Cabin pressure issue on Delta flight causes bloody ears and noses for passengers

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/trave...ent/index.html

 

That's going to cost them a few bucks... ruptured ear drums often can't be fixed very well, so hearing loss.

 

Where did you here this? A ruptured eardrum is annoying, but it does not cause hearing loss. Eardrums grow back just like any other skin. Everything just sounds muffled for about a week and then hearing rapidly returns to normal. It doesn't even hurt (well the initial rupture does, but after that, it feels fine).

From WebMD:

"Typically, no specific treatment is needed for a ruptured eardrum because most heal on their own within 2-3 months. "

https://www.webmd.com/pain-managemen...and-treatments

And 2-3 months is for your normal hearing to return. After a week, I felt like my hearing had returned to normal, but it was probably at 90%.

 

"Barberpole" sometimes stayed high in the 72 and did idle and barberpole descent which saved time and fuel, usually in the islands. "Mel, I can't keep the cabin up with the airplane." Mel: "I've never landed without a cabin yet."

 

That doesn't save fuel. The biggest fuel savings is cruising at you most efficient altitude until you can do an idle descent at L/D. That's typically about minimum clean speed or up to 10 kts faster. 250 kts closer enough. Zero out the K factor (727 PDCS - Performance Data Computer System????) or a modern FMC cost index and it typically defaults to 250 kts but the real best fuel speed is even slower. But the time goes up a LOT so the total cost goes up. However if you're trying to 'go fast' the most efficient way to save fuel/time is...leave early, taxi quickly, be ready, get short cuts. Inflight high speed descent is best, followed by a bit faster climb speed, with a higher cruise speed being the least efficient fuel burn to save time.

If the F/E had descended the cabin faster manually the problem could be avoided. Takes a bit of head work ahead of the descent to realize the programmed setting won't hack it. Either way, manually increasing the rate of descent or falling behind will result in a higher cabin descent rate. Due to the lower pressure differential it's better off doing the higher cabin descent rate at altitude. That's how the modern pressurization systems handle it.

 

737. Not the first, nor the last. A good lawyer would get the logbook and write-up. Was there actually a failure or were the bleeds or packs set up wrong? Others have had the same problem - forget to put the bleeds/packs on, don't check the pressurization on low altitude climb out (carpenter check - 1x3, 2x4 - 1 PSI @ 3,000', 2 PSI @ 4,000') and they get the alert at 10,000'. The rookie mistake is to put both bleeds/packs on (that's the expected configuration) put that creates a massive pressure spike - bam, blown ear drums. Typically manual bleed/pack is one on...pause...let the system stabilize, then re-instate the second pack. Power reduction can help depending upon aircraft type.

 

Professional diver training.

Better do some more google. Depends on how violent the rupture was... the eardrum as you say will either grow back (small hole) or can be surgically repaired (large hole). But a forceful rupture can also damage all the inner ear structures in the process and those don't grow back.

A severe pressure-unduced trauma is typically way worse than enthusiastic use of a qtip.

 

I dive too. A ruptured eardrum from diving is completely different than aviation. Water is a more dense fluid and the pressure differential in a dive is multiple times greater than anything anything a plane will see.

 

The fluid density might make a difference, due to inertia.

But the eardrum will rupture at the same dP regardless of the fluid. I wouldn't care to put it to the test.

One atmosphere (14.7 psi) dP will pretty much rupture eardrums 100% of the time. Our relief valves go at about 9 psi, and I'd SWAG that will get you ballpark at least 50% rupture.

 

Barberpole had pretty good fuel statistics with his methods. He even thought the 72 wing could be put on a "step" at high speed. Back then the pressurization was manual and yes, ears could take a higher descent at upper cabin altitudes. Which we did. At idle some of the birds wouldn't descend the cabin. If you asked nicely Barberpole would give you an inch or so on a pod thrust lever. I'm not espousing Barberpole's methods and agree with the book methods.