[saket77]

Originally Posted by suresh_gs

Is it not possible to develop amphibious planes. These will come in handy if there is a situation of landing in sea where the chances of survival will be far better than that of land

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200

One day we will have them, when the engineers will overcome the current limitations on this design such as speed, range, weight, capacity etc.
However, currently the aircrafts are designed as such that they can remain afloat in water, if they manage a smooth landing on water.

The British Airways Flight no. 1549, Captained by Sully (nick name) made a successful landing in the R. Hudson in US after a bird hit. All pax were rescued and the plane remained afloat in the Hudson. The key was to land smoothly on water, unlike the Ethiopian Plane which banked accidentally to the left at one such water landing following a hijack. The accident was highly fatal.

[shivshanker]

Originally Posted by saket77

The British Airways Flight no. 1549, Captained by Sully (nick name) made a successful landing in the R. Hudson in US after a bird hit. All pax were rescued and the plane remained afloat in the Hudson.

Correction, it was United not BA captained by Sully that landed in the Hudson.

[suresh_gs]

Originally Posted by saket77

One day we will have them, when the engineers will overcome the current limitations on this design such as speed, range, weight, capacity etc.
However, currently the aircrafts are designed as such that they can remain afloat in water, if they manage a smooth landing on water.

The British Airways Flight no. 1549, Captained by Sully (nick name) made a successful landing in the R. Hudson in US after a bird hit. All pax were rescued and the plane remained afloat in the Hudson. The key was to land smoothly on water, unlike the Ethiopian Plane which banked accidentally to the left at one such water landing following a hijack. The accident was highly fatal.

The Air France flight 447 that disappeared over the Atlantic too landed into the ocean with it's nose pitched up. Yet it broke into pieces after landing in the waters as a whole.
The United Airlines that landed into Hudson river did not break up on impact.

Your say on this

[autobalan]

The latest update from Wall Street Journal.
The MH 370 flew for hours after losing the contact, based on the data sent by Rolls Royce engines to the ground!
But my doubt is how the data is being transmitted to ground, or if its being in air for hours, doesn't any near by country would pick it up on their military radars? or they really know what would have happened but due to security reasons hiding the facts now.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...LEFTTopStories

[AstaAddict]

Originally Posted by suresh_gs

The Air France flight 447 that disappeared over the Atlantic too landed into the ocean with it's nose pitched up. Yet it broke into pieces after landing in the waters as a whole.
The United Airlines that landed into Hudson river did not break up on impact.

Your say on this

Air Speed was what caused the difference. AF 447 was constantly accelerating upon impact whereas United Airlines flight had lost all power and was merely gliding.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by autobalan

The latest update from Wall Street Journal.
The MH 370 flew for hours after losing the contact, based on the data sent by Rolls Royce engines to the ground!
But my doubt is how the data is being transmitted to ground, or if its being in air for hours, doesn't any near by country would pick it up on their military radars? or they really know what would have happened but due to security reasons hiding the facts now.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...LEFTTopStories

Yes, the mystery deepens.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/wo...html?hpt=hp_t1

Typically engine performance gets reported through ACARS and I thought MH did not broadcast that during flight. Maybe there are other ways of transmitting engine performance. Dont know.

It just adds to the mystery, if not to say complete chaotic confussion around this accident

Jeroen

[suresh_gs]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Yes, the mystery deepens.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/wo...html?hpt=hp_t1

Typically engine performance gets reported through ACARS and I thought MH did not broadcast that during flight. Maybe there are other ways of transmitting engine performance. Dont know.

It just adds to the mystery, if not to say complete chaotic confussion around this accident

Jeroen

Is there a possibility of this plane being shot down by either Malaysia/Vietnam... Off late china is not in good relations with most of the south asian countries over boundary disputes. Moreover this plane had majority of Chinese passengers.
I suspect the Malaysian military is concealing some facts.

[mazda4life]

how far into the sky can a plane ascend ? , I know the flight cruise altitude is around 33,000 feet , but what happens if I keep on ascending to the edge of space?

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by mazda4life

how far into the sky can a plane ascend ? , I know the flight cruise altitude is around 33,000 feet , but what happens if I keep on ascending to the edge of space?

I'm not aware of the technicalities involved, but I presume the atmospheric air would be too thin after a certain elevation to support 'lift', which would hamper further ascent. Ambient temperatures may be an issue too.

[shivshanker]

Originally Posted by AstaAddict

Air Speed was what caused the difference. AF 447 was constantly accelerating upon impact whereas United Airlines flight had lost all power and was merely gliding.

The UA was gliding onto the Hudson bay and more importantly water was relatively calmer as compared to the ocean.

If you notice Ethiopian Airlines hijacked plane ditching in the Ocean, you can see how the waves tossed the plane around.

[suresh_gs]

Originally Posted by shivshanker

The UA was gliding onto the Hudson bay and more importantly water was relatively calmer as compared to the ocean.

If you notice Ethiopian Airlines hijacked plane ditching in the Ocean, you can see how the waves tossed the plane around.

In the Ethiopian plane crash, the left wing makes contact with water. After this the plane encountered some coral reef as a result of which it was tossed.

Look at this video. May be all planes should be like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ-Iw_6tW40

[saket77]

Originally Posted by shivshanker

Correction, it was United not BA captained by Sully that landed in the Hudson.

Yes, my mistake...don't know why wrote BA! Thanks.

Originally Posted by mazda4life

how far into the sky can a plane ascend ? , I know the flight cruise altitude is around 33,000 feet , but what happens if I keep on ascending to the edge of space?

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

I'm not aware of the technicalities involved, but I presume the atmospheric air would be too thin after a certain elevation to support 'lift', which would hamper further ascent. Ambient temperatures may be an issue too.

Apart from that, the engines would also require sufficient oxygen, which is scarce at those heights.

[autobalan]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Yes, the mystery deepens.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/wo...html?hpt=hp_t1

Typically engine performance gets reported through ACARS and I thought MH did not broadcast that during flight. Maybe there are other ways of transmitting engine performance. Dont know.

It just adds to the mystery, if not to say complete chaotic confussion around this accident

Jeroen

But even if the facts suggest that MH 370 flew for few more hours, cant it be due to decompression and later auto piloting to some direction, ultimately falling into somewhere in Indian Ocean? But again there is some contradiction with FAA AD for 777, as Boeing spokeperson confirmed it doesn't apply to MH 370. The website data is updated today.

http://mh370lost.tumblr.com/

[rohanjf]

Remember the Helios Airways crash a few years ago in Greece (or was it Cyprus)?
The cabin pressurisation was set in manual mode during testing on the ground, and nobody corrected it. As the plane gained altitude, the cabin slowly lost pressure. Air inside the cabin became rarer, depriving the pilots and passengers of oxygen. Plane continued on auto-pilot until it ran out of fuel.

Could something like this have happened with MH370? But then, it should have been caught by some other countries' radars.

Originally Posted by saket77

..The key was to land smoothly on water, unlike the Ethiopian Plane which banked accidentally to the left at one such water landing following a hijack. The accident was highly fatal.

Off-topic:
A contributing factor to increased number of deaths was that many passengers inflated their life vests while inside the aircraft. This caused them to be pushed towards the ceiling of the aircraft once water entered the cabin. Whoever was unable to get to the door, drowned.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by AstaAddict

Air Speed was what caused the difference. AF 447 was constantly accelerating upon impact whereas United Airlines flight had lost all power and was merely gliding.

Just to add on planes landing on water. It can be done as was demonstrated on the Hudson river and there have also been a few cases where commercial planes ditched succesfully in the sea/ocean. In order to make a succesfull landing on water you do need to have a plane that is by and large structurally intact, controlable. With no engines, planes just glide, they loose altitude very quickly but are perfectly controlable.

The most tricky thing I can think up for ditching in water is to have to do it in the dark. Waves are a big concern as well.
Out at sea/ocean at night (as it would/could have been for MH370) it becomes extremely difficult to judge your altitude above the water and to see the waves.

I just realized that although I have spent quite some hours on Lufthansa and CargoLux Full motion Simulators in Frankfurt and Luxumburg, I have never done a ditching scenario. In all honesty I'm not sure to what extend modern simulators are capable of simulating this accurately.

The various training manuals I have for various Boeings all have chapters/procedures for landing on water, so it must be trained/practiced, but I'm not sure how.

In the little planes I fly, we regularly train for engines out scenario's. The instructor will, unexpectely pull the power to idle and will tell you "engine out". Need to fly the plane, work throught the various check list, find a suitable landing spot, communicate with ATC and manoevre the plane in such a position that the instructor is convinced you could make a suitable and safe engine out landing. Usually couple of hundred feet of the ground. Then you add power and continue your flight.

During any formal check ride be it VFR or IFR you will always have to demonstrate you are familiar with this engine out procedure.
Never did it over water though.

Jeroen

Originally Posted by mazda4life

how far into the sky can a plane ascend ? , I know the flight cruise altitude is around 33,000 feet , but what happens if I keep on ascending to the edge of space?

Most long range planes will have an operational ceiling in the range of 40-45000 feet.

Roughly speaking: For a given weight there is an optimum cruising altitude. Early on in the flight you will see that typically cruising altitude is around 30-33000 feet. As the plane burns off fuel, the optimimum cruising altitude goes upwards. Planes adjust their altitude usually be increments of 2000 or 4000 feet.

Those of us that travel on intercontinantel flight might have noticed. During the cruise phase, a few times you will notice engine noise increasing for a few minutes. This is when the plane executes an incremental step change.

All of the above is of course subject to ATC approvals. And sometimes you get different altitudes assigned then what you really want.

Jeroen