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

[Ann Marie Brest]

If nobody can show *any* reasonable evidence of what they're supposing (i.e., guessing), what does *that* constitute?

[Ann Marie Brest]

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!

[trader_4]

I've forgotten more science than you'll ever know. You started off with a guide for dummies from the FAA. Besides not being really scientific at all, it looks like it could have been written in the 50's. It's just a guide to get people to suggest people use a wet cloth. But whatever, you then proceed to use the fact that they don't specifically state something, to it being safe to assume that "particle inhalation during a fire is just an inconvenience"

Now you're trying to spin and change this into soemthing different. You claimed that particle inhalation was just an inconvenience. Your own reference, Aviation Safety World, clearly says otherwise. Page 29, bottom right hand corner, they say that one of the primary causes of smoke inhalation injury in an aircraft fire is soot and dust. Did you even read it?

More spinning. Now you're trying to shift to "immediate danger". Just because it's not an immediate danger, doesn't mean it can't be part of what leads to your death in the hospital 3 days later. It doesn't make it safe to assume that inhaling particles is "just an inconvenience".

And why all this interest in a wet rag in an aircraft fire anyway? The incidence of these is small, and the cases where a wet rag would make a difference is miniscule.

That's because you can't read or comprehend what you find. And I don't know who you're speaking about in terms of erroneous assumptions. It's a strawman. You're the one who thinks because something isn't explicitly stated, that "we can safely assume". And that's lead you to the incorrect conclusion that smoke particle inhalation is just an "inconvenience". Your own source says it's one of the primary sources of inhalation injury.

[Ann Marie Brest]

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:

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).

[trader_4]

Just because they don't spell it out for you, doesn't mean that it isn't. There is this, from NFPA:

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.

[trader_4]

Do you not understand that an irritant in the lungs is serious? More people die every year from asthma than do from airplane fires. When you irritate something, particularly with particles from a fire, which could be all kinds of bad stuff, it gets inflamed. If you irritate your arm enough, what happens? It gets red, inflamed, can start to weep fluid, etc. No imagine that happening not to your arm, but your lungs that you depend on oxygen for. Lungs that also have damage from heat, from the gases. Now you pile more irritation from soot, particles. Can't you see how that can help kill you?

From NFPA, which should know a hell of a lot about fires:

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 "

[george152]

Bingo

[george152]

As the airspeed would 'fan' the fires it would also take all the smoke away for the few seconds you'd have to live

[John S]

Well, as soon as (or maybe before) the water in the towel evaporates/boils/steams, it will become impossible to survive.

[John S]

If you are the driver and can't see through the smoke, would you worry about the smoke then or relax and resign yourself to your fate?

[george152]

I believe you meant to type 'pilot' and I'd be doing everything within my power to fly the aircraft and survive

[John Larkin]

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.

[trader_4]

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.

1. 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.

[trader_4]

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?

[Ann Marie Brest]

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.

[Stormin Mormon]

That's when you put on the phony politician half smile and say "Charmed, I'm sure" to everyone. I'd not want to ask the man next to me for some grey poupon.

[Ann Marie Brest]

Looking up what "smoke inhalation" means, I find it's a catch-all phrase, sort of like "germ" or "headache" or "homicide" or "drugs".

In and of itself, it tells us little of the actual cause of death, according to information in this Firefighter document all about SMOKE:

"Typically, when someone dies in a fire, it?s attributed to the nebulous cause of ?smoke inhalation.? In truth, it?s more complicated than that."

"[the] potential cause of death in smoke inhalation victims - [is] cyanide poisoning."

[Ann Marie Brest]

Voided urine is sterile unless you have a urinary tract infection, but, given the excretionary purpose of the kidneys, I'd look up the composition, just in case salt isn't a major component.

As for what "smoke inhalation" really means, it seems that this short summary indicates the twin dangers of so-called "smoke inhalation", only one of which a wet cloth will help ameliorate:

Toxic Twins of Smoke Inhalation i. Cyanide ? Mechanism of Action - Cyanide Kills Organs ii. Carbon Monoxide ? Mechanism of Action - CO Kills the Blood

[RobertMacy]

LOL! again! no pouring, soak the towels, line the inside of the thighs etc

[RobertMacy]

then again if it does anything like a damp paper towel does when I try to use it as a 'hot pad' hat steam burn can be really nasty!