"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri > wrote:
>
>>Large commercial planes are simply not designed for "Water Landings" yes
>
> Not true. They all have water landing procedures, which include
> closing off vents on the bottom side of the airplane and
> landing at a certain angle (generally nose-up).
>
> I really doubt they would certify an airliner that couldn't
> at least nominally be expected to land in water, as well
> as perform a dead-stick landing on land.
>
>
> Steve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing

"The FAA does not require commercial pilots to train to ditch, regulating
instead the distance a plane can stray from an airfield.



<SNIP>

While there have been several 'successful' (survivable) water landings by
narrow-body and propeller-driven airliners, few commercial jets have ever
touched down 'perfectly' on water. There has been a good deal of popular
controversy over the efficiency of life vests and rafts. For example, Ralph
Nader's Aviation Consumer Action Project had been quoted as saying that a
wide body jet would “shatter like a raw egg dropped on pavement, killing
most if not all passengers on impact, even in calm seas with well-trained
pilots and good landing trajectories."[2]

Also, in December 2002, The Economist had quoted an expert as claiming that
"No large airliner has ever made an emergency landing on water" in an
article that goes on to charge, "So the life jackets ... have little purpose
other than to make passengers feel better."[3][4] This idea was repeated in
The Economist in September 2006 in an article which reported that "in the
history of aviation the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made
successful landings on water is zero."[5] "