3 ms·
Not really - If there had a been a gash in pressurization, they would have caught it on the way up. The 737 is a _tank_. It has more or less the same wing load
by InTheArena 8y ago
Not really - If there had a been a gash in pressurization, they would have caught it on the way up. The 737 is a _tank_. It has more or less the same wing load as a F-16. It takes a lot to shake around - it's every bit the 1950s build 707 chassis, and like the old 50s lathe - it can take a hit and keep going.
- inferiorhuman 8y agoDon't the NGs have a nasty habit of splitting in two on hard landings (KI172, 4C8250, BW523, JT904, AA331)?
- wahern 8y agoPlenty of 737's have had explosive depressurization with injuries or fatalities, most recently this year https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43818752 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43818752 and one of the most famous incidents (in the U.S.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 Both were from fatigue, but fatigue doesn't have to be a gradual thing; it could come from a single hit that causes the pressure vessel to fail at altitude. See the whole list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression#Notable_decompression_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression#Not...
- jacquesm 8y agoAnd yet, it landed!
- wahern 8y agoIndeed, but the two previous posters were discussing counter-factuals.
- TylerE 8y agoThe difference is that happens at altitude. When the plane has just taken off there is no pressure differential. There’s no energy TO explode.
- wahern 8y agoDamage can be less severe than an actual puncture of the pressure vessel. Damage can weaken the pressure vessel such that it only fails (possibly explosively) once under pressure.