Dimitri > wrote:

>"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.

>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.

As is often the case, the Wikipedia contributor is flat-ass wrong.

From the FAA Website:

"Section 25.801 of the regulations [for transport category
aircraft] broadly states that the behavior of the airplane in
a ditching situation must not cause immediate injury to the
occupants or make it impossible for them to escape. The rules
also say the flotation time and attitude of the airplane in
the water must let the occupants evacuate the airplane."

"Pilots must be familiar with ditching techniques, and
ditching procedures exist in their aircraft manuals and
checklists. Familiarization with the procedures is typically
done in ground school."

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10600

> Ralph Nader's Aviation Consumer Action Project

Ralph Nader is an idiot.

First Wikipedia, than Nader... you're on a roll. But surely
even Nader must know that many people have survived water
landings.

> 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."

The Economist has a tendency to be glib.

You're 0 for 3 on sources.


Steve