Guest High Plains Drifter Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 What you dont know might hurt you. Ben Sandilands pionts out somthing i never knew - There is something about single aisle jets like the one that splashed down on New York's Hudson River today that you are never told in safety briefings on any airline. And that is that if you were to pop the rear exits in a "water parking" incident like today's, the jet will sink -- very, very quickly. Airbus A320s, like the one involved in today's dramatic but fatality-free crash, and their Boeing 737 counterparts, will come to rest in survivable ditchings in a tail down attitude with the rear door sills under water. Via - Crikey - NY plane crash: Don't study the safety card - NY plane crash: Don't study the safety card
Guest Ruprect Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 Today is a day to rejoice, a steel tube filled with human lives was sent hurtling down a runway at high speed. In an unfortunanate turn of events the jet propelled people mover was forced to land in an environment that 'in an unfortunate turn of events' many years of engineering, training, foresight, hindsight and sheer luck saw 175 human lives standing on the wing of an aircraft as it sank, giving them enough time to save their souls. Hats off to the countless engineers and hours (not to mention money) spent in design, testing and implementing such a design. I just watched a poor little victem on one of our current affairs programs we are treated to nightly complaining how traumatic it was. That aeroplane SLOWLY sinking in the Hudson was one of the most beautiful sights I have seen and a tribute to mankind. Tis moments like these that I truly love aviation.
Guest disperse Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 NOTE TO PILOTS ......... YOU BLOODY:star: CHAMPIONS :star: Well done !
BLA82 Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 Gees, These guys have smoother landings in water than I have on a grass strip:loopy:
facthunter Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 river landing. It is extremely unusual to put a jet with underslung engines down on water without breaking up of the fuselage. The engines dig in and are so large that the retardation is too much. The engines are not on this plane and I would suggest because of them breaking off, probably on contact with the water at high speed, the hull survived intact, and the occupants survrived . A good effort that I would not like to attempt a repeat of. Nev..
Guest High Plains Drifter Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 Heres an interesting snipit (if the news report is correct) The crash pilot "mastered glider flying" early in his career The Associated Press: Pilot's life had prepared him for `miracle' flight
jcruffle Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 I've been told that the people standing on the wings weren't passengers. They were lawyers who had parachuted in soon after the event!!! ;)
Guest basscheffers Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Facthunter: Is it unusual? I don't there are too many cases to compare to, I think it is more theory than knowledge. The closest one was the 767 off east Africa, but that was in a large swell and one engine and wing went in before the other. I think the successful outcome simply depends on having the right circumstances. The Hudson looked pretty flat in all the pictures, so it doesn't surprise me they were able to get both engines in at the same time so that it did not cartwheel. One of my sister's pilot friends (my sister works the cabin) once said to her: "you train for ditching - but we don't!". Maybe they should because this proves it is very survivable. Strangely, so many video cameras pointing at even the first WTC tower, but so far nobody seems to have any footage of this incident.
facthunter Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Unusual? These situations have been carefully analysed and while it is theory in a way, it is so thoroughly done that it is generally accepted. A fixed gear Cessna has yet to land in water (ditch) without turning over as far as I know, and that's only a couple of small wheels to cause it . The existence of calm conditions on the river helps of course, as any kind of swell makes the touchdown tricky. The thing with this type of aircraft is the touchdown speed will be very high IF normal landing flap cannot be extended. It could easily be 160 knots or more. The option of stalling the aircraft onto the water is never recommended, as the result is usually to bury the nose under water and you stop very quickly then...NEV..
Tomo Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 The faster the landing in the water the better probably...that way it would rip the engines off while it still has enough momentum to keep itself from tipping forward...:raise_eyebrow: It wouldn't take a great deal of restriction to rip the engines off i don't think, 'cause there only held on by four bolts;)
facthunter Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Engines detached. I agree. The engines have separated from this aircraft. (so I'm told). That is an advantage. I feel it is the only way that you could have a successful outcome, in my humble opinion.... Nev..
Guest ozzie Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 watching at the moment the coverage on Newshour of the Hudson Glider. the Mayor is going to give him the key to the city. two spokespersons from the FAA and safety board gave very good discriptions on the forced ditching. they are searching for both engines now they did seperate on first contact with the water. the surface conditions were smooth as a thin layer of ice on the river. the pilot has been described as a pilots pilot, a stick man. it as definatly the seat of the pants and glider landings that made all the difference not to mention the fact that the decision to ditch in the river was made early. It is belived that geese were the problem here. they can weigh 15 /20 kilo. about the size of a pelican. the engines can handle a few seagulls but asking them to swallow a flock of these is a bit much. a Lazair had a run in with a snow goose and it resulted in a BRS save when the RH leading edge disintigrated. It was interesting to see on last nights news were they were copying this incident in the simulater in sydney only a few hours after the event. There will be plenty for pilots from all types and levels who will learn from this when the report comes out. Ozzie
Geoff Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 It looks to still have one engine still attached to the right wing in the pic I seen
Gibbo Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 From my understanding he is the first pilot to ever 'successfully' ditch a multiengine jet airliner into the water. Now if only my landings were that smooth.... Gibbo
youngmic Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Why did they hit the birds in the first place?
Guest Brett Campany Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Why did they hit the birds in the first place? That airfield is well known for bird problems, they flew into a flock of geese apparently and it was unavoidable. You can't maneuver a big jet like that out of the way of birds in a hurry. The flight crew did a great job! I hear the Airbus has a "Ditch Switch" that closes all vents and openings on the outside of the aircraft to help it float longer. I bet the guys at Airbus are rubbing their hands after this event!
Guest basscheffers Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I hear the Airbus has a "Ditch Switch" that closes all vents and openings on the outside of the aircraft to help it float longer.I bet the guys at Airbus are rubbing their hands after this event! According to Wikipedia, the switch was never activated!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now