US AIRWAY AIRBUS A320 CRASH

[C]

Yes, a ex-pilot explained the landing on dutch television, he explained the trouble with a single wing tip hitting the water and the outstanding flying of the pilots, first thing i would try and do is landing with the tail first so the plane eases into the water, although i have no idea what the correct procedure would be.

You land tail first => tail comes off.

Wing tip first => nastiness, as per the Etheopian 767 that was hijack and ran out of fuel.

Nose first => more nastiness.

You need to be as level as possible, and have as much luck on your side as possible.

Having seen water tank tests of a well known British four jet "ditching",  you'd have a fair chance in fair seas.

BTW, the correct term is "ditching", although I have no idea what it has to do with ditches...

Ooooh, there were definately no ditches involved, only a river.

Maybe it was a rivering?

[Mictheslik]

A highly trained pilot just showed us BBC 6'o'clock news viewers how to land the Just Flight A320 onto lovely FSX default water using 'professional simulation software' ...what a larf

.mic

[SamYeager]

A highly trained pilot just showed us BBC 6'o'clock news viewers how to land the Just Flight A320 onto lovely FSX default water using 'professional simulation software' ...what a larf

Whoops! I thought the 'professional simulation software' was called Just Flight.

[pepper_airborne]

Mic, is probably just to visualize the concept of such a landing for people, not that it actually is a real simulation of how such a thing would go... i hope.

[C]

Mic, is probably just to visualize the concept of such a landing for people, not that it actually is a real simulation of how such a thing would go... i hope.

It was indeed. The chap flying has a PPL though. I was a bit sceptical when I heard the BBC had gone to JF, but in the end it was edited to give quite a good sequence.

[pepper_airborne]

Mic, is probably just to visualize the concept of such a landing for people, not that it actually is a real simulation of how such a thing would go... i hope.

It was indeed. The chap flying has a PPL though. I was a bit sceptical when I heard the BBC had gone to JF, but in the end it was edited to give quite a good sequence.

Really? Well, i suppose that would be a specialist to most people, although he will probably get mocked by his buddys on the airfield.

[Fly2e]

Now I have seen it all!!
http://www.zazzle.com/sully_is_my_co_pi ... 3061798951

[C]

Mic, is probably just to visualize the concept of such a landing for people, not that it actually is a real simulation of how such a thing would go... i hope.

It was indeed. The chap flying has a PPL though. I was a bit sceptical when I heard the BBC had gone to JF, but in the end it was edited to give quite a good sequence.

Really? Well, i suppose that would be a specialist to most people, although he will probably get mocked by his buddys on the airfield.

To be fair, he was only doing a visual representation for the BBC to use, and certainly not expressing opinions.

[a1]

Amazing piloting by the captain. A true pilot.

[an-225]

Anyone know what speed you would have to come in at?

Using a 737/A320 configuration (engines on pylons).

I would imagine, that if you come in too fast (excess of 150 knots), the speed of the water would ram the engines off the mounting, and cause severe damage to the wing, breaking up the fuselage.

And if you come in too slow, you have to pitch up higher to maintain a slow descent rate...damaging the tail.

[expat]

I would imagine, that if you come in too fast (excess of 150 knots), the speed of the water would ram the engines off the mounting, and cause severe damage to the wing, breaking up the fuselage.

For the third time of explaining in as many threads the engines are designed to come off.......now you get the short version..........energy dissipation and if they did not, it would nose over and/or the wings would be ripped off. Full explanation Here.

Matt

[an-225]

Well, I'm no 737 mechanic. I understand why they would be designed to be removed.

But it seems kinda counter-intuitive, don't you think? I sure would prefer to have my CFMs remain mounted on my plane during forward flight.

[expat]

[quote]

But it seems kinda counter-intuitive, don't you think? I sure would prefer to have my CFMs remain mounted on my plane during forward flight.

[pepper_airborne]

[quote][quote]

But it seems kinda counter-intuitive, don't you think? I sure would prefer to have my CFMs remain mounted on my plane during forward flight.

[expat]

[quote][quote][quote]

But it seems kinda counter-intuitive, don't you think? I sure would prefer to have my CFMs remain mounted on my plane during forward flight.