It's a freighter; the windows are blanked off - or at least they were last time I flew it :)
p.s. Actually a pax conversion.

pressurized vs unpressurized
 

boys and girls...

so, there you are flying along and your FA calls up and says there is a bomb on board...some of us old farts remember that

in the film "Airport" they started a descent to reduce the differential and some of us have long ago decided to de pressurize the plane upon warning of a bomb ( and of course we would use caution if the bomb was a barometric bomb, triggered by higher altitude)

I think it is a fair test, but both pressurized and unpressurized test would be of interest.

also, do you guys know what : LRBL means? don't write it here...just yes or no

Next guy just has to have bigger balls :cool:

Simple answer, yes...

Long Range Bomb Loader?

Start the timer in Amsterdam and wait till Detroit...Its the term for Abdullah's Handler and Mentor!

Blythy
Surely explosives already contain the oxygen they require?

Video stunt test for publication are for entertainment.

It is not in the good guy's interest to illustrate weakness or strength against the bad guys.

Face it

The bad guys win everytime we publish the desired results of their attempts to affect our global thinking.

I thought where it is, not what it means, was the "secret"... [yes]

Also it may be that they did this test with the dummy in the seat in which this passenger sat. That would also be a perfectly valid test (depending on what you are trying to determine).

A smart bomber might have sat somewhere else, but these guys don't need smart bombers, a few dumb ones and the TSA et al. will cause the rest of the terror.

First the shoes, then the drinks, then the underpants, and we all know where the next one will be (once the hassle with the body scanners has all died down). Human rights and religious discrimination rulings will ensure that the faithful are exempted (the fatwa has already gone out against the body scanners and two have tested the rules at MAN, watch the lawsuits follow). The rest of us get to pass the vaseline or not fly. Heads they win, tails we lose. No need to actually suceed in blowing anything up.

Tester 76 makes a valid point. Surprised the presenter didn't go on to say just how much explosive would be required.


There's a bomb on board.

A b...????

No, not a b... A bomb!

:} :} :}

I do now.. just googled it...

I wasn't sure about that bit :p However, it would affect the materials surrounding the explosive. Expecially velco (see Apollo 1), which is lethally flammable in oxygen rich environments (I know it wouldn't affect the explosive power, but it would exagerrate flame effects.

LRBL - Isn't that the French abbreviation for the Royal Belgian Wrestling Federation?

It was a crap test. Tricky to find a volunteer to fly an accurate one and who is going to lend you the plane? Perhaps we should set one up and ask the two guys who ran the test if they want to come along for the ride.

This was B-HVY. Has been at Kemble for a long time. Has been in 'knackers corner' since middle of February. Passed by on Wednesday and has been totally reduced to produce.

Air pressure differentials aside, would the fact that this test was carried out using the same amount of material as was carried on an A330, but on a 747, also question its validity from the aspect that a 747 would have a greater internal volume in which to accommodate the explosion and resulting pressure waves?

dabchick,
Are you sure?
IIRC, since HVY was built as a freighter and was not converted from a passenger aircraft, she didn't have blanked windows.

Guys,

I think a few of you are missing the point here!

The test from what I saw last night on BBC2's 'How Safe Are Our Skies' was to replecate the attempted bomb attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day 2009, and what would have happened should he have been succesful.

The attack was designed by the terrorists to detonate at low altitude, approx 10,000'. Therfore the Px diff would have been minimal - hence the test being conducted on an un-pressurised airframe. Not ideal, what with pressure waves confined to a sealed slightly pressurised hull would be more damaging than a hull open to atmosphere, nethertheless, the test served a purpose.

The test was also conducted in a stripped back airframe, where all internal panels/Insulation/Sound prrofing etc had been stripped away, and the skin still contained the blast.

I don't think you can rubbish this test, not ideal, but did show (even in an aging hull) that the quantities of explosives this idiot used were probably not enough to down the aircraft. Joe public I'm sure would take a lot from this test in reassuring just how well made most airfcraft are.

You can watch the program here on BBC iplayer:

BBC iPlayer - How Safe Are Our Skies? Detroit Flight 253

Good job by the pax and crew.

I wonder how a plastic 'dreamliner' would have coped under similar conditions ?

OK I'm reassured now let's stop this sham about personal body scans and minimal risk from terrorist mules.

Anyone know where we can get hold of a Dreamliner
to check it out?

lomapaseo,

The point isn't the lack of security but the test of a 747 hull versus explosives. Security will always be needed as will the advance in technology to detect such devices, but what the test did show was how strong the fuesalage actually is - hopefully detering in some way future (similar) attacks. If the results of this test increase public confidence in flying that can only be a good thing for the future of aviation!