minor crack developing, but doesn't exceed whatever the "maximum crack lenght" criterea is? You "stop-drill" it. Do you know why? This enables the stress of the crack to dissipate over an area and does not provide a clean path to reform. Drilling a hole in something does not reduce it's strenght unless it's at a key stress area. Now shoot a bullet through a piece of aluminum and see if any cracks form. You're complete and total lack of structural undestanding simply astounds me. "bigger drilled holes than bullet holes"? Wow.
Rapid decompressions do not happen often (as I've said in this thread many times). But you cannot deny that there is an increased risk when you start introducing variables such as the destruction caused by a bullet. That is why they initially started shooting bullets at aircraft to bring them down. Keep up the switch to terms like "minimal", they begin to shed some light on your lack of an argument here.
-
Well Toad? Care to respond?
-
Didn't think so. :rolleyes:
-
:O Aren't you guys a sad read.