Originally Posted by Flight Alloy
(Post 10613419)
No mask can work as a 'pressurized' mask, aka delivering more pressure to the lungs than ambient...
Google CPAP... |
Originally Posted by Flight Alloy
(Post 10613419)
No mask can work as a 'pressurized' mask, aka delivering more pressure to the lungs than ambient, ..... pressurized breathing is only possible with suits that also pressurize the chest area to the same pressure as the breathed gas
It certainly is an interesting sensation, but as long as the differential isn't too excessive a pressure suit is not required, certainly not if you are going to only be pressure breathing for a short period of time..... |
Thanks Wiggy. Flight Alloy - have you experienced decompressions and pressure breathing in a chamber? |
Flight Alloy, what are you on about. You have obviously never worn a flight crew mask with Emergency set on the dial. PPrune...
|
Flight Alloy: It is true that limited pressure breathing is possible, but this is limited to just the slight muscular 'overcapacity' the diaphragm muscles are capable of, in the range of fractions of an atmosphere.
Capn Bloggs: Flight Alloy, what are you on about. You have obviously never worn a flight crew mask with Emergency set on the dial. Trying to get a ball-park figure I found a 2003 Lancet article on the "Physiological hazards of flight at high altitude" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...059-3/fulltext "Which mentioned "positive pressure breathing oxygen masks that deliver up to 70 mm Hg", that's just under 10% of an atmosphere (760mm Hg). Any idea what pressure modern flight crew masks actually deliver? |
Originally Posted by fab777
(Post 10613310)
At VMO, gear extended and in a side slip, maybe. So definitely not realistic in the real life. 4000 is a correct figure.
But I realize this thread is about the 787. I only flew the 767 plus the Airbus. |
Originally Posted by Peter
Any idea what pressure modern flight crew masks actually deliver?
|
Originally Posted by Retired DC9 driver
(Post 10613560)
I've demonstrated a 6500 FPM descent in a light A-319. You need to disconnect the autopilot, hand fly to get more flight spoiler extension. But it went down in a hurry. LA Centre had asked us to "expedite descent". My F/O looked a little concerned..
But I realize this thread is about the 787. I only flew the 767 plus the Airbus. |
Originally Posted by Peter H
(Post 10613544)
Flight Alloy: It is true that limited pressure breathing is possible, but this is limited to just the slight muscular 'overcapacity' the diaphragm muscles are capable of, in the range of fractions of an atmosphere.
Capn Bloggs: Flight Alloy, what are you on about. You have obviously never worn a flight crew mask with Emergency set on the dial. Trying to get a ball-park figure I found a 2003 Lancet article on the "Physiological hazards of flight at high altitude" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...059-3/fulltext "Which mentioned "positive pressure breathing oxygen masks that deliver up to 70 mm Hg", that's just under 10% of an atmosphere (760mm Hg). Any idea what pressure modern flight crew masks actually deliver? Another additional means for hypoxia protection is positive pressure breathing, which is usually found in modern crew oxygen masks and means the delivery of pure oxygen under pressure into the respiratory tract. For civil applications positive pressure breathing is able to increase additionally the oxygen partial pressure by around 20 to 30mbar provided that the overpressure condition is limited to some minutes only. As one can plainly see, the overpressure provided is minimal, compared to sea level, the overpressure is 3% of atmospheric, at altitude, it constitutes only 15% over ambient. So as I had stated before, yes, limited pressure breathing is possible, but it only constitutes an overpressure of 3% of an MSL atmosphere, aka a very minimal overpressure fraction, again due to the fact that our lung muscles have very limited overcapacity to process that pressure and not suffer any rupture injuries. I am sure it may 'feel' significant to the pilots who have experienced it, but numbers show that the overpressure component is a minimal, almost negligible component of the breathing system at altitude in all aircraft without the provision of pressure suits. |
Originally Posted by The Bartender
(Post 10613429)
Right....
Google CPAP... gives a CPAP average treatment pressure of 7.8mbar above atmospheric, which comes out to around 0.8% above ambient pressure. I wouldn't exactly call that 'overpressure breathing', a stiff wind should cause higher pressure differential. Before doing the whole LMGTFY game, perhaps you would consider informing yourself a little bit too before spouting unfounded statements? |
Gentlemen, I regret you are mixing many different issues and talking physiological nonsense. CPAP has nothing to do with oxyenation in OSA but may improve arterial oxygenation in the abnormal lung. Positive pressures cant simply be added to partial pressures and the phrase
lung muscles have very limited overcapacity to process that pressure Bottom line is that sudden depressurisation at 35 to 40,000 feet will kill at least some without oxygen regardless of how fast you can expedite descent. A non venturi non pressurised mask providing 100% oxygen will prevent cerebral apoptosis. A pressurised mask will prevent fumes being inhaled and a demand valve pressurised system can allow normal function I remain staggered that everyone isnt up in arms that passengers are in effect being put at risk in a seat lottery over a safety provision that has been mandatory for decades I will now withdraw to prevent my repetition |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10613583)
Not numerically. I do know that when our masks are on Emergency, there is significant overpressure, to the point where it is difficult to talk normally. The Emerg setting is for smoke/fumes use, not for a "normal" depressurisation.
I expect the pressure delivered is on the order of .1 to .4 psig, which is a slight positive pressure that works because the actual need is to provide a partial pressure of oxygen equivalent to 10,000 ft and the 3-5 psi at altitude on pure oxygen accomplishes that; there's also a need to exclude smoke/toxic gases. Yes, even that low gauge pressure makes it tough to talk. Considering that lungs have a section area close to 100 square inches, even a 0.1 psi load is like having a 10 pound weight on your chest to resist. From the scuba people: "The important number isn't the total pressure in the lung but rather the difference in perssure between inside the lung and outside the lung. If the pressure in the lung is 95-110 cm H2O higher than the pressure outside the lung, the lung can rupture. (100cmH2O= 0.097ATA= 0.098bar= 1.42PSI= 73.55mmHg approx.)" Search scubaboard with the above text for more, sometimes grisly, details. Mind that this is the rupture pressure; it will be very uncomfortable before reaching this level. |
Cabin O2 masks are certified up to 25.000 ft.
|
Originally Posted by Radgirl
(Post 10613667)
Bottom line is that sudden depressurisation at 35 to 40,000 feet will kill at least some without oxygen regardless of how fast you can expedite descent.
That would imply some kind of catastrophic structural failure where lack of oxygen might well be the least of your problems. In a more likely scenario, does anyone have ballpark figures for the likely cabin pressure decay vs time resulting from, say, a window blowout, assuming that all the packs are still running and (by then) the outflow valve has closed ? |
MechEngr
..so you would need between 54 pounds and 144 pounds of strap tension to hold the mask on the person's face; not including the preload to keep from leaking out past the rubbery flesh of the face. However that was then, this is now and these days I certainly wouldn't want to risk the same using a generic quick don one size "fits all" ( or doesn't :ooh:) Eros type mask as found in many flight decks.. Bottom line (for me) is that whilst you can protect yourself from a decompression quickly and reasonably adequately on the flight deck anybody in the cabin is very exposed, as Radgirl has pointed out.. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10613750)
In a more likely scenario, does anyone have ballpark figures for the likely cabin pressure decay vs time resulting from, say, a window blowout, assuming that all the packs are still running and (by then) the outflow valve has closed ? [QUOTE=Radgirl;10613667] Ma´am, I am very hesitant to say that there would be fatalities due to hypoxia even when starting the emergency descent from high levels. If we stick to "high level", the National Airlines 27 encountered an uncontained engine failure at 39000ft with hull breach and one passenger sucked out. All but that one survived. With the Aloha 243 incident there isn't much to debate: the pressure was gone that instant (at 24000ft), yet all but one survived. With the Southwest 1380 the depressurization at 32000ft was described as "rapid", yet again all but one survived. The fatalities obviously weren't due to hypoxia. In all these cases the cause of death was anything but hypoxia. I would say that there are far more serious consequences with hull breach than risk of hypoxia, if the plane is brought down below 10000ft as soon as possible. |
Originally Posted by Flight Alloy
(Post 10613659)
Thanks for the tip.The medical journal Thorax,
gives a CPAP average treatment pressure of 7.8mbar above atmospheric, which comes out to around 0.8% above ambient pressure. I wouldn't exactly call that 'overpressure breathing', a stiff wind should cause higher pressure differential. Before doing the whole LMGTFY game, perhaps you would consider informing yourself a little bit too before spouting unfounded statements? |
Originally Posted by Retired DC9 driver
(Post 10613560)
I've demonstrated a 6500 FPM descent in a light A-319. You need to disconnect the autopilot, hand fly to get more flight spoiler extension. But it went down in a hurry. LA Centre had asked us to "expedite descent". My F/O looked a little concerned..
But I realize this thread is about the 787. I only flew the 767 plus the Airbus. |
Originally Posted by bucoops
(Post 10613795)
My CPAP machine can supply at up to 20 cmH2O. Not sure how that translates but when I first started using it, it woke me in the middle of the night with the feeling of drowning in air. A very disconcerting feeling I can assure you. Obviously this was at normal atmospheric level, not FL45 or so.
|
In the 744 sim both outflow valves open and with all packs running results in a 4000fpm cabin ROC. One outflow valve is about the size of four windows... I would infer from this that the packs can probably keep pressurisation at level with two or three busted windows, hence no explosive decompression would ensue from that. Peel off some skin or blow out a cargo door of course and that's a different story...
|
Originally Posted by Flight Alloy
(Post 10613650)
our lung muscles have very limited overcapacity
Chest muscles, and Diaphragm muscle, yep, but neither of those have a "capacity" as such, the chest cavity can expand by up to 1.5 to 2 litres from maximum exhalation to maximum inhalation. |
Originally Posted by Flight Alloy
(Post 10614059)
...Now at external pressure that is lower than internal lung pressure, which are being pressurized by, for sake of argument, a continuous air supply, our lungs are inflated like a balloon. This force could be multiples of the normal inspiration force that is normal. Our lungs have a limited expansion capacity before injury occurs, linings are torn, intricate alveoli and arteries ripped, they explode, baro-trauma?
If you manually ventilate a patient in respiratory arrest - where the diaphragm and intercostal muscles are dormant - you can feel when you have met the elastic limit of the lungs, and any excess volume will be expelled round the seal of the mask. But even in a fully intubated patient using an automatic ventilator, you would be unlikely to cause any baro-trauma. To try and drag this discussion back to some sort of relevance, the purpose of the passenger air masks is not to ventilate the patient, but simply to increase the partial pressure of oxygen within the mask, and therefore the lungs, to the point where anoxia does not occur. |
Originally Posted by Surlybonds
(Post 10614090)
Even in a decompressed aircraft, the pressure differential between the external environment and the internal lung pressure is not going to be anywhere near enough to cause damage. We are talking about low flow rate supplementary oxygen, maybe 10 litres/min, not connecting the patient to a high pressure air-line. Baro-trauma is usually the result of being too near the shockwave of an explosion, or other such high pressure events.
If you manually ventilate a patient in respiratory arrest - where the diaphragm and intercostal muscles are dormant - you can feel when you have met the elastic limit of the lungs, and any excess volume will be expelled round the seal of the mask. But even in a fully intubated patient using an automatic ventilator, you would be unlikely to cause any baro-trauma. To try and drag this discussion back to some sort of relevance, the purpose of the passenger air masks is not to ventilate the patient, but simply to increase the partial pressure of oxygen within the mask, and therefore the lungs, to the point where anoxia does not occur. |
I find this medical discussion fascinating, and educative, but very theoretical.
In my 35 years as a radar controller controlling mostly upper airspace, I had to witness a few emergency descent myself, and saw a lot more on replay. On the ROD : except from very old types like CV990 which could put 4 reverses in flight and could go down with 10.000 ft/min, the DC8 which could put the inboards in reverse and do 6000 ft/min , most of the others did around 4000 .I never seen a 787 doing one , left before they arrived. After the incidents occurred , except from some minor injuries ,I cannot recall anyone killed or being permanently brain damaged. I have never read anything like this on incidents reports from rest of the world either. People sucked out if seated besides the hole.. yes, but Dead by hypoxia during a descent ? But maybe someone here can find references. . And I mean hypoxia during an emergency descent, not slow ones or staying at altitude , e.g. Helios and various Lear jets.. |
Maybe that’s because the pax O2 worked for more than 75% of the passengers. This issue breaks down into a discussion when really it should be about the aircraft's ability to meet the regulations and moral imperatives to supply 100% of the iccupants with reliable O2 supply. This is just the Titanic revisited: Insufficient lifeboats=insufficienct O2 reliability. |
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10614498)
Maybe that’s because the pax O2 worked for more than 75% of the passengers. |
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 10614489)
I find this medical discussion fascinating, and educative, but very theoretical.
In my 35 years as a radar controller controlling mostly upper airspace, I had to witness a few emergency descent myself, and saw a lot more on replay. On the ROD : except from very old types like CV990 which could put 4 reverses in flight and could go down with 10.000 ft/min, the DC8 which could put the inboards in reverse and do 6000 ft/min , most of the others did around 4000 .I never seen a 787 doing one , left before they arrived. After the incidents occurred , except from some minor injuries ,I cannot recall anyone killed or being permanently brain damaged. I have never read anything like this on incidents reports from rest of the world either. People sucked out if seated besides the hole.. yes, but Dead by hypoxia during a descent ? But maybe someone here can find references. . And I mean hypoxia during an emergency descent, not slow ones or staying at altitude , e.g. Helios and various Lear jets.. |
Originally Posted by Jumpjim
(Post 10614524)
in descent from 41,000’ it takes about 3 1/2 mins to 10,000’.
|
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10614498)
Maybe that’s because the pax O2 worked for more than 75% of the passengers. This issue breaks down into a discussion when really it should be about the aircraft's ability to meet the regulations and moral imperatives to supply 100% of the iccupants with reliable O2 supply. This is just the Titanic revisited: Insufficient lifeboats=insufficienct O2 reliability. But contrary to everything we do in aviation, this cannot checked or tested. It is a lifesaver! How could this have passed certification? And now apparently it has been tested, only 75% works. Doesn’t exactly return my faith in Boeing and FAA.. |
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 10614489)
Helios and various Lear jets..
(Certain variants of Beech' King Air are known for their propensity to decompress very slooooowly and head off on cross-country ghost flights) |
Originally Posted by fab777
(Post 10613310)
At VMO, gear extended and in a side slip, maybe. So definitely not realistic in the real life. 4000 is a correct figure.
and I really wouldn’t extend the gear at VMO or do a side slip in a big jet.....back to flightsim for you. |
Originally Posted by Takwis
(Post 10614573)
8,800 fpm.
@ vhogb : not many Kings in the airspace I controlled back then , but yes, heard the stories.. I was on duty in the 80s when a German Lear 25 overflew my sector at 430 , intercepted by F4s which reported an empty cockpit.. it crashed in the Atlantic when It ran out of fuel .Left an imprint in my memory... |
I should have clarified. I thought lots of other pilots would chime in and say, "no way". But no one did. So I will.
No Way. 4000fpm is realistic. 8800 fpm is ludicrous, for an airliner. |
It might be helpful if Boeing were to address this O2 system issue directly by actually testing it on one of the airline 787s. It would cost a little money, but would also show that Boeing actually is sensitive to passenger safety issues again.
Moreover, if the test is a dud, it saves Boeing from the disaster that an in flight failure would have been, allowing them to solve the problem in peacetime, as it were.. |
Not wanting to be insistent, but may I ask again if this problem is unique to Boeing, or indeed the 787? I assume the devices come from a third-party supplier. Do all other passenger aircraft use oxygen generators instead of bottles? Is it known what the normal failure rate is?
|
Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot
(Post 10615122)
Do all other passenger aircraft use oxygen generators instead of bottles?
From a users POV in the Long Haul arena they have at least a couple of possible advantages over generator systems: 1. If post decompression you end up in a brief cruise just above 10,000 feet (e.g; at say 12 000' for terrain reasons) you can selectively turn off/on supply to individual seats, thereby saving what's left in the tanks for those who are deemed to still need breathing assistance (not everybody will). 2. On a more routine basis if you have a passenger with a medical problem who needs oxygen for a considerable period of time ( and on a long haul flight it can sometimes be hours) you can supply him/her with a mask plugged into the oxygen ring main system rather than use up all your portable walk around bottles.. |
PulsOx Emergency O2 System
[QUOTE=wiggy;10615215]Can't comment of the specifics of the 787 but there certainly are other large passenger aircraft around that use gaseous oxygen/"ring main" systems.
The 787 and certain A350's, are equipped with the Collins Aerospace (that's UTC now) PulsOx system. New technology indeed which introduces lightweight O2 cylinders along with complex, electronically controlled pyrotechnic supply valves. (the ones in question) . Operation is driven by a pcb at each seat set. This system is said to reduce system weight compared to a ring main installation. Strangely, Collins make no weight comparison with the widely used O2 generator system. The main attraction of the O2 generator is its simplicity. Oxygen is provided by the action of the user pulling the mask downward, withdrawing a safety pin to activate the chemical reaction. Maintenance is simple; confined to checking the serviceability of the panel latches and confirming that the generator has not reached its expiry date. That very check prompted an FAA/EASA scare in 2017 when it was found that a batch of life expired generators would not work when attempts were made to dispose of them. Most aircraft in my experience have chemical O2 generators. They seemed to have been introduced with DC10's way back when. The L1011 from the same era came with the ring main though. Which aircraft still operate with a ring main system? Wiggy, in my old outfit it was forbidden to tap into the ring main for planned medical cases. The Stretcher Kit came complete with sufficient Therapeutic Bottles for the whole trip. |
Which aircraft still operate with a ring main system? Wiggy, in my old outfit it was forbidden to tap into the ring main for planned medical cases. The Stretcher Kit came complete with sufficient Therapeutic Bottles for the whole trip. |
The ring main system sounds like it has some controlability at every station, does it have extra plugs for medical masks and manual activation valves for such uses?
|
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10614498)
Maybe that’s because the pax O2 worked for more than 75% of the passengers. This issue breaks down into a discussion when really it should be about the aircraft's ability to meet the regulations and moral imperatives to supply 100% of the iccupants with reliable O2 supply. This is just the Titanic revisited: Insufficient lifeboats=insufficienct O2 reliability. Into every crevice at Boeing crawled the business school MBA. Slashing with reckless abandon, never striking the vital artery, they achieved personal enrichment. How could a proud company be denigrated to such a state where forums discuss the availability of supplemental breathing oxygen in the event of loss of cabin pressure? Just what do these educated fools actually know? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:59. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.