MD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3807 times:
The MD11 seems to do pretty well when it crashes.. The CI and FE crashes in the late 90s.. both aircraft's hull was pretty much in tact. 312 of the 315 people on the CI jet survived (we all saw that horrific video) and the crew members on the FedEx jet survived too. As for water.. who could tell?
Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
Birdwatching From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 3990 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3780 times:
I guess an advantage is if the plane has no engines on the wings (727, DC9) because when landing on water the engines would touch the water first, ripping the wings off and probably breaking the fuselage. Some of you have maybe seen the tourist's video of that 767 landing on water in the Carribbean a couple of years ago, but I can't remember what airline / when it was.
So my guess is that you're safer on an airplane without engines on the wings, but I have no proof for it. Just sounds logic...
All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
Azafata From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3756 times:
I would think any airplane with the engines mounted at the rear (717,dc-9,md-80,ect).Years ago I saw in the news a 767(i think) ditching in the indian ocean and the engines impacted first causing the airplane to break apart,also years ago a dc-9 from ALM airlines ditched in the caribbean and some pax's survived,the airplane didnt break apart.I think not having the engines on the wing gave that airplane a "flat" surface to land on.This is just what I think.....What do I know anyways...
Airman99o From Canada, joined Aug 1999, 981 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3728 times:
Engines on a plane are designed to break off on impact. I think hitting the water at the speed the plane would be going would be sufficient impact. The 767 that you mentioned was of Ethopian Airlines. I think that crashed off the coast of Africa. I wonder if the pilot managed to have the plane level would it have been a successful ditching?? If there is such a thing????
Kl777jfk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3511 times:
Ditching.... This is an airline subject we can all be in fear of! There has never been a safe ditching i.e. no fatalities..(of a decent sized aircraft falling from the sky)! To be honest, think about it! A mass of metal, full of fuel, plunges to the Earth, at nearly 500 miles an hour! Outcome - not so good! In Flight Attendant training -Ditching- is discussed but taken with a grain of salt. If a plane full of fuel hits the water.. she will not land like a graceful swan. Say goodbye, and have a cocktail on the way!
AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4525 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3398 times:
Something with a low stall speed, large wing area and engines not reaching below the fuselage.
I think that the safest plane to ditch would be a BAe-146 to the due efffect of the top mounted wings on the B-force. In the open sea, I think that any aircraft would be doomed. If it was a BAe 146 in the same situation as the Ethiopian 767 (near an island in somewhat shallow waters) I think there would have been fewer fatalities.
Just my opinion. I would think something like the concorde wouldn't be too bad either due to the shape of the engines and the delta wing. Should we try it? At mach 2 and 60,000 ft....just drop the noise and accelerate down to the sea level then pull up. I wonder what speeds it would reach? Probably break apart b4 touching water.
Ha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3726 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3316 times:
The Ethiopian 767 crashed like it did because one of the hijackers was at the controls. It took great courage and strength for one of the pilots to regain control so that some of them even had a chance to survive. If the pilot had more time, the aircraft would have hit the water more level and not the way it did.
A high wing aircraft would most likely fill up with water to the wings quite quickly. I know of a C-130 that ditched and it filled up with water really quickly and only the wings and top of the fuselage were slightly above water level. Some of the crew survived only because of the escape hatches on the top of the fuselage.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
Yeah, I think it was the DC9 (or maybe Fokker 100) that tried to land at SXM, but couldn't, diverted, and eventually ran out of fuel and ditched.
The pilot was at fault for allowing the a/c to run out of fuel anyway, but his ditching was faultless. I think the only reason why there were any fatalities is because a)the crew were so calm the passengers didn't realize the seriousness of the situation and weren't all in their seats when the aircraft hit the water and b)one of the life rafts inflated in the aircraft blocking quite a few peoples exits...