Mitts Romney - 'Why don't aeroplane windows open?"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Iur_tae_mont**

kronk wrote:
daedalus wrote:
kronk wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Not as to defend anyone here, but, if you DID open the windows during an airplane fire, I would suspect it would help slow the fire due to the whole "decompression from lower outer air pressure" thing.

Getting violently sucked out of an airplane window at 35,000 feet would prevent you from being burned alive, which may or may not be better.

Well, okay, maybe not LITERALLY the window you've been staring out of for the first half of the flight, but I would implementation of a slow-blow vent wouldn't be impossible.

The more important question to ask is whether fires on airplanes are actually a common occurrence, and whether or not we have adequate means of controlling such things when they occur

The REAL question is can we get windows to roll down so that our Air Marshals can shoot any flying gremlins that try to damage the plane's engine mid-flight.

That's a cool trick right there. Shatner's reflection looks at him even when Shatner looks away.

**Howard A Treesong**

If opening a window was such a good idea then why wouldn't they just open the doors on current aircraft?

I don't think people would actually be sucked out the windows and all that. If the decompression was that violent due to the altitude it would cause a sudden temperature drop which would freeze you to death instead.

**Ouze**

AustonT wrote:
Sounds like lefty psuedo-science to keep airplane innovators down through regulation.

Conservapedia says if you did open a window at 35,000 feet, the invisible hand of the free market keeps the plane from depressurizing. It's just the TSA-Flight Attendant Industrial Complex keeping you from opening them to keep their jobs - in the end, it's just big-government unelected bureaucrats standing between you and enjoying a nice breeze.

**daedalus**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
If opening a window was such a good idea then why wouldn't they just open the doors on current aircraft?

I don't think people would actually be sucked out the windows and all that. If the decompression was that violent due to the altitude it would cause a sudden temperature drop which would freeze you to death instead.

Or severe lung damage and blood boiling.

Both sound about as pleasant as dying in a fire.

**kronk**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
If opening a window was such a good idea then why wouldn't they just open the doors on current aircraft?

I don't think people would actually be sucked out the windows and all that. If the decompression was that violent due to the altitude it would cause a sudden temperature drop which would freeze you to death instead.

You'd probably suffocate before freezing due to the lack of O2 getting to your brain. for every 1000 feet you go up, the temperature drops about 3.5 degrees F. So on a hot day, 100F at sea level would be -22.5 F at 35k feet. You'd definitely freeze without protection at that temperature, but I'm couldn't tell you how long that would take. The pilot would need to drop altitude very quickly to regain air pressure for the passengers and to get the temperature back under control.

**Frazzled**

Red_Zeke wrote:
Not sure how I found this thread, but hats off to you Mr. Frazzled. At the very least, I'm entertained.

Just call me Maximus

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No American would say Aeroplane. It's an Airplane. This was clearly a body double.

Good catch!!!

**ShumaGorath**

Realistically, opening a window on a passenger liner doesn't actually suck everyone out of it like a hole in a space ship. It eventually depressurizes the interior of the plane (which is bad), but you'd have to be pressed right up against the window for any injury to occur via the suction.

**whembly**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Realistically, opening a window on a passenger liner doesn't actually suck everyone out of it like a hole in a space ship. It eventually depressurizes the interior of the plane (which is bad), but you'd have to be pressed right up against the window for any injury to occur via the suction.

Wouldn't it also fan the flames?

Or, did someone think that the depressurizations would knock out the flames?

**Ahtman**

Perhaps if we can learn how magnets work we can use that information to make windows on planes.

**ShumaGorath**

whembly wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Realistically, opening a window on a passenger liner doesn't actually suck everyone out of it like a hole in a space ship. It eventually depressurizes the interior of the plane (which is bad), but you'd have to be pressed right up against the window for any injury to occur via the suction.

Wouldn't it also fan the flames?

Or, did someone think that the depressurizations would knock out the flames?

It would probably fan the flames to an extent, but the big fear of fire in a pressurized environment is the loss of oxygen followed by death.

**Kid_Kyoto**

whembly wrote:
Meh... Obama's 57-states' gaffe worthy?

I'm just going to leave this here:

Two possibilities. One: A guy with a joint degree from Harvard Law and Harvard Business, who’s made hundreds of millions of dollars through his keen grasp of business, and who’s been flying regularly for decades (imagine the amount of campaign travel in the past five years alone) somehow hasn’t figured out yet that cabins are pressurized at high altitudes.

I dunno how much or how little Gov Romney knows about airplanes, but I do know that after years in politics he obviously does not know how to say something like this, whether it was a joke or an observation, without sounding like a fool.

And y'know, sounding intelligent is kind of one of the qualifications for being President.

Why doesn't Obama get seen as a fool for gaffs like 57 states? Because there's a preponderance of warm, intelligent, coherent and even elloquent statements from him that out weighs occasional errors.

**hotsauceman1**

Frazzled wrote:
Oh, then I stand corrected. Hammer is not a communist. He's a socialist. This is strange. I've seen actual socialists with a sense of humor, or have I????

You have seen me and im a socialist with a sense of Humor.
Also I suspect this is a mis understanding, No human being is stupid enough to open windows in an airplane.

**Kid_Kyoto**

Oh and while we're at Gov Romney and science, I could point out that in Republican debates he said he does not believe in evolution but I like this one better.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/24/1135928/-More-Mitt-Romney-science-He-believes-University-of-Utah-solved-cold-fusion

I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it.

Uh... that was debunked.

In 1989.

I guess he's behind in his reading.

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Oh, then I stand corrected. Hammer is not a communist. He's a socialist. This is strange. I've seen actual socialists with a sense of humor, or have I????

You have seen me and im a socialist with a sense of Humor.
Also I suspect this is a mis understanding, No human being is stupid enough to open windows in an airplane.

Dad almost fell out of perfectly good airplane over Cuba once. Admittedly he was drunk at the time, but so was the pilot and the rest of the crew.

**Grakmar**

kronk wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Not as to defend anyone here, but, if you DID open the windows during an airplane fire, I would suspect it would help slow the fire due to the whole "decompression from lower outer air pressure" thing.

Getting violently sucked out of an airplane window at 35,000 feet would prevent you from being burned alive, which may or may not be better.

Mythbusters did the explosive decompression thing. It doesn't work. You're totally fine as long as you're seatbelted in.

Just look at Aloha Airline Flight 243. A huge section of the plane ripped open during the flight. The only fatality was a steward who was standing when it happened. Everyone that was in their seats survived (although there were injuries from debris flying around).

For reference, here's an image of the plane when it landed:

**Lynata**

This also depends on the height the plane is travelling at, doesn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization

I'd assume that the greater the difference between air pressure inside and outside the cabine, the greater the health risks when it is suddenly and violently equalised. Like from an opened window.

See deep sea diving, too.

ShumaGorath wrote:No American would say Aeroplane. It's an Airplane. This was clearly a body double.

To be fair, is there any country on this planet where it's common for people to say "aeroplane"?

Maybe it's a class thing.

**ShumaGorath**

Lynata wrote:
This also depends on the height the plane is travelling at, doesn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization

I'd assume that the greater the difference between air pressure inside and outside the cabine, the greater the health risks when it is suddenly and violently equalised. Like from an opened window.

See deep sea diving, too.

ShumaGorath wrote:No American would say Aeroplane. It's an Airplane. This was clearly a body double.
To be fair, is there any country on this planet where it's common for people to sa "aeroplane"?

Passenger aircraft don't fly that high. They have gas masks to prevent hypoxia and the bends won't occur since cabin pressure isn't maintained from sealevel to xenith. It's a pressurized, but not sealed system.

**Lynata**

ShumaGorath wrote:Passenger aircraft don't fly that high. They have gas masks to prevent hypoxia and the bends won't occur since cabin pressure isn't maintained from sealevel to xenith. It's a pressurized, but not sealed system.

I'm no expert, but according to that wikipedia article (which may be wrong) pressurization is essential over 10.000 feet - a height easily reached by passenger flights.
Here's an example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126420/Ryanair-emergency-landing-Plane-plunges-20-000ft-loss-cabin-pressure.html

Here's an explanation I stumbled upon just now, and which I found rather helpful:

Spoiler:

The human body can start to feel effects of hypoxia, a lack of oxygen to the brain, at 5000ft ASL (above sea level) at night. During the day most of us can exceed over 10,000ft ASL without any serious signs of hypoxia. This is why most transport category aircraft cruise at a 8,000ft cabin altitude, or equivalent outside pressure flying at 8,000ft ASL. Even though the aircraft may be at 41,000ft we only feel the difference between the takeoff airport elevation and the landing airport elevation.

Pressurized aircraft work on what as known as cabin differential. Differential is the difference in PSI between outside the airframe and within. The balloon analogy is correct, the aircraft can only withstand so many PSIs before the fuselage itself will give way. Think of a can of soda with the lid attached. The can is strong, but still semi playable. Shake the can up and even a small sharp bend or weaking of the outer shell will cause failure of the can. Aircraft, as scary as that may sound, are the same.

We cannot forget that in something as large as say a 737 there are bound to be "holes". Air will leak from the higher pressure cabin to the lower pressure exterior. So its not as if the aircraft is completely sealed, ever. Air valves placed along pressure bulkheads call OUTFLOW valves regulate the pressure in the fuselage via a pressure controller in the cockpit. This allows the aircraft's computers or pilots to manage the amount of escaping air from the cabin thus causing the pressure changes we feel. It is quite typical for a transport category (airliner) to climb or descend at rates that we would find uncomfortable and hard to handle with our sinus passages. 2000-3000fpm descent rates are not out the ordinary for an airliner on an arrival to a large metro complex. This descent rate translates to about 300-400fpm cabin descent to allow for passenger comfort.

The differential is controlled by allowing what is known as bleed air from the engine in to an Pneumatically Actuated Conditioning Kit or PACK for short. The PACK heats, cools, and pressurizes the aircraft much like your A/C in your car or home does. The high pressure air coming from the pack is regulated by the outflow valves and creates differential pressure.

-- http://www.quora.com/Air-Travel/Why-does-cabin-pressure-change-during-flight-Why-cant-it-be-kept-constant-and-just-adjusted-once-i-e-after-landing

So I guess windows are sealed mainly so that the passengers can't fool around with the pressure, as it's the pilots' job to balance it.

**ShumaGorath**

Hypoxia results from prolonged exposure, that's why they have the little oxygen masks. It's realistically the only risk to a ruptured cabins passengers at high altitudes (beside how much more difficult it is to fly and the possible crash). They seal the cabin for a reason, but it's not hugely risky to have an open cabin except for the young/elderly.

**Squigsquasher**

This has to be a joke. He can't be that stupid...

Can he?

**whembly**

It was a joke ya'll...
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/mitt-romney-joke-joking-airplane-windows.html

The Los Angeles Times story that relayed Romney's airplane remark to the world was based off a pool report written by the New York Times's Ashley Parker. When we asked Parker this morning whether it seemed as if Romney made the mark in jest, she left no doubt. "Romney was joking," she e-mailed. Parker told us that while the pool report didn't explicitly indicate that Romney was joking, it was self-evident that he was. "The pool report provided the full transcript of his comments on Ann's plane scare," she said, "and it was clear from the context that he was not being serious."

**azazel the cat**

Ouze wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Sounds like lefty psuedo-science to keep airplane innovators down through regulation.

Conservapedia says if you did open a window at 35,000 feet, the invisible hand of the free market keeps the plane from depressurizing. It's just the TSA-Flight Attendant Industrial Complex keeping you from opening them to keep their jobs - in the end, it's just big-government unelected bureaucrats standing between you and enjoying a nice breeze.

Ouze wins.

/thread

**Grakmar**

whembly wrote:
It was a joke ya'll...

I'd like to think that no matter how much people like to rag on Mitt being out of touch, nobody would take this at pure face value.

I assumed he meant it seriously, but only allowing the windows to be opened after the pilot unlocks them in the event of an emergency where opening them is deemed less dangerous than allowing the fire to consume all available oxygen in the passenger cabin.

**whembly**

Grakmar wrote:
whembly wrote:
It was a joke ya'll...

I'd like to think that no matter how much people like to rag on Mitt being out of touch, nobody would take this at pure face value.

I assumed he meant it seriously, but only allowing the windows to be opened after the pilot unlocks them in the event of an emergency where opening them is deemed less dangerous than allowing the fire to consume all available oxygen in the passenger cabin.

Yeah... but it's "let rag on our politician time!"...

**AustonT**

whembly wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
whembly wrote:
It was a joke ya'll...

I'd like to think that no matter how much people like to rag on Mitt being out of touch, nobody would take this at pure face value.

I assumed he meant it seriously, but only allowing the windows to be opened after the pilot unlocks them in the event of an emergency where opening them is deemed less dangerous than allowing the fire to consume all available oxygen in the passenger cabin.

Yeah... but it's "let rag on our politician time!"...

He's still a moron, that's what made it believable.

**Kid_Kyoto**

As this is verified as an intentional joke and not a gaffe by the authority vested in me by Yakface's holy modquisition I do declare this thread...

closed!