3 ms·

the cabins of airplanes are actively pressurized by pumping air in, and constantly removing some air so carbon dioxide doesn't build up. The pumping that feeds

the cabins of airplanes are actively pressurized by pumping air in, and constantly removing some air so carbon dioxide doesn't build up. The pumping that feeds the replacement air could be higher capacity than the flow through a missing window. pressurization of aircraft is not required till 12,500 ft (3810m) so the air pressure differential at 15000 is not likely to be that great.

epcoa 3y ago
> pressurization of aircraft is not required till 12,500 ft Well, no. I don't think cabin altitude for passenger airliners has ever been that high, so you need pressurization much lower than that (typically starting around 6000 ft for modern aircraft). Edit: Even the Boeing 307 Stratoliner was pressurized to 8000 ft.
- mwint 3y ago
  Pilot here - it's legal to fly at 12,500 in an unpressurized aircraft indefinitely. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-C/section-91.211 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F.... Cabin pressurization is set to a lower altitude, but that's not for a legal requirement. It's just nicer to be at higher pressurization. And, I mean, think about it - there are _towns_ at 9k+ feet.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - epcoa 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mwint 3y ago
      Please do read what you just wrote, and consider whether the tone and much of the content is necessary.
      - epcoa 3y ago
        In what way is the content of your comment strengthened by waving about a PPL? It serves only the patronize. Excise it, what does it change? Similarly, assuming that most of the audience here, aviation knowledge or not is unaware that there are mountains with people. Anyway, passenger cabins require 8,000 ft for normal operation, so it's a bit misleading to say there's no legal requirement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.841 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.841. (And yes, I know the difference between airworthiness and operations, still misleading). Also why I'd bet a good sum you're a PPL.
        mwint 3y ago
        > I'd bet a good sum you're a PPL. I'm not even in the US; you're barking up the wrong tree. I apologize for disclosing a relevant fact. Won't happen again. Thanks for the link to CFR25.
  - epcoa 3y ago
    > but that's not for a legal requirement. This one? https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.841 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.841

epcoa 3y ago

> pressurization of aircraft is not required till 12,500 ft Well, no. I don't think cabin altitude for passenger airliners has ever been that high, so you need pressurization much lower than that (typically starting around 6000 ft for modern aircraft). Edit: Even the Boeing 307 Stratoliner was pressurized to 8000 ft.

mwint 3y ago
Pilot here - it's legal to fly at 12,500 in an unpressurized aircraft indefinitely. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-C/section-91.211 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F.... Cabin pressurization is set to a lower altitude, but that's not for a legal requirement. It's just nicer to be at higher pressurization. And, I mean, think about it - there are _towns_ at 9k+ feet.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- epcoa 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mwint 3y ago
    Please do read what you just wrote, and consider whether the tone and much of the content is necessary.
    - epcoa 3y ago
      In what way is the content of your comment strengthened by waving about a PPL? It serves only the patronize. Excise it, what does it change? Similarly, assuming that most of the audience here, aviation knowledge or not is unaware that there are mountains with people. Anyway, passenger cabins require 8,000 ft for normal operation, so it's a bit misleading to say there's no legal requirement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.841 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.841. (And yes, I know the difference between airworthiness and operations, still misleading). Also why I'd bet a good sum you're a PPL.
      - mwint 3y ago
        > I'd bet a good sum you're a PPL. I'm not even in the US; you're barking up the wrong tree. I apologize for disclosing a relevant fact. Won't happen again. Thanks for the link to CFR25.
- epcoa 3y ago
  > but that's not for a legal requirement. This one? https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.841 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.841