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

Page 6 of 8  
On 5/17/2014 5:02 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

Given a choice, I'd be the last man out. And I'd be throwing shoes out of the plane, for people to put on. Yes, I'm that kind of guy. Next, I throw my own shoes out. Of course, I'd have to beat the stewardess into unconscious, they are trained like ambulance guys to be a real pest when you aren't doing what they want.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:21:09 -0400, krw wrote:

Seems to me, an emergency kit for an airplane, could include a wash cloth of a size sufficient to cover both your nose and mouth, in a plastic bag.
The use model would be that you go through airport security with the wash cloth dry.
Then, when you get to the gate, you soak it from a nearby water fountain or bathroom wash sink.
What else would you put in the cabin-fire emergency kit that makes sense (note that a smoke hood doesn't really make economic sense, as outlined in the papers reported).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/17/2014 5:35 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

Might be best advice I've heard. Perhaps article of clothing, which has plausible deniability. Pair of new socks?
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 May 2014 04:24:48 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:

Thanks for checking up on whether the alcohol makes the HCN gas less reactive.
I didn't realize that a vodka drink could catch fire.
That makes sense, if it can.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 May 2014 18:25:21 -0400, Stormin Mormon

Considering that you're further endangering their lives, I don't think many would blame them from kicking your ass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 May 2014 16:09:22 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest

You didn't answer the question. What's wrong with you?
Read trader for details.

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

If you don't see the connection, you're blind, or intentionally blind, or lying, or stupid.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 May 2014 21:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest

Your chances of being in an airplane crash are minute, parts-per-million. Given a crash, your chances of surviving are fundamentally low. Seems like something not worth worrying about.
--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 8:09:24 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

You know, I thought of posting the same thing a few times, but didn't because I expected it would result in the usual debate over how important it is to save just one life, no matter how rare the occurance. But I agree completely. The number of aircraft accidents a year is low. Many of those, the ones responsible for the greatest loss of lives, are not survivable period. You're left with a small number of accidents where there is a fire and where a wet cloth could be used. And then an even smaller set where using it would make a difference.
Another note, I'm not sure how practical using the wet cloth is in crashes where it could help. In a lot of those cases, factors like the plane being upside down, overhead luggage thrown about, incapacitated people in your way that you need to get over, etc., could greatly limit you ability to even use a cloth. It sure could be a lot different than using it to walk out of your own house, that's filled with smoke.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/18/2014 05:33 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Exactly! A wet hankie is useless if you're unconscious. The airlines really need to install shoulder harnesses and passenger airbags.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes, but *if* you already have the extinguisher, you're allowed to refill it! So I bought three. One for kitchen, one for the car, and one for the electronic lab.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 May 2014 17:09:24 -0700, John Larkin

A lot of people survive plane crashes, even the one where the big plane was doing cartwheels. The number who don't survive but could have if they had a survival kit is probably verrrrry low.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:f5095b0c-5e55-4639-aeff-
<stuff snipped>

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. (-:
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, May 18, 2014 9:20:12 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

I agree it's been useful. Another aspect of it though is that if you want to get back to the issue of assumptions, one big assumption here is that those writing all this really have some real world data to back it up. Lab test data from simulated fires, with an air intake device that simulates a human, where they measure the difference a wet cloth makes in the gases, particles, heat, etc would be sufficient for me. If they can show it makes a significant difference, then it's worth doing. Otherwise, who knows if these selected articles are even correct?
And if it is worth doing and you want to save lives, the place to get this message out is for building fires, far more than aircraft fires. Building fires must kill at least two or three orders of magnitude more people each year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 18 May 2014 09:20:12 -0400, Robert Green wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, May 18, 2014 12:38:23 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

More of the typical vague BS references to who knows what. What exactly are these supported conclusions and who exactly is the "us" that came to them?
Does it include your claim that breathing smoke particles during a fire is just an inconvenience, with the support being that in a brief handout about aircraft fires, it's not specifically mentioned as being injurious or deadly?

No, I hadn't. I did notice that you haven't responded to my posts or Micky's that show that you're wrong. Apparently cites to NFPA and Fire Engineering that say that you're wrong is "garbage". It does help explain why you don't know what you're talking about though.

Let me get this right now. You think it's logical and scientific to "safely assume" because particulates aren't mentioned in a brief FAA guide about aircraft fires, that particulates are just an incovenience. I gave you NFPA and Fire Engineering, both of which say you're wrong, that smoke particles cause injury and are potentially deadly.
http://www.nfpa.org/press-room/reporters-guide-to-fire-and-nfpa/consequences-of-fire
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-162/issue-8/features/toxicology-of-smoke-inhalation.html
You ignore all that, put me on your killfile, and you want to talk about ignorant? I gave you the benefit of the doubt for too long. You're not only ignorant, you're in the class of village idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 18 May 2014 06:20:56 -0700, Chuck Duvernay wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:7da7e968-0321-419f-8826-> On Sunday, May 18, 2014 9:20:12 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
<stuff snipped>

That was exactly my thought. I recall how disgusted I was that people had no choice but to leap to their deaths at the WTC. With all our technology we should have been able to do better than that for the people trapped above the impact. If I worked on the 100th floor I'd have a sledge hammer and a parasail handy. As far as I know, very little has been done to improve the survival prospects of people trapped in a serious high rise fire even after those horrible scenes of people leaping to their deaths.
--
Bobby G.
.



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

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

bladder

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.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:17:35 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

Again, that defect that occured in one other case, resulted in a cockpit fire at the pilots seat, while the airplane was on the ground. Let's say the same thing happened in MH370. How does that explain the airplane flying for about an hour more under radar contact, making precise turns, lining up with mormal flight paths toward India, and then later, making at least one more course change that took it to Australia? How does it miraculously result in the the transponder and ACARS being lost. And all this just happened to occur in the couple of minutes between being handed off by Malaysian ATC to Vietnam ATC, ie the ideal small, ideal window for deliberate human action?

So then explain how the plane continued to make the many reported course and altitute changes. Including ones an hour and beyone the alleged fire.... It just doesn't fit.

That's not true. There are portable oxygen tanks for the crew to use. Also the passengers have oxygen for long enough to bring the plane down to 10,000.
The autopilot, since it doesn't breathe, would have flown

Sure, on it's original heading, on to Vietnam. But it obviously didn't go there. Are we to believe that the pilots sat there in a burning cockpit and entered a fight path into the autopilot with precise twists and turns that leads to Australia? What does fit that? A deliberate human act.
We may never know the truth of what

And if it did, you'd have the plane still on it's original flight path. It would have stayed on that autopilot route, not headed off to Australia by an indirect, but controlled route.
Or, if the pilots had the fire and turned the plane around while battling the fire and not having time to issue a mayday, then they almost certainly would do that by just spinning a knob to set a rough heading in the opposite direction, ie back to Malaysia. If they did that and were then overcome by smoke, the plane would again have stayed on that heading, not taken a different, controlled route with turns an hour plus later, and winding up in Australia. It would have gone right across Malaysia on that heading, on towards Africa/India in a straight path, until it ran out of fuel.
And again, it doesn't explaing the transponder, ACARS both going off. And going off in the couple on minute window between one ATC and the next.
The show AirDisasters on TV had a story about the SilkAir flight in next door Indonesia from a decade ago where another pilot deliberately killed himself and everyone else. Some parts are exactly the same as MH370, particularly that it too happened between one ATC and the next. The CVR going off was the first odd occurance. It occured just after the captain is heard telling the copilot that he was going to the bathroom. The breaker for the CVR is right there, behind the pilots, inches away from where the pilot went. About 5 mins later, the FDR stops. Why didn't he just turn that off at the same time? Because if you do, the master alarm goes off. So, the likely scenario is that he returned to the cockpit, told the much less experienced copilot to go do something, talk to someone in the cabin, then locked the door behing him.
About a minute after the FDR ends, the plane entered such an extreme dive, that the only way they could duplicate it was to use full power and full nose down input at the controls. The elevator jack screw was found 100% nose down. The pilot was deep in debt, was being hounded to repay stock trading losses, had been reprimanded/demoted 6 months prior for reckless behavior. And it happened on Dec 19. That was the 18th anniversery of an interesting event. The pilot was in the AF back then. He was one of four planes sent on a mission. He had a mechanical problem and had to return. The other planes somehow, following each other I guess, managed to fly into clouds and then into a mountain, killing 3 of his good friends.
I think it far more likely that you're going to find some psychological profile similarities, with the senior MH370 pilot most likely, than that it turns out to be anything mechanical with the airplane. We already know that his family had apparently left him, with some reports being that it was within days of the event. Then there is the link to the opposition party leader, who he apparently knew, being sentenced to jail on some BS charges, etc.
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.