Woman tries to open airplane door midflight

Fly Guy 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.

James Robinson wrote:

and at 10,000 feet, the cabin altitude is about 1,000 feet.

And in this situation (4000 ft) the cabin pressure is equivalent to ?

You have suggested this before, and it was a dumb idea then. First,
it is pretty obvious that if asked,

If asked? Asked by who?

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 how well you're able to recall the information that you claim
is being ignored.

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.

"in the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, oxygen masks will
drop from overhead compartments...".

Clearly, if no such catastrophic event happens (which would be fairly
traumatic and identifiable) then passengers not putting on the masks
is understandable. That's a pretty weak argument to say that the
pre-flight announcements have no effect on passenger behavior.

Your suggestion for an annoucement would have even less effect,
since there would still be doubt about when to act.

That's pure speculation. Without any such wording in the
announcement, we will never know it's effectiveness if or when the
next incident happens.

Your suggestion ranks right up there with the suggestion
that passengers should be allowed to have concealed weapons
to protect themselves.

Your attempt to counter my argument by extending it to include a
ridiculous extreme should be seen for what it is (a specious and
disengenous counter-argument).

Had the proposed announcement been in place well before 9-11 not only
would none of the planes on 9-11 have reached their intended targets,
but it's highly likely that the plan would never have been hatched in
the first place because of the perception of the planners that such a
well-established passenger directive would have reduced the chance of
success of any attempt to take over a plane. There was ample evidence
since the mid 1990's that a domestic hijacking was more likely to be
used for terrorist rather than asylum or hostage reasons. Concerns
over causing fear, uneasiness, or negative impressions of air travel
when passengers hear the directive (probably resistence on the part of
airlines, pilots unions, insurance companies, etc) is probably the
reason why it was not (and has not) become a standard part of the
pre-flight message (when it logically should be).

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:51:17 -0400, Fly Guy wrote:

The sheep (I mean passengers) stayed in their seats as she tried to
open the doors.

What will happen the next time some terrorist gets up and tries to
pull a 9-11?

Will people also stay in their seats and let him fly the plane into a
building? Or will they tackle him? They did nothing to restrain this
woman who was doing something equally deadly.

We didn't need extra screening or air marshalls after 9-11.

All we needed was a simple addition to the pre-flight message to
passengers stating that they "may be called upon by the crew or fellow
passengers to subdue anyone threatening the safety or security of the
plane".

The following is a classic indication that the mind-set of passenger
uncertainty and confusion that existed prior to 9-11 still exists
today.

"other passengers stayed strapped into their seats in case she did
manage to open the door"

Cowards. The US is full of cowards. The FAA/TSA is full of cowards
who are too afraid of adding the above-mentioned sentence to
pre-flight announcements.

-----------------------

Posted 8/4/2005 12:27 PM Updated 8/4/2005 12:32 PM

Woman tries to open airplane door midflight

SEATTLE (AP) — A woman was arrested Wednesday for attempting to open
an airplane exit door while the plane was still in the air, police
said.

The 52-year-old woman from Dania Beach, Fla., left her seat and tried
to open the door as the United Airlines flight was descending into
Seattle to land, police said. The plane was at an altitude of about
4,000 feet at the time.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050...2353-9741r.htm
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/cgi-b...246325002&fa=1

According to police, the 52-year-old from Dania Beach, Fl. left her
seat and tried to open the door as the United Airlines flight was
descending into Seattle for landing.

The plane was at an altitude of about 4,000 ft. at the time of the
incident.

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport spokesman Bob Parker tells
KING-TV the woman failed to open the door, but managed to turn the
handle far enough to prompt a warning light to go off in the cockpit.

A flight attended coaxed the woman back to her seat, deeming physical
restraint unnecessary. Parker says other passengers stayed strapped
into their seats in case she did manage to open the door.

Upon landing, the woman was arrested for investigation of malicious
mischief. Police are also investigating whether alcohol and
prescription medication were involved.



I can think of several reasons for not getting up...the first being
the danger of not being strapped in if she did get the door open....4k
feet is not much of a pressure diference but most passengers can't
judge height.

Second, if an air marshall was on board, you risk being shot since he
or she may deicde you're part of the terrorist threat represented by
the lititle old lady.

Third, the old lady would probably sue you for assault etc and likely
win a huge judgement.

Fourth, the airline might sue you or have your arrested for
interfereing with the fliight attendant whow as trying to get her to
stop.


Since it is way unlikely the old lady could have gotten the door open
anyway, discretion seems the better part of valor.

Jim P.

Fly Guy wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

and at 10,000 feet, the cabin altitude is about 1,000 feet.

And in this situation (4000 ft) the cabin pressure is equivalent to ?

Something like a ton or two of pressure holding the door closed.

You have suggested this before, and it was a dumb idea then. First,
it is pretty obvious that if asked,

If asked? Asked by who?

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 how well you're able to recall the information that you claim
is being ignored.

Whether I recall it or not as somebody interested in the subject is
immaterial. What is important is that the average person does not
remember, and in the heat of the moment often do not follow the
instructions.

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.

"in the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, oxygen masks will
drop from overhead compartments...".

Clearly, if no such catastrophic event happens (which would be fairly
traumatic and identifiable) then passengers not putting on the masks
is understandable. That's a pretty weak argument to say that the
pre-flight announcements have no effect on passenger behavior.

You have added the word "sudden" to the description. The spiel only
talks about the loss of cabin pressurization. Even still, there have
been many deployments of oxygen masks, both from sudden depressurization
and from other causes, and most passengers either did not put them on at
all, or put them on improperly, like by forgetting to pull the hose to
start the system. So much for the effectiveness of instructions
repeated over and over.

Your suggestion for an annoucement would have even less effect,
since there would still be doubt about when to act.

That's pure speculation. Without any such wording in the
announcement, we will never know it's effectiveness if or when the
next incident happens.

You suggestion for an instruction is pure speculation. I believe after
the 9/11 events that passengers will be much more proactive all by
themselves without needing to be told.

Your suggestion ranks right up there with the suggestion
that passengers should be allowed to have concealed weapons
to protect themselves.

Your attempt to counter my argument by extending it to include a
ridiculous extreme should be seen for what it is (a specious and
disengenous counter-argument).

No. Looking to the extreme often shows the weaknesses of arguments. It
is a technique often used in mathematics and statistics to test the
validity and robustness of hypotheses.

Had the proposed announcement been in place well before 9-11 not only
would none of the planes on 9-11 have reached their intended targets,
but it's highly likely that the plan would never have been hatched in
the first place because of the perception of the planners that such a
well-established passenger directive would have reduced the chance of
success of any attempt to take over a plane.

I don't agree at all. The general thought at the time was that
hijackers only wanted to take the plane somewhere as a political
statement. It was felt that cooperation was the best course of action.
Neither the people who supposedly thought through security issues, nor
the passengers could have foreseen the end result until it was too late.

If cockpit doors had been reinforced and locked prior to 9/11, that
would have solved the problem as well. No announcement necessary. The
doors weren't set up that way because the risk wasn't foreseen.

There was ample evidence
since the mid 1990's that a domestic hijacking was more likely to be
used for terrorist rather than asylum or hostage reasons. Concerns
over causing fear, uneasiness, or negative impressions of air travel
when passengers hear the directive (probably resistence on the part of
airlines, pilots unions, insurance companies, etc) is probably the
reason why it was not (and has not) become a standard part of the
pre-flight message (when it logically should be).

Then why didn't they simply lock the cockpit doors? No need to alarm
the passengers.

James Robinson wrote:

There was ample evidence since the mid 1990's that a domestic
hijacking was more likely to be used for terrorist rather than
asylum or hostage reasons. Concerns over causing fear,
uneasiness, or negative impressions of air travel when
passengers hear the directive (probably resistence on the part
of airlines, pilots unions, insurance companies, etc) is
probably the reason why it was not (and has not) become a
standard part of the pre-flight message (when it logically
should be).

Then why didn't they simply lock the cockpit doors?

Because Pilots (through their unions) resisted the idea of being
locked inside the cockpit during flight. They saw it as a potential
barrier to being able to exit of the cockpit during an evacuation.
They resisted the manditory locked cockpit doors even after 9-11.
They'd cry bloody murder if it was proposed before 9-11.

No need to alarm the passengers.

If it is reasonable (or correct, or - the "new standard") for
passenger action to now be the rule (instead of passenger in-action),
then it's only right to somehow let the passengers know this.

Instead we have a situation like in the movie "Dr. Strangelove", where
the knowledge of the existance of the ultimate defensive weapon (the
Doomsday device) is not (yet) known to the US military. In this case,
the defensive weapon (passenger pro-action against would-be hijackers
or terrorsts) is not known or understood by the passengers.

Passengers are already told of the possibility of crash landings, of
landing in water, of the loss of cabin pressure. Don't tell me that
those contingencies don't already instill "alarm" in (some)
passengers. At least one situation (a bad guy or guys on board) is
something they _can_ do something about - as long as you tell them not
only is it ok to do so, but it's expected of them. (and if it isn't,
then I'm sure you would agree that the TSA/FAA should make some sort
of statment or policy position stating so).