nah a plane will float for a fair while it's just hitting water tears them to pieces like the flimsy bits of ally they are.
'Contact lost' with Malaysia Airlines plane
- Thread starter Domo
- Start date
nah a plane will float for a fair while it's just hitting water tears them to pieces like the flimsy bits of ally they are.
the seats would all mash into each other and everyone would die anyway, not to mention how the hell you get the entire roof to blast off cleanly and not slam back down into the pasengers faces.
Why don't you have an ejection seat in your car, it's far more likely to crash.
Permabanned
Wouldnt something like that be a lot safer for water landing??? Wings nor the engine will hit the water and rip off??
there's far more reasons than just cost. Its an utterly stupid idea.And no thanks, I don't want it from a safety or cost perspective. Ticket prices would raise several fold.
Back to the days of several thousand rather than sub £100
Well, they would. An aircraft that lands on water is designed to land on water. An aircraft not designed to land on water is going to have a bad time at doing so, irrespective of engine and wing positioning.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 2,645
It was a very insensitive comment, coming a mere few hours after an aircraft with 240 people onboard had disappeared. And I say that as somebody who never misses an episode of Air Crash Investigation.
240 people likely dead, but oh it should make for a good hour of television!
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 2,645
Lol this is a ridiculous idea! You realise that for that to work the entire ceiling of the aircraft would need to be a giant canopy which would dislodge from the rest of the airframe milliseconds after 1 of the ejector seats was activated?
In fact there are about a hundred reasons why such an idea is neither technically possible, practical, or even any safer but I can't be bothered typing out a massive reply lol. Suffice to say, ejector seats on airliners is an idea thats not gona fly!
Associate
This is quite a sad turn of events. If its not been found by now then I think its time to assume the worst. RIP to all
Lots of people on airliners.net are talking about the fact the aircraft was involved in a ground collision a couple of years ago that sheared the wingtip off and whether that had anything to do with it.
No ghosts, just some idiot at the controls who forgot his basic flight training at the time it was most needed, to put it bluntly...
The main difference so far between these two events is that MH370 was on radar (I think, could be wrong on that) and simply disappeared, whereas AF447 was over the middle of the atlantic and outside of any coverage - no one noticed it missing until it didnt 'check in' near to the african coast
Debatable - Depending on how you define 'survived' (its not like they patched the hudson plane up and put it back into service after) - There was a hijacked ethiopian 767 that came down near a coastline in the early nineties. Whilst the aircraft did break up somewhat it still remained mostly in large pieces with a high number of survivors.
Lots of people on airliners.net are talking about the fact the aircraft was involved in a ground collision a couple of years ago that sheared the wingtip off and whether that had anything to do with it.
No ghosts, just some idiot at the controls who forgot his basic flight training at the time it was most needed, to put it bluntly...
The main difference so far between these two events is that MH370 was on radar (I think, could be wrong on that) and simply disappeared, whereas AF447 was over the middle of the atlantic and outside of any coverage - no one noticed it missing until it didnt 'check in' near to the african coast
Debatable - Depending on how you define 'survived' (its not like they patched the hudson plane up and put it back into service after) - There was a hijacked ethiopian 767 that came down near a coastline in the early nineties. Whilst the aircraft did break up somewhat it still remained mostly in large pieces with a high number of survivors.
why do you think packing a load of explosives under everyone's seats would be safer?
ejections eats have caused a lot of deaths both to pilots and maintenance staff.
also where would the roof go?
habving people jump ouit the back would be safer than ejection seats.
also as everyone isnt wearing a flight suit o nboard they're going to be hypoxic and frozen by the tim,e they reach th ground.
or suffering from burns fro mal lthe other seats ejectors.
survived as in didnt smash to a million pieces.
the Hudson river is the only recognized successful water landing.
this is not a successful landing (the plane your citing)
Last edited:
wel no not ata ll given that this is a boeing so doesnt have anything like the set up 447 had for instance a frozen pitot tube would not have changed the planes flight computers handing of pilot imput as only airbuss have that extra layer, and iirc 777s stil lshare pilot feed back so the other pilot would know what the other was doing unlike the airbus case.
Wouldnt something like that be a lot safer for water landing??? Wings nor the engine will hit the water and rip off??
actually both would hit the water and tear off.
a)wings flex a huge amount
b) the fuselage would still go under fast and the engine dig in.
but also those top wing designs aren't very efficient so they arnt popular outside aircraft designed for take off in ****** surface conditions
but thats not the main issues the problem is water is HARD when you hit it fast and if there's say a ave a few meters high thats like ploughing into a concrete wall ,in your very ery flimsy bit of aluminum.
Soldato
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,349
I wonder what happened?
Man of Honour
We're all wondering that. The weather appears to be fine so, pilot error, a bomb, electrical/mechanical failure, a terrorist incident. We'll know soon enough.
RIP to all aboard.
Caporegime
Very strange that there was no SOS calls and it just disappeared. A very sad time for the families.