HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Pudentame
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Pudentame
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:

Uh, no. Sorry. The human pelvis is wider than that, even crushed.
Just because an octopus can squeeze itself out though a hole no bigger
than its beak, doesn't mean a human will squirt out a window similarly.

I see you still don't have an example. Cite ONE case where a human
being was blown out through an airliner window sized hole. Note the
parameters here, which are in line with the original discussion of
fireams in an airliner cabin.
3 November 1973; National Airlines DC10; over New Mexico, USA: The
aircraft had an uncontained failure of one of the wing mounted engines.
A piece of the engine struck the fuselage and broke a passenger window.
One of the 116 passengers was sucked out of the aircraft during a rapid
decompression. The remains of the passenger were not found.

NTSB Identification: DCA74AZ031
Does it specify that the hole remained only the size of the window, or
did the damage extend the aperture (g to use a photog term and have
some relevance to this group)? I'd wager on the latter.

Nope. You lose your bet.

Here's a photograph of the side of the aircraft, showing one missing
window. There's no enlargement of the window opening at all.

http://faalessons.workforceconnect.o...f_50e2efdca602

or

http://tinyurl.com/y69ed9

OK, I'll buy that one - if you look at the window size, in relation to
normal airliner window sizes that I'm used to, it's much larger - it's
almost full body size, from trying to do a comparison to the people
standing around and the perspective. Yes, I'd believe a body _could_
get blown out of a window that size.

I am sure that the size of windows in aircraft has been pretty much
stable for the past 50 years. Perhaps the result of some calculation,
and testing for this possibility?

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Bill Funk
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:25:46 -0800, Ken Lucke
wrote:

In article , Bill Funk
wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:45:57 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

If you read what I wrote, I think you'll agree with me, no matter how
often you actually fly with a firearm.
I did not say anything about not being able to fly with a firearm.
I said flying with a firearm is not an essential liberty.
Well, when the Constitution was drafted, flying anywhere was
inconceivable,
so of course, it wasn't an "essential liberty". but the Constitution has
a,
"spirit" that is evident throughout the text, and to me, were it being
drafted today, the second amendment would not offer any exceptions to
being
at 30,000 feet altitude. IOW, if it is one's right to carry a handgun to
protect oneself at sea level, it should be also ones right to carry one
while in the air. Of course, there are many who disagree that it is even
one's right to carry a concealed weapon anywhere, and, although I
disagree
with these people, I have to accept their existence as a political force
to
be reckoned with.

The Constitution hasn't had a problem so far keeping up with
techinology.
Along with rights go responsibilities. I seriously doubt those who
pack heat fully understand the dangers of firing bullets in an
airliner cabin.
Actually, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the rest of the
"discussion", I doubt that you do, either. It's been shown by testing
that a bullet is incapable of creating explosive decompression in an
airliner at altitude, and even a window being taken out by one is not
sufficient to "suck" (blow, actually) a person out of it. The "being
sucked out of a window" thing is a myth. There's a danger due to
decreased oxygen at high altitude, but that's what the oxygen masks are
for that drop down automatically when decreased cabin pressure happens.
I never mentioned explosive decompression.
What I have in mind is the fact that a *LOT* of wires and tubes run in
the walls, cieling and floor of the cabin.

True. And they are all AT LEAST doubly redundant, in a different
portion of the craft, these days.

Well, the new ones anyway. Some of the very small airlines still fly
aircraft older than the pilots!

Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:11:11 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:22:36 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

It really doesn't need to be ammended.
Flying with a handgun is hardly an essential liberty.
Oddly enough, every time I've flown since 2001, I've had to carry one.

... and a rifle.
Which means nothing as to "essential liberty."

Means I've been doing my part. What about you?

And what part is that?
If you're a LEO, it goes with the job.
What would satisfy you as to "my part"?


Military. Got a DD214?

got one of those...

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:18:24 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Ah. Mr. Heinlin. Writes a very good yarn, but his attitudes are
somewhat to the right of Genghis Kahn.
No, he merely, like many good SF authors took certain trends and
extrapolated them to a fantastic degree, to the exclusion of other
concurrent trends.

It's possible he was extrapolating redneck chauvinism. But I think
not. Authors' attitudes show through. I'm a long-time SF enthusiast,
not just judging on one or two books.

Concluding that an author has a single attitude, based on a single book
can be a bad error. Should one read 'Farnham's Freehold', he might get
the idea RAH was very different from what one would get from I Will Fear
No Evil, or A Time Enough For LOVE. VERY different books in outlook,
and tone.
If you want the real R.A.H., read Glory Road, Door Into Summer, and To
Sail Beyond the Sunset.

Pudentame wrote:
Walter Banks wrote:


Locked solid cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11 the plan depended on
physical control of the airplane. The same controls hijackings.


To some extent, but there's evidence that at least one of the hijackers
out of Logan was dressed in a pilot's uniform and was "extended the
courtesy" of riding in the cockpit by the flight crew.

We collectively have given up a lot of freedoms in exchange for
security. Surprisingly
we critisize countries for oppression that may actually have found the
balance
between freedom and security.

We have collectively given up a lot of freedom. I don't see where we
have indeed have received security in return. From where I sit it looks
kind of a lopsided exchange.

One would need MUCH more that a uniform to get into the cockpit!
As for giving up freedoms relative to flying now, as opposed to before
2001, just what freedoms? You mean taking off your shoes, or not
carrying a pocket knife is an 'essential freedom' to you? Still, no one
forces you to fly, there are other means of transport not so restricted
as to what you can carry. Although on a recent cruise, the security
approached what you see on an airliner.

Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:


The Constitution hasn't had a problem so far keeping up with
techinology.
Along with rights go responsibilities. I seriously doubt those who
pack heat fully understand the dangers of firing bullets in an
airliner cabin.


Ever heard of frangible ammunition? It's issued to sky marshals.
Yes, but how many of those who would carry weapons on a flight would
have that loaded in their weapons?

More likely steel-jacketed, teflon coated, pierce anything cartridges....

Pudentame wrote:
Ken Lucke wrote:

Actually, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the rest of the
"discussion", I doubt that you do, either. It's been shown by testing
that a bullet is incapable of creating explosive decompression in an
airliner at altitude, and even a window being taken out by one is not
sufficient to "suck" (blow, actually) a person out of it. The "being
sucked out of a window" thing is a myth. There's a danger due to
decreased oxygen at high altitude, but that's what the oxygen masks are
for that drop down automatically when decreased cabin pressure happens.


OTOH, if you loose a 10 foot section from the top of the fuselage due to
metal fatigue ...

Rapid descent!

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Pudentame
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:

Actually, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the rest of the
"discussion", I doubt that you do, either. It's been shown by testing
that a bullet is incapable of creating explosive decompression in an
airliner at altitude, and even a window being taken out by one is not
sufficient to "suck" (blow, actually) a person out of it. The "being
sucked out of a window" thing is a myth. There's a danger due to
decreased oxygen at high altitude, but that's what the oxygen masks are
for that drop down automatically when decreased cabin pressure happens.

OTOH, if you loose a 10 foot section from the top of the fuselage due to
metal fatigue ...

Which, of course, doesn't happen because you fire a gun.


Not likely, but an automatic weapon can cause structural damage should
it be fired on full-auto.

Pudentame wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Not a Wankel, a diesel....

Oops. My bad. You were talking about diesels. Reading comprehension
not at its highest level this evening. Carry on....


Could you build a Wankel diesel?

Probably. They tend to have rather high compression ratios anyway.

William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:45:00 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:
"William Graham" wrote in message
. ..
But how about having the ability to distill in in your garage?
Freedom from all those nasty gasoline taxes? Who would know exactly
how much you distilled? - And/or whether you drank what you didn't
burn?

Good idea, however you will most likely be required to purchase some
sort of tax stamp from the ATF.
Possibly from the state for road taxes.
Used to be ATF, now it's TTB - Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau.

http://www.ttb.gov/industrial/alcoho...egs_laws.shtml

If you divert any of it to drinking, you stand to lose your permit to
manufacture fuel alcohol.
Yeah.....Like they're really going to know that........I claim that
such stills will eliminate the federal taxes on alcohol
altogether.....Even in a liberal's wildest dreams, he can't come up
with any way to enforce that law....:^)
Actually, trying to put a still in everyone's garage will mean
automating he still operation.
This means storage of the raw materials, malting facilities (we would
need to use the cheapest stock, meaning it would have to be malted),
the grinder, the feeders, the still itself, the condensor, the
storage.
Since it would need to be automated, it's easy to require that all
steps be monitored (they would need to be anyway, or economy and
operation go out the window), and records kept.
Presto!

And someone would need to convince your neighbors that something that
explosive would be safe in their neighborhood.
There's no way to monitor that now....Meth labs blow up and start fires
regularly......
Yes, as do natural gas leaks (which is one reason I DON'T have natural gas
to my house). After my second life experience with natural gas and its
hazards, I had it cut off.

You too, huh? - My house is, "all electric". A few years back the gas
company would have installed NG for free, provided I bought two major gas
appliances. I love cooking on gas stoves, so that would have been one, and
installing a gas clothes dryer would have made two, and I already had one of
those sitting in storage......So, I considered taking up their offer, but I
decided that the comfort of knowing that a gas leak wouldn't kill me in the
middle of the night was worth sticking with electricity......


When I was about 6, my mother asked me to see if the oven was hot (back
then, that meant opening it and checking the over thermometer). When I
opened the door, the gas inside got the oxygen it needed, and I was
'flash burned' in the face. Lost all my eyebrows, eyelashes, much of my
hair, and got 1st degree burns on my face. Then a few years ago, I was
sitting watching TV and heard a 'POP' from the direction of the wall
furnace. Pieces of burning insulation from the thermostat wiring were
blown out onto the carpet. I quickly stomped them out, went outside and
turned off the gas, and it has been off since.

I have never felt that an open flame in the house was a safe idea.