This sounds eerily like a repeat of the EgyptAir disaster, with a better outcome:

[Fair Use: For Educational Purposes Only]

JET LANDS SAFELY AFTER CABIN LOSES AIR PRESSURE

Associated Press

PALM SPRINGS -- Passengers gasped and prayed as an American Airlines jetliner lost cabin pressure at 31,000 feet on Thursday, but the Boeing 767 made a safe emergency landing. Six people, including actor Abe Vigoda, were slightly injured.

The pilot on Flight 160 reported that a compressed air line burst in the passenger compartment as the plane was heading nonstop from San Diego to Kennedy International Airport in New York, said Mitch Barker, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration in Seattle.

Aircraft insulation spewed into the cabin, an airport statement said.

The captain deployed oxygen masks and dropped the airliner from 31,000 feet to 10,000 feet before landing safely at Palm Springs International Airport at 9:08 a.m., about a half-hour after it departed from San Diego.

The flight was carrying 112 passengers and a crew of 12, said Al Becker, a spokesman for American Airlines in Fort Worth, Texas.

"There was suddenly an indication of a decompression in the cabin" and the pilot immediately began to descend, he said.

(Irrelevant info re Abe Vigoda omitted)

"Dateline NBC" correspondent John Larson was also on the plane. "Twenty to 30 minutes into the flight, we heard a loud bang," he told KNBC-TV.

I could not sense any loss of cabin pressure. There was a loud hissing of air for about five seconds after the bang so I was thinking we were decompressing, but I could not sense any loss of cabin pressure."

Larson said passengers were clearly concerned but handled the situation well.

"There was a loud gasp right after it happened," he said. "You could hear people talking to each other. You could hear some people starting to pray. I, ironically, was reading the morning newspaper about EgyptAir and a 767, so I think it was on everyone's mind."

(End of excerpt)

There are too many parallels here to be overlooked. I can't help but wonder if there is a chip related to cabin pressure that is failing at 30,000+ feet about 20-30 minutes into a flight (when cruising altitude is reached)... now that we are into the relevant time period for chip failures, this is way too similar of an incident to be dismissed and certainly questions the 'suicide' interpretation for EgyptAir.

-- (snoozin@no.more), November 19, 1999

Answers

Stewart's plane was obviously not a 767, but...loss of cabin pressure 20-30 minutes into the flight...

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nohwere.com), November 19, 1999.

Isn't the 767 Boeings first plane to use the "fly by wire" control technique? Instead of controls by hydraulics and electro-mechanical the controls are almost entirely computerized. Airbus developed the idea first (saves a crew-member) and had problems with their planes having a problem with not falling from the sky. Seems the more complex the system the more the certainty for failure (Window's anyone). Doesn't bode well for the century date change.

-- squid (Itsdark@down.here), November 19, 1999.

"...now that we are into the relevant time period for chip failures,..."

What the hell are you talking about? It's still 1999. Not one problem has been associated with chip failures by anyone for the year of 1999 you fear mongering Doomlit. Remember, most chips don't even care what day it is, and the ones that do care won't have problems until it can't recognize 00 as 2000.

-- (more@like. day dreaming), November 19, 1999.

This incident could certainly be a coincidence, but a thought provoking one nonetheless coming so close to the Egypt Air disaster.

Can someone tell me whether cabin pressure or cabin pressure related indicators would be included in the DFDR data for flight 990? I assume it would be and since investigators have not stated that there was a loss of cabin pressure, can we be assured that 990 definitely did not experience such an event? The NTSB has said that there was 'no indication of mechanical failure.' This statement would appear to preclude the possibility of a pressure loss prior to the steep dive.

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), November 19, 1999.

If correlated. We will see more...soon

-- chicken little (isthesky@falling.down), November 19, 1999.

It surely is interesting--with a reporter on the plane. But could he not have shared a little more information?

At any rate, it's more likely that 990 was mechanical failure or sabotage than that the co-pilot took the plane down. So, he was praying! I would, too.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), November 19, 1999.

If they had a cabin pressure failure at 31,000 feet I would suspect that they would indeed have felt a pretty noticable decrease in pressuren (ears popping, difficulty in breathing). The fact that the insulation blew INTO the plane and that there was no noticeable pressure DROP may suggest that the problem was a burst pneumatic air line, not a puncture in the skin of the plane. Just a thought. It so then they can be glad that the burst line punctured the inner wall of the cabin and not the outer wall.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), November 19, 1999.

SQUID: I happened to be watching the national morning TV program here just yesterday, and they were interviewing a retired pilot who flew the 767.He was sitting in front of a simulator or mock-up of the cockpit.

Anyway, he specifically stated that the 767 HAS wire/mechanical linkage to the control surfaces, even though they have fancy CRT displays in the flight deck positions.

Remember, also, that the 767 is the famous "Gimli Glider", which earned its name very shortly after it became available, as Air Canada bought some of them. On one of the flights, some goof miscalculated when converting from English to Metric when refuelling, and as a result, it lost BOTH engines on one particular flight, but NOT both at exactly the same time, and glided for I believe about 200 miles(!)before touching down at Gimli drag strip, which was the runway of the abandoned Canadian Forces air base in Gimli, Manitoba.

-- profit of doom (doom@helltopay.ca), November 19, 1999.

The 767 is not fly-by-wire. The 777 is. The compressed air line was a line that brings compressed air into the cabin. The line broke, evedently, and the air from the line blew into the cabin. This is not decompression, which is where the pressurized air leaves the aircraft due to the lower air pressure at cruising altitude.

And no, an air line is not an embedded chip going bad, Aircraft manufacturers use Murphys Law when designing their aircraft, they do not put anything that could possibly go bad (such as chips) in areas that that could cause a dangerous situation.

Now if only the airlines would put fireproof seats in the aircraft then a lot of lives would be saved.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 20, 1999.

Moral of the story: Never fly with a dead Fish.

(Anyone who "gets" that one is welcome to explain it to those who don't.)

-- counting down (the@days.now), November 20, 1999.

Cherri

Hats off to you for bringing some facts, knowledge and sense into an otherwise laughable thread.

Then again, this incident is about as Y2K related as a cheese sandwich, and therefore has every right to sit proudly on this forum. (chuckle).

Also, total agreement with you on the fireproof seating comment. Its long overdue.

Just dont get me started on KAPTON wiring, dry arcing and smoke hoods.

NOTE: Anyone concerned about the strenth, resilience and capability of Boeing airframes should take a peek at the crab-attitude landing shots of the 747's in "Spectacular Approaches" at www.aviationpics.de

They arent any fun to ride in, but to watch ?? . . whooooey . . pass the popcorn.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), November 20, 1999.