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

Page 3 of 8  


LOL! and now the Europeans have caught our 'fat' virus!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per RobertMacy:

With the caution that that only applies to your own jelly fish sting... or, at least, a sting on somebody you know really, really well.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Something to keep the father occupied and out of the way.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/05/14 05:01, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

Bingo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Unless one has a urinary tract infection, urine is sterile, aiui**.
I think that means two bottles of urine can't make a baby.
**so you're right.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:05:39 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

Yes.
We noted that this flight safety PDF, which was all about protecting your airways in a cabin fire, explicitly said that the dry heat of a cabin fire isn't a major concern when it comes to protecting your breathing airways: http://flightsafety.org/download_file_iframe.php?filepath=/asw/sept06/asw_sept06_p28-30.pdf
As already noted, they said, verbatim: "the human body’s upper airway naturally provides significant protection to the lower airway and lungs against extreme heat from hot, dry air."
Absolutely none of the air-safety PDFs yet mentioned *anything* about the wet cloth having anything to do with cooling hot air, so, we can safely assume the only *safety* purpose of the wet cloth is to trap some of the hydrogen cyanide gas.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:34:21 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

sw_sept06_p28-30.pdf

ficant

Just because some basic guides on what to do in a fire, don't specifically say something one way or the other, you can't "safely assume" anything. Yet you keep doing it.
You've assumed that particle inhalation from fires is just an inconvenience and not a contributor to injury or death. Even you own reference, from above, which you cite above, says otherwise. On page 29 at the bottom right they say that soot and particle inhalation is one of the primary sources of inhalation injury. .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:05:39 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

I used to think that jumping up into the air when an elevator crashes to the ground, would stop me from crashing along with it. It's not supported by the facts.
Neither is the theory that the wet cloth is there to protect us from the heat of the air during a cabin fire supported by *any* of the flight-safety references we have so far been able to find.
Sounds good. I'd believe it myself, if I was just guessing.
But, there's *nothing* in those flight-safety PDFs that says that the wet cloth protects against heat in a cabin fire.
Now that's not to say that a cabin fire isn't *hot*. For example, this previously listed PDF shows the temperatures that can be reached in the cabin during a fuel-fed fire are extremely *HOT!*.
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/8abb4621aaea998fcc220e6f.html "In an aircraft accident that involves a fuel-fed fire, cabin air temperatures could be expected to reach 662 degrees F (350 degrees C) and higher. During inhalation, the air temperature might be reduced to between 360 degrees F and 302 degrees F (182 degrees C and 150 degrees C [respectively]) by the time the air reached the larynx"
That article mentions that the wet cloth might filter out smoke particles (which don't seem to be an immediate danger), but it doesn't even hint at that wet cloth cooling down the air.
So, unless someone comes up with a good reference, I think we can safely say that the *assumption* that the wet cloth is there to cool down the air breathed in a cabin fire is a false assumption (however good it seems to "sound" to most of us).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/16/2014 12:42 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

Well, as soon as (or maybe before) the water in the towel evaporates/boils/steams, it will become impossible to survive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Are you serious? (real question, no exasperation intended)
They poured the hot water in her to dilate the cervix?????? What do they do when they're not in a farm house in 1920? Same thing?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:48:32 -0400, micky wrote:

It's frequently reported that people die of heartbreak also. And that Vikings wore horns on their helmets. And that Moses parted the water of the Red Sea. Or that George Washington had wooden teeth. Or that Benjamin Franklin publicly proposed the wild turkey be used (instead of the bald eagle) as the symbol of the US. Or that Napoleon Bonaparte was shorter than the average Frenchman of his time. etc.
Lots of things are "frequently reported" and just as frequently untrue. That's why I had asked for "scientific" answers.
Anyone can guess wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

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/8abb4621aaea998fcc220e6f.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.
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).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:54:50 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

Just because they don't spell it out for you, doesn't mean that it isn't. There is this, from NFPA:
http://www.nfpa.org/press-room/reporters-guide-to-fire-and-nfpa/consequence s-of-fire
The killing fumes Most fire deaths are not caused by burns, but by smoke inhalation. Often s moke incapacitates so quickly that people are overcome and can't make it to an otherwise accessible exit. The synthetic materials commonplace in today 's homes produce especially dangerous substances. As a fire grows inside a building, it will often consume most of the available oxygen, slowing the b urning process. This "incomplete combustion" results in toxic gases. Smoke is made of components that can each be lethal in its own way:
particles: Unburned, partially burned, and completely burned substances can be so small they penetrate the respiratory system's protective filters, an d lodge in the lungs. Some are actively toxic; others are irritating to the eyes and digestive system. vapors: Foglike droplets of liquid can poison if inhaled or absorbed throug h the skin. toxic gases: The most common, carbon monoxide (CO), can be deadly, even in small quantities, as it replaced oxygen in the bloodstream. Hydrogen cyanid e results from the burning of plastics, such as PVC pipe, and interferes wi th cellular respiration. Phosgene is formed when household products, such a s vinyl materials, are burned. At low levels, phosgene can cause itchy eyes and a sore throat; at higher levels it can cause pulmonary edema and death .

You just continue to amaze. Now "smoke inhalation" can be presumed to mean "particulate inhalation".

I think the real reason was to get you something to worry about that's of little consequence in the everyday world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

If nobody can show *any* reasonable evidence of what they're supposing (i.e., guessing), what does *that* constitute?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:56:07 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

That you don't know what you're talking about when you conclude that because a brief FAA article doesn't specifically say that breathing in soot/particulate matter is harmful, that breathing it in is then just an inconvenience and it can't contribute to killing you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:48:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

You appear to have completely misread my actions, so I must not have been clear enough in the purpose of this thread.
I apologize.
The question is one of survivability science.
It's about how a wet cloth helps someone *survive* during the time it takes to get out of an airplane during a cabin fire.
I started with zero assumptions.
The only assumptions "I" have made during this thread are those that are stated in the aforementioned flight safety references.
Other people made a whole bunch of assumptions, some of which are supported in the references, but some are not supported in *any* of the references.
If someone makes a supposition that is actually supported by a reasonable reference that they provide, I'd be *glad* to listen to their assumption and to read their reference!
That's the whole reason for asking the question in the first place!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, May 16, 2014 2:05:52 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

No, I didn't misread anything. IDK what you're real purpose is, only the question you asked, and then the wild assumptions, I saw you make which you seem to think is sound science.

And all this time I thought it was about string theory.

See, this is where you're going wrong. Assumptions are not what is stated in references.
as·sump·tion [uh-suhmp-shuhn] Show IPA
noun 1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing. Synonyms: presumption; presuppo sition.

The assumption I'm talking about is the one you made:
"What's interesting is that the entire article doesn't discuss any dangers of breathing smoke particulates, so, why it bothers to mention a dry cloth is perplexing since we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is merely a convenience, and not a safety issue."
You took what is essentially "what to do in an aircraft fire for dummies", and made the bizarre leap that because they don't specifically talk about the dangers of breathing smoke particles in a fire, that means that avoiding breathing those particles is merely a convenience. That does not compute.
Your own reference, Aviation Safety World, clearly says otherwise. Page 29 , bottom right hand corner, they say that one of the primary causes of smo ke inhalation injury in an aircraft fire is soot and dust.
So does the NFPA article on fires and smoke and the Fire Engineering link I provided.
In ahort, just because the combustion gases and heat from the air you breath from a fire typically are more serious than soot/particulate matter, that doesn't mean that breathing particulate matter is just an inconvenience. It's damaging and can contribute to killing you too. The medical examiner only puts "smoke inhalation" or similar on a death certificate. That doesn't mean that it was just the heat or the gases that killed in all cases. Unless you think that having some of that with your lungs also full of irritating particulates of all kinds of possible toxic origin added in doesn't make your chances of survival worse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:23:47 -0700, Bob F wrote:

This article lumps all the toxic gases and particulates plus the irritant gases into a single word "smoke", but it also lists at what temperature some of these synthetics melt at: http://www.survival-expert.com/aircrash.html
Nylon melts at 265°C (510°F) and burns at 485°C (905°F). Polyester melts at 254°C (490°F) and burns at 488°C (910°F).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 03:30:48 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest

In WWI, early in the gas warfare stage before there were gas masks, soldiers wet cloth with urine, which apparently absorbed chlorine and phosgene and stuff pretty well. It's better than dying, I suppose.
--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 15:25:35 -0500, John S wrote:

It seems, from the references, that 90 seconds is the golden time period you need to get *out* of the burning aircraft.
So, all it has to do is stay wet for a few minutes to do the intended job of helping to dissolve HCN gases.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.