Poisonous gas attack on plane. Effective?

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Poisonous gas attack on plane. Effective?

kingdragonfly

11209 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#220212 31-Jul-2017 19:37

I heard that Sydney terrorist were contemplating or building a device with poisonous gas for use on a plane.

While this may kill all the passengers (including the terrorist), it would be ineffective on the crew, right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3910048/Toxic-cabin-fumes-POISON-plane-passengers-oxygen-masks-no-protection-warns-BA-s-flight-safety-chief.html

"The head of in-flight safety for British Airways has admitted that passengers can be 'incapacitated' by toxic fumes on planes.

Mark Mannering-Smith reportedly wrote on an internal online forum that cabin fumes can be toxic and therefore hurt crew and travellers.

His comments which were posted on the internet have since been deleted, but were saved by BA staff, reports The Sun on Sunday.

Mr Mannering-Smith wrote staff members can wear protective gear called smoke hoods, which are similar to gas masks, 'regardless of customer perception'.

Customers on board the flight will not have the same protection by using the oxygen masks which drop down during an emergency, according to the paper.

A senior BA source told the newspaper's Stephen Moyes: 'Oxygen comes from tanks in the hold.

'But the masks they use are designed to allow cabin air in so they do not provide protection from fumes.'"

1 | 2 | 3

6019 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1834506 31-Jul-2017 19:37

Allow me to introduce you folks to our new travel community: TravelTalk NZ.

We hope to see you there!

I am the Geekzone Robot and I am here to help. I am from the Internet. I do not interact. Do not expect other replies from me.

tehgerbil

1102 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Subscriber

#1834541 31-Jul-2017 21:16

You're on a list.

PeterReader

6019 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1834563 31-Jul-2017 22:24

While this may kill all the passengers (including the terrorist), it would be ineffective on the crew, right?

As the internet has taught me, snakes are highly effective at eradicating humans.

I am the Geekzone Robot and I am here to help. I am from the Internet. I do not interact. Do not expect other replies from me.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1834572 31-Jul-2017 23:11

@PeterReader:

While this may kill all the passengers (including the terrorist), it would be ineffective on the crew, right?

As the internet has taught me, snakes are highly effective at eradicating humans.

Unless you know 2 very simple swear words and you use it repeatedly the snakes will all die.

michaelmurfy

meow
13265 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1834574 31-Jul-2017 23:14

@Batman:

Unless you know 2 very simple swear words and you use it repeatedly the snakes will all die.

Stop giving the bot ideas :)

I honestly think this is a terrible idea. Wouldn't it be easier to arm all the staff with tasers or something?

Michael Murphy | https://murfy.nz
Referral Links: Quic Broadband (use R122101E7CV7Q for free setup)

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by subscribing.
Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1834628 1-Aug-2017 06:33

Effective? Very probably. I wouldn't want to find out.

Sidestep

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1834641 1-Aug-2017 07:41

Arab Terrorists avenging US interference in the middle East by gassing everyone on a plane? Hmm.. that was "The Lion's Game" by Nelson DeMille

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79309 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1834677 1-Aug-2017 09:03

PeterReader:

While this may kill all the passengers (including the terrorist), it would be ineffective on the crew, right?

As the internet has taught me, snakes are highly effective at eradicating humans.

A gas attack would be ineffective against robot pilots.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1834711 1-Aug-2017 09:23

Sidestep:

Arab Terrorists avenging US interference in the middle East by gassing everyone on a plane? Hmm.. that was "The Lion's Game" by Nelson DeMille

Yep. Good book by the way - as were all the Corey series IMHO.

tripper1000

1618 posts

Uber Geek

#1834799 1-Aug-2017 11:01

kingdragonfly: I heard that Sydney terrorist were contemplating or building a device with poisonous gas for use on a plane.

While this may kill all the passengers (including the terrorist), it would be ineffective on the crew, right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3910048/Toxic-cabin-fumes-POISON-plane-passengers-oxygen-masks-no-protection-warns-BA-s-flight-safety-chief.html

"The head of in-flight safety for British Airways has admitted that passengers can be 'incapacitated' by toxic fumes on planes.

Mark Mannering-Smith reportedly wrote on an internal online forum that cabin fumes can be toxic and therefore hurt crew and travellers.

His comments which were posted on the internet have since been deleted, but were saved by BA staff, reports The Sun on Sunday.

Mr Mannering-Smith wrote staff members can wear protective gear called smoke hoods, which are similar to gas masks, 'regardless of customer perception'.

Customers on board the flight will not have the same protection by using the oxygen masks which drop down during an emergency, according to the paper.

A senior BA source told the newspaper's Stephen Moyes: 'Oxygen comes from tanks in the hold.

'But the masks they use are designed to allow cabin air in so they do not provide protection from fumes.'"

The Pilots have oxygen systems that enable them to breath 100% bottle oxygen with hours of oxygen supply, which enables them to function at a high level in a depressurised/fume/smoke filled cabin and could theoretically survive a gas attack if they were to don the masks before the gas gets to them. But think about when you accidentally catch a wiff of oven cleaner and multiply it by 1,000. One breath could be all it takes.

The cabin crew have oxygen masks similar to passengers which supplement cabin air with addition oxygen. Cabin crew do have smoke hoods which are designed to proved a few minutes of smoke and fume protection but most designs do not exclude 100% of cabin air.

Passenger masks provide 7 minutes supplementary oxygen - they mix with cabin air are designed to provide sufficient oxygen in a high altitude depressurisation to keep passengers alive & free from brain damage while the aircraft descends to an altitude at which humans can breath properly. Oxygen n flows through that little hose not much faster than fish tank bubbler and the flow is barely perceptible - it certainly doesn't rush out. They are not designed to enable passengers to breath in a smoke/fume/gas filled environment. The masks are deployed automatically if the cabin altitude rises beyond 14,000 feet (normal cabin altitude is around 7-8,000 feet depending on model of aircraft), or if the pilot manually deploys them.

The cabin air is completely replaced every 3 to 4 minutes so such a gas would quickly be purged from the aircraft. The problem is that if the crew have not been trained for a gas attack they may fail to identity the problem and don their emergency gear in time. If the flight crew were do correctly diagnose a gas attack they could take corrective action to help speed up purging of the gas out of the aircraft such as manually depressurising the aircraft to near instantly dump 1/2 the cabin air (and gas) overboard, or select full hot cabin temperature which increases the volume of air flowing into the cabin on bleed air feed air-con systems. I won't speculate on how a terrorist could optimise such an attack.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1834815 1-Aug-2017 11:10

They have equipment to deliver 100% oxygen for 6 hours?

tripper1000

1618 posts

Uber Geek

#1834836 1-Aug-2017 11:33

Batman: They have equipment to deliver 100% oxygen for 6 hours?

Nope.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1834871 1-Aug-2017 12:25

tripper1000:
Batman: They have equipment to deliver 100% oxygen for 6 hours?

Nope.

Eh you said they did?

tripper1000

1618 posts

Uber Geek

#1834889 1-Aug-2017 13:02

Batman:
tripper1000:

Batman: They have equipment to deliver 100% oxygen for 6 hours?

Nope.

Eh you said they did?

I didn't say six hours.

Such a duration is not require as the majority of modern aircraft are twin jets and never legally that far from an airport.

It's been too long for me to remember and quote the exact times sorry.

The flight deck 02 bottle on a typical Boeing is about the size of a Scuba bottle, and pressurised to 1800 psi. Consumption rate is slower than a scuba diver because a divers consumption doubles with every 10 meters of depth, where as it goes the other way with an aircraft - consumption (@100%) drops with increasing altitude.

tripper1000

1618 posts

Uber Geek

#1834897 1-Aug-2017 13:15

Here you go, I got off my chuff and looked it up.

2 Hours per crew member is the required duration for certification by FAA/DOT.

Link

1 | 2 | 3