Mitt Romney Needs a New Aeronautics Advisor
Mitt Romney pulls in $6 million at Beverly Hills fundraiser, LA Times
“When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous.”
A lot of people (maybe even half the country) don’t have aeronautics advisors but still manage to have some passing understanding of why aircraft cabins are pressurized.
And we expect a man with this level of scientific knowledge to pursue a reasonable space program? He seems so uninformed that he would be a pushover for the next charlatan to appear.
He’ll fit right in with the guys on the House Science committee who don’t believe in science. (Ralph Hall, Jim Sensenbrenner, Todd Akin, etc)
If only Dick was running the country again lololol
Anyone for quail shooting?
The pilots could have donned their masks (which seal out smoke and provide eye protection) had the smoke been severe. Deploying the passenger oxygen masks is not usually recommended since they (unlike the pilots’ masks) don’t provide smoke protection and could add oxygen to a fire. The passengers on Ms. Romney’s plane were evacuated as soon as the aircraft was able to pull onto a taxiway and stop.
Still, fire in the cabin can be a serious situation and in the 1983 DC9 fire (with the emergency landing in Cincinnati) even thought he aircraft landed without major damage there were multiple fatalities from carbon monoxide poisoning, and some debate over whether the masks might have helped. http://www.pprune.org/archi…
Hmm…passenger jet aircraft without windows that open, as Mitt pointed out, is clearly a major design omission. Just what’s needed in case of fire aboard submarines. Should MSFC anticipate Mitt’s choice of NASA administrator being ordered to install opening windows in the event of fire aboard space-craft?
It would certainly put the fire out.
Just more “food on your family”.
In theory there are scenarios where the ability to open doors or windows during approach and landing could help clear out a cabin that is filled with toxic smoke. In fact this could be done at any altitude where the cabin pressure could be safely equalized with the outside air. But due to uncertainties about this, as well as additional cost, it is probably unlikely that this will ever be addressed in aircraft design.
Windows would be problematic due to cost, since they would have to be a plug type similar to emergency exits so that they could not be opened accidentally (or on purpose) when the cabin is pressurized. In theory front and rear cabin doors could be designed so that they could be opened in flight (again only if the cabin is unpressurized), but there would need to be some type of fence in place to keep anyone from falling out. And then there’s the problem of a 200+ mph wind blowing through the cabin, sending projectiles with it, and making it impossible for flight attendants to move through the cabin dealing with the emergency. And how exactly would a flight attendant open a door without being blown back violently by the onrushing air and being injured? And perhaps in some cases the onrush of air could make a fire worse depending on where in the aircraft the fire is, i.e. whether the fire is somewhere behind a bulkhead or out in the open.
In reality, the number of potential incidents where this capability would save lives is probably very low, and compared to potential risks as well as the cost involved it’s probably not going to happen. And it would not solve a much more deadly problem which is the thick smoke from burning jet fuel that often billows through a cabin after a crash landing. Opening doors and even windows is not enough to solve that problem.
Steve,
You left out the biggest problem. The framework and skin structure of aircraft requires a pressurized cabin. Unless you decreased inside pressure very, very slowly, which will kill your passengers, then when the wind catches the structure/skin at any opening(s) it’s going to violently tear the skin, maybe even rip off and blow away large sections, which will kill your passengers. It’s a no-win unless you’re on take-off or approach and at a lower altitude.
I propose that we give the Romney’s a plane of their with windows that open and let them experiment.
Steve
Steve that is true however that is why I specified “this could be done at any altitude where the cabin pressure could be safely equalized with the outside air.” Descending through 10,000 feet for example you are right it can’t be equalized immediately without giving passengers the bends, however as they get closer to the ground, which is when the smoke will probably be building up pretty badly, and when the pilots also need a smoke free cockpit so that they can see the ground, that would be the time that it would be helpful to have some way to quickly ventilate the cabin. And anyway if the cabin is completely filled with toxic smoke, risking getting the bends may be considered a viable alternative in some situations when they are facing even worse consequences.
Actually I think if the aviation industry ever decided to tackle this problem they would not utilize the windows or doors for the reasons that I mentioned. They would probably instead install some type of openings at the front and rear of the cabin, which could be operated hydraulically allowing the amount of the openings to be controlled which would then control the amount of air rushing through the cabin since that would change depending on speed. Perhaps the openings could also be controlled by a hand crank in case of system failure, although obviously a lot of force would be involved and require some gears or pulleys to help.
Still this only solves a statistically small number of incidents that occur, which is why I don’t see it happening anytime soon because of the cost involved, both in design and additional cost and weight added to each aircraft. Not to mention the additional training needed for the flight and cabin crew to ensure that the system is operated safely. And they have to balance this with the potential risk. Maybe one day especially if there is a high profile crash where this type of system could have saved lives, then maybe it will be looked at.
New Aeronautics Advisor? You got to be joking.
This is another example of why congress and the president needs to release control and stop advising on the future of our space program and turn it over Office of Science and Technology Policy and let them lead and drive it. You can site multiple examples from these buffoons from both parties with their idiotic views when it comes to science!
Yohan,
It sounds good to me in theory, as along as we aren’t exchanging one group of buffoons for another. OSTP is certainly not pure; they have their political biases just like anyone else in Washington.
Steve
Pewwwww, what did you have for lunch Paul? Crack a window will ya!