After the recent A320 plane landing (not a crash) in the Hudson river...it got me thinking, how many successful landing of this sort of a plane on water are there? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Here is the account of all A320 accidents prior to the Hudson river January, 2009 accident. http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a320.htm What strikes me is that some of those accounts are related with water/sea and the pilots simply crash the planes, they either loose their power of will or are unable to control the plane correctly to land it safely on water surface. Now are these pilots even trained to land a plane on water? :bugeye: I think that it should be mandatory using simulations at least to train all pilots of these sort of aircraft to be trained to land on water, citing the maneuver of plane approach by the hero of the recent A320 Hudson river accident. Would you not agree? How does one start a procedure to implement such a training for all pilots? what sort of lawyers involved?
They are already training the pilots to a water landing with the flight stimulators they have . That's their job to do when there's a need to do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_simulator
Water landings are the exact same landing as landing on an airstrip. First off you increase your flaps to 100%, that way you get the maximum surface area of your wing, that means you can fly your plane slower yet still remain airborne/glide. Than you get close to the water. Before you hit the water point your nose forwards so that it doesnt go straight into the water and forced downwards. The only real difference is that you do not deploy your landing gear. No offense, but there is really no difference in how to land the plane on water vs. a runway.
don't forget to hit the 'ditch switch' (which the Hudson pilot forgot.). But the crew made sure the back doors weren't opened so it was ok. Does anyone know if the Hudson river landing was going upstream or downstream? Would that make a difference?
I would think downstream would have a very minor benefit in order to reduce the relative velocity. But probably not enough to make a difference. What is an extra 4mph when you are doing 100?
Kinetic Energy is mass time velocity squared. So an extra 4mph mean 16 times the impact. I think. Anywho, All pilots are trained, but some are just not good enough.
There's also the variables in the surface conditions of the water. Landing in surf would be different than landing on a still pond.
No no no. (1+x)^2 = 1 + 2x + x^2 Increasing the velocity by 4% increases the energy by 8.16%. Everyone was astounded at this pilot's ability to land the plane in water because no one had ever tried it. It's one of those things that transcends science and is more of an engineering problem. No one thought that a steamship could carry enough coal to cross the Atlantic; no one thought that rotating airfoils could lift a craft off the ground; no one thought that landing a disabled airliner in water would turn out to be as safe or safer than doing it on solid ground. We don't know these things until we try them.
