>
> "BernieFlyer" gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:X4-dnYXfQbF1vBHVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

>> RMK wrote:

>>>
>>> "Pits" gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:94b19464-d89d-4cc6-a0c4-4904d8265799@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

>>>> one for the boffins and arm chair boffins on here
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would the damage potential have been greater/ the same/or less to
>>>> an aircraft in similar circumstances at a higher altitude ? To the
>>>> recent QF incident
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> for discussion

>>>
>>> The aircraft is pressurized to it's maximum pressure differential as it
>>> climbs (approx 8.9psi).
>>>
>>> So it's the same regardless of whether you are at 29000'or 45000'.
>>>
>>> The only 'danger' is that the higher you are, the longer it takes to get
>>> down to
>>> a safe level if you lose cabin pressure.

>>
>>
>> I hear what you say but if its unsafe to be above 10,000 without
>> additional oxygen then surely to keep the cabin sufficiently liveable you
>> would not want to have unsafe levels (ie 10,000ft) above that height.
>> Surely this means that the cabin must be under constantly increasing
>> pressure as you climb? Maybe I need to go to school again.
>>
>> You started something here Phil!!

>
> Bernie - the cabin altitude is kept between 0 and 6,000ft. When
> travelling on a pressurised aircraft you should not experience any more
> breathing difficulties than you would on top of a 6,000ft mountain.
> And yes the pressure differential on the skin of the aircraft does
> increase with increasing altitude.