Slashdot Mirror


Experts Say Hitching a Ride In an Airliner's Wheel Well Is Not a Good Idea

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Hasani Gittens reports that as miraculous as it was that a 16-year-old California boy was able to hitch a ride from San Jose to Hawaii and survive, it isn't the first time a wheel-well stowaway has lived to tell about it. The FAA says that since 1947 there have been 105 people who have tried to surreptitiously travel in plane landing gear — with a survival rate of about 25 percent. But agency adds that the actual numbers are probably higher, as some survivors may have escaped unnoticed, and bodies could fall into the ocean undetected. Except for the occasional happy ending, hiding in the landing gear of a aircraft as it soars miles above the Earth is generally a losing proposition. According to an FAA/Wright State University study titled 'Survival at High Altitudes: Wheel-Well Passengers,' at 20,000 feet the temperature experienced by a stowaway would be -13 F, at 30,000 it would be -45 in the wheel well — and at 40,000 feet, the mercury plunges to a deadly -85 F (PDF). 'You're dealing with an incredibly harsh environment,' says aviation and security expert Anthony Roman. 'Temperatures can reach -50 F, and oxygen levels there are barely sustainable for life.' Even if a strong-bodied individual is lucky enough to stand the cold and the lack of oxygen, there's still the issue of falling out of the plane. 'It's almost impossible not to get thrown out when the gear opens,' says Roman.

So how do the lucky one-in-four survive? The answer, surprisingly, is that a few factors of human physiology are at play: As the aircraft climbs, the body enters a state of hypoxia—that is, it lacks oxygen—and the person passes out. At the same time, the frigid temperatures cause a state of hypothermia, which preserves the nervous system. 'It's similar to a young kid who falls to the bottom of an icy lake," says Roman. "and two hours later he survives, because he was so cold.'"

239 comments

  1. This message is by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    brought to you by No Duh Airlines.

    1. Re:This message is by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      brought to you by No Duh Airlines.

      No! The message is "Bargain Cryogenics"!

      Hitch a ride, and live forever!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re: This message is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading somewhere that Jeanne Calumet always flew Wheel Well

    3. Re: This message is by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Or as it was called, "wheelage" in his day.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  2. Thank goodness for these experts. by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm glad the "experts" cleared that up for me. I guess I'll have to change my vacation plans!

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:Thank goodness for these experts. by gargleblast · · Score: 2

      Now I'm waiting for a community service announcement like this one in an old episode of The Young Ones. Fast forward to 5:07 :

      "The BBC would like to warn all small children that pushing people inside old fridges is a bloody stupid thing to do."

    2. Re:Thank goodness for these experts. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I'm glad the "experts" cleared that up for me. I guess I'll have to change my vacation plans!

      Yeah... I'll have to remember to bring my coat, and extra bungee cords and parachute..

    3. Re:Thank goodness for these experts. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Me too. After reading this:

      As the aircraft climbs, the body enters a state of hypoxiaâ"that is, it lacks oxygenâ"and the person passes out. At the same time, the frigid temperatures cause a state of hypothermia, which preserves the nervous system. 'It's similar to a young kid who falls to the bottom of an icy lake," says Roman. "and two hours later he survives, because he was so cold.'"

      I'll never fly coach again! The wheel-well appears to be way more comfortable!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Thank goodness for these experts. by NIK282000 · · Score: 1

      They go on to say that you should not set yourself on fire or enjoy a nice hot cup of bleach on a cold day.

      --
      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    5. Re:Thank goodness for these experts. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      More like a fur coat and oxygen bottle.

  3. Missed the obvious... by GrahamCox · · Score: 2

    Never mind the lack of oxygen and the cold, what about simply getting crushed when the gear is retracted? That's game over at 200 ft.

    1. Re:Missed the obvious... by jarfil · · Score: 1

      What about falling out when the gears open, at over 200mph and more than 500ft high. I'm surprised the survival rate reaches even as much as 25%.

    2. Re:Missed the obvious... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Missed? They are all in the summary.

    3. Re:Missed the obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That happened a couple of years ago, to a kid who climbed into a wheel well in Charlotte, NC ... and fell out when the plane was making its landing approach to Logan International Airport in Boston. I don' t know if he was already dead when he fell out of the airplane, but he surely was shortly after he landed.

    4. Re:Missed the obvious... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      Nope. Read it again. It mentions falling out when they open, but not getting crushed when they're retracted. I've looked in many aircraft's undercarriage bays - they are designed to fit the wheel and leg and that's about it, not much extra room.

    5. Re:Missed the obvious... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      That's 25% of known cases. The unknown cases include those where the body falls out before landing or where the person survived the ordeal and scurries off without anyone knowing.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    6. Re:Missed the obvious... by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Depends on the aircraft type. In the main wheel bay of an A330 you can easily fit a whole family, since the bay is the same size as that of an A340 which has an extra body gear. Some aircraft also have versions with or without an extra fuel tank in the belly, and that space is usually wide open if this extra fuel tank isn't installed.

      In one company I used to fly for, someone had flown multiple legs in an A330's wheel bay before his body was finally found when someone noticed a strange smell... According to the report I read, he might have survived the first leg from Africa but remained unconscious and then died on the second leg. I don't remember after how many flights he was finally found.

    7. Re:Missed the obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised there isn't some sort of service hatch to get to-from the inside of the plane

    8. Re:Missed the obvious... by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to this article, it seems that many of the people who do survive, do so because the flights were shorter.

    9. Re:Missed the obvious... by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      I think the obvious thing missing is the two giant elephants in the room.

      1) If a 15 year old boy can do this so can someone with a bomb. Where are the cameras and the
      security guards watching the cameras. It's much easier to find someone to plant a bomb on a plane
      if they don't also have to be a passenger. We should stop strip searching the passengers and spend
      this money on actually monitoring the runway.

      2) This is not the first time that extreme cold + lack of oxygen has caused a human to go into suspended
      animation. I would love to see more research on exploiting this for trauma victims and space travel.

      The kid is just a single stupid kid that got incredible lucky. Interesting soundbite but that's about it.
      I think longterm (for everyone except the kid), these other two points are way more important.

    10. Re:Missed the obvious... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      they only "flew" the first leg. after that, it was just improperly packed baggage.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    11. Re:Missed the obvious... by eudaemon · · Score: 1

      So you need to bring a climbing harness and rig yourself into the structure to prevent falling out. I kid. That's ridiculously dangerous. I assume instead it will become a base jumping stunt. LOL.

    12. Re:Missed the obvious... by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      That only exists in the movies :-)

      Since the aircraft needs to be pressurized, the number of hatches to get in and out of the cabin is limited as much as possible. This avoids depressurization through leaking or damaged hatches. Some long haul aircraft have a large electronics bay with access from both inside and outside, but on most aircraft you can only get into the cabin via the doors.

    13. Re:Missed the obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm how often are the tires checked & anyone glance for leaks etc? I would think a quick look every flight might be a good safety procedure.

    14. Re:Missed the obvious... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      We check the tires and look for leaks before every flight, but the wheel well is above eyesight level and pretty big. You have to actually climb up in there or open the landing gear doors to peek inside. That's normally not required. Everything that needs to be checked regularly, is visible from the ground.

  4. Survivor: Wheel Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    i'd watch it.

    1. Re:Survivor: Wheel Well by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      Watching consecutive episodes of somebody unconscious in a dark, tight place :)

    2. Re:Survivor: Wheel Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'd watch it.

      I will wait for netflix to jack up the monthly price so I can whine about wanting more content...like this banal comment.

  5. Survival rate under-estimated? by hogghogg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If people who die in a wheel well always have their dead bodies discovered, while *some* of the people who survive a wheel-well journey don't -- they sneak out on the tarmac undetected -- then the survival rate of 25 percent must be an under-estimate, or at least is potentially an under-estimate.

    --
    David W. Hogg -- assoc prof, NYU Physics
    1. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by jarfil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they fall into the ocean when the gears open, many dead may have not been discovered either.

    2. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by aliquis · · Score: 2

      Then again some of those may have been alive! ;D

    3. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unless you are one serious badass, you won't be in the mood for much 'sneaking' after a few hours of hypothermia and hypoxia. If your luck holds, you didn't die or get violently ejected at a lethal altitude; but you've still been in a state closer to 'amateur hibernation', not one of our strong points, than anything else. You'll probably just lie on the tarmac defrosting and then maybe try some experimental crawling.

    4. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by Guppy · · Score: 1

      The dead body undercount is potentially detectable, if someone were to compare over-water approaches with over-land approaches; if a significant number of bodies are going missing, this should show up as a skew in the survival rate.

    5. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Yeah, at least until they hit the water at 700km/h...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    6. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by multi+io · · Score: 2

      Yeah, at least until they hit the water at 700km/h...

      Eh, terminal velocity in the lower atmosphere is abound 250 km/h. Not that it would make much of a difference though.

    7. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Eh, terminal velocity in the lower atmosphere is abound 250 km/h.

      . . . that's cruising speed on the German Autobahn.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Terminal velocity is only about the vertical component. Horizontal component is also dangerous. Hell, just falling off a surfboard at a decent speed makes the water feel like concrete.

    9. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Yeah, at least until they hit the water at 700km/h...

      Eh, terminal velocity in the lower atmosphere is abound 250 km/h. Not that it would make much of a difference though.

      ah.. Terminal velocity. Never has this term been used more appropriately.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    10. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by swillden · · Score: 1

      There's a hidden assumption there: that stowaways choose destinations without regard to over-water or over-land approaches, and without some other criterion which is correlated with land vs water approaches. I have no idea if that assumption is valid.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by rgbatduke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, terminal SPEED is the result of drag forces that scale like bv^2 opposing motion. The horizontal velocity component v_0 decays to zero like, lessee, v_x(t) = mv_0/(b v_0 t + m), just as the vertical component approaches the value where drag force balances gravitation like a hyperbolic tangent with a similar characteristic time. The real question is how long one is in the air relative to the drag and mass, that is, if dimensionless b v_0 t/m >> 1. A small person wearing a big puffy jacket (small m, large b) might do much better than a big guy wearing a tight wetsuit. With a v_0 on the order of hundreds of meters per second and greater than terminal speed, one of the times it is actually better to fall from a larger height rather than a smaller one to allow initial speed to decay to terminal speed.

      There are a number of cases on record of people falling out of moving airplanes (presumably travelling at speeds order of 300 to 800 kph, well above terminal speed) who survived, usually by falling into deep snow, soft plowed fields, just the right patch of springy trees. A VERY few weren't even terribly injured. And you are dead right -- water, an incompressible fluid, is literally "as hard as concrete" when struck at high speed. Because it isn't compressible, the collision has to literally move the quite massive water out of the way. People who jump from bridges don't always or even generally drown -- they break bones, rupture their body cavity, suffer massive internal brain trauma. There is an amusing, not-quite-tongue-in-cheek section in the Worst Case Scenario Survival Guide on surviving a fall out of a plane several kilometers high over water. Falling bluff (maximize b), turning vertical at the last moment, enter feet first and streamlined and keep those butt-cheeks clenched as we don't want to explode our intestines via a power enema.

      With luck one breaks ones legs, pops a few disks, remains conscious, floats back to the surface in time to breathe, and can then stay afloat with broken legs and internal injuries until somebody pulls you out of the water and gets you to medical care. I'm sure one "can" learn to enter the water perfectly enough to do better than this -- cliff divers manage it at a significant fraction of terminal speed -- but it's one of those experiences most of us would be better off avoiding...:-)

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    12. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by v1 · · Score: 1

      You'll probably just lie on the tarmac defrosting and then maybe try some experimental crawling

      Better get your baby feet on pretty quickly. Big heavy things are rolling over that slab on a fairly regular basis. It's not a good place to loiter.

      Another thing this does is show just how ineffective security theatre is around airports. That could've been a large bomb strapped to that landing gear, wired to go off at 35,000 ft. Damaging the gear enough to make the plane do a cartwheel on live TV when it tries to land would probably give the nutjobs more satisfaction than another plane disappearing over the atlantic anyway. (and bonus! no suicide required!)

      This proves the fact that someone can sneak all the way out to the plane undetected, and pretty much nullifies the expensive nude-vision body scanners.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    13. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terminal velocity is the speed at which the drag force is equal to the force of gravity. If someone falls out of an airplane doing 700km/h, they won't immediately slow to terminal velocity, so it's possible they hit the water higher than 250 km/h. Either way, I wouldn't reckon your chances of surviving hitting the water at 250 km/h or 400 km/h or 700km/h.

      Captcha: memorial

    14. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would assume that if a person in reckless enough to try this in the first place they aren't the kind of people to carefully calculate where their body lands.

    15. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I would assume that if a person in reckless enough to try this in the first place they aren't the kind of people to carefully calculate where their body lands.

      No, but they may be the kind of people who choose one sort of destination over another.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Also, commercial airliners won't deploy landing gear while traveling at 700 km/h. It would be under 400, most likely closer to 250 on final approach.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    17. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, terminal velocity is zero.

    18. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      water, an incompressible fluid, is literally "as hard as concrete" when struck at high speed.

      While I have absolutely no training that would be relevant to this, there was a Mythbusters episode where they tested exactly this, and found that while for all intents and purposes of a human landing on them, both were fatal - there was about 1/4 the G force from water than on concrete on landing.

      Then again, I'm not sure G forces sustained on impact really measures how hard something is...

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    19. Re:Survival rate under-estimated? by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Peak acceleration (given in multiples of g) is relevant. Humans can survive impacts involving accelerations up to around 100g -- much over that and there is "no" survival (I think the peak estimate for a documented survival is around 105 g) and to survive that very much depends on how it is experienced -- uniformly good, non-locally over your body bad. Under that, a few people survive, usually damaged, with damage that reduces on average until you reach forces spread out enough and slowly acting enough that they can bring you to rest with accelerations on the order of 10g (100 m/sec^2) that most people can survive without more than bruising if the forces that produce them are spread out enough on the body. This is order of the forces/accelerations involved in surviving a car crash with seat belt and air bag and collapsible front end of a car.

      There are actually howtos on the subject:

      http://www.wikihow.com/Survive...

      These are based on both experiences/circumstances of survivors, plus analysis of the physics. There are actually lists and well-documented accounts of survivors:

      http://www.oddee.com/item_9696...

      (plus many others). As the first of these two links suggests, water is marginally better than concrete, and frothy, air-bubble-filled water is better than flat, calm water. Landing behind a large, heavy object (falling directly into the splash) helps enormously.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  6. units by Swampash · · Score: 1, Insightful

    At 20,000 feet the temperature experienced by a stowaway would be -13 F, at 30,000 it would be -45 in the wheel well — and at 40,000 feet, the mercury plunges to a deadly -85 F

    Lol, feet and degrees Fahreheit, wtf is this, the 17th century?

    Oh wait. America.

    1. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way you spell and the asshole nature of your post suggests you, too, are American.

    2. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The way you spell and the asshole nature of your post suggests you, too, are American.

      Bunch of Americans calling each other assholes in here... yep, business as usual.

    3. Re:units by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      We're all Americans now, asshole.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    4. Re:units by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      It's just not Slashdot without the ad hominem metric flame. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're all arseholes.

      (I'm actually American too)

    6. Re:units by JeremyWH · · Score: 1

      lol

    7. Re:units by Zdzicho00 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "By the end of the 20th century, most countries used the Celsius scale rather than the Fahrenheit scale. Fahrenheit remains the official scale for the following countries: the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Palau, and the United States and associated territories (Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands)."
      Yep. Archaic or just retarded?

    8. Re:units by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Or perhaps Aviation, which uses US units in aircraft design all around the world. Could have something to do with heavier than air flight originating in the US, as well as the US having what is by far the largest aerospace manufacturing industry. That, and slashdot is *gasp* an American website? If you had any awareness of anything outside of your own narrow viewpoint you might realize both of those.

      Anyways, an obvious troll and/or flamebait post modded insightful? Why...because bashing America is always a good thing, right? Enough of this "well the rest of the world does it differently..." bullshit. Every country in the world has something unique about it, so there's a "well the rest of the world" statement that can be made about everybody. Get off of your high horse and go mow your lawn.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    9. Re:units by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Well, the units do not alter either the absolute temperature or the altitude and anyone with more than a few brain cells can do these unit conversions in his head without the use of a calculator.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    10. Re:units by righteousness · · Score: 1

      Wow, there's such a thing as "US units"?

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    11. Re:units by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US gallon (3.78541 liters) is different than the Imperial gallon (4.54609 liters). Fluid ounces are different too. 128 US fluid oz in a US gallon, 160 imperial fluid ounces in an Imperial gallon. So a US oz is 1.04084 Imp oz.

    12. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A couple of mistakes there. Firstly, we're not talking about "aircraft design" but the measurement of altitude in feet, which has to do with air traffic control, not "aircraft design". Secondly, it is laughable to claim that "heavier than air flight originating in the US". If you take a quick glance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_history#Heavier-than-air_pioneers you'll see that development took place in lots of countries over a long period of time so you can't reasonably claim it "originated" in any particular place. Also, why the emphasis on "heavier than air"? Why would the change from balloons to aeroplanes require a change in units for measuring altitude?

      I'm not arguing against the other points you made, however.

    13. Re:units by countach · · Score: 1

      I thought Fahrenheit had been relegated to unofficial status in the US (?)

    14. Re:units by EStrat · · Score: 1

      Wait, how many olympic sized swimming pools is that?

    15. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, there's such a thing as "US units"?

      Oh yes.
      The big gulp.
      The Supersize.
      The happy meal.

    16. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US gallon (3.78541 liters) is different than the Imperial gallon (4.54609 liters).

      That's a scam of the US fuel industry to make gas more expensive.

    17. Re:units by universalconstant · · Score: 1

      The size of the gallon was actually different depending on contents at one point. The US gallon was the size used for wine, and the Imperial was that for beer IIRC.

    18. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why don't your fellow American finally give up and change to proper units? Oh I see, not enough of them have the few brain cells required, carry on.

    19. Re:units by weszz · · Score: 1

      it's still strong...

      I prefer the Bob and Doug metric conversion. whatever it is, double it and add 32. so a metric 6 pack is actually 44 metric beers. Metric does have it's upsides!

    20. Re:units by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would that be a crazy diamond with a weight given in carats, or a crazy diamond with a weight given in SI kilograms?

      I'm just sayin'...

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    21. Re:units by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Regardless of what you just said, imperial units are still ridiculous, and it sounds like someone touched a nerve to get that response from you :) Yes, every country on the planet has a unique quality - trying to explain the joke of still using imperial units in the 21st century as a quirk of character is ridiculous. Units are designed to ease the recording and/or transmission of measurements, meaning the more people use them, the more useful they are. Using imperial units is as sensible as using an Iroquoian language as the national language, and explaining it as a quirk of character when people point out that no-one can understand you. Bashing America is not always good - in fact, it's rarely good - but pointing out an anachronism which is actively hurting the US's participation in the world stage is not bashing. The fact you seem to think it is speaks more about your insecurity than the veracity of your claims.

      Oh, and heavier-than-air flight did not originate in the US, fyi. The only thing that originated in the US in that regard was having a flight surrounded by journalists.

    22. Re:units by gsslay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cos the equivalent in Celsius would just be totally confusing!

      40 = dangerously hot
      25 = warm
      0 = cold
      -20 = dangerously cold.

      I mean, who has the time for those crazy numbers?!

    23. Re:units by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      and it sounds like someone touched a nerve to get that response from you

      The post itself didn't, the "5 Insightful" it received did, however. It has been addressed though.

      pointing out an anachronism which is actively hurting the US's participation in the world stage is not bashing

      Try looking at the content of his post, it was much more than "pointing out." Anyways, it isn't hurting the US's participation any more than our use of the English language is. In fact, a simple unit conversion is much more surmountable to the everyday person than a language barrier. Going into your comparison, you may as well argue that since a larger population of the world speaks Hindi and Chinese, we ought to use those languages instead. Few people speak German, yet Germany doesn't seem to get excluded. Furthermore, we don't see people making posts that say "Lol, danke, wtf is this, the 17th century? Oh wait. Germany." and have them get modded as insightful.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    24. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At 20,000 feet the temperature experienced by a stowaway would be -13 F, at 30,000 it would be -45 in the wheel well — and at 40,000 feet, the mercury plunges to a deadly -85 F

      Lol, feet and degrees Fahreheit, wtf is this, the 17th century?

      Oh wait. America.

      Aviation always uses feet to represent altitude.

      Fahrenheit, though, really, who uses that?

    25. Re:units by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      isn't 25 stp?

      also, real men don't use degrees. I like my room at 298.15K

      also, arbitrary is arbitrary. and we're all just playing with water anyway.

    26. Re:units by almitydave · · Score: 2

      Answering anonymous troll, I know, but the reason the US uses Imperial units is simply cultural momentum. We're used to these units and have learned them intuitively. Metric is taught in schools, used in science, and everyone with an education knows it and the approximate conversion factors (2.54, 3.3, 1.6, 2.2, 9/5+32, etc.), and maybe someday there'll be a switch - but the mathematical convenience is just not worth the cultural effort required right now.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    27. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you may as well argue that since a larger population of the world speaks Hindi and Chinese, we ought to use those languages instead.

      Erm... that's not a very good example. There are actually good reasons to learn Chinese, namely China being a huge and growing economy. Lots of Chinese people only speak Chinese and don't know English. You're missing out a lot of potential customers and employees.

      Not so much for Hindi as many Indians know English already, being once ruled by the Brits and all. Though that may change in the future as India rises

    28. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you aren't used to it, yes that is confusing. Do I need a jacket to leave the house when it's 25C? What about 20C? 15C? I would have to think about that for a while, simply because I'm not used to using Celsius for weather. On the other hand, 50F means wear a jacket, 60F means bring a jacket, and 70F means you won't need it.

    29. Re:units by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      In Canada we get stuck with an abomination combination of the two. Though most things sold are measured in metric, they frequently have roots in "standard" units. A can of pop (soda) or beer is 355ml (12 US Fl oz), a bottle of domestic beer is 341ml (12 Imp Fl oz.) Large 18.9l water jugs are 5 US Gallons. Even though Canada is supposed to be metric, if the word "gallon" is used without specifying US or imperial, it's assumed to be Imperial Gallons, since that's the last gallon we used. I believe some paint retailers got in trouble for their deals on "a gallon" of paint that ended up being 3.78 liters. Produce at grocery stores will be advertized in per-pound prices, but the scales register in kg.

      Even though the preferred units in Canada for fuel economy is l/100km, people keep talking about "MPG", and NRCan will also report economy in ImpMPG. Yet even though these people prefer MPG, they don't understand why Canadian tests are "so inaccurate" and result in the MPG being 20% higher than what's posted in the US / what they are getting (eg: it's just the difference in size in gallons). They want to use these arcane units, but are too stupid to realize that there's two gallons, or that odometers don't register in miles, nor do fuel pumps dispense in gallons.

    30. Re:units by stepho-wrs · · Score: 2

      Likewise, I find Fahrenheit confusing every time I visit the US. 15-30C is comfortable (I live near a desert), 45C is try not to move weather (2 weeks in January) and 5C is wear a jacket weather. I can remember 100F only because I know it is body temperature (approx 37/38C). When visiting the US I usually make a little lookup table on a scrap of paper to convert between C and F.

    31. Re:units by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 0

      Erm... that's not a very good example. There are actually good reasons to learn Chinese, namely China being a huge and growing economy. Lots of Chinese people only speak Chinese and don't know English. You're missing out a lot of potential customers and employees.

      What? That's an absurd argument. There's no need to speak their language when you can just hire one single person to translate your product labeling for you. Besides, Chinese really isn't much of a language; in fact even within Cantonese or Mandarin, they have so many wildly varying and unintelligible dialects that they can't even understand one another even though they technically speak the same language.

      To give you an idea, see if you can understand this video very well:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      That's technically English. Or at least, it very closely resembles what was once called English.

      Here's a comparison of the two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    32. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps Aviation, which uses US units in aircraft design all around the world.

      Uh, what other units than feet for altitude? You should know that fuel is measured in kgs in the US too nowadays....

      I might also add that the USSR used meters for altitude but Russia dropped it when the Soviet union collapsed and international flights to, from and over Russian airspace increased by orders of magnitude. That and some other differences in instrumentation have contributed to crashes in Russia when pilots that had thousands of hours of experience with Soviet instrumentation began flying with Western instruments when various Russian airlines bought Western aircraft (among other things the colors of the artificial horizon were exactly the opposite in Russian aircraft). They reverted back to their basic instincts and what they were used to when a technical malfunction or other problem suddenly increased the stress level by several orders of magnitude...

    33. Re:units by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The Library of Congress.

    34. Re:units by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The Chinese spoken language varies a lot but the written language does not. At worst you get traditional Chinese in some parts of Southern China or Taiwan.

  7. Physically Impossible by vikingpower · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mercury can't plunge to -85 degrees Fahrenheit. It solidifies at -37.8922 degrees Fahrenheit. Fail.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mercury can't plunge to -85 degrees Fahrenheit. It solidifies at -37.8922 degrees Fahrenheit. Fail.

      -85 F is approximately 210 K. Mercury can plunge damn close to that as a liquid.

      You just need a near-vacuum.

      Somewhat ironic that you failed to consider the effect of pressure on phase, especially given this was referencing a high-altitude LOW PRESSURE scenario, but you pedantically cited the freezing point value at standard pressure.

      Ouch.

    2. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, turn of phrase.

    3. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does solid mercury continue to contract with decreasing temperatures?

    4. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We seem to be operating on the assumption that no substance will go any lower than the temperature at which it solidifies, so no. The lowest temperature you will find mercury at is "-37.8922 degrees Fahrenheit".

    5. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, mercury eats the aluminum body of airplanes.

    6. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and furthermore we seem to be operating on the assumption that substances solidify at the same temperature regardless of pressure. The lowest temperature you will find mercury at is "-37.8922 degrees Fahrenheit" and at this temperature it will be a solid regardless of whether it is inside a diamond-forming pressure chamber or the effectively pure vacuum of interstellar space.

    7. Re:Physically Impossible by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      I think others have replied to you already, but I will too.

      40C and 40F is the meeting point of both measurements and on a mercury thermometer it goes much lower than that point.

      You should check your facts before spouting statements with such assurance.

    8. Re:Physically Impossible by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      and on a mercury thermometer it goes much lower than that point.

      The speedometer on my Suzuki Reno went up to 140mph but that poor car started to struggle around 110mph. ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Physically Impossible by vikingpower · · Score: 2

      MINUS 39something, mister. You are on about PLUS 40. 79 Fahrenheit off. You should check your numbers before spouting statements with such arrogance.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    10. Re:Physically Impossible by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      That 'truth in advertising' thing working is against you. This is another classic example of the marketing department working against the engineering department, with the %$#@! marketeers winning, again, sadly.

      Just to back up my point, don't those things flip over when on 45 MPH curves? (/flame) Sorry about trying to make that last point. Please drive responsible and always most-carefully. Live long and prosper.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    11. Re:Physically Impossible by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      This is another classic example of the marketing department working against the engineering department, with the %$#@! marketeers winning, again, sadly.

      I would attribute it more to economy of scale: It's cheaper to produce one speedometer that will work across your entire product line than to produce one tailored to the maximum speed of each model you sell.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      if you're gonna snark, snark right. mercury thermometers are sealed

    13. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In metaphor land, mercury does what it damn well pleases!

    14. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about a thermometer? The original comment claimed that mercury solidifies at "-37.8922 degrees Fahrenheit" without stipulating any conditions, which is obviously an incorrect statement for all pressure values except 1.0000 atm.

      If you want to be pedantic, you have to be precise.

    15. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He meant to say "-40F == -40C", which is most definitely true. Personally, I'd blame Slashdot's Unicode filter getting confused/over-zealous and eating the negative signs by mistake.

    16. Re:Physically Impossible by Talderas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pedant troll failure out pedanted by pedant.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    17. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but aluminum would eat the body of a mercury airplane; so we can call that one a tie.

    18. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also can't read his graph. Atmospheric pressure is 0.0001 GPa, which is damn close to x=0. The line hits the axis around 235 K (about -37F) not 210 K

    19. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we don't care about a thermometer then we also have the incorrect statement that "Mercury can't plunge to -85 degrees Fahrenheit". It can, it's just going to be solid.

    20. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, there's no reason a sealed mercury thermometer couldn't be constructed with a vacuum within.

    21. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "out-pedanted."

    22. Re:Physically Impossible by gsslay · · Score: 2

      So explain why a stowaway is carrying mercury in an open container?

      Don't they have enough on their hands without probably mercury poisoning? Is it really going to be packed with "things I'll need on the flight".

    23. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't stipulated, either. In fact, given the advisability of stowing away in a wheel well, I wouldn't be surprised if the stowaway decided to carry the mercury by swallowing it.

      It makes as much sense as stowing away, and the mercury is less likely to be fatal compared to hiding in the wheel well. It's always great when drinking mercury is a second order health and safety concern.

      Fyi, apparently what *was* included as the only essential carry on item was... a comb. So, we're back to, "why not bring mercury?"

    24. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mercury can't plunge to -85 degrees Fahrenheit. It solidifies at -37.8922 degrees Fahrenheit. Fail.

      And once it solidifies, it cannot get any colder? I can think of plenty of substances that can get warmer/colder while they are in their solid state, and I doubt that mercury is any different.

    25. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mercury can't plunge to -85 degrees Fahrenheit. It solidifies at -37.8922 degrees Fahrenheit. Fail.

      And once it solidifies, it cannot get any colder? I can think of plenty of substances that can get warmer/colder while they are in their solid state, and I doubt that mercury is any different.

      Would you mind giving us an example of a substance that *cannot* get colder while in a solid state? Actually, scratch that: go ahead and submit your example to the Nobel prize committee directly. It will save everyone some time.

    26. Re:Physically Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I'm confused. Isn't frozen mercury, still mercury? I suppose by plunge the author means height-inside-mercury-thermometers, and not plunging temperature.

    27. Re:Physically Impossible by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you are right, but I did write "-40c and -40F" damn slashdot filters.

  8. No frequent flyer miles either... by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    ...that's where I'm convinced.

  9. Saw this in stealthiswiki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was an anarchist guide, steal this wiki a 2000s follow on to Steal This Book, that actually had instructions including stealing a medical oxygen bottle and preparing for the cold. It actually recommended against the whole thing but was a surprisingly complete overview.
    Unfortunately the website appears to be gone now, probably the complete guide to disabling a cargo ship to block a shipping channel or making explosives and drugs got the feds called in.

    1. Re:Saw this in stealthiswiki by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

      Given the survival rate for this kind of transportation method, they probably run out of anarchists, so they put the manual offline...

  10. Marketing opportunity: Wheel well class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...getting there means you're a survivor. ...when you're dying to get there. ...more fun than Russian Roulette ...when it absolutely positively has to be there overnight or you'll die.

  11. Look at the bright side! by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No annoying seat neighbors. No screaming kids within earshot. Not getting groped and molested while going through security. You can bring any amount of liquids. You can even bring and consume your own alcohol. Etc ..

    1. Re:Look at the bright side! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspects the experts might poo-poo the idea of drinking alcohol while clinging to the wheel of an aircraft.

      But what do they know.

    2. Re:Look at the bright side! by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the available in-flight entertainment system is kinda boring...

  12. What I want to know is ... by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do they bother with all of the ridiculous security protocols for airline passengers when apparently it's pretty easy to sneak a 16-year-old-kid-sized bomb into the wheel well of an aircraft on the tarmac?

    So much neater and easier than trying to sneak weapons through airport security. And the best part is, you don't have to commit suicide to take the plane down.

    Seriously, airplane security is clearly full of holes and the sham of passenger security checks is just that, a sham meant to make us 'feel' safe while wasting our time and shoveling tons of dollars to the TSA.

    1. Re:What I want to know is ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, airplane security is clearly full of holes and the sham of passenger security checks is just that, a sham meant to make us 'feel' safe while wasting our time and shoveling tons of dollars to the TSA.

      Well, any good government repression solves multiple problems, but the point of TSA is behavioral conditioning - giving away tons of money to political cronies is just a bonus.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:What I want to know is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the boy snuck in "under the cover of darkness." No one could have foreseen or prevented that...

    3. Re:What I want to know is ... by ruir · · Score: 1

      No it is not. The sham of passenger checking is to make sure you do not carry food and drinks, or excess weight so airlines can do their side business.

    4. Re:What I want to know is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good to know...

    5. Re:What I want to know is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So much neater and easier than trying to sneak weapons through airport security.

      You don't get the point of security theatre. Terrorists are eager to "beat the system", so they'll queue up with their bad intents and devices at the security checks. Sneaking a bomb into a plane in other ways would be cheating and cowardly. I am sure there is a section of hell reserved for people who try that, as opposed to the glory-suffused suicidal freedom fighters.

      Oh, and Comic!

    6. Re:What I want to know is ... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

      airplane security is clearly full of holes

      I had to reread that a few times to realize you didn't forget an 'A'.

    7. Re:What I want to know is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You want really scary: Off the shelf 10-20kg RC Plane packed full of explosives and with an FPV system to make a simple and cheap guided missile. They can be made fast enough to keep up with a plane just after takeoff or before landing, or while it is flying in the ATC pattern. Might not even be seen at night (though I guess they have bird warning systems).

      Or what if someone lands an explosive filled drone on a taxiing plane and latches on, detonating during or after takeoff.

      With modern RC autopilots they can even be automated. Just program multicopter autopilot to go and sit stationary 10m off the middle of the runway, if you aren't moving then radar is probably unlikely to see you.

      High speed trains are even worse. No way can they guard hundreds of miles of track against anvils being tossed onto them (or bombs put in their exceptionally predictable (in both time and location) path).

      Or what if someone programs a drone to fly a nail bomb into a crowded stadium, or the Kabah during Haj. GPS means they can be launched hundreds of miles away.

      One can only come to the conclusion that either the terrorists are remarkably incompetent/unimaginative, or that they are basically non-existant, and we are wasting our time and money doing anything at all.

    8. Re:What I want to know is ... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ..but you can buy 10 kilos+ of food and other stuff from the airport.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:What I want to know is ... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      If you want to make the airport folks even more paranoid, why not just set off a wheelie-suitcase containing explosives, shrapnel, and warfarin powder in the security checkpoint line?

    10. Re:What I want to know is ... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      What's the last time you flew? All airports are arranged as following

      Airport -> Security Checkpoint -> Terminal -> Plane

      All airports have tons of crap for sale in the terminal, ranging from sit in restaurants, to fast food, to souveniers after you've gotten past security. This has lead me to discover some hilarious things.... like a TGI Fridays that gave you plastic forks, knives, and spoons to eat with while serving you steak. Never again, TGIF. Never again.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    11. Re:What I want to know is ... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      I think we can accurately come to the conclusion that the current crop of fundamental Islamist terrorists are remarkably incompetent.

      For example take Richard Reid aka the "shoe bomber". Only a completely incompetent idiot tries to light a fuse in full view of everyone, rather than take the simple expediency of locking yourself in the toilet!!!

      To underline how stupid and incompetent they are the "underwear bomber" made exactly the same critical mistake.

    12. Re:What I want to know is ... by weszz · · Score: 1

      not like there is some sort of security force there that could... protect the integrity of the planes, the airfield and to make sure people shouldn't get where they shouldn't be...

      Maybe they could come up with something... call them I don't know Transportation Security?

    13. Re:What I want to know is ... by Noxal · · Score: 1

      Yes. From the airport. Which is "in on it".

    14. Re:What I want to know is ... by rgbatduke · · Score: 2

      I think it is a mix of all of the above. Terrorists are rare (not quite non-existent) and are obviously incompetent and unimaginative. At most airports, one could fill an entire full-sized bus with explosives as long as it was labelled "Hertz" on the side, drive it right up to a place in front of the main terminal, and detonate it as a suicide bomber on any of the busy travel days of the year. If one wore the right uniform, one could probably get out, walk around to the off-side of the bus, jump into a getaway car, and get several hundred meters away before remote detonating with a phone call to a cell-phone detonator and actually escape in the resulting panic and confusion. One could do this at sports arenas, shopping malls, on large bridges. A full size bus would hold easily 5 to 10 tons of homemade explosive, and a really smart terrorist could amplify a smaller amount with aerosolized gasoline dispersed immediately before the detonation via compressed air and gasoline in tanks (the military has a similar super-bomb that has a devastating effect).

      Then yes, small airplanes are trivial -- for a smart, well-funded non-suicidal terrorist -- to convert into GPS guided cruise missiles, and the idea of the kamakazi -- a suicidal human guided cruise missile -- is now seventy years old, not even a new concept. Indeed, it's a good thing there aren't too many truly sociopathic people and that true sociopaths and religious or political zealots (is there a difference?) are often pretty stupid, unimaginative and so on.

      And yeah, they probably are opposed by occult counterterrorist forces that reduce the frequency of "smart" attacks like 9/11. So there might have been any number of additional attacks that were foiled. It isn't completely trivial to assemble the ingredients for large quantities of homemade explosives, and making explosives at home is a good way to end up aerosolized yourself. To do a good job of making something with a lot of power that is stable enough to transport and detonate on demand rather than when you sneeze, one has to use pure ingredients, strong chemistry-fu, precise temperature regulation and so on or one ends up making nitrate-based "stable" explosive stuff with all sorts of side compounds that detonate if you look at them funny. The feds keep careful tabs on high quality nitrates (fertilizer, nitric acid) that are often a primary ingredient. So even a lot of deranged psychopaths might have difficulty assembling the ingredients for making a bomb like that used in Oklahoma City and combining them and transporting them without killing themselves, their families (if any) and a number of their neighbors.

      But still, in the end we are remarkably dependent on the general goodwill and sanity of our co-humans. Lots of people working together to make a stable, secure, moderately contented world are never guaranteed to succeed, but all it takes is one suicidally deranged and stupid sociopath to murder tens to hundreds of people or do millions in property damage; smart sociopaths can bump that pretty easily by orders of magnitude. Fortunately they are rare, and opposed by smart anti-sociopaths who at least sometimes succeed.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    15. Re:What I want to know is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..but you can buy 10 kilos+ of food and other stuff from the airport.

      To buy that much food requires a bundle of currency, given the insane prices in airport terminals, that most likely would get you stopped by security.

      So perhaps you would like to pay for that with "plastic"?

      Given the amount and the location, your credit card company would probably flag the purchase as "fraud" and deny it.

      On the other hand, I like your thinking.

      magic word: stopover

    16. Re:What I want to know is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we can accurately come to the conclusion that the current crop of fundamental Islamist terrorists are remarkably incompetent.

      For example take Richard Reid aka the "shoe bomber". Only a completely incompetent idiot tries to light a fuse in full view of everyone, rather than take the simple expediency of locking yourself in the toilet!!!

      To underline how stupid and incompetent they are the "underwear bomber" made exactly the same critical mistake.

      Perhaps they were trying to "make a statement" with their incompetent behavior.....

    17. Re:What I want to know is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you don't remember flying before the TSA. It used to be a (good) experience. Your whole family would come and sit with you at the boarding gate. Everyone would watch the planes land and pull up to the gates. When you arrive the whole family is there to greet you again. The stores were always there. I would guess having more people at the airport (all the waiting relatives and friends) would increase sales more than preventing anyone from bring drinks and limiting the amount of people.

    18. Re:What I want to know is ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      I fly business class a fair amount - and when they serve lunch/dinner I get nice, metal forks, butter knives, and serrated steak knives. All served with a smile and an "enjoy your meal sir!"

      Why worry about smuggling a knife onto a plane? Just book business/first class, enjoy yourself one last time, and then do your worst with the tools the airline graciously provided for you.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    19. Re:What I want to know is ... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      For example take Richard Reid aka the "shoe bomber". Only a completely incompetent idiot tries to light a fuse in full view of everyone, rather than take the simple expediency of locking yourself in the toilet!!!

      To underline how stupid and incompetent they are the "underwear bomber" made exactly the same critical mistake.

      The underwear bomber apparently spent 20 minutes in the bathroom preparing the device. I don't know why he didn't just try to light it in the bathroom. Anyways, it doesn't matter, since in both cases the devices were faulty anyways. If they had been in working order, they would have succeeded because they had sufficient time before the passengers reacted.

    20. Re:What I want to know is ... by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      Clearly, what we need to do is pass a new law to make it illegal to stow away in a plane's wheel well!

    21. Re:What I want to know is ... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      All airports have tons of crap for sale in the terminal, ranging from sit in restaurants, to fast food, to souveniers after you've gotten past security.

      Well, one except to that rule was Kansas City, where the terminals were a series of three partial rings with vehicle access in the middle. Was one of my favorite airports. You could literally get out of your car, go through security, through the terminal, and get on the plane while only having to walk a couple hundred feet total. Of course, the TSA hated it since there were many small checkpoints and they couldn't funnel everyone through a few central checkpoints. And of course, little room for retail stores and overpriced concessions. I've heard they are going to start tearing down the rings and building a more standard airport in its place. A shame really.

    22. Re:What I want to know is ... by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      Yes. From the airport. Which is "in on it".

      Yup, that racket annoys me to the point where I try not to buy anything neither at the airport nor on the plane. Except for that I generally don't care about food and drink prices while travelling. At my local airport one company has an agreement about providing all food and pub services (apart from a couple of franchise stores) at the airport, and the prices are absolutely ridiculous.

      I've noted a few exceptions, though. Both Munich airport and Las Palmas had pleasant outdoor cafés with food and drinks, with prices a bit cheaper than typical main street tourist places in those respective cities. Not your local corner joint, but better than expectations for airports.

      Departing from Stansted, London last week, I had the cheapest pint of beer of the whole trip. £3.25 for a very nice stout (Saddle Black). Granted, we stayed in central London, where prices are high, and that particular pint was a promotion, but it was still actually good value :)

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  13. news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I want to know is, why is what was on CNN yesterday constantly showing up on slashdot the next? Fuck Beta.

  14. Wheel-well traveling 101: by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Informative

    1. Dress warmly. Even if the plane takes off in a tropical location. Make sure to cover exposed body parts - you don't want to pay with eary, fingers, toes or your nose for the trip.
    2. Bring oxygen (that's going to be the hard part. Several hours worth of oxygen).
    3. Familiarize yourself with various plane types so you don't get crushed by an unsuitable wheel well design.
    4. Secure yourself to the plane so you don't get thrown out during landing.

    1. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by Ingcuervo · · Score: 1

      1.1 if you take off in a "warmer than freezing" zone, do not get in the plane too long before the trip, or at least make sure you can take off clothes once in there because you might suffocate during the waiting period
      2.1. secure all the oxigen to the plane, if you lose it you are screwed
      3.1. verify that you have space in there for all the oxygen (assuming that in 2. you managed to sneak it into the well)
      4.1.....profit?

    2. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by geraud · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your points 1. and 2. are wrong. Have you read the article ? Hypothermia and hypoxia preserve the body during the flight.

    3. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      There is even a safer way to travel:
      1. buy a ticket and seat in the cabin

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extra oxygen doesn't really help you that much, its not really lack of oxygen as much as lack of pressure. 10km height has as much oxygen as 0km height, same 21%. The problem is the pressure, only 26% at 10km of what you have on ground. Oxygen getting absorbed in your lungs depends on that pressure, less pressure, less oxygen gets to your blood. For example Mount Everest climbers, if they just ran from 0m to top of Everest they would pass out, extra oxygen or no. They need to acclimate their body at lower altitude for a week or two for starters and only then make the climb, usually with extra oxygen. There is no acclimation for stowaways. They might survive the trip unconscious, but they pass out and just fall out when plane prepares for landing.
      Temperatures as low as -70C don't help much. Longer flights will turn you to popsicle, even if you manage to get hold of specialist arctic explorer clothing(costs more than plane tickets).

    5. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by Ihlosi · · Score: 2
      Oxygen getting absorbed in your lungs depends on that pressure, less pressure, less oxygen gets to your blood.

      This is why you want to increases the ratio of oxygen in the gas mixture you breathe when ambient pressure drops. If ambient pressure is only 25% of what it is at sea level, you'll need to adjust the gas mixture to 80% O2, 20%N2 to have roughly the same partial pressure of oxygen.

      The acclimatization is more a matter of coping with the lower CO2 level (CO2 partial pressure also drops, causing the body to exhale more CO2, which causes hypocapnia and affects the acid-base-balance of the body and various other functions.).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

    6. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by will_die · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is more leg room in the wheel well.

    7. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's for pussies.

    8. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by swillden · · Score: 1

      Your points 1. and 2. are wrong. Have you read the article ? Hypothermia and hypoxia preserve the body during the flight.

      More precisely, although hypothermia and hypoxia will generally kill you, once in a while you'll get lucky and they'll counter each others' fatal effects just enough that you manage not to die.

      If it was me, I'd rather ensure that I'm equipped to avoid the effects of both. Or else, you know, travel inside the plane, in the environment designed and regulated for human comfort. There are no little packets of peanuts in the wheel well, for example.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is the pressure, only 26% at 10km of what you have on ground. Oxygen getting absorbed in your lungs depends on that pressure, less pressure, less oxygen gets to your blood.

      No, oxygen getting absorbed into your lungs depends on the partial pressure of oxygen in your breathing gas. Partial pressure is the pressure multiplied by the percentage of the gas in question.

      At sea level, the partial pressure of oxygen, ppO2 is 0.21, because the pressure is one atmosphere and the air is 21% oxygen. You can obviously survive just fine on a ppO2 of 0.21. If you're in an environment with 0.26 atm ambient pressure and breathing air, you're getting a ppO2 of 0.26 *0.21 = 0.05 atm. Generally, 0.16 atm is considered the minimum safe ppO2, though that's a pretty conservative number. But 0.05 is not enough to keep you alive. If you're breathing pure O2 at that pressure, though, the ppO2 is 0.26, which is higher than the ppO2 of air at sea level, so you'll be just fine (as long as you avoid freezing to death).

      Incidentally, SCUBA divers worry about excessively high ppO2 levels, because oxygen is toxic. Generally, divers try to keep their ppO2 below 1.4 atm, which means that breathing air becomes dangerous at depths greater than 220 feet (of course, at those depths the ppN2 of air is generally already having a huge narcotic effect so diving that deep on air is a bad idea for other reasons). For deeper dives, therefore, divers use gas mixtures with less O2.

      Such deep, technical, diving is pretty rare, though. What's very common is diving with air that has been enriched with additional O2, usually to 32% or 36% O2, called nitrox. The purpose of this is to lower ppN2 levels during the dive, to reduce nitrogen absorption by the tissues and therefore increase the amount of bottom time without needing decompression stops to safely offgas the N2. Many divers also think the higher O2 levels make them feel better during and after the dive. However, with 36% O2 (EAN36), ppO2 reaches 1.4 atm at only 128 feet so divers breathing nitrox have to be careful to stay shallower. Smart Nitrox divers test their breathing gas O2 percentage before every dive and calculate a floor below which they must not go.

      For example Mount Everest climbers, if they just ran from 0m to top of Everest they would pass out, extra oxygen or no.

      The top of Mount Everest is about 0.33 atm, which means a 100% O2 mixture would provide them with more oxygen than they get at sea level. The reason they have to acclimate first is that carrying enough O2 to breathe 100% O2 is impractical. It would require carrying thousands of cubic feet of compressed gas. By acclimating themselves they increase their bodies' ability to utilize lower ppO2 levels. Depending on their fitness levels and degree of acclimatization, they may be able to get to a point where they don't require supplemental oxygen. Most, though, will need some.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      21% is not an amount. It's a proportion. As others have pointed out, the partial pressure of oxygen is what matters. Decrease the pressure but increase the proportion of oxygen and you keep the amount the same.

    11. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no little packets of peanuts in the wheel well, for example.

      It's been a while since I was on a plane, but I thought they were little packet of peanut (singular) by now.

    12. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by heefeneet · · Score: 1

      Or else, you know, travel inside the plane, in the environment designed and regulated for human comfort.

      Obviously, parent never flies economy.....

    13. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by swillden · · Score: 1

      There are no little packets of peanuts in the wheel well, for example.

      It's been a while since I was on a plane, but I thought they were little packet of peanut (singular) by now.

      It seems to vary randomly, in my recent experience.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by swillden · · Score: 1

      Or else, you know, travel inside the plane, in the environment designed and regulated for human comfort.

      Obviously, parent never flies economy.....

      Parent nearly always flies economy (though I fly enough that I do get the occasional upgrade). Remember we're comparing to the outside of the plane. Comfort is relative.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:Wheel-well traveling 101: by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Yes, something like 25% of the time. I'd rather have the oxygen and warm clothing myself. Well, assuming I was to travel in a wheel well.

  15. Flying experience by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

    What I get out of this story is that, if you're lucky enough to survive the trip in the wheel well, it's much more convenient to travel this way than doing it the regular way: no queuing, no overcharging from the airlines, no restrictions on the amounts of liquids you can carry, no getting your gonads showered with x-rays, no groping from TSA perverts... and of course, no arbitrary, secret no-fly list that prevents you from boarding the plane in the first place.

    The airport security theater almost makes me want to risk my life as a stowaway.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Flying experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no getting your gonads showered with x-rays,

      High altitude radiation.

      no groping from TSA perverts

      RTFA. He was escorted by the FBI to an extended groping session afterwards (justice must be served). You need to escape successfully in order to evade that particular benefit.

    2. Re:Flying experience by ignavus · · Score: 1

      What I get out of this story is that, if you're lucky enough to survive the trip in the wheel well, it's much more convenient to travel this way than doing it the regular way: no queuing, no overcharging from the airlines, no restrictions on the amounts of liquids you can carry, no getting your gonads showered with x-rays, no groping from TSA perverts... and of course, no arbitrary, secret no-fly list that prevents you from boarding the plane in the first place.

      The airport security theater almost makes me want to risk my life as a stowaway.

      And no waiting in the queue for the toilet either.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    3. Re:Flying experience by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      And no waiting in the queue for the toilet either.

      Waiting in the queue for the toilet is prohibited. It's what terrorists do before they strike.

    4. Re:Flying experience by surmak · · Score: 2

      What I get out of this story is that, if you're lucky enough to survive the trip in the wheel well, it's much more convenient to travel this way than doing it the regular way: no queuing, no overcharging from the airlines, no restrictions on the amounts of liquids you can carry, no getting your gonads showered with x-rays, no groping from TSA perverts... and of course, no arbitrary, secret no-fly list that prevents you from boarding the plane in the first place.

      The airport security theater almost makes me want to risk my life as a stowaway.

      I'm not sure about that. For the (surviving) wheel-well travelers, all of that unpleasantness simply comes after the flight. They may not use the backscatter X-ray machine, but I'm sure there will be a far more thorough examination than the TSA would give you, which you will receive on a regular basis. There are also far more limits on what items you can bring with you, not just liquids.

      ...and after all that, you will likely have a good idea if you are on the no-fly list. (The answer will be yes)

  16. This warning reads like a challenge to me by Karmashock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... is that sick?

    So there are three factors that you need to deal with apparently.

    1. The cold.

    Solution: Get yourself a really good jacket. Something you could take to the north pole... should be enough.

    2. Lack of oxygen.

    Solution: Get yourself an O2 tank... The kind they take to Everest. Just something to supplement the air you're breathing.

    3. Falling out of the god damn airplane.

    Solution: Some basic mountaineering gear would likely do the trick. Just ropes and clamps.

    All told, what you seem to need are high altitude mountaineering gear. So, some cold weather gear, an oxygen bottle, and some ropes. Doubtless it would be a nasty ride but you'd probably survive.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      The equipment you are suggesting costs quite a bit more than a plane ticket, even including the extra baggage fee and the $10 soggy sandwich.

    2. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      YOLO!!!!!!!!!!11111 Jokes aside, I do have to wonder how many animals end up making the trip -- a spider is going to have a much easier time surviving this than anything warm blooded. In the meantime, waterbears are calling everyone else amateurs... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    3. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Does it really though?

      The only expensive bit is the coat... lets say that's 500 to 1000 dollars and even that is if you're paying retail.

      If you want to go cheap you can probably "make" coat out of old blankets. It doesn't have to be pretty or light. You're not going to move once you're in the wheel well. You're just going to sit in there and not move. So it can be heavy and clunky. Which means in so far as a coat is concerned it can be quite light.

      Now in regards to oxygen, you're just looking for a basic tank there. you can either look for medical supplies or scuba supplies. Either one will probably work. You'll want to not pressurize it as much to compensate for the altitude but that's about it.

      Second hand scuba equipment doesn't have to be that pricy.

      Third you have whatever you're using to secure yourself under the plane. Mostly rope. Not expensive.

      And then appreciate all of this is reusable.

      The real problem with hiding in a wheel well is that its illegal and uncomfortable. The danger is only if you're unprepared and an idiot.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by x0ra · · Score: 1

      don't forget to keep your legs warm as well, it's a pretty significant source of heat loss.

    5. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      whatever... the point is that if you wrap up, get some O2, and some ropes you're good.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by muttoj · · Score: 1

      Write a letter to the Mythbusters.

    7. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by mysidia · · Score: 2

      All told, what you seem to need are high altitude mountaineering gear. So, some cold weather gear, an oxygen bottle, and some ropes. Doubtless it would be a nasty ride but you'd probably survive.

      The only thing left is about... the crushing risk. And radical sudden air pressure changes you may be exposed to.

      Also... the difficulty of getting in and escaping while carrying all this gear.

      In this heavy winter gear... you will likely stand out for sure.

    8. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      how much more risk will there be if you run out there with nothing? It seems pretty similar.

      As to air pressure changes, that is unpleasant but not life threatening.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      The absolute cheapest you can buy a compressed gas tank for is about $100. I don't know how much the mask would be but I'm betting another $100.

      A ticket for the same trip is $450.

      So... yea, if YOU want to risk your life to save less than $200, go right ahead.

    10. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      well again... and I feel like I must have said this about 5 times already... its reusable.

      So... yeah... the economy on the first trip isn't amazing. But if you make a point of doing this like some skybound hobo then your ongoing costs would be pretty low. You'd just have to refill the O2 tank between trips.

      And obviously it isn't practical to actually do this... what the fuck are you talking about? Hitching a ride in the wheel well of a commercial airliner? Fucking ridiculous. It was a stupid idea before 9/11 and now with all the overblown paranoia about bombs on planes its almost impossible to get near them without either being a ninja or an airport worker. And with the possible exception of the ninja, I'm struggling to see why anyone would take the risk of discovery or account the discomfort as worth saving the cost of the plane flight.

      So no... I am not saying it is practical.

      What I am saying is that aside from the illegality and discomfort of being crammed in a depressurized wheel well for 5 hours... there are ways to do it safely.

      If what kills people is the lack of oxygen and fridged temperature... then you get yourself an O2 tank and some warm clothing... and as to falling out of the well on landing... Tie yourself in.

      This can't be that complicated.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by ed1park · · Score: 1

      Don't forget snacks, water, and diapers.

    12. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The equipment you are suggesting costs quite a bit more than a plane ticket, even including the extra baggage fee and the $10 soggy sandwich.

      But if it works then it's really a one-time cost for a lifetime of free travel!

      I'd be more concerned that sneaking into the wheel well of a plane with that much equipment would probably be a bit difficult.
      You're certainly much more visible with north-pole-grade clothing and a gas cannister under your arm than a scrawny little kid in jeans and tshirt.

    13. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      All told, what you seem to need are high altitude mountaineering gear. So, some cold weather gear, an oxygen bottle, and some ropes. Doubtless it would be a nasty ride but you'd probably survive.

      The only thing left is about... the crushing risk. And radical sudden air pressure changes you may be exposed to.

      Also... the difficulty of getting in and escaping while carrying all this gear.

      In this heavy winter gear... you will likely stand out for sure.

      Why radical, sudden pressure changes? The plane doesn't teleport to altitide, it has to fly there. A quick search led me to an airline pilots forum, where they say it generally takes 25-35 minutes to climb to cruising altitude in a 747. Doesn't seem to radical to me.

      --

      Enigma

    14. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the kind of people that are willing to stow away in an aircraft wheel well are going to pay to procure an oxygen bottle. They can just borrow one from the nearest retirement castle.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    15. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You don't need any of that to stay alive. Possibly you need it to be comfortable but that's a different story.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    16. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You might be able to do it on a short flight that doesn't go up too high. You'd need some specialized equipment to do it "safely" on a trip that wouldn't be easier and cheaper to take on a bus.

      You can survive -20 pretty easily with a good coat, boots, pants, hat and balaclava. -40 is harder, particularly when you can't move, much of you is pressed up against large amounts of metal (conducts heat better than air and also compresses insulation, making it less effective). Colder than that is going to be a serious challenge. Remember, you need to schlep all of this equipment out to the plane, without getting caught. And no matter how many blankets you have, you still have to breathe.

      You can't just haul along a SCUBA tank. SCUBA tanks aren't meant for holding oxygen, and probably wouldn't last long enough anyway. You'd need actual oxygen tanks, meant for high altitude use. The kind Everest climbers use. Since the plane might be going up higher than Everest, you might need to modify them as well.

      If you got everything just right, you might make it. Probably not without losing some toes, fingers, the tip of your nose or ears though.

    17. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you've never flown across the Pacific.

    18. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      what if you cut foam insulation into a jacket so it wouldn't compress?

      And then you could always bring heater with you.

      There are jackets that have built in heaters. The jackets are not rated for that cold weather. however, if you used some sort of insulation that world work up there plus those little portable heaters... it might work.

      As to O2... the air at that altitude is enough to not die according to the article. It just not enough to remain conscious. The point is not to completely replace your air but to supplement it with enough oxygen that you don't pass out.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    19. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes, you could turn the gear bay into a little house. It wouldn't be very practical to sneak all of the stuff onto the tarmac though. Airport security may not be very good, but they'd notice that.

      If you had to pressurize your little gear bay house you'd be completely screwed. Even so, for long high flights you're going to need a good bit of O2 to keep your brain working. That's going to be heavy and bulky. More stuff you have to smuggle in and somehow find room to stow.

    20. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Ideally you have it all on your person... no bags... just an outfit that has all these qualities in it.

      Look, its clearly possible... we have high altitude jump suits that have all these features.

      Those are very light and of course quite expensive.

      But you could make a poor man's version of the same thing at the cost of aesthetics and likely a little extra weight.

      Don't tell me it can't be done... it has been done.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    21. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You're making assumptions again. Wrong ones.

      Jump suits aren't made to keep you alive for hours. You jump, you fall. A space suit might work. Even then, it's not a guarantee. Generally with a space suit you have to be careful about what part of you comes into contact with heat conducting objects, particularly contact for long periods of time. But someone's going to notice you hiking out to the tarmac in one anyway.

      You've clearly never experienced real cold. Well prepared mountaineers with sherpas to carry their equipment for them die on Everest when a storm traps them out longer than expected, in temperatures that are generally above -40C. The wheel well of an airplane is a more extreme environment, and no sherpas.

      Yes, it's possible. Also likely expensive, highly impractical and still quite dangerous. And no, you don't do it just as well on the cheap at the cost of some "aesthetics."

    22. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Saying something is impossible without really thinking about it isn't constructive. And no, you did not actually think about it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    23. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell that you're neither a mountain climber nor spent time at -40.

    24. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by mysidia · · Score: 1

      A quick search led me to an airline pilots forum, where they say it generally takes 25-35 minutes to climb to cruising altitude in a 747.

      That would be the pilots choosing not to immediately ascend to the highest cruising altitude. But that can be more related to efficiency, and it's still 45000 feet in 35 minutes. Which is still approximately1500ft/minute; or a decrease in atmospheric pressure by ~1 PSI per minute.

      This decrease in pressure is still at sufficient rate to cause outgassing of N2 CO2 in the blood, resulting in possible decompression sickness and alkalosis.

      These can result in loss of consciousness, which in such a risky environment could result in death by falling or getting trapped crushed in the wheel.

    25. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is when you consider that mountaineers take days to acclimatise to high altitudes.

    26. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by mysidia · · Score: 1

      25-35 minutes to climb to cruising altitude in a 747. Doesn't seem to radical to me.

      Also... To achieve maximum fuel efficiency, usually the DESCENT will be near the maximum safe rate. Around 4000 to 4500 feet per minute. A pressure increase of approximately 0.3 atmospheres per minute during descent, so there may be a possibility of barotrauma, as the ears do not equalize pressure this quickly. The 1500ft/second ascent is still pretty darn dangerous in terms of possible decompression sickness.

      Of course, within the pressurized cabin there is little change.

      But outside the cabin... this is definitely an extreme stress.

      There are pretty much no natural circumstances, for sure, where the human body would be subject to sudden 1000s of feet of pressure being added or removed per minute.

    27. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Right... and yet our ancestors contended with that weather on occasion 20 thousand years ago.

      We have tribal communities that live above the arctic circle.

      We have communities that live around Everest.

      But suggest that a man could survive for a few hours in a plane wheel well if provided with warm clothing, an O2 tank, and some binding and I must be crazy huh?

      Its an engineering problem. One that is solvable. People like you gainsay everything. Every time anyone suggests anything complicated or difficult be done morons like you show up to say it can't be done.

      You can't fly in the air... you can't go to the moon... you can't make a ship sea worthy if its underwater... you can't drill a tunnel under the english channel you can't build a building that is 80 stories high.

      Blah blah blah.

      Fuck you and die.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    28. Re:This warning reads like a challenge to me by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no kidding. The key concept is layers. You don't have to have very warm clothing if you have enough of it. Several pairs of pants and shirts/jackets and your core temperature will be fine. Having them be a bit baggy and loose fitting is better since air makes a pretty good insulator. If you have something that's bulky (like snowpants or a down jacket) make that the outermost later. You'll also have the bonus that you won't have to pack your luggage since you'll be wearing it. Extremities can be a problem. Since you won't have to move much I would just tuck your arms inside your clothing to keep them warm. Feet might be a problem even with several pairs of socks if you don't otherwise have warm footwear, so you might want to bring a blanket to wrap your feet with. Exposed skin will get frost bite so make sure you've got everything covered, especially if there is air movement in the wheel well (I don't know how well sealed they are and if that would be a concern or not). Don't forget to cover your face and head with blankets and scarves. A cheap pair of googles may not be a bad idea either.

  17. Fartenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Not reading further

    1. Re:Fartenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your typo is more entertaining than you are

  18. Meanwhile.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Normal People Also Say Hitching a Ride In an Airliner's Wheel Well Is Not a Good Idea"

    1. Re:Meanwhile.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      16 year old boy says "Whatever"

  19. Engine noise? by happymark · · Score: 1

    What about the engine noise? Does one need to bring the earplugs?

  20. YOU DON'T SAY ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Experts Say Hitching a Ride In an Airliner's Wheel Well Is Not a Good Idea

    YOU DON'T SAY ?

    I like memes and this one really shines here

  21. Nice country you have over there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Half of the population is assholes, and the rest are only a point or two above retards. Real nice.

  22. Units converted in celcius and metric by Barryke · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those outside of Lybia, USA, and Burma:

    "at 6 km the temperature experienced by a stowaway would be -25C, at 9,1 km it would be -45 in the wheel well — and at 12,2 km, the mercury plunges to a deadly -65C (PDF). "

    20,000 feet = 6km
    40,000 feet = 12,2km
    -13F = -25C
    -85F = -65C

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
    1. Re:Units converted in celcius and metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only informative if someone who matters cares.

    2. Re:Units converted in celcius and metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Can't use Google metric conversion?

  23. If you're going to pass out anyway ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    ... you might as well make the reason alcohol intoxication instead of hypoxia.
    Also, bring hard liquor. The hardest stuff you can find. Anything else might freeze.

  24. Government fights the last war.... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    Why do they bother with all of the ridiculous security protocols for airline passengers when apparently it's pretty easy to sneak a 16-year-old-kid-sized bomb into the wheel well of an aircraft on the tarmac?

    The Government fights the last war, because it's reactive rather than proactive. If 9/11 had consisted of four blown up airliners via wheel well bombs this hole would have been closed a long time ago. Likewise, if some jackass hadn't tried to light his sneakers on fire we'd still be able to board without taking our shoes off.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  25. Young kids these days by confused+one · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bah. You kids these days...

    Back in my day, we didn't complain about the cold and lack of oxygen. We rode in unpressurized planes with open gun ports. Sure, it was cold -- we wore fur lined jackets and liked it. Our oxygen masks smelled like engine exhaust and we were grateful. You didn't here us whine about 'being crushed by landing gear' or 'being thrown from the plane'. We were being shot at. Hell, we were lucky to have landing gear at all when we got back.

    So, stop your bitching and get off my damn lawn.

    Written for my grandfather who manned a gun in a WWII bomber.

    1. Re:Young kids these days by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      You didn't here us whine about 'being crushed by landing gear' or 'being thrown from the plane'. We were being shot at. Hell, we were lucky to have landing gear at all when we got back.

      Written for my grandfather who manned a gun in a WWII bomber.

      Ball-turret gunners may have had some additional concerns regarding crushing.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Young kids these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing the bombers of the day (at least American bombers), they were very often lucky to make it home at all, whether or not they saw combat.

      It's somewhat disturbing how common engine fires were.

    3. Re:Young kids these days by confused+one · · Score: 1

      That's why at the start of the war... If they survived 25 missions, they got to go home. Statistically they were unlikely to live that long. Many re-upped though, just because they couldn't walk away and leave everyone else behind to continue fighting without them.

  26. Terrorists, not tourists by mangu · · Score: 1

    I guess the memo had a misspelling. The wheel wells seem to be a good place for terrorists, not for tourists.

    If someone can sneak up to the plane and climb in, it should be equally easy to put a bomb there. If a 16-year-old can find a way to squeeze into that space, it wouldn't be too difficult to fit in a couple hundred pounds of explosives.

    1. Re:Terrorists, not tourists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still a much harder target than basicly any public building including the airport terminal.

    2. Re:Terrorists, not tourists by camperdave · · Score: 1

      If a 16-year-old can find a way to squeeze into that space, it wouldn't be too difficult to fit in a couple hundred pounds of explosives.

      Would you even need that much? Some thermite wrapped around a critical linkage, and the best the plane can do is belly-flop onto the tarmac.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Terrorists, not tourists by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Terrorists? You mean those statistically non-existent threat-actors, largely in the payroll of a US intelligence or law enforcement agency - or one of its allies?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:Terrorists, not tourists by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Yes, statistically non-existent, but the question still remains how you could have security so "tight" that you can't take a bottle of shampoo on-board (for fear that you'll squirt it on someone's eyes?!!!) but a person can sneak over the fence surrounding the airport, get all the way to the plane, and climb up into the wheel well undetected. Was this a one-time lapse in security or is the security around the plane itself as they prep it for takeoff just that horrible? And if the latter, why not beef up that security and leave the passengers alone? (Where "leave the passengers alone" means revert to pre-911 passenger screening measures.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Terrorists, not tourists by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      This man was no terrorist as clearly the TSA inspected him before his flight... no wait!

  27. That's weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Mars is super hospitable and ready for human colonization. You'd think a few hours in a wheel well is just a practice run for humanity's glorious destiny among the stars?

  28. Survival rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with a survival rate of about 25 percent. But agency adds that the actual numbers are probably higher, as some survivors may have escaped unnoticed, and bodies could fall into the ocean undetected.

    The first part I get, but how does "bodies falling into the ocean" mean the survival numbers are probably higher?

    1. Re:Survival rate by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      with a survival rate of about 25 percent. But agency adds that the actual numbers are probably higher, as some survivors may have escaped unnoticed, and bodies could fall into the ocean undetected.

      The first part I get, but how does "bodies falling into the ocean" mean the survival numbers are probably higher?

      It means all the numbers: quite likely there are more stowaways who fell into water-or woods even-and never had their bodies recovered, and some stowaways could have safely made it undetected. So there is know way to know the true survival rate.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  29. Still beats flying coach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And no molestation by the TSA I would assume.

  30. An Expert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We needed an expert to tell us this? I mean really, if you can't figure out on your own that stowing away in a wheel well of an airplane is a bad idea perhaps you don't deserve to live.

  31. Obligatory by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Experts Say Hitching a Ride In an Airliner's Wheel Well Is Not a Good Idea

    http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120930201320/fairytail/images/3/30/You_don't_say.png

    http://youtu.be/b6qyX1L8p_Q

  32. Dead wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're just dead wrong.
    20,000 feet MSL = 466 HPa
    40,00 feet MSL = 188 HPa

    These are flight levels, which are only colloquially "feet"; they're a measure of air pressure.

    1. Re:Dead wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just dead wrong.
      20,000 feet MSL = 466 HPa
      40,00 feet MSL = 188 HPa

      These are flight levels, which are only colloquially "feet"; they're a measure of air pressure.

      Are you trolling?

      IF he meant flight levels he would have said FL20.

      He did not. He said 20,000 feet = 6km, which is completely valid.

      If you are going to be a pedantic idiot, do it right, moron.

  33. WWII veteran eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You didn't *hear* us whine about "

    Get off my lawn.
    - Grammar Nazi (You should have killed us when you had the chance)

    1. Re:WWII veteran eh? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      typo... hate it when that happens (and autocorrect "fixes" it)

  34. Warmth from the wheels. by PeterJFraser · · Score: 1

    If the airplane wheels were sitting for a long time on a hot pavement, I would expect the compartment to be kept lot warmer that the outside air.

  35. watch out for those airfield bulls, they're mean by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Jetset freighthopping?
    Stainless steel hobo?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  36. Surviving such a harsh climate intrigues me by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    Given the physiological limitations of the human body, when I first read this story and everyone was screaming about security, I was thinking how did he survive? I've done some skydives from 30,000 feet, obviously with full O2 mask, warm clothing, etc. And been to a few chamber ride classes. Whole security thing we can argue for eternity but comment of, "frigid temperatures cause a state of hypothermia, which preserves the nervous system." Now that's interesting.

    I never would ever consider riding in a wheel well, first danger is those doors first lower prior to wheel retraction (if on one of those, drop you go). Then when wheel folds up, would know where to place yourself without getting crushed?

    I remember in a magazine back in early 1970s or a long time ago, someone got a photo of a person falling from a airliner on takeoff. Apparently photog took a picture of an airliner taking off and happen to catch unlucky "hitchhiker" who fell from the wheel well.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  37. But why was this kid this desparate? by uneek · · Score: 1

    Why was this kid this desparate to get into any plane wheel well? Did they return him to an unsafe home environment in California?

  38. would probably not do much damage by Chirs · · Score: 1

    A belly landing on the tarmac would likely be scary and newsworthy, but there's a good chance that relatively few people would be hurt/killed.

    1. Re:would probably not do much damage by mpe · · Score: 1

      A belly landing on the tarmac would likely be scary and newsworthy, but there's a good chance that relatively few people would be hurt/killed.

      The only casualty of LOT 16 was SP-LPC herself. The major risk to passengers and crew with a landing gear malfunction tends to be if there is an evacuation.

  39. bS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is just dis-info to keep people buying airplane tickets. All you need is a snowmobile suit a ski hat snow goggles and a roll of duct tape.
    just use the entire roll and duct tape on your self and to the landing gear leg.
    Just don't try buying the duct tape at the thrift store. It gets old and wears out.

  40. Wheel-well traveling by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    Step number 2 should be "bring a rebreather", rather than an oxygen tank. Rebreathers should be good for trans-pacific flights, 1.5-8 hour capacity, theoretically speaking.

    Then again, Not sure how well they will work at 40,000 feet in the atmosphere. Nor if the sensors will know how to prevent you getting stoned out of your mind on too much oxygen (depending on the particular configuration of the rebreather). Still a rebreather would be my tank of preference for a wheel well trip.

    But then if you can afford the $4000-$15,000+ for a rebreather, you could probably afford to hire a private jet.

    Of course, you could probably save a bunch of money, if you plan on being a frequent-wheel-well-flyer.

  41. I see your grandfather and raise you one grandfath by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    My grandfather manned a gun in a real open cockpit in WWI, flying in planes put together by wires, cloth and wood.

    He took one of those wires through his chest in a crash landing, and lived to tell the tale, get married, have kids and eventully die mowing his grass one week after lung surgery because he was bullheaded, stubborn, Irishman [yeah runs in the family].

  42. Actual numbers are probably higher? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But agency adds that the actual numbers are probably higher, as some survivors may have escaped unnoticed, and bodies could fall into the ocean undetected."

    If we assume the number of people who escaped unnoticed is about the same as the number of people who fell into the ocean, then the actual numbers are probably about the same. Unless they are making a strange presumption that people can survive a fall into the ocean.

  43. Hibernation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully lightbulbs are going on in the minds of any people at NASA or the military doing hibernation research right now...

  44. I think it's a Great Idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...so long as it is executed at a young enough age to insure the bearer of that gene does not get a chance to reproduce.