Sorry, Anthracite, I didn’t see you conversing with yourself while I was supposed to be proofreading my post. I’m sure there are surely flight attendants; hopefully your experience doesn’t fit the definition of air rage, and complaints made after that flight led to the retraining or dismissal of the errant crewmembers.
I just wanted to correct my use of one conjunction too many in my reply to Al.
No, it’s my fault. I had my post in another window for spell-checking, and messed up. And then I added that there are certainly many other concerns when one is shooting holes in a plane, but explosive decompression is not one that is a real concern. If I can get the differential equation to balance, I will post an example of why this is not a valid threat. And also address the crack propogation issue, and the fact that the plane can be continuously pressurized, etc, etc. It may be splitting hairs to some, I realize.
I suggest y’all read this article from CNN:
The problem is that the passengers’ oxygen masks are designed to last for no more than ten to fifteen minutes (depending on a person’s lung capacity and oxygen needs, naturally). The pilots are supposed to dive the plane to a lower altitude before the oxygen runs out. How are they supposed to do that if they are fighting terrorists?
In the article, John Wiley, aviation instructor, says that decompression need not be explosive, that it is highly unlikely that an airliner would come apart from a single bullet hole. (Seems to me that any small object would seal up a single bullet hole in a window pane well enough. The air pressure inside the plane would keep the object secure against the hole. But if the entire window is blown out, I think all the air would be gone in a matter of seconds.)
As you wish.