ditching?

[MarkMcCoy]

SAS480 wrote:
Is that so?

http://www.geocities.com/afwjr/ditch4.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/180234/M/


Im defintly no expert, but you're saying theres absolutely no reason whatsoever for the lifewest under your seat?


/Daniel

Actually, he's right. In both of those accidents, the aircraft are sitting on the bottom. I forgot where the first took place but there is an
overhead profile shot somewhere on the net showing how shallow the water is. 707's don't float. The 747, however, overshot the runway at Kai Tak in
a heavy downpour and failed to stop before slapping into the water at the end of the runway. She too was sitting on the bottom, and 747's don’t float
either.

Lifevest under the seat provide more security for the passengers than anything. If a plane somehow managed not to breakup (very rare considering that
the stall speeds for most (if not all) jetliners is over the hundred mile per hour mark) after a water ditching, the airline would need to provide
SOMETHING to give those passengers security. I can recall very few instances where those cushions even came in handy for more than providing a place
to put your butt.

That Ethiopian airliner video that everyone is familiar with tells all. When the 767's left wing dipped, the engine caught the water and ripped the
entire wing off, causing the right wing to suddenly take the entire load of the aircraft--inducing a sharp left snap roll. The aircraft broke to
pieces and many passengers were instantly killed. Here's the catch--the 767 was out of fuel. Imagine what a scene that would have been for any
survivors had there been fuel burning on the surface.

Most (if not all) jetliner pilots will tell you that they prefer land ditching over water, and no-ditching at all where possible!