Does the ditching switch allow an A320 to float indefinitely?How long can passengers survive after ditching...
Could a warlock use the One with Shadows warlock invocation to turn invisible, and then move while staying invisible?
How is this property called for mod?
What is the wife of a henpecked husband called?
Charging phone battery with a lower voltage, coming from a bike charger?
Taking headphones when quitting job
What makes papers publishable in top-tier journals?
Is there a way to not have to poll the UART of an AVR?
Plausible reason to leave the Solar System?
Concatenating two int[]
A question about partitioning positivie integers into finitely many arithmetic progresions
How do you get out of your own psychology to write characters?
Is there any advantage in specifying './' in a for loop using a glob?
Renting a 2CV in France
I have trouble understanding this fallacy: "If A, then B. Therefore if not-B, then not-A."
Switch case implementation in Java for an integer pair combination
Does Skippy chunky peanut butter contain trans fat?
Why is 'diphthong' pronounced the way it is?
Which RAF squadrons and aircraft types took part in the bombing of Berlin on the 25th of August 1940?
A fantasy book with seven white haired women on the cover
Article. The word "Respect"
How vim overwrites readonly mode?
Memory usage: #define vs. static const for uint8_t
Book where a space ship journeys to the center of the galaxy to find all the stars had gone supernova
Translation needed for 130 years old church document
Does the ditching switch allow an A320 to float indefinitely?
How long can passengers survive after ditching in the ocean?Why do high-speed water impacts / ditching usually result in structural loss of the airframe?Why did this Cirrus deploy the parachute while ditching over Pacific Ocean?What is the probability that passengers can survive a ditching in a 747 at MTOW?In an emergency, how much runway does an A320 need to stop safely?Why does the cabin pressurisation switch have a manual mode?How does Pack Flow work on the A320?How is the emergency locator transmitter of the A320 fixed, activated and carried away?Why does the A320 right aileron float on dual engine failure?What is in the A320 Smoke and Fume checklist?
$begingroup$
I watched a documentary yesterday about the Hudson River ditching of US Airways Flight 1549. In the documentary, one of the investigators explained that the reason the water was entering so quickly was because the FO did not have time to hit the 'Ditching' switch the A320 is equipped with. This switch closes all vents etc. to prevent water from entering the cabin.
If an A320 or similar is ditched and the switch is activated in time, does that totally prevent water from filling the cabin (in a best-case scenario)? I'm thinking if one ditched in the Atlantic and had to wait for hours for help, would it be possible to stay afloat for so long?
emergency airbus-a320 accidents ditching saltwater
asked 9 hours ago
CloudCloud
3,16232252
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I watched a documentary yesterday about the Hudson River ditching of US Airways Flight 1549. In the documentary, one of the investigators explained that the reason the water was entering so quickly was because the FO did not have time to hit the 'Ditching' switch the A320 is equipped with. This switch closes all vents etc. to prevent water from entering the cabin.
If an A320 or similar is ditched and the switch is activated in time, does that totally prevent water from filling the cabin (in a best-case scenario)? I'm thinking if one ditched in the Atlantic and had to wait for hours for help, would it be possible to stay afloat for so long?
emergency airbus-a320 accidents ditching saltwater
asked 9 hours ago
CloudCloud
3,16232252
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Actual boats won't stay afloat forever without additional help! But "long enough for rescue" is a good criterion for this scenario.
$endgroup$
– Toby Speight
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
There was significant damage to the rear lower fuselage, so it is not obvious how much water intrusion the ditch switch would have prevented anyway: flyian.net/aircraft/museum/ncam/1549/1549.htm
$endgroup$
– Adam
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
US-1549 was floating for two days after the landing into water even without the switch.
$endgroup$
– h22
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I watched a documentary yesterday about the Hudson River ditching of US Airways Flight 1549. In the documentary, one of the investigators explained that the reason the water was entering so quickly was because the FO did not have time to hit the 'Ditching' switch the A320 is equipped with. This switch closes all vents etc. to prevent water from entering the cabin.
If an A320 or similar is ditched and the switch is activated in time, does that totally prevent water from filling the cabin (in a best-case scenario)? I'm thinking if one ditched in the Atlantic and had to wait for hours for help, would it be possible to stay afloat for so long?
emergency airbus-a320 accidents ditching saltwater
asked 9 hours ago
CloudCloud
3,16232252
$endgroup$
I watched a documentary yesterday about the Hudson River ditching of US Airways Flight 1549. In the documentary, one of the investigators explained that the reason the water was entering so quickly was because the FO did not have time to hit the 'Ditching' switch the A320 is equipped with. This switch closes all vents etc. to prevent water from entering the cabin.
If an A320 or similar is ditched and the switch is activated in time, does that totally prevent water from filling the cabin (in a best-case scenario)? I'm thinking if one ditched in the Atlantic and had to wait for hours for help, would it be possible to stay afloat for so long?
emergency airbus-a320 accidents ditching saltwater
emergency airbus-a320 accidents ditching saltwater
asked 9 hours ago
CloudCloud
3,16232252
asked 9 hours ago
CloudCloud
3,16232252
asked 9 hours ago
CloudCloud
3,16232252
asked 9 hours ago
CloudCloud
3,16232252
asked 9 hours ago
CloudCloud
3,16232252
3,16232252
2
$begingroup$
Actual boats won't stay afloat forever without additional help! But "long enough for rescue" is a good criterion for this scenario.
$endgroup$
– Toby Speight
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
There was significant damage to the rear lower fuselage, so it is not obvious how much water intrusion the ditch switch would have prevented anyway: flyian.net/aircraft/museum/ncam/1549/1549.htm
$endgroup$
– Adam
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
US-1549 was floating for two days after the landing into water even without the switch.
$endgroup$
– h22
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Actual boats won't stay afloat forever without additional help! But "long enough for rescue" is a good criterion for this scenario.
$endgroup$
– Toby Speight
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
There was significant damage to the rear lower fuselage, so it is not obvious how much water intrusion the ditch switch would have prevented anyway: flyian.net/aircraft/museum/ncam/1549/1549.htm
$endgroup$
– Adam
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
US-1549 was floating for two days after the landing into water even without the switch.
$endgroup$
– h22
1 hour ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Actual boats won't stay afloat forever without additional help! But "long enough for rescue" is a good criterion for this scenario.
$endgroup$
– Toby Speight
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Actual boats won't stay afloat forever without additional help! But "long enough for rescue" is a good criterion for this scenario.
$endgroup$
– Toby Speight
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
There was significant damage to the rear lower fuselage, so it is not obvious how much water intrusion the ditch switch would have prevented anyway: flyian.net/aircraft/museum/ncam/1549/1549.htm
$endgroup$
– Adam
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
There was significant damage to the rear lower fuselage, so it is not obvious how much water intrusion the ditch switch would have prevented anyway: flyian.net/aircraft/museum/ncam/1549/1549.htm
$endgroup$
– Adam
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
US-1549 was floating for two days after the landing into water even without the switch.
$endgroup$
– h22
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
US-1549 was floating for two days after the landing into water even without the switch.
$endgroup$
– h22
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The answer is no, not totally, but it would really slow things down. I don't think anybody knows the precise answer because only flat water ditchings seem to result in the airplane stopping in the water in one piece (such as 1549 and a similar one in Malaysia) and flat water incidents (like Malaysia and some airport overruns) are usually in shallows where the ditching valve is moot.
But assuming an A320 was able to ditch on open ocean swells without breaking somewhere, certainly it would float for a much longer time, but not forever. Pressure hulls are never absolutely fluid tight; door/hatch seals leak a little bit, and there may be tiny leaks through various entry points below the water line like bleed air shutoff valves, fay-sealed skin laps, rivets, control cable pressure bulkhead fairleads, etc (the older the airframe the leakier).
Wing dry bays may be sealed off with a tape made for the purpose but they are not usually totally water tight. Water can migrate into the fuel tanks through the vents. Full fuel or nearly full fuel would be a bonus, fuel being buoyant.
You certainly would have a lot more time to get onto the rafts (perhaps Airbus has estimated the theoretical sink time by calculation), but it would sink eventually (it would take quite a few hours, maybe even a day or two), and you aren't going to be staying on board any longer than necessary regardless.
(Now, if you ditch in a composite foam sandwich sailplane, well you've got yourself an unsinkable boat right there, and if you took a paddle along, you could actually go places. If I'm in a glider that gets low over rough forested terrain, and there are lakes around, I'm putting it in the water and paddling it to shore with whatever I have at hand).
answered 6 hours ago
John KJohn K
19.4k12356
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60501%2fdoes-the-ditching-switch-allow-an-a320-to-float-indefinitely%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The answer is no, not totally, but it would really slow things down. I don't think anybody knows the precise answer because only flat water ditchings seem to result in the airplane stopping in the water in one piece (such as 1549 and a similar one in Malaysia) and flat water incidents (like Malaysia and some airport overruns) are usually in shallows where the ditching valve is moot.
But assuming an A320 was able to ditch on open ocean swells without breaking somewhere, certainly it would float for a much longer time, but not forever. Pressure hulls are never absolutely fluid tight; door/hatch seals leak a little bit, and there may be tiny leaks through various entry points below the water line like bleed air shutoff valves, fay-sealed skin laps, rivets, control cable pressure bulkhead fairleads, etc (the older the airframe the leakier).
Wing dry bays may be sealed off with a tape made for the purpose but they are not usually totally water tight. Water can migrate into the fuel tanks through the vents. Full fuel or nearly full fuel would be a bonus, fuel being buoyant.
You certainly would have a lot more time to get onto the rafts (perhaps Airbus has estimated the theoretical sink time by calculation), but it would sink eventually (it would take quite a few hours, maybe even a day or two), and you aren't going to be staying on board any longer than necessary regardless.
(Now, if you ditch in a composite foam sandwich sailplane, well you've got yourself an unsinkable boat right there, and if you took a paddle along, you could actually go places. If I'm in a glider that gets low over rough forested terrain, and there are lakes around, I'm putting it in the water and paddling it to shore with whatever I have at hand).
answered 6 hours ago
John KJohn K
19.4k12356
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The answer is no, not totally, but it would really slow things down. I don't think anybody knows the precise answer because only flat water ditchings seem to result in the airplane stopping in the water in one piece (such as 1549 and a similar one in Malaysia) and flat water incidents (like Malaysia and some airport overruns) are usually in shallows where the ditching valve is moot.
But assuming an A320 was able to ditch on open ocean swells without breaking somewhere, certainly it would float for a much longer time, but not forever. Pressure hulls are never absolutely fluid tight; door/hatch seals leak a little bit, and there may be tiny leaks through various entry points below the water line like bleed air shutoff valves, fay-sealed skin laps, rivets, control cable pressure bulkhead fairleads, etc (the older the airframe the leakier).
Wing dry bays may be sealed off with a tape made for the purpose but they are not usually totally water tight. Water can migrate into the fuel tanks through the vents. Full fuel or nearly full fuel would be a bonus, fuel being buoyant.
You certainly would have a lot more time to get onto the rafts (perhaps Airbus has estimated the theoretical sink time by calculation), but it would sink eventually (it would take quite a few hours, maybe even a day or two), and you aren't going to be staying on board any longer than necessary regardless.
(Now, if you ditch in a composite foam sandwich sailplane, well you've got yourself an unsinkable boat right there, and if you took a paddle along, you could actually go places. If I'm in a glider that gets low over rough forested terrain, and there are lakes around, I'm putting it in the water and paddling it to shore with whatever I have at hand).
answered 6 hours ago
John KJohn K
19.4k12356
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The answer is no, not totally, but it would really slow things down. I don't think anybody knows the precise answer because only flat water ditchings seem to result in the airplane stopping in the water in one piece (such as 1549 and a similar one in Malaysia) and flat water incidents (like Malaysia and some airport overruns) are usually in shallows where the ditching valve is moot.
But assuming an A320 was able to ditch on open ocean swells without breaking somewhere, certainly it would float for a much longer time, but not forever. Pressure hulls are never absolutely fluid tight; door/hatch seals leak a little bit, and there may be tiny leaks through various entry points below the water line like bleed air shutoff valves, fay-sealed skin laps, rivets, control cable pressure bulkhead fairleads, etc (the older the airframe the leakier).
Wing dry bays may be sealed off with a tape made for the purpose but they are not usually totally water tight. Water can migrate into the fuel tanks through the vents. Full fuel or nearly full fuel would be a bonus, fuel being buoyant.
You certainly would have a lot more time to get onto the rafts (perhaps Airbus has estimated the theoretical sink time by calculation), but it would sink eventually (it would take quite a few hours, maybe even a day or two), and you aren't going to be staying on board any longer than necessary regardless.
(Now, if you ditch in a composite foam sandwich sailplane, well you've got yourself an unsinkable boat right there, and if you took a paddle along, you could actually go places. If I'm in a glider that gets low over rough forested terrain, and there are lakes around, I'm putting it in the water and paddling it to shore with whatever I have at hand).
answered 6 hours ago
John KJohn K
19.4k12356
$endgroup$
The answer is no, not totally, but it would really slow things down. I don't think anybody knows the precise answer because only flat water ditchings seem to result in the airplane stopping in the water in one piece (such as 1549 and a similar one in Malaysia) and flat water incidents (like Malaysia and some airport overruns) are usually in shallows where the ditching valve is moot.
But assuming an A320 was able to ditch on open ocean swells without breaking somewhere, certainly it would float for a much longer time, but not forever. Pressure hulls are never absolutely fluid tight; door/hatch seals leak a little bit, and there may be tiny leaks through various entry points below the water line like bleed air shutoff valves, fay-sealed skin laps, rivets, control cable pressure bulkhead fairleads, etc (the older the airframe the leakier).
Wing dry bays may be sealed off with a tape made for the purpose but they are not usually totally water tight. Water can migrate into the fuel tanks through the vents. Full fuel or nearly full fuel would be a bonus, fuel being buoyant.
You certainly would have a lot more time to get onto the rafts (perhaps Airbus has estimated the theoretical sink time by calculation), but it would sink eventually (it would take quite a few hours, maybe even a day or two), and you aren't going to be staying on board any longer than necessary regardless.
(Now, if you ditch in a composite foam sandwich sailplane, well you've got yourself an unsinkable boat right there, and if you took a paddle along, you could actually go places. If I'm in a glider that gets low over rough forested terrain, and there are lakes around, I'm putting it in the water and paddling it to shore with whatever I have at hand).
answered 6 hours ago
John KJohn K
19.4k12356
edited 2 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
John KJohn K
19.4k12356
answered 6 hours ago
John KJohn K
19.4k12356
answered 6 hours ago
John KJohn K
19.4k12356
19.4k12356
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60501%2fdoes-the-ditching-switch-allow-an-a320-to-float-indefinitely%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Actual boats won't stay afloat forever without additional help! But "long enough for rescue" is a good criterion for this scenario.
$endgroup$
– Toby Speight
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
There was significant damage to the rear lower fuselage, so it is not obvious how much water intrusion the ditch switch would have prevented anyway: flyian.net/aircraft/museum/ncam/1549/1549.htm
$endgroup$
– Adam
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
US-1549 was floating for two days after the landing into water even without the switch.
$endgroup$
– h22
1 hour ago