Guns and Airplanes

[Bruzilla]

I know several of us have discussed the pros and cons of allowing pilots and air marshals having guns on planes, and those who are opposed all seem to make the same argument: someone firing a gun in a plane would cause an explosive decompression that would down the aircraft.

Last Sunday, The Discovery Channel ran an episode of a show called "Mythbusters", which is about two guys who go around testing various urban legends and myths to see if they are true. Anyway, last Sunday they did a segment on if shooting a gun in a pressurized aircraft could cause an explosive decompression.

They went out to an aircraft graveyard and found a DC-9 that could be sealed up and pressurized. Then they got a crash test dummy and put it in a window seat. They used an air cart to pressurize the aircraft to the same level it would be at about 35,000 feet, and fired a pistol (either a .38 Special or .357 Magnum) through the window where the dummy was seated. Guess what happened? Nothing but a slight whistling sound as the air rushed out. No clouds of debris, no body getting sucked out a tiny hole, just a faint whistle.

Next, they sealed up the hole in the window and fired into the fuselage, thinking that the thin aluminum would tear away and leave a huge hole. Guess what happened? Again... nothing but some whistling... and this was in an old DC-9 with a lot of fatigue stress.

Next, they placed a small explosive charge against the window by the dummy and blew the whole window out. The results were the window was gone, some of the metal around the window was gone, and the decompression pulled the dummy's arm out of the window.

Lastly, they placed a big, shaped charge about 7" across by a window, and fired that off. The results of this were pretty spectacular as the dummy was blasted from the plane, two rows of seats were torn up (but remained in the plane), and a large section of fuselage peeled away.

Very interesting show and it reconfirmed by belief that explosive decompression from a pistol shot is a myth.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Very interesting show and it reconfirmed by belief that explosive decompression from a pistol shot is a myth.

I saw that one, too - I love Myth Busters!

 

[Ponytail]

The one thing that that test did NOT take into consideration is the stress that the airplanes structure is under during flight, in addition to the pressurization.

In my opinion, they're test is HIGHLY inconclusive.

 

[Larry Gude]

Pony...

...I didn't see the show and I'm with you in terms of..."Is it the same thing?".

If I remember correctly, the main purpose of pressurizing an airplane is so everyone can breath normally, that is, without a mask and tank, not to keep us intact or in the plane.

These guys say the bullet hole stuff is BS as well:

http://www.udpl.net/goldfinger.html

In a submarine, the issue is to much pressure.

In a plane, it's to little. Seems reasonable that a bullet hole is no big deal.

 

[Ken King]

I would love to have seen the show to better reply, but I won’t let a little thing like that stop me. What that show and you seem to have missed was that the aircraft wasn’t at altitude so the pressure differential was minimal at best, that it wasn’t subjected to forces involved with flight so the damage that may have caused was not a part of the simulation, and I am sure that the shot that penetrated the fuselage didn’t originate from the cockpit, thus providing less or no rip in the skin and again it was not in the environment of flight. What did their demonstration prove? Sitting on the ground, even if pressurized, is no problem.

It is interesting that you mention the use of explosives by the show. Were they trying to show that an explosive charge had little to no effect on an aircraft? Tell that to the relatives and friends that were on Pan Am 103. If my memory is correct it was presumed that the bomb used on Pan AM 103 was of a size that it was contained within a radio and enclosed in a suitcase. It was probably no more than a pound of high-grade explosives. Did they mention how much explosive they had in that 7” shape-charge pack?

Also, I seem to remember the discussion you refer to as being slightly different and I don’t think anyone opposed armed air marshals, only armed pilots (See for yourself here in one such discussion, http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=906 ). As I have said all along, the answer is to have cockpits totally isolated from the passenger compartment. Until that is feasible have a combat geared armed flight deck guard in place between the passengers and the controls. The idea is to get the bird on the deck and shut down before a terrorist is able to gain entry into the cockpit. It isn’t about stopping attacks upon the passengers; it’s about stopping the use of an aircraft as a weapon.

Public Law 107-296 that allows for the arming of pilots requires that information regarding analysis of catastrophic failure caused by the discharge of a firearm is not to be disclosed. In other words it has been classified so that the public (nor terrorists, which is a good idea) don’t know what risk there is. If there were absolutely no risk, why would our government do that? Or is that what they have planned. If the armed pilot stops any intruder it is a win, if the pilot cripples and downs the plane it might be a win for some on the ground. At least the aircraft can’t be used as intended. Yeah Baby, roll them dice.

After you think about this we’ll delve into why the airlines aren’t arming more of their pilots if you would like. As I understand, this program isn’t mandatory.

Hey Vraiblonde, I loved the movie Speed too, you think that bus made the jump?

Hey PT, exactly!!!!!!