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

Considering that you're further endangering their lives, I don't think many would blame them from kicking your ass.

Reply to
krw
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
micky

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.

Reply to
John Larkin

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.

Reply to
RobertMacy

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.

Reply to
micky

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.

Reply to
trader_4

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. (-:

Reply to
Robert Green

Exactly! A wet hankie is useless if you're unconscious. The airlines really need to install shoulder harnesses and passenger airbags.

Reply to
Chuck Duvernay

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.

Reply to
trader_4

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.

Reply to
Ann Marie Brest

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.

Reply to
Ann Marie Brest

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.

Reply to
Robert Green

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.

formatting link

formatting link

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.

Reply to
trader_4

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.

Reply to
Tom Miller

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

formatting link

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.

Reply to
Robert Green

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

....

Reply to
micky

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

Reply to
micky

Kudos, not kudoes. It's not even plural.

formatting link

Think of the word as "praise, honor, glory" and not "accolades, plaudits" and it's easier to think of it as singular.

Exactly. That's why they have everyone practice this** at the airport before they go through the metal detector. **Shoes off and on.

BTW, I looked at the original

formatting link
again, and the woman jumping into the slide is not wearing a skirt, like most female passengers in the 50's, but on the side of the plane it says "Civil Areo.... .......". In 1938 Congress created the Civil Aeronautics Authority, to handle non-military aviation. In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt split the authority into two agencies, the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) and the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB).

I think the plane in the pdf file had Civil Aeronautics Administration written on it. The CAA lasted until implementation of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, probably 1960. So I think the picture was taken before 1961, and regardless of how women really dressed on planes, they had the CAA staff member wear pants for the demonstration,

formatting link

Or, it could be the Civil Aeronautics Administration of the Republic of China (Taiwan), which still exists, but I don't think that's it.

formatting link

I also came across that one or more guys had a plan in the 40's to have one civilian airline for the whole world!!

So I hadn't noticed the age of the brochure, but I think you got it right, and I certainly don't want to draw conclusions from what is NOT said in a brochure from what seems like 1959 or '60.

Reply to
micky

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

I think you were clear.

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

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

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

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

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

3 About smoke inhalation only. You say things like this "but, nobody has reported any real evidence that "smoke inhalation" (presumably that means particulate inhalation) is either immediately dangerous, or the

*reason* for the wet cloth." As if only if something is *immediately* dangerous does it matter. That merely being dangerous is of no importance. That's nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again false.

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

Reply to
micky

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

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

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

Reply to
micky

HomeOwnersHub website 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.