Kinda morbid I guess, big iron enroute ditching

pac plyer wrote:



John you nailed it. Swept-wing jets are not survivable in most
ditching senerios because of the 150-kt speed (ballpark approach.) We
laugh every year at the ridiculous raft training and sea survival gear
we haul around, knowing that even if you survived like they did in the
Eithiopian A310, your chances of being able to find the liferaft when
the floor distorts and breaks apart are poor. In that accident, just
like the UAL Soiux City DC10 crash, the main reason there were
survivors was because energy was disipated by the jet cartwheeling and
shedding structure progressively; wings, tail, engines. The 747 is
designed to shear the pod engines in a water landing. But ALL the
known 747 ditchings were unsucessful. Air India and South African
Airways were never even found. This is a carry-over by the FAA regs
from straight-wing days. Water evac only comes into play in a runway
overrun event.

damn good question,

pacplyer


Why do we humans fly around on these huge
airplanes that can't survive a ditching in a
corn field in iowa? Charles Cessna survived 12
aircraft accidents! This is progress?

Bigger is not always better in aviation --
I feel much more claustrophobic in a 757
than I do in a regional jet.

Ted

"Ted Huffmire" wrote in message
...

Why do we humans fly around on these huge
airplanes that can't survive a ditching in a
corn field in iowa? Charles Cessna survived 12
aircraft accidents! This is progress?


Charles Cessna?

pac plyer wrote:

Swept-wing jets are not survivable in most ditching senerios
because of the 150-kt speed (ballpark approach.)

There was the Japan Airlines DC-8 (swept wing) that landed in the bay
short of SFO in 1968, where all the passengers survived, and the
aircraft was undamaged enough that it was repaired and flew again.

There was also the Overseas National DC-9, operating under wet lease to
KLM, that ran out of fuel over the Caribbean in 1970. There were 63
passengers and crew aboard, and of those, 40 survived. They ditched at
about 90 knots, and the fuselage remained essentially intact. It then
floated for an estimated 10 minutes before sinking. A number of the
fatalities occurred when the aircraft hit the water, as some passengers
were still struggling with their life vests, and were standing in the
aisle, or were seated and not belted in.

Finally, a Tupolev 124 ditched in the Neva River in Leningrad in 1963
after running out of fuel. Everybody aboard survived.

We laugh every year at the ridiculous raft training and sea survival gear
we haul around, knowing that even if you survived like they did in the
Eithiopian A310,

That was a 767.

your chances of being able to find the liferaft when the floor
distorts and breaks apart are poor.

The floor did not distort or break apart in either the JAL "landing" or
the Overseas National ditching. However, all of the life rafts sank
with the aircraft in the Overseas National incident, only one escape
slide was later found in the water, and was inflated by a crewmember.
One of the life rafts somehow inflated in the forward galley area after
the ditching, blocking the door to the cockpit, and the exit doors. Most
passengers escaped through the overwing exits.

In that accident, just like the UAL Soiux City DC10 crash, the
main reason there were survivors was because energy was disipated
by the jet cartwheeling and shedding structure progressively;
wings, tail, engines.

There might have been less structural damage had the captain been able
to land horizontally. He was interviewed after the event, and stated
that he was struggling with a hijacker at the time, and had to bank to
turn the aircraft to avoid hitting land. The aircraft therefore hit the
water asymmetrically, which initiated the cartwheeling.

The 747 is designed to shear the pod engines in a water landing.
But ALL the known 747 ditchings were unsucessful.

I don't know of a single attempt.

Air India and South African Airways were never even found.

Air India was a bomb at altitude, not a ditching. The aircraft was
found, and the Canadian government spent a huge amount of money pulling
the wreckage up from the ocean floor off the coast of Ireland. (It had
departed from Toronto.) A couple of suspects were recently brought to
trial in Canada, accused of having made and planted the bomb.

The South African plane broke up in the air, after reporting a fire
aboard. (Assuming you are referring to the accident off Mauritius in
1987) They no more tried to ditch than did the crew of the Swissair
MD-11 off the coast of Nova Scotia.

This is a carry-over by the FAA regs from straight-wing days.
Water evac only comes into play in a runway overrun event.

While not exactly common, it has been required and been somewhat
successful a couple of times.

Well, any airliner ditching is a bit of a disaster, even if no one dies.

There was a Boeing Stratocruiser which went down in the Pacific many

Albeit quite a bit smaller and a prop plane, but still a pretty
sizeable old bird, there was the Boeing Stratoliner 'Clipper Flying
Cloud' that ditched in Seattle last year and was re-restored in time
to fly to Oshkosh this year.

Gently extracted from the mind of Robert M. Gary;


It would be hard to imagine a mechanical problem that would cause a
777 to need to be ditched in the ocean.

While not mechanical, Canadians running out of fuel comes to mind as a
potential cause of ditching.

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

Oops, Clyde Cessna

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


Charles Cessna?

Anyone remember this one?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22401&key=1

I was a teenager living on LI at the time. I remember the
newsreporters speculating that the pilot tried to put it down over
water.

("Neal" wrote)
Albeit quite a bit smaller and a prop plane, but still a pretty
sizeable old bird, there was the Boeing Stratoliner 'Clipper Flying
Cloud' that ditched in Seattle last year and was re-restored in time
to fly to Oshkosh this year.


Option "B" for a water loving Boeing 307 Stratoliner.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y18D51495
(A real photo)

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S5AD21495
(Click links on middle panel)

(The longer link)
http://www.planeboats.com/Other%20Pa.../cruising.html

--
Montblack

"Jim Buckridge" wrote in message om...
Anyone remember this one?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22401&key=1

I was a teenager living on LI at the time. I remember the
newsreporters speculating that the pilot tried to put it down over
water.

Silly speculation. The aircraft was headed back towards JFK
after missing the approach. If he was intentionally trying to hit water
he did a lousy job because he hit smack in the middle of Cove Neck
which is a hill surrounded on three sides by water.

The CVR pretty much shows them still trying to make JFK up until
impact.

pac plyer wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

The South African plane broke up in the air, after reporting a fire
aboard.

I'll give you the Air India. It may or may not have been a ditching
attempt after the explosion.

Much of the aircraft was recovered, and it was clear from the damage to
the aircraft, the extent of the debris field, and the injuries to the
passengers, that it broke up at high altitude.

But that was not my understanding of
what happened on the SAA ditching. I thought a garbled HF
transmission was received that investigators *believed* was a fire
comment. I did not know that the fuselage was ever found.

The wreckage was found, and much of it was recovered, including the
cockpit voice recorder.

Here is a copy of the transcript:

http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/cvr_sa295.shtml

The controversial part of this accident was the question of what the
aircraft was carrying and why it caught fire. There was much
speculation about some kind of ammunition or other type of weapons.

The finding of some wreckage floating does not mean that it broke up
in flight. Without finding the rest of the airframe you cannot leap to
that conclusion.

They did find the wreckage, and salvaged a good portion of it from the
sea bed. The conclusion of the official accident investigation was that
the aircraft broke up before it hit the water, and that the resulting
wreckage hit the water at high speed. The specific reason for the loss
of control was not identified, but it was suggested that the crew might
have been overcome by the smoke, that control cables might have burned
through, or that the aircraft structure was fatally damaged by the fire.

Its time to stop carrying the K-rations, water makers, fishing
line, shark repellant, motion sickness pills etc on these giants
because its never been used on a wide-body, and I bet it never will be.

Human nature doesn't seem to work that way. People feel that everything
that can be done has to be done to avoid fatalities in public
transportation, even if the risk is infinitesimally small, or the cost
unrealistically high. At the same time, they don't think twice about
driving around in their own cars without their seatbelts fastened, with
bad tires, or after having had a few.

I agree that the need for rations is archaic, since rescue no longer
takes the days it might have in years past, but somebody probably thinks
that eventuality needs to be protected.

Now, about smoke hoods and parachutes ...