Re: Kinda morbid I guess, big iron enroute ditching

[Dylan Smith]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:59:41 -0700, hillbilly_hippo <nmonkeyTAKEOUTSPAM@
whidbey.net> wrote:
> While reading through my collection of airliner safety cards, I came
>across the overwater ditching procedures for the 777. While reading, I began
>to wonder. How many larger (Boeing, Airbus etc) airliners have ditched while
>enroute without massive casualties. Maybe I'm just not well informed, but I
>haven't heard a single story of a non-disasterous enroute big iron
>ditching...

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
years ago with very few casualties or loss of life. There was also a
Boeing 707 more recently which crashed in Lake Victoria in Africa
in a CFIT accident. The 707 remained largely intact (the landing gear
came off, and so did a couple of engines). There are photographs of
the 707 on a few websites if you do some Googling around.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[mike regish]

Try here.
http://www.jacdec.de/J_report-00stapy.htm

mike regish

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:59:41 -0700, hillbilly_hippo <nmonkeyTAKEOUTSPAM@
> whidbey.net> wrote:
> > While reading through my collection of airliner safety cards, I
came
> >across the overwater ditching procedures for the 777. While reading, I
began
> >to wonder. How many larger (Boeing, Airbus etc) airliners have ditched
while
> >enroute without massive casualties. Maybe I'm just not well informed, but
I
> >haven't heard a single story of a non-disasterous enroute big iron
> >ditching...
>
> 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
> years ago with very few casualties or loss of life. There was also a
> Boeing 707 more recently which crashed in Lake Victoria in Africa
> in a CFIT accident. The 707 remained largely intact (the landing gear
> came off, and so did a couple of engines). There are photographs of
> the 707 on a few websites if you do some Googling around.
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
> "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
>

[Ron Natalie]

"hillbilly_hippo" > wrote in message ...
> Just thinking (I dunno why).....
> While reading through my collection of airliner safety cards,

http://www.airtoons.com/toons.php?toon=12

[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.

"hillbilly_hippo" > wrote in message >...
> Just thinking (I dunno why).....
> While reading through my collection of airliner safety cards, I came
> across the overwater ditching procedures for the 777. While reading, I began
> to wonder. How many larger (Boeing, Airbus etc) airliners have ditched while
> enroute without massive casualties. Maybe I'm just not well informed, but I
> haven't heard a single story of a non-disasterous enroute big iron
> ditching...
>
> Just wondering (yet again...)
>
> John Y.
> PP-ASEL

[Tune2828]

that triggered in my mind the scene from the movie fight club where they
replaced those cards, (of people calmly putting on their masks and life vests),
with the same laminated cards - but the clip art people are screaming in terror
and the plane is in flames.

<<While reading through my collection of airliner safety cards, I came
across the overwater ditching procedures for the 777. >>

[John Harper]

Someone ditched a cargo 707 in Lake Victoria a few years ago, there are
pictures
somewhere on the net (actually he messed up an approach, but the plane was
still structurally intact and the crew survived).

The Air India plane was most likely a bomb - not familiar with the SAA
incident.

John

"pac plyer" > wrote in message
...
> "hillbilly_hippo" > wrote in message
>...
> > Just thinking (I dunno why).....
> > While reading through my collection of airliner safety cards, I
came
> > across the overwater ditching procedures for the 777. While reading, I
began
> > to wonder. How many larger (Boeing, Airbus etc) airliners have ditched
while
> > enroute without massive casualties. Maybe I'm just not well informed,
but I
> > haven't heard a single story of a non-disasterous enroute big iron
> > ditching...
> >
> > Just wondering (yet again...)
> >
> > John Y.
> > PP-ASEL
>
> 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

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Ron
Natalie" > wrote:

> > and then there was the hijacked 767 that ran out of fuel and ditched
> > just offshore of some country in S. America (iirc).
> >
> I believe you are talking about the hijacked Ethiopian Airlines 767 that
> crashed near the Comoros islands in the Indian ocean. There's actually
> footage of the "landing" floating [pun not intended} around out there.

ah ha. So I didn't recall correctly, eh?

--
Bob Noel

[Tune2828]

tom hanks also surived a ditching in his fed-ex jet! managed to inflate a life
raft and avoid being eaten by a still running engine.

so did wilson

(sorry for the movie references. bored at work)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Tune2828) wrote:

> tom hanks also surived a ditching in his fed-ex jet! managed to inflate
> a life
> raft and avoid being eaten by a still running engine.
>
> so did wilson

ultimately Wilson didn't survive to be rescued.

--
Bob Noel

[Wizard of Draws]

Tune2828 wrote:
>
> tom hanks also surived a ditching in his fed-ex jet! managed to inflate a life
> raft and avoid being eaten by a still running engine.
>

Hollywood makes it very hard to suspend disbelief sometimes. I never can
tell if it's out of stupidity and ignorance, or just to enhance the
dramatic effect.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

"Cartoons with a Touch of Magic"
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Arnold for Governor!
http://www.wizardofdraws.com/store/terminator.html

[Ted Huffmire]

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?

[James Robinson]

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.

[Neal]

>
>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.

[Ash Wyllie]

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

[Ted Huffmire]

Oops, Clyde Cessna

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>
> Charles Cessna?

[Jim Buckridge]

Anyone remember this one?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22401&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.

[Montblack]

("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%20Pages/Photos/boat/cruising.html

--
Montblack

[Ron Natalie]

"Jim Buckridge" > wrote in message om...
> Anyone remember this one?
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22401&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.

[James Robinson]

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 ...

[pac plyer]

James Robinson > wrote>
> 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.

Hey Jim, thanks for the link. I was on the 747 in 1987 and must of
got caught up in the popular press accounts and rumors of the time.
The real-deal just never gets disiminated till years later as a
footnote (pre www.) So I guess now we can say "there has never been
an intentionally attempted 747 ditching at sea. (save China Airlines
and Koran who regularly ran off the runway into the bay at old Hong
Kongs IGS Rwy 13.) But I think some of the boats in the harbor always
kept an eye peeled everytime those two airlines started their
approaches over downtown Kowloon! I scared myself a couple times in
there as well in bad weather, but managed not to go swimming.

Best Regards, Keep up the interesting posts,

pacplyer
>