Talk:Uncontrolled decompression

message: Explosive decompression is like a 500 lb bomb? I'm not sure what Paul Withey meant, but I believe it is total nonsense. A 500 lb bomb is more than enough to instantly pulverise the entire aircraft (consider that a sidewinder missile has a ~20 lb warhead). Didn't someone say 85% of statistics are made up on the spot? :p - January 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.44.47 (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I watched the Seconds from Disaster episode in which he makes that statement and I believe he was referrng not to explosive decompressions in general, but to that of BOAC Flight 781, which I removed from this article, and which WAS pulverized.  Maybe we should delete the comment from here and put it on the BOAC Flight 781 article. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Withey's Statement 

message: This article doesn't talk about the eyes, but wouldn't people's eyeballs pop out if exposed to a total vaccum (at least if you didn't close your eyes really tight)?
* Contry to popular belief, there is no way for the eyeball to "pop out", they are anchored very securely by six strong muscles, and nothing, not sneezing, nor Explosive decompression can force them out. Explosive decompression can however cause a sub-conjunctival bulla (a blister in the tissue of the eye) as in the Byford Dolphin accident, or, one would assume, the eye to burst.125.238.77.75 15:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  eyes 

message: Isn't popcorn create by this very same process?--Metron4 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popcorn? 

message: I suggest this page is renamed to Uncontrolled decompression to account for the expansion (sic) in its scope to include rapid decompression and gradual decompression. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I changed rapid decompression to gradual decompression. From missile explosion to warning sound in CVR there was a span of 11 seconds (ICAO '93). Pilots heard speaking through mikes in Oxygen  masks.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting your change as it appears to be OR, contradicting the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 article, as well as a number of sources. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the problem is that you are drawing your own conclusions here based on your own interpretation of primary evidence.  (For example, you've made an assumption above that the 12 minutes of flight before the aircraft crashed indicates how long the decompression event took, as well as not taking into account Time of Useful Consciousness) "Rapid decompression" is specifically mentioned in these books - these references meet the Wikipedia requirement for verifiability. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not for you or me or any other Wikipedia editor to judge ourselves.  The way Wikipedia works, we're supposed to find conclusions reached by experts/third parties, then quote them here. Right now, we have multiple references stating "rapid decompression". Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  KAL 007 

message: Air France Flight AF447 should not be mentioned in this section before :
1. It is confirmed that decompression phenomen is linked in anyway with this tragedy
2. the "?" sign in the frame can be replaced by any explaination, as the purpose of Wikipedia "the free encyclopedia" is to teach, explain, let know and not to give extrapolation or fantasy.
Yamqui (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100% Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, far too early. Ex nihil (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, CNN now reports: "A large number of bodies also had red lesions in their mucous membranes, which the paper said is usually associated with asphyxia, or lack of oxygen." as well as "A major Brazilian newspaper reported this week that 95 percent of the bodies so far had shown fractures in the legs, arms and hips similar to injuries found in people who fall from great heights. The newspaper O Estado de Sao Paulo cited unnamed officials who are part of the investigation." Which leads to: "All of that, aviation experts have said, points to a mid-air rupture of the plane at about 35,000 feet." So, unless these unfortunates decided to en masse take up skydiving without parachutes, one can probably conclude that there was some sort of "decompression phenomenon" involved in this sad incident. Here is the link: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06/19/france.brazil.crash/ Jmdeur (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

text: First:  Still much too early, all conjecture and for some time to come I think.  CNN is not an aircraft accident authority, if Airbus doesn't know then neither do we. Second: No indication that cabin pressurisation is causal here, rather just an inevitable downstream consequence of the airframe breaking up, which in turn was caused by something else upstream.  The Comet I examples are there because cabin pressurisation was directly implicated but if the Comet airframes had disintegrated because of, say, aerodynamic overstressing it is not a cabin depressurisation incident; even though depressurisation is an inevitable consequence as the cabin disintegrates it would be a secondary effect not a primary cause.  Otherwise, we would have to put every catastrophic pressurised airliner airframe failure in this list, which would not be helpful. Ex nihil (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable decompression accidents and incidents 

message: Was Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 due to the decompression or the effects of high velocity wind on the failed section of the aircraft? That is, would the failure have been as spectacular if the same event (cabin vs atmospheric pressure) had occurred while the aircraft was at rest? I think not....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a couple of extended calculations and analyses by a pressure engineer and a corrosion engineer to assist with understanding the Aloha incident. The NTSB as an organization took the view that going beyond the corroded rivets (which implied rapid but not explosive decompression) was beyond its remit; but its lead investigator likes the 'fluid hammer' theory originating with Matt Austin a decade ago, which still attracts interest because it also accounts for a couple of other aircraft accidents. A Pakistani engineer recently looked into airstream impact through the stewardess' body, which would also have created a large stress spike; he comments of the fluid hammer hypothesis that the calculation involves ideal gas theory which doesn't well describe conditions at speed and altitude. Examining his paper closely shows he has only included the first part of Austin's calculation which indeed uses the ideal gas approximation, and not the subsequent fluid hammer.--Sdoradus (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  explosive decompression or something else 

message: The article defines Explosive decompression thus:
:"Explosive decompression occurs at a rate swifter than that at which air can escape from the lungs, typically in less than 0.1 to 0.5 seconds. The risk of lung trauma is very high..." 
Then, the article goes on to say that the National Airlines Flight 27 accident in 1973, was a case of an "Explosive decompression"  accident.
And, further down the chart it says that United Airlines Flight 811, in 1989 was also an example of an explosive decompression accident.
Thus, when I went to the official NTSB accident reports on those two accidents, I was expecting to find hordes of passengers and crew that suffered lung trauma.  
Au contraire!
The report for the NAL DC-10 decompression accident does not even use the phrase "explosive decompression." It states that of the 123 souls on board, only 24 had to be treated for injuries, consisting of smoke inhalation (10), ear barotrauma problems (10) and minor abrasions (from going down the slides).  No mention of any lung trauma suffered by anyone. Of course, one passenger was killed, but that had more to do with gravity, than with lung trauma...
The report for the UAL 811 accident does say it was a case of "explosive decompression," but as to injuries to the surviving 346 souls on board (nine more were ejected from the plane), there is no mention of lung trauma.  Indeed, the word "lung" is not found anywhere in the report.  As to injuries, it says of those 346 survivors:
"Most of the injuries sustained by the survivors were caused by the events associated with the decompression, such as baro-trauma to ears, and cuts and abrasions from the flying debris in the cabin. Other injuries were incurred during the emergency evacuation."
My point should be rather obvious by now.  If it is true that "The risk of lung trauma is very high..." in explosive decompression accidents, then that truth should have been reflected by way of numerous lung trauma injuries to the total of 478 souls on board both accident aircraft.  Yet, no one, not one, nada, suffered any kind of lung injury, according to the NTSB.
Something is either wrong with that FAA definition of explosive decompression, or else those two accidents were not valid examples of explosive decompression.  Right now, the credibility of Wikipedia is on the line, with this issue.  Something has to be changed in the article to rectify the obvious contradictions. 66.81.52.34 (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that or everyone was lucky. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 10:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explosive decompression: contradiction between reality and theory 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash
The noted Golfer Payne Stewart died when his Learjet underwent rapid decompression with the loss of conciousness for all crew.
Should this be included in the list of events?
--Patbahn (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Payne Stewart  Learjet crash