Sriwijaya Air Boeing 737
It's an older model, a 737-500, so nothing to do with the problems the MAX had. The profile wouldn't fit anyway: it appears to have basically fallen out of the sky having reached about 10,000'.
Explosive decompression due to metal fatigue?
Baseless aircrash speculation
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8242
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Baseless aircrash speculation
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: Baseless aircrash speculation
Explosive decompression isn't likely at 10,000 ft.
Don't high altitude flights typically allow cabin pressure to drop to about 8-10k feet equivalent?
Don't high altitude flights typically allow cabin pressure to drop to about 8-10k feet equivalent?
Re: Baseless aircrash speculation
8k usually, which is about 75% of an atmosphere, or about 1.2 psi pressure difference at 10k feet. If that didn't happen, it's a ~5 psi over pressure at 10k feet.
Typical pressure differences between 8k ft and cruising altitude are ~7-8 psi, so even with a failure to lower the pressure, the pressure difference is 2/3 of the nominal design value.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8242
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Baseless aircrash speculation
True that there shouldn't have been that much of a pressure difference at 10,000'. The cabin altitude needs to be maintained at 8,000' or below on commercial flights, but that's relevant when at cruising altitude.
We recently had a 737-700 suffer decompression due to an uncontained engine failure, but not in a way which was catastrophic for the airframe.
We recently had a 737-700 suffer decompression due to an uncontained engine failure, but not in a way which was catastrophic for the airframe.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk