Thanks. Of that I was well aware. I was responding to parts of Mr. Dundee's
contention
Even if it manages to rear enough of the skin of the
aircraft that a
deliberately designed section of it comes away, the hole so
formed will actually
be smaller than the vent in the aircraft where excess
pressure is allowed to
escape (air is pumped in all the time from the
engines).
In the worst case, this would result in a relatively slow loss of
pressure from
the aircraft, although it would be pretty exciting to be right
next to it.
Explosive decompression is generally the result of losing a
significantly larger amount of the skin of the aircraft, and the risk is more
due to things flying about and structural risk to the aircraft than a loss of
pressure per se.
AAF 243 serves as reminder the possibility of
explosive decompression is not to be taken lightly. Yes, the skin of the
aircraft had been unusually stressed by repeated short-hop altitude change. But
the actual rupture no doubt occurred upon the failure of a single rivet. There
was indeed risk due to things flying about, one thing being the stewardess who
found herself in the pretty exciting position right next to it.
The
possibility of a handgun discharge precipitating such damage may or may not be
remote. I'd think it is, but wouldn't really know: .357 or .44 magnum pack a
wallop, and it is my belief the Federal Air Marshal Service issues low energy
rounds specifically designed not to puncture the cabin skin.
I
haven't heard of any successful field tests.
Ed L.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
