Wishful thinking.
Talking to my GF yesterday about the AF flight she opined that the oxygen masks should deliver Nitrous Oxide (laughing gas) in that situation.
Crazy but I’d sure wish it did.
Done nitrous at the Dentist office. It takes a short while before fading in. I’m afraid you’d be on the ground (or in the ocean) before it would start to work.
edit: fixed spelling
You do if you get knocked unconscious. Not exactly hard to imagine in violent turbulence.
Any cite for this? If the fuselage splits apart you’d effectively instantly start breathing external air at 35,000 feet, and at that level I’ve read that without oxygen masks every passenger would be unconscious within about a minute.
Any cite?
I think it’s pretty obvious - maybe not to you, given that you sound like you take pleasure from ‘idiots’ being conscious to experience their horrific pain - that people like to think others who suffered terrifying or agonizing deaths were not conscious to experience it. I’ve never heard anyone claim that 9/11 victims or victims of animal attacks fell unconscious, clearly they didn’t. But those situations are irrelevant; they’re very different from the possibility of losing consciousness in an aircraft that’s lost cabin pressure.
Like I said, I do hope no one would have been conscious for the entire experience on the Air France flight, but I’m sure they were conscious for at least a fair part of it, and if there’s good evidence they would have been conscious for the whole thing I won’t be able to deny it. But you haven’t cited any good evidence for it other than a rant.
I think that LSLGuy is trying to say is that as you’re falling, you’re gaining more and more useful conscious time. Assuming you didn’t get bonked on your head and were strapped into your seat - and were falling fast enough - it’s probably reasonable to assume that you would remain conscious the whole time.
I think a lot of people want to just assume unconsciousness because it’s less horrible to imagine. But the reality of it is probably even more horrible.
There was a movie that showed a plane crash, and one of the survivors becomes ‘detached’ from the world, walks away from the crash site and his old life, and does all kinds of crazy stuff… wish I could remember what it was called. The depiction of the plane in trouble with the cabin rotating and stuff–and people-- being thrown about was quite frightening. As soon as I heard about the crash, I was wondering whether it was like that. But LSLGuy’s depiction is scarier.
Yes, but (nitpick mode) it’s the knock on the head that renders you unconscious, not the turbulence.
The thing is, gravity takes over. You don’t stay at 35,000 feet. within a minute you’ll be at 25,000 feet, which is approximately the height of Mt. Everest - a place where people can breathe and remain conscious without supplemental oxygen although their thinking is impaired. In another minute you’ll be at 15,000 feet, which would be uncomfortable if you stayed there without acclimatization but you aren’t staying there, you’re still falling, and because there’s more oxygen your brain may be functioning better by that point. Another minute and you’re at 5,000 feet, the altitude of Denver, Colorado which is quite compatible with life and awareness. 30 second later, more or less, you’re at sea level or ground level, at which point getting enough oxygen is no longer your primary problem. Even if you black out briefly at 35,000 feet, increasing oxygen during your fall will most likely allow you to wake up again.
LSLGuy is professional pilot flying big jets, studying the effects of depressurization is a requirement for obtaining the necessary certifications to do that.
If it helps though here is a link to a discussion of the matter by another professional pilot.
Wikipedia isn’t the most solid source, but here is a wiki that provides a reasonable overview of decompression. Notably, there is a list of decompression incidents and accidents, mostly airplane connected, that will allow you to read about past occurrences should you be so inclined.
I don’t think LSLGuy gets any joy from contemplating a conscious free-fall minus parachute from 35,000 feet, particularly as it is a (admittedly small) occupational risk for him on some level. I think what it is, is that he has a better grasp of the facts than the average person and finds it frustrating when people would prefer to hold onto their ignorance or misinformation, even if some of the reasons for that are understandable.
I have. But let’s not get into an argument about that - perhaps the people you have to associate with are, on average, more intelligent and educated than the yahoos I share my neighborhood with.
Again, LSLGuy was required to study the effects of depressurization as part of obtaining his license to fly the big airliners. He did not state his credentials, but given his occupation and training his words actually do carry some authority in this matter.
The movie was Fearless.
I hope so, too, but at this point it’s still a possibility.
I’m not so sure about that - I don’t think I’d find being contained in an aluminum tube while plunging to a certain death miles below would be any more comforting than plunging through open air. Of course, that’s a personal opinion and clearly there is room for different people to feel differently about that one.
As comforting as that scenario may be, I think it more likely that the pilots were simply too busy trying to regain control of the airplane to send a mayday, as flying the airplane takes priority over talking on the radio. If the airplane did break up - either partially or entirely - due to turbulence there is no doubt in my mind that the ride prior to that event would FAR exceed any other turbulence you have ever experienced. I myself have experience turbulence on a passenger jet sufficient for overhead bins to open and luggage to go flying, unrestrained people to be tossed around, etc., yet I had no fear that that airplane was going to come apart. Likewise, I have been in a small airplane with stuff flying around the cabin and turbulence sufficient to leave bruises across both my shoulders and hips from the restraint harness, yet I had complete confidence the airplane could take the beating. Anything sufficient to shake apart an Airbus would be orders of magnitude worse than either of those two experiences, neither of which was any fun. My mind does tend to recoil from contemplating what an Airbus breakup would be like from the inside of the airplane, but when forced to look at the situation I think LSLGuy has the right of it.
The stall scenario in this situation comes about from a procedure designed to smooth out turbulence. By slowing the plane down the pilot increases angle of attack to maintain altitude. I don’t know the aerodynamics behind it but from personal experience it makes a huge difference. It appears that they lost the glass cockpit display, which is a series of flat panel screens that project information in place of a bunch of mechanical gauges. If in the process of losing this system they lost the sending units to the mechanical gauges then the pilot has slowed the plane down without a way to know where the stall speed is. Here is where things go wrong quickly. The pilot will be correcting for the left and right pitch using the ailerons. If the plane begins to stall it will naturally pitch down and also left or right. If the pilot attempts to correct using ailerons and up-elevator it will actually accelerate the stall. This will put the plane in a downward spiral. Instead of the air flowing over the wings it is now flowing perpendicular to the wing making it almost impossible to recover in clean air. We’re talking 10 to 20,000 feet to recover in ideal conditions.
Unless the cabin depressurized early in this scenario it would have been a frightening event for all concerned.
I did find this comment quite comforting actually. As a very nervous passenger even far milder turbulence puts me on edge, and every noise the plane makes me feel very unsafe. If I ever encountered turbulence that actually threw items around I would probably think I was going to die - I’ll try to keep your comment in mind in such an occasion 
I already knew, and it is obvious when thinking about it, that the plane can take stresses far greater than what makes me nervous. But it is difficult as a layperson strapped into the metal tube to suppress my evolutionary survival instinct!
I can hold my breath for a minute. If I can go without oxygen for sixty seconds and not even get faint, why would LESS oxygen knock someone out in sixty seconds?
Unless you had the advantage of holding your breath before the event you will be breathing air at 35000 feet. You’ll be doing this with your heart racing due to the adrenaline flooding your body in preparation of the fight or flight response. Unfortunately, there’s no place to run.
Because if the airplane depressurizes suddenly at 35,000 feet you won’t be able to hold your breathe (in fact, attempting to do so can result in lung damage). The pressure differential will take most of the air out of your lungs, and since the partial pressure of oxygen in the surrounding air is less than what is in your body oxygen will move from your blood stream to the surrounding air until those partial pressures equalize. In addition your adrenaline-soaked body will be using oxygen faster than usual. You see, when you hold your breath you aren’t really going without oxygen, you’re using what’s stored in your lungs. If you didn’t have that store, if, in fact, oxygen is being drawn out of your body, you don’t have as much time before you black out.
Glad I could help.
I remember a time when I sat next to a nervous passenger who almost jumped out of his skin when the landing gear lowered. I reassured him that that was a GOOD noise, that meant the landing gear mechanism was working, and it was essential to hear that prior to a good landing. Part of the anxiety is that you don’t know what all those sounds mean, if you did, you’d find them less nerve-wracking or even reassuring.
Try to - it IS scary and people DO get frightened. As I said, it’s not fun. Two handy rules:
-
If the airline attendants aren’t nervous, you shouldn’t be nervous. If they’re scared, you should be, too. They know what is and isn’t normal.
-
Keep your seat belt on as much as possible. Of course, if you need to get up to pee you have to take it off, but your seat is the safest place to be, and the belt will keep you in it in the event of unexpected bumps. The people injured in turbulence almost always weren’t in their seat, or weren’t buckled in.
I’m a pilot and my heart starts going faster when the air gets rough - the physical sensations alone can be disturbing, so don’t be too hard on yourself. You’re in a unfamiliar place with unfamiliar sensory input and no control over the situation, being a little nervous is completely understandable. Just remind yourself that aviation is, statistically speaking, an extremely safe form of travel, accidents are rare, airplanes are tough, and the pilots want to live, too.
Wow - where to begin ???
Broomstick - Thank you.
The Great Philosopher / OP: I regret that you have so thoroughly misunderstood my points.
I live in a fact-based world. I might prefer that milk and honey flowed freely in the streets and that all kids grew up in a safe environment with caring parents and material plenty. Sadly, I know the world doesn’t work that way. Even though I’m not an expert in those areas, I know and accept that the world doesn’t work that way, at least not today.
I believe that for me to crimp my eyes shut and choose to believe that all kids do have a great life is to do them a disservice. It removes me from the pool of people who can care, who *can *do something about it. It transforms me into a *let them eat cake *kind of person, at least passively, if not actively.
Almost nobody sensible wants to die. Nobody sensible wants to die unpleasantly. Nobody sensible wants others to die unpleasantly.
We do the dead a disservice, a disrespect, by blythely assuming they didn’t suffer, or “never knew what hit them”. In doing so we are choosing to close our eyes to *their *reality. Why do we do that? I submit that’s because it’s too unpleasant in *our *reality. Are we so weak we can’t withstand merely thinking about what others are forced to actually experience? That is cowardice.
You asked us what it was like for those poeple. I have unflinchingly told you what, in my professional opinion, I believe it was like. And I believe it was not pleasant.
I am not an accident investigator, although I have in my professional capacity read many dozens of accident reports over the years. I have watched helplessly as men died in aircraft. Not on youtube; for real. There is a difference.
I am not an aero engineer, although I have in my professional capacity read many books on the practical application thereof. I have been trained, practised, and been exhaustively evalauated on both my book knowledge and my practical use of that knowledge.
Among the ranks of the tens of thousands of pilots who fly or flew big jets, I’m nobody special, nobody famous or distinguished. I’m just another garden-variety practitioner.
For you to take exception to my comments, not because you disagreed with them, but because you found them emotionally unsettling, is, in my opinon, psychologically arrogant. I was going to write “intellectually arrogant”, but I beleive that your reaction wasn’t an intellectual act.
In my world, facts take precedence over all. We all have preferences, and I’d certainly prefer to die in bed, not in the cockpit. And I beleive I’m a hell of a lot more likely to achieve that goal by sticking to the facts as they are rather than as I might wish them to be.
In my opinion, a hell of a lot of the rest of human affairs would be greatly improved if more people adopted that attitude as well.
Belated edit 90 minutes later —
I sorta got on a tear there and exceeded the guidelines for GQ. I apologize.
What I should have said was closer to this:
…(as written to this point)…
Among the ranks of the tens of thousands of pilots who fly or flew big jets, I’m nobody special, nobody famous or distinguished. I’m just another garden-variety practitioner. Experts who know far more than I about the details could doubtless disagree here and there with the simplifications I made in my writing for an even less expert audience.
Others here have already provided links to reasonably reliable cites; certainly cites accurate enough for the purposes at hand; a laymens’ rough outline of a complicated subject.
We’ll never know exactly what experiences those people had; the dynamics are too complex to calculate even if we had the data. And the next broadly similar accident will have quite different details. But in the main, we can make some broad-brush statements about how things probably were / will be.
This is one reason (not the only one, obviously) that finding somewhat-intact (gruesomely enough, but not surprisingly, the Brazillian navy has reported that it’s unable to determine the sex of the three bodies most recently recovered) bodies is good news – the lungs of a person killed by oxygen starvation/pulmonary trauma at 35k feet will look different to a pathologist than the lungs of someone who hit the water alive and drowned (and different I guess than someone who hit the water alive and, more likely, was killed by the impact). So a few clues will emerge.
I didn’t find your comments emotionally unsettling, I just found them useless for answering my question - you just went off on a tangential rant, like you’ve done again here. You didn’t tell me what it would have been like for the passengers, you told me two things: that violent turbulence can’t render anyone unconscious (which is wrong) and that the passengers would ‘guaranteed’ have been conscious, which might well be true but you didn’t justify it, and given that it contradicts what a number of other pilots and doctors have said, I feel it’s a claim that needs to be justified.
I’m sorry, Philosopher, but I can’t see where LSLGuy and the “other pilots and doctors” are in conflict here. Could you please point out, specifically where you see this contradiction?