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.
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).
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
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
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. (-:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
news:7da7e968-0321-419f-8826-> On Sunday, May 18, 2014 9:20:12 AM UTC-4,
Robert Green wrote:
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.