This just in...

First thing I did was look for a release date of April 1. I didn't find it. :(

Next thing is to see an issuance of an emergency finding that Jet-A has explosive characteristics that can be utilized by terrorists and that the presence of Jet-A will no longer be tolerated on commercial planes operating under part 121 with a maximum passenger capacity of more than 20 persons.
 
But what are they going to do about the methane gas?
 
The great thing is, at least on the airplanes I fly on, those little yellow cups attached to oxygen are worthless in a rapid-d anyways. The system doesn't provide enough positive pressure and the mask doesn't make a proper seal necessary to sustain life in that environment. The only thing that will save the pax is an emergency decent.
 
"We will make you safe, even if doing so makes you die".
 
So, what's next? Making the planes TAXI the entire way to their destination?
 
"Not over any imminent threat, but over concerns it might occur."

I'm waiting for them to just outlaw aviation, period.
 
Way too much power in the hands of way too few people. The oxygen was placed there for realistic safety concerns in the first place. But hey, whats more important, our security theatrics or our safety?

John
 
You can't fix stupid.
 
John Baker said:
Way too much power in the hands of way too few people. The oxygen was placed there for realistic safety concerns in the first place. But hey, whats more important, our security theatrics or our safety?

John
Click to expand...

Keeping you safe is more important than your safety.
 
Sorry to be the lone dissenter, but I think its a worthwhile tradeoff. The risk of sudden cabin depressurization is already low. The risk that someone will be in the lav while this happens is even lower. If it does, it can POTENTIALLY cost 1 person their life (or 2 if you're froggy)

The risk that someone will discover the design flaw and use it for nefarious purposes (can cause the loss of all souls aboard)...hey, what inspired the underwear guy?
 
Bob Noel said:
You can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...
Sure as **** can! When it is the friggin govt maroons, abolish the DHS and take the TSA goons down. Pressure your rep and Congresscritters to, uh, vote No to DHS budget. Introduce bill to abolish DHS effective immediately. Vote YES on throwing them overboard.

Seriously
 
Jaybird180 said:
Sorry to be the lone dissenter, but I think its a worthwhile tradeoff. The risk of sudden cabin depressurization is already low. The risk that someone will be in the lav while this happens is even lower. If it does, it can POTENTIALLY cost 1 person their life (or 2 if you're froggy)

The risk that someone will discover the design flaw and use it for nefarious purposes (can cause the loss of all souls aboard)...hey, what inspired the underwear guy?
Click to expand...
Let's do away with flotation devices too. Let's remove all avionics since the flight will be in VMC anyway. I'm sure we can think of more savings....:rolleyes2:
 
Richard said:
Sure as **** can! When it is the friggin govt maroons, abolish the DHS and take the TSA goons down. Pressure your rep and Congresscritters to, uh, vote No to DHS budget. Introduce bill to abolish DHS effective immediately. Vote YES on throwing them overboard.

Seriously
Click to expand...

Sure, we can try to undo the damage done by the profoundly stupid.

But those oxygen-thieves are still stupid.
 
John Baker said:
Way too much power in the hands of way too few people. The oxygen was placed there for realistic safety concerns in the first place. But hey, whats more important, our security theatrics or our safety?

John
Click to expand...

Fortunately we live in a democratic-republic. Voting for people that go "terrists!!!!OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!1!1!!1!!--!" is optional.
 
So lemme see if I have this right...

Because of potential tampering with the O2 system, the O2 masks are being removed from the lavs. Makes sense (if you take this potential threat seriously), because you can't tell what's going on in there, and the door is locked when it is occupado.
But there once was a similar concern about the smoke detectors in the lavs, yet they weren't been removed... instead, they were rendered "tamperproof" with the installation of a placard that forbids tampering.

And even curiouser, even though the removal of the masks is in response to a potential hazard to passengers, it creates a new potential hazard- someone could be in there during a cabin pressure malfunction and not be able to get to a mask before they pass out, with possible serious consequences.
I guess they figure a dead passenger locked in the lav is no big deal compared to some "terrist" McGyver making a flamethrower out of an O2 mask... even though the best he could probably do with it is set himself on fire... hmmm...
Oh wait, I get it! this is all just a clever trap for terrorists!! :idea:
 
AWACSEng said:
The great thing is, at least on the airplanes I fly on, those little yellow cups attached to oxygen are worthless in a rapid-d anyways. The system doesn't provide enough positive pressure and the mask doesn't make a proper seal necessary to sustain life in that environment. The only thing that will save the pax is an emergency decent.
Click to expand...

A proper seal is not required since this is not a pressure demand system. It is a supplemental sytem that has a constant flow that increases the percent of oxygen in the mask. The almost pure oxygen being pumped into the mask is more than enough to sustain someone for the duration of an emergency decent.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Sorry to be the lone dissenter, but I think its a worthwhile tradeoff. The risk of sudden cabin depressurization is already low. The risk that someone will be in the lav while this happens is even lower. If it does, it can POTENTIALLY cost 1 person their life (or 2 if you're froggy)

The risk that someone will discover the design flaw and use it for nefarious purposes (can cause the loss of all souls aboard)...hey, what inspired the underwear guy?
Click to expand...

I fully agree. Based on the info and analysis I've seen, I think the people doing the risk management made a good call. So far, no one nay saying the AD has put forth a valid argument. Just hate and biased filled rhetoric about the TSA/DHS/FAA. And no, I'm not a big fan of any of them.
 
maddog52 said:
I fully agree. Based on the info and analysis I've seen, I think the people doing the risk management made a good call. So far, no one nay saying the AD has put forth a valid argument. Just hate and biased filled rhetoric about the TSA/DHS/FAA. And no, I'm not a big fan of any of them.
Click to expand...
Yes, everybody is saying that the AD doesn't make sense.

And it doesn't. Risk of a terrorist attack on board a plane using the lav O2 system is SO much smaller than risk of depressurization. Pathetic.
 
Just wait until they figure out that seatbelts can be used to strangle people.
 
sba55 said:
Yes, everybody is saying that the AD doesn't make sense.

And it doesn't. Risk of a terrorist attack on board a plane using the lav O2 system is SO much smaller than risk of depressurization. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Once again, no facts or data to back up that view. And apparently the people whose job it is to know don't share your feelings. An oxygen generator produces ALOT of heat and pure O2. Remember Valuejet in the Everglades? Having them available to multiple potential terrorist in unobservable locations on an aircraft is way riskier than having a very small number of pax at risk in the lavs in the very low likley hood of a rapid D.
 
maddog52 said:
Having them available to multiple potential terrorist in unobservable locations on an aircraft is way riskier than having a very small number of pax at risk in the lavs in the very low likley hood of a rapid D.
Click to expand...

So basically what's happening here is we finally reached the point that we're going to start getting rid of safety equipment in order to insure the bad guys can't hurt anyone.
 
How exactly do you knuckle heads think that the O2 in the lav is produced ? Please tell me you don't think it comes out of a tank or bottle because it does not. Now answer me this - what is the largest by-product of the chemical reaction that produces the oxygen when a chemical onboard oxygen generator is used ????? What could some less than noble person use the chemicals in said OBOG to make while in the privacy of the lav ?????? I am not going to spell out for you what you must bring from home to combine with this but suffice it to say I for one am VERY glad to see this being done.
 
Art VanDelay said:
How exactly do you knuckle heads think that the O2 in the lav is produced ? Please tell me you don't think it comes out of a tank or bottle because it does not.
Click to expand...

So you took freshman chem. Congrats. Did they show you the flaming gummy bear trick?

Now answer me this - what is the largest by-product of the chemical reaction that produces the oxygen when a chemical onboard oxygen generator is used ?????
Click to expand...
By mass, or by volume?

What could some less than noble person use the chemicals in said OBOG to make while in the privacy of the lav ?????? I am not going to spell out for you what you must bring from home to combine with this but suffice it to say I for one am VERY glad to see this being done.
Click to expand...
Ya, we're all knuckle heads, so tell us how you're going to get an oxygen generator open without tools.
 
maddog52 said:
Once again, no facts or data to back up that view. And apparently the people whose job it is to know don't share your feelings. An oxygen generator produces ALOT of heat and pure O2. Remember Valuejet in the Everglades? Having them available to multiple potential terrorist in unobservable locations on an aircraft is way riskier than having a very small number of pax at risk in the lavs in the very low likley hood of a rapid D.
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember Valuejet. I seem to recall that it wasn't one O2 canister, but a whole bunch of them that took down the jet. How many O2 canisters are in each aircraft lav?

And how did you come up with your assessment that the lav O2 canisters is "way riskier"?
 
Bob Noel said:
Yes, I remember Valuejet. I seem to recall that it wasn't one O2 canister, but a whole bunch of them that took down the jet. How many O2 canisters are in each aircraft lav?

And how did you come up with your assessment that the lav O2 canisters is "way riskier"?
Click to expand...

It was a whole bunch of them, improperly carried as cargo, and improperly packed. IIRC, there were also combustable materials (like tires) in the same hold with the cannisters.
 
Art VanDelay said:
How exactly do you knuckle heads think that the O2 in the lav is produced ?
Click to expand...

Not all knuckleheads buy into the "official" cause of the Valujet crash...

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/FAA_Inaction/moreonValujet592.html

I am of the opinion that that account provides a plausible alternative explanation.

I think it's a great idea to pull the lav O2...until I'm the one stuck in it when the decompression event occurs, an occurrence with a somewhat greater probability than 0 .
 
Trapper John said:
So you took freshman chem. Congrats. Did they show you the flaming gummy bear trick?

By mass, or by volume?

Ya, we're all knuckle heads, so tell us how you're going to get an oxygen generator open without tools.
Click to expand...


Where do you get the idea that you can't have tools in your carry on ? You MAY carry any screwdriver, pliers or other non-cutting tools so long as they are seven inches or less. With only a small screw driver I could get every bit I need out of the cannister. And yes I would only need ONE cannister.

Quite obviously by the emergency nature of this order the gummint weenies were acting on some kind of immediate and actionable intelligence. Would you all rather they just sit on this info like they did prior to 9/11 ? Seems they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If there had been an edict passed on 9/10/01 that box cutters be banned from carry on we would have thought that was ridiculous and a bit extreme too ???
 
Steve said:
Not all knuckleheads buy into the "official" cause of the Valujet crash...

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/FAA_Inaction/moreonValujet592.html

I am of the opinion that that account provides a plausible alternative explanation.

I think it's a great idea to pull the lav O2...until I'm the one stuck in it when the decompression event occurs, an occurrence with a somewhat greater probability than 0 .
Click to expand...

And here I thought it was the ghost of EA401, which crashed within a couple of miles....
 
Bob Noel said:
Yes, I remember Valuejet. I seem to recall that it wasn't one O2 canister, but a whole bunch of them that took down the jet. How many O2 canisters are in each aircraft lav?

And how did you come up with your assessment that the lav O2 canisters is "way riskier"?
Click to expand...

I didn't come up with the assesment, the people whose job it is to asess these threats did. I concur with that assesment based on the fact there is at least one in every lav and there could be half a dozen or more lavs on an aircraft. Yes ValueJet crashed because a cardboard box full of them caught fire because they were improperley packed and shipped, (they weren't supposed to be on board unless they had been depleted anyway). The theory is one or more accidentally activated and started a chain of events that caused the destruction of an aircraft and the death of all people on board. It doesn't take much imagination to think that somebody with evil intent could use one or more to construct a device in private and intentionally cause the same result.

Rapid decompression happens on airliners but very rarely. When it does happen, every passenger has access to O2 now except those very few that happen to be in the lav. The aircraft manufacturers, FAA and airlines are already working on a safer solution.

In simple terms, the FAA saw a threat that could potentially have disasterous consequences. They figured out an interim solution that removed that very real threat but only increased the threat (temporarily) to a very few passengers by a very small amount. Nobody has put forward any argument that shows this isn't a valid tradeoff.

I stand by my asessment.
 
maddog52 said:
I didn't come up with the assesment, the people whose job it is to asess these threats did. I concur with that assesment based on the fact there is at least one in every lav and there could be half a dozen or more lavs on an aircraft. Yes ValueJet crashed because a cardboard box full of them caught fire because they were improperley packed and shipped, (they weren't supposed to be on board unless they had been depleted anyway). The theory is one or more accidentally activated and started a chain of events that caused the destruction of an aircraft and the death of all people on board. It doesn't take much imagination to think that somebody with evil intent could use one or more to construct a device in private and intentionally cause the same result.

Rapid decompression happens on airliners but very rarely. When it does happen, every passenger has access to O2 now except those very few that happen to be in the lav. The aircraft manufacturers, FAA and airlines are already working on a safer solution.

In simple terms, the FAA saw a threat that could potentially have disasterous consequences. They figured out an interim solution that removed that very real threat but only increased the threat (temporarily) to a very few passengers by a very small amount. Nobody has put forward any argument that shows this isn't a valid tradeoff.

I stand by my asessment.
Click to expand...

You stand by your assessment that you didn't make?

Seems to me that you accept that there is a risk based on the assumption that the people in charge of doing security assessments make valid conclusions. Are these the same people that think that prop locks provide security? Are these the same people that think biometric airport access provides security? Are these the same people that aren't screening cargo? Are these the same people that think a 4 foot high fence around an airport provides security?

Of course, the problem with trying to have this discussion is that it seems that the report concluding that there are security concerns is not available to the public. Kind of hard to rebut a report that isn't available for review.
 
Bob Noel said:
You stand by your assessment that you didn't make?

Seems to me that you accept that there is a risk based on the assumption that the people in charge of doing security assessments make valid conclusions. Are these the same people that think that prop locks provide security? Are these the same people that think biometric airport access provides security? Are these the same people that aren't screening cargo? Are these the same people that think a 4 foot high fence around an airport provides security?

Of course, the problem with trying to have this discussion is that it seems that the report concluding that there are security concerns is not available to the public. Kind of hard to rebut a report that isn't available for review.
Click to expand...

Ok, I standby my concurrence of the FAA assesment.:rolleyes: I do accept their assesment because that is their job. But I don't do it blindly. I also temper that acceptance with knowledge and verifiable facts.

The terrorists succeded on September 11th because they exploited a weakness in the system that nobody had forseen. Richard Reed almost succeded because he thought of a new way to sneak explosives aboard. The underwear bomber thought of another new way. The bad guys have demonstrated a very good ability to identiy and exploit unforseen weaknesses. They are constantly searching. It's not too difficult to imagine that they wouldn't have gotten around to this eventually( if they haven't already).

Sure the FAA/DHS/TSA have made some blunders that hurt their credibility. You also never hear of their successes because that doesn't sell newspapers and many are classified. But when they actually identify a potential threat and take reasonable action to counter it, people automatically assume it is "pathetic" without one shred of supporting evidence.

Knowing the potential danger and seeing the response, I think the FAA madea good call on this one.
 
Steve said:
I think it's a great idea to pull the lav O2...until I'm the one stuck in it when the decompression event occurs, an occurrence with a somewhat greater probability than 0 .
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone answered my question in the other thread about how much harm would be done to a person during a rapid decompression followed by an emergency descent if they were not wearing an O2 mask. Obviously they would pass out but an emergency descent only takes about 5 minutes so assuming they didn't hit their head on something in the lav would there be any permanent effect?

I'm doubtful that everyone in the cabin would be able to don their mask successfully anyway if it was that rapid a decompression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top