Re: Woman tries to open airplane door midflight

Fly Guy <Fly@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> nobody wrote:
>
>> Doors open inward forst and then outwards. To open inwards, you
>> need to be strong enough to overcome the cabin pressure which
>> pushes the door very strongly against the door frame.
>
> I thought cabins were pressurized to 10,000 feet during cruise. Since
> this was landing phase, I'm not sure what the typical cabin pressure
> profile is duringing descent and landing. I know from experience
> (based on equalizing my ears) that there are more changes during
> descent. It could be that once below 10k that inside and outside air
> pressure are allowed to be equal all the way down to descent.

The cabin pressure is typically the equivalent of about 8,000 feet, but
only at the highest operating altitude of the aircraft. Below the highest
altitude, the pressure is the equivalent of lower altitudes. For example,
at 35,000 feet, cabin altitude is about 5,000 feet, at 20,000 feet, cabin
altitude is about 2,000 feet, and at 10,000 feet, the cabin altitude is
about 1,000 feet. There is some variation for operation from high altitude
airports.

A differential between cabin pressure and the outside air pressure helps
the structural integrity of the fuselage. Typically, a slight pressure
differential is provided even as an aircraft rolls during takeoff just for
this reason.

> My main point is that regardless if the lady could have indeed opened
> the door at all (or more than just a crack), the important observation
> in this situation is the lack of action on the part of nearby
> passengers.
>
> I contend that in the heat of the moment (without all this
> level-headed speculation about what would or could have happened) that
> the logical reaction of the average passenger should (or would) have
> been that yes, it's dangerous to try to open a door in flight, and
> yes, a sucessfull opening posed a real threat to the stability of the
> flight of the plane. To go further, I say that someone attempting to
> open a door on a plane in flight would have appeared to surrounding
> passengers as a threat only _slightly_ lower than someone with a gun
> banging on the cockpit door. In spite of this, no-one on the plane
> (EVEN the FA!) takes any physical action to subdue or remove the lady
> from the door area.
>
> I take this as an indication that 4 years after 9-11 there would be no
> passenger action against another set of would-be hijackers or
> terrorists. And I blame the lack of the addition to the pre-flight
> message of a phrase along the lines of "You may be called upon by the
> crew or your fellow passengers to subdue anyone who poses a threat to
> the safety or security of this flight".

You have suggested this before, and it was a dumb idea then. First, it is
pretty obvious that if asked, people will help. Second, it will simply be
ignored as part of the existing long-winded announcements about seat
cushions for flotation, people needing to speak English to sit in exit
rows, and so on.

Look at the effectiveness of the detailed instructions about oxygen masks
as proof. There have been numerous occasions where the masks have
accidentally deployed in flight. The majority of passengers simply sat
there an looked at them rather than putting them on, even though it was
clear what had to be done when the masks dropped. Your suggestion for an
annoucement would have even less effect, since there would still be doubt
about when to act.

> The Bush admin, the FAA, and the TSA has missed the most important
> opportunity to give passengers the most effective way to protect
> themselves and the plane they're in from harm in case of a future
> incident. That being the knowledge that individual or collective
> action to subdue a "bad guy" is both required and necessary, with or
> without the direction or request of the crew.
>
> Currently the average passenger is completely unaware of what is the
> proper way to react in a 9-11 type situation (or any situation where
> one or more people are performing actions that realistically are a
> threat to the safe and secure operation of the plane).

Your suggestion ranks right up there with the suggestion that passengers
should be allowed to have concealed weapons to protect themselves. There'd
be a shootout in the sky between people who were convinced the other guy
was trying to take over the plane, when in fact neither of them wanted to.
.

Loading