On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:38:02 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
You're right on that point. But it's even worse, she's lying on top
of it. I provided links to Fire Engineering and NFPA articles that
specifically say that particles are one of the dangerous and deadly
components of smoke inhalation. So she's lying that no one has
provided anything. I've posted them several times now:
No response from her, other than to claim she's apparently killfiled
us. It's amazing isn't it? I'll remember this when and if she shows
up here again.
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
On Sat, 17 May 2014 14:49:34 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Kudos, not kudoes. It's not even plural.
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
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
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,
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.
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.
On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
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
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
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
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.
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.
On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:54:50 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
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
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
On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:55:41 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
There are two big problems here. One is, she's a liar, she's putting
on an act. She pretends to not understand, apologizes for "not being
clear", but refuses to address the obvious specific points and cites
that you and I have made.
The other is, that she's wandered all over the wilderness and just
keeps adding more and more layers of confusion. Instead of saying
whatever it is she wants to say, she says things like "So, we know
our conclusions are correct". What conclusions? Who? There are
Now it's conflating "smoke" with "particle inhalation". Particle
inhalation is one component of smoke.
That's a good analogy. Or maybe a better twist would be let's say there
was a guide on the lethality of weapons and they included, guns and
knives. Following her logic, because fists and baseball bats are not
included, "we can safely assume they are just an inconvenience".
And to take it a step further, when someone provides a couple of
credible links that say fists and baseball bats can kill, she just
ignores it and claims it doesn't exist.
And what really galls me is that she talked about doing things
"scientifically" many times.
And this 3-line sentence made me angrier. Snipping so readers could't
understand my point. And because you were making light of the death
of a woman I cared about.
To try to make up for what Ms. Brest had snipped and to make my previous
post more clear: If you don't see the connection between my
brother's aunt's death because of where she lived but years after she
moved downwind from a steel plant and my ridiculing your insistence that
it only matters if something is *immediately* dangerous, you're blind,
or intentionally blind, or lying, or stupid.
She didn't want to die, and her family didn't want her to die from
mesothelioma, at all. Of course it didnt' happen immediately. It never
does with asbestos.
Maybe health insurance shouldn't pay expenses of someone who doesn't get
sick immediately? Maybe life insurance shouldn't pay when someone dies,
but not immediately. Heck, maybe we shouldn't even bury the people who
don't die immediately after the cause of their death. Because
immediate danger and death is all that matters, it seems, to you. None
of these is more stupid than your attitude.
Maybe when you're dying from some long term poison, you'll understand
it, but until you do, you're stupid.
On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:00:19 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
That is when she was exposed as a liar. I had been giving her the
benefit of the doubt for some time, but that sealed it. Any reasonable
person that read what you wrote in it's entirety knows exactly what you
meant. Instead she just takes one out of context snippet, and
replies only to that.
Yeah, getting the carry on out of the overhead never has been shown
to slow things down (grin). Even getting it out from under the seat
would most likely get in the way of your aisle-mates getting ou. And if
you were last (and even the only one) how exactly do you stay out of
everyone else's way? Finally, you can't be last because then you are
endangering the FAs who can't leave until you do.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
Always wondered about that word, kudos. Subtle difference. William F
Bluckley would be proud.
The average vocabulary is 600 words, so with that limit you have no idea
what a 'ducky-wucky' is, eh? [credit to Charles Schulz]
news:df3d9f0d-cc7f-4640-a592-> On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:17:35 AM UTC-4,
Robert Green wrote:
There's no explanation of events that can be proven or disproved until the
wreckage is found. The pandemonium that can occur with a cabin fire can
explain a lot of things that appear to be inexplicable. Reading about how
fast cabin fires spread and how lethal they can be still makes me suspect a
cabin fire because a pilot crashing a plane deliberately and silently
doesn't make sense. He would *want* to get credit for his actions. Your
small, ideal window could be total coincidence. There's just no way to know
from the few facts that are available.
If it was a cabin fire, there should be still some evidence recoverable to
support that theory. If the FDR and voice recorder unit are found, it may
prove your theory - or it may leave us with more clues but no firm answer
because the voice recorder overwrites old data every two hours and the plane
allegedly crashed 7 hours after takeoff. Critical voice information is most
likely gone unless the CVR lost power early on in the flight.
The most difficult part of the suicide scenario is that even Shakespeare's
often long-winded dramatic characters got it over relatively quickly.
People who survived jumping off the Golden Gate bridge change their minds
half way down. Search for the 2003 New Yorker article about Golden Gate
Bridge suicide jumpers. It's very enlightening.
I just don't know of a single case where a guy took 7 hours to kill himself.
It's an impulsive act that people want to get over with quickly. He left no
note, no radio contact, no reasons given. That's pretty unusual for a
suicide, especially one who appears as troubled as he's been made out to be.
And his demonization by the press and the Malaysian government also bothers
me. It's classic scapegoating. There are dozens of scenarios at this stage,
but allow me to prefer those that don't point a finger at the crew or the
Pilot suicide just doesn't make a lot of sense to me whereas a cabin fire in
a plane KNOWN to have a serious oxygen hose defect seems far more likely.
There's no record or mention I can find of the oxygen hose problem being
corrected and I doubt Malaysia has a fully-functioning FAA equivalent to
enforce maintenance fixes. I am also always totally suspicious of airlines
and governments being quick to blame the pilots. It's an industry tradition
used to focus attention away from any possible gross negligence on their
"Reported course changes" really bothers me. If they had such detail course
information, why where they searching, without luck, huge swaths of ocean?
That model plane has not one but several automated systems that can fly the
plane and are dedicated to keeping it airborne. There's no main computer to
fail, like some "Star Trek" scenario. There are lots of independent systems
connected through data buses.
Considering how badly my PC acted up when the space heater accidentally
started blowing on it I have no problem believing a fire damaged autopilot
could do a lot of things that looked like a human was at the controls.
Since autopilots are capable of executing almost every command a pilot could
issue, changes in course don't prove there was a person issuing them.
You're forgetting that it was precisely those tanks and their fittings that
caused the disastrous oxygen-fed fire on a different plane of the same
model. A fire that would not have been survivable had it occurred aloft. A
fire that turned the cabin's electrical gear into a mass of fused plastic
Can *they* fly the plane if the pilots burned to death in a flash cabin
fire? Maybe one of them was poking around with the charred autopilot after
the flames were extinguished and those actions caused the alleged course
changes. We may never know. One thing's for certain: without the wreckage
there's never likely to be conclusive proof about what happened to that
airplane, so we're just spinning our wheels.
Just like you can't testify to the operation of someone's mind in court, you
can't determine if the pilot was suicidal or homicidal by counting the
number of course changes a plane *allegedly* made after radio contact was
lost. If there was a fire, the pilots would have tried to deactivate
cockpit components by pulling the electrical busses. That *easily* explains
why cockpit based systems failed first and other, more remote systems
continued to function. If it was the pilot's emergency oxygen supply that
caused the fire, then their chances for prolonged survival amidst toxic
fumes are very poor.
Without the data and voice recorders or forensic evidence from the wreckage,
it's all supposition. I base mine on a previous very serious oxygen fed
cabin fire in an identical model and on Payne Stewart's flight to nowhere
with a plane full of dead passengers. Yes, that plane flew in a straight
line after all the passengers and pilot died from a pressurization
malfunction, but the 777 has a far more sophisticated autopilot.
If the Apollo oxygen-fed (aka a "blowtorch") fire killed everyone in the
capsule in 17 seconds, a fire like that doesn't leave much time to call the
ATC tower and tell them about an event they couldn't do anything about
anyway from 100's of miles away. The pilot's primary duty at that point is
to keep the plane flying, not to alert ATC. Pilots have a mantra for
setting priorities in an emergency: aviate, navigate, communicate.
The worst part is that they may never find the wreck. It took two YEARS to
find the AirFrance wreck and they basically knew where it went down. But if
they do find MH370, we may see which one of us is the better guesser,
because that's all we can do. Guess. There just isn't enough information
available to reach any valid conclusions other than the plane is lost.
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:55:42 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
No, but you can put together various scenarios and how well they fit
the known facts, if at all.
The pandemonium that can occur with a cabin fire can
And why not? It's happend at least three times before. EgyptAir,
Sigh... We've been through this. None of the other three
wanted to get credit.
Sure it could be. But again, when you look at it from probabilites,
the probability of it occuring in that brief window that's ideal for
a plane to deliberately go missing is very small. And that exact
thing happened in the SilkAir suicide crash in Indonesia, it
ocurred between ATCs.
Who knows how and when a suicidal pilot is going to do it?
If he wanted it become the big world unsolved mystery that it is,
taking it to some remote location is perfectly reasonable.
Also, you're assuming the suicide pilot was still conscious and
alive all the time. He could have made the final setting for
Aurstralia, then gotten drunk and taken a bottle of pills.
I don't know how you're starting the clock. If a guy living in PA wants
to jump of the GW Bridge, when do you start the clock? When he got in
the car to drive 200 miles? When he gets to the bridge?
Howquickly did the 911 hijackers get it over with?
He left no
It's exactly what you had in the other 3 crashes. And in the SilkAir
the pilot opened the CVR breaker, then later the FDR breaker to
*hide* what he was doing.
What demonizing? All they've reported was the facts. Most significant
so far is that his family had recently left him. And that he knew the
former deputy PM that was sentenced to jail on trumped up charges. And
that one of his friends had said he was unfit to fly, while another one
said he was OK. I think there is probably a lot more we haven't heard
in that area.
Why not, it's been done 3 times before in the last 15 years or so.
whereas a cabin fire in
Again the problem with the cockpit fire is it doesn't fit what
we know in any way, shape or form. First this sudden fire had to occur
in the few minutes between ATC, which is the ideal window for a plane
to disappear. Next, how does it result in ACARS and transponders going
off? Again, exactly what you need to go off to go missing. And it doesn't
fit at all with the plane making a zig-zag turn over the Straits, aligning
with flight paths toward India, an HOUR after said fire. And then making
at least one more controlled turn to the left later, to Australia.
I am also always totally suspicious of airlines
Except that doesn't happen. I've never seen the NTSB being quick to
blame pilots. They take no position until the investigation is complete.
And even in this case, no one is blaming the pilots. All they said is
that the behavior of the plane is consistent with human intervention.
And if you just look at the real data, that's absolutely true.
Apparently because they didn't correctly analyze the data in the first
few days. But soon after, they brought in NTSB, FAA, radar manufacturer,
etc. They have seen and vetted the data. Are they all lying? Part of a
coverup? And then after they had figured out it went into the Indian
Ocean, Inmarsat eventually figured out the final course.
Sure and not one of those explains the mysterious course, altitude
changes, etc that went on in the hour+ after the alleged point of a fire.
That's precisely the point. That the plane was flying normally, on
a totally new course, with turns in it, under control. A fire is
totally inconsistent with that. Deliberate human action is.
I have a lot of problems believing it. Those systems are designed to be
as failsafe as possible. If the autopilot is screwed up, it's almost
certainly going to generate a warning and disconnect itself, not
fly the plane to Australia. In fact, in the AirFrance/Brazil crash
that's exactly what the AP did. I can show you 3 recent suicides. Show
us one where the autopilot ever did what this plane did.
No, but someone had to reprogram the autopilot to do what it did.
A pilot sitting in a burning cockpit, entering waypoints into the autopilot,
makes sense to you? As I said before, if there was such a fire, I
can see the pilot quickly spinning the autoheading knob to do about
a 180, ie head back towards land. But enter waypoints for a zig
zag over the Straits an hour later? Then other waypoints to get to
No, these tanks are in addition to the oxygen system for the crew.
They are so other crew members, eg flight attendents can use them and
still move around the cabin.
A fire that would not have been survivable had it occurred aloft. A
And if a fire like that happened, the plane would have gone down off
Kota Bahru. It would not be in Australia.
Maybe one of them was poking around with the charred autopilot after
If you had such an extensive fire as shown in that cockpit, the plane
would be in the ocean. And if they were poking around at the burned
up autopilot, it's inconceivable that they managed to make that nice
controlled zig zag. If the plane was on some wild, erratic course
then it would be more consistent with damage to the various
We may never know. One thing's for certain: without the wreckage
Even with it there may not be conclusive proof of anything.
No, but like the investigators are pointing to, everything we know
about the planes behavior is consistent with human action.
1 - Initiating event occurs exactly between ATC handoffs
2 - Transponders, ACARS, go off
3 - No more VHF communication
4 - Various altitude changes as it flew
5 - Zig zag aligning with flight paths toward India
6 - Another turn even later to the left, to Australia.
7 - Having been at lower altitudes while crossing back
over Malaysia, probably to avoid radar, it was back at cruising
altitude for the rest of the next 7 hours.
8 - If you had a fire, the plane would have stayed below 10,000
And it's behavior is also inconsistent with every aircraft fire I've
even heard of.
If there was a fire, the pilots would have tried to deactivate
That's possible, if it was indeed a cockpit fire and they
believed the source was electrical.
That *easily* explains
Except the cockpit systems didn't fail. If the cockpit burned up,
the autopilot wouldn't be flying the plane, making turns, etc all
the way to australia.
If it was the pilot's emergency oxygen supply that
That's fine, it's just that what comes after that doesn't fit,
while deliberate human action fits perfectly.
and on Payne Stewart's flight to nowhere
Which again doesn't fit. In that case the plane continued on it's
original autopilot course. MH370 did not. It made specific, tight
turns, and went off to Australia.
Yes, that plane flew in a straight
So the sophisticated autopilot is just going to decide to
fly a waypoint route that no one ever entered and go to Australia?
If the autopilot detects that it's screwed, it disconnects.
It's like thinking that in a house fire, instead of my PC
going off, it's going to decide to open up google maps and
look for australia.
If the scenario you spelled out was occuring, there was no immediate
need to aviate. The plane was on autopilot. Dealing with the fire
would be the most critical. And you keep saying that mantra, but
I don't think you really understand it. Part of aviating is making
sure you don't fly into another plane, isn't it? You do that by
communicating with ATC, particulalry when you've just made a 180
I'm not guessing. I'm just assigning probabilites to the scenarios
given the reported facts. Everything fits human action. Almost nothing
fits a fire. I showed you 3 suicide crashes in the last 15 years.
It fits perfectly. Senior pilot waits until they are coming up on
ATC handoff. He sends low experience copilot into the cabin on a wild
goose chase. He locks the door, turns off transponders, ACARS.
Then he manually flies the plane for awhile, then enters waypoints in
the autopilot for final destination. Maybe takes bottle of pills. It fits
every data point. Can anyone prove it? No. But it's the scenario
with the highest probability. Or some hijacker could have gotten
in and forced them to do similar.
Show us a fire case where the plane did anything like this. Show
us a case in the last 50 years where there was a fire on board and
there was no mayday, transponders go dead, ACARS goes dead, etc,
and then the plane continues on to a new destination, flying in a
controlled fashion, for 8 hours. I don't know of a single one.
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.