If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, Clyde Cessna
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: Charles Cessna? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
("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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|