Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental

[Ripsnort]

Basically, any Boeing aircraft with a "gear up" configuration in a ditching situation are estimated to float for approx 30 min before sinking if the aircraft does not break up upon impact when landing on water.

Larger aircraft (Wide bodies) have a higher probability of breaking up in a ditching situation, even in perfect conditions.

Several years ago, I remember a 737 ditching somewhere in Asia, and the plane stayed afloat for at least 24 hours, and was towed back to land in that condition of floating. I'll have to research this alittle further to find the story....

[Ripsnort]

You do know that if that was not an airbus it would not have been able to float for that long or at all, right?

On 3 February 2000, Trans Arabian Air Transport Flight 310, a Boeing 707-351(C) carrying cargo, grossly overshot the landing strip at Mwanza Airport after a first attempt failed and eventually landed in the middle of Lake Victoria. The plane continued floating after the landing and all five crew survived, some with light injuries

On 12 September 1993, while landing in poor weather conditions at Faa'a International Airport, Papeete, Tahiti, an Air France Boeing 747 registered F-GITA hydroplaned, overshot the runway and ended in a lagoon. All 272 passengers and crew evacuated successfully, even though the engines were still running and there was a risk of ingestion. The survival rate was 100%.

In 1993, China Airlines Flight 605, a Boeing 747-409, ended up in water after it overran runway 13 at Kai Tak International Airport on landing during a typhoon with wind gusting to gale force. All of the 396 occupants donned life-vests, boarded the eight slide/rafts and no fatalities resulted. The airframe remained above water even after the aircraft was evacuated.
 
In 1978, National Airlines Flight 193, a Boeing 727 Trijet, unintentionally landed in the waters of Escambia Bay near Pensacola, Florida after coming down short of the runway during a foggy approach. There were 3 fatalities among 52 passengers and 6 crewmembers, a 95% survival rate.

You were saying? 

[dedalos]

You were saying? 

Uhmm, examples of planes rolling into water?  One example withe engines still running?  Might have not been very dip eh? 

[flight17]

So I guess that a Boeing would not stop despite sucking a squadron of birds into the engines? Come on, grow up.
Anyway, that 747 looks great. Good old 747
I worked on the freighters many years ago (openable nose and a large upper section). Upstairs (there was no stairway, just a ladder) we had 16 seats and some berths. Big seats! And a small kitchen. That was just fine.
Then they shortened the upper section, so there were only 8 seats. I cannot remember the types, but the latter one also had winglets.
But the Jumbo, - one heck of an aircraft!

no one ever said that.

All 747 freighters have the same short length upper deck. The SUD (Stretched upper deck) wasn’t developed until later and wasn’t put into production until the -300 variant. However there were some -100’s and -200’s that were modified for the Japanese airlines to have the SUD around the same period that the -300 came about. All SUDs were only found on passenger birds. However, there are 747-400BCF’s which were passenger -400’s converted to freighter layout by boeing. They don’t have the nose door however.

The -8I is by far the sexiest plane ever made. The engines on it are finally proportion to the size of the rest of the plane and the even longer upper deck looks great. The only thing that could make it better is a full upper deck.

[Ripsnort]

Uhmm, examples of planes rolling into water?  One example withe engines still running?  Might have not been very dip eh?  

Well, thankfully I don't have more examples! That's a good thing, no?

Regardless, the Boeing fleet of commercial aircraft are designed to sustain buoyancy for approx 30 minutes after a successful ditching, and that goes without pushing a button.

[Ripsnort]

Ah, here is the 737 story I recollected above...

A Boeing 737-300 ditched successfully

On the 16th of January 2002, a Boeing 737-300 belonging to an Indonesian Airline had both its engines flamed out - a term to describe that the jet engines had failed. It happened as it commenced its descend to 9000 feet through thunderous clouds that were filled with rain.

The crew then tried to relight the engines but it failed to revive. Compared to a Boeing 777 where the relighting process is automatic, the Boeing 737 did not appear to have this advanced facility. In addition to this, on a Boeing 777, the APU will automatically light up as well when it senses both engine failures. The APU or the auxiliary power unit is a small jet engine that is located in the tail section and powers the electricity and air-conditioning of the airplane.

When the engine failed, the Captain maneuvered the airplane so that it could glide at an optimum speed of around 240 knots. This would cause the airplane to lose height rapidly at about 3000 feet per minute. He then attempted to make a forced landing, but preferred to ditch into water if only he could locate the sea. As the sea was out of reach, he decided to ditch on a river instead.

During the forced landing process, the Captain tried to decelerate from 240 to 150 knots by use of the flaps, but the hydraulics were not available to power the action. (In a Boeing 777, there is an emergency device known as a RAT or Ram Air Turbine, which is powered by free airflow as the airplane glide down with dead engines. The RAT would provide some hydraulics as well as electrical power during this critical phase of the emergency.) Luckily, the ditching was very well executed and the Boeing 737 came to a stop, floating near the side of the river.

This was one of the very rare situations where a commercial airplane lost both engines and was able to ditch successfully. So Murphy Law is right! Engineers were unable to determine the exact cause of the failure yet but it was speculated that engine icing was one of the possible cause of the flame out. (In this accident, 23 people were injured in the plane carrying 54 passengers and a crew of 6. One stewardess died when she was drowned in the river.)

[dedalos]

Ah, here is the 737 story I recollected above...

A Boeing 737-300 ditched successfully

On the 16th of January 2002, a Boeing 737-300 belonging to an Indonesian Airline had both its engines flamed out - a term to describe that the jet engines had failed. It happened as it commenced its descend to 9000 feet through thunderous clouds that were filled with rain.

The crew then tried to relight the engines but it failed to revive. Compared to a Boeing 777 where the relighting process is automatic, the Boeing 737 did not appear to have this advanced facility. In addition to this, on a Boeing 777, the APU will automatically light up as well when it senses both engine failures. The APU or the auxiliary power unit is a small jet engine that is located in the tail section and powers the electricity and air-conditioning of the airplane.

When the engine failed, the Captain maneuvered the airplane so that it could glide at an optimum speed of around 240 knots. This would cause the airplane to lose height rapidly at about 3000 feet per minute. He then attempted to make a forced landing, but preferred to ditch into water if only he could locate the sea. As the sea was out of reach, he decided to ditch on a river instead.

During the forced landing process, the Captain tried to decelerate from 240 to 150 knots by use of the flaps, but the hydraulics were not available to power the action. (In a Boeing 777, there is an emergency device known as a RAT or Ram Air Turbine, which is powered by free airflow as the airplane glide down with dead engines. The RAT would provide some hydraulics as well as electrical power during this critical phase of the emergency.) Luckily, the ditching was very well executed and the Boeing 737 came to a stop, floating near the side of the river.

This was one of the very rare situations where a commercial airplane lost both engines and was able to ditch successfully. So Murphy Law is right! Engineers were unable to determine the exact cause of the failure yet but it was speculated that engine icing was one of the possible cause of the flame out. (In this accident, 23 people were injured in the plane carrying 54 passengers and a crew of 6. One stewardess died when she was drowned in the river.)

Ha!  It did not say for how long it floated 

Just kidding.  I have nothing against Boeing 

[Ripsnort]

Ha!  It did not say for how long it floated  

Just kidding.  I have nothing against Boeing  

HA!  



I keep telling you guys...we OVER-ENGINEER planes at Boeing!

[badhorse]

There's a switch that seals everything so for water landings it won't sink, when it landed in the water the pilots had forgotten to switch it on. As i recall the pilot was trying to keep the plane from crashing, and the co pilot was concentrating on trying to restart one of the 2 engines.

 
I've worked for Boeing for over 25 years now, on the 747, 767 and 777. There is no switch to seal every thing for water landings. In my career I have worked on aircraft that were intended to land on water. Even these airplanes didn't have a "land on water" switch to seal things up. They had water tight hulls with drain plugs for the inevitable leaks.
The only thing I am aware of specifically for water landings are the escape slide/life rafts and of course the individual seat life vests.
I would think in a water landing, if the airplane didn't break up (modern airliners are not designed for landing on water) the less fuel you had in your tanks the more buoyant the aircraft would be.

[F22RaptorDude]

I've worked for Boeing for over 25 years now, on the 747, 767 and 777. There is no switch to seal every thing for water landings. In my career I have worked on aircraft that were intended to land on water. Even these airplanes didn't have a "land on water" switch to seal things up. They had water tight hulls with drain plugs for the inevitable leaks.
The only thing I am aware of specifically for water landings are the escape slide/life rafts and of course the individual seat life vests.
I would think in a water landing, if the airplane didn't break up (modern airliners are not designed for landing on water) the less fuel you had in your tanks the more buoyant the aircraft would be.

There's a switch for ditching

[comet61]

There's a switch for ditching

In a way...he's right. I am a Functional test inspector on the 747-8 program and there is an emergency sequence shut down prior to crash landings and ditching (water). This basically shuts off fuel, electronics and other electrical systems. Uses redundant hydrulics. Primes the ELT and other emergency avionics. What it doesn't do is "seal" doors and hatches. Sometimes main fuel tank is not used, just wing tanks. This can help in flotation if things stay together. But...there is no "self-sealing"....that's just too Hollywood.

[F22RaptorDude]

I swear i saw in the documentary of the Hudson plane crash there was something about a ditching switch above the co pilots head, oh and i'm a really big supported of Boeing btw

[Golfer]

I swear i saw in the documentary of the Hudson plane crash there was something about a ditching switch above the co pilots head, oh and i'm a really big supported of Boeing btw

There's a ditch button.

It closes the outflow valves, emergency ram air inlet, skin air inlet, outlet valves and pack flow control valves when switched on.

It doesn't seal up giant gaping holes left by the fact you just crashed your airplane into the water however.