It is also possible that, at the appropriate time to hit the “ditch switch”, something else vital to immediate survival required their attention. It’s more important that the airplane land as gently as possible and remain intact than to hit the “ditch switch” because if the airplane is broken that switch’s effect doesn’t matter anymore.
Determining such things is one reason crash investigations take so long.
Yup. Happily, they get to look at what went right as well as what went wrong for a change. When they’re done investigating, a bit more about airline safety will have been learned and all the flying public will be the safer for it. And this time, no one had to die for that information.
The NTSB investigator said that this was going to be the best crash he’s ever been involved with. The plane’s relatively intact, and everyone survived.
On a slightly lighter note, here is the Daily Mash (A kind of UK Onion-lite) story about the crash:
stupid all caps rule
I am sorry if this has been mentioned before but is the aircraft repairable? Being underwater for a short period and depending on the structural damage I wonder if it will ever fly again?
You can repair any aircraft if you replace enough parts. But, based on comments in the news about the extent of the damage to the bottom of the fuselage, and on photos of the secondary damage caused by banging against the pilings, it probably wouldn’t be less expensive than replacing it. Or not replacing it, taking the insurance money, and including the plane in a fleet downsizing program.
Darn right it’s a good thing that the investigation can be conducted without the atmosphere of negative emotion that surrounds fatal incidents. Objectivity can be hard to defend even though it’s absolutely necessary. And yes, the investigation will certainly include review of ditching procedures, both in general and those specific to the A320 checklist.
If you ask me, I think they should sell it to some hunting club. Obviously, it’d make a damn good duck blind.
Score.
The plane had some kind of engine problem a few days before the crash.
In other news, it looks like the passengers did pretty well.
I need to be on a flight like that!
Pack your wetsuit the next time you fly. You do want to be able to spend that $5K, right?
Yes, well, but on the other hand… let me explain with a little anecdote I read about some years ago.
Back in WWII while the USAAF was carrying the day bombing campaing over Germany some study was carried on the damage sustained to the returning bombers, making a statistical diagram of the areas more likely to be hit by flak and attacking fighters so they could be strenghtened or armored to improve the survailability (I’m sure I mangled the word) of the airplanes.
It seemed quite logical until someone pointed out that was a bit wrongheaded, those planes in the study already survived, the planes that where not being surveyed where the ones that were actually shot down by damage not covered by the research. Therefore the study was not really showing what was bringing down the airplanes.
My point is, that in a crash like this the more important lessons are not what the plane tells, since the plane design has already shown that it in this incident the design allowed for all passangers to survive. I think the most important lessons would be in the procedures of the crew, how they managed the emergency, how the touched down and what they did to evacuate the passengers.
Of course some improvements to airliners can be derived from this, but IMHO the crew actions are the real lesson.
The solution, they decided, was to look at all the places the planes had holes in them, and then armor the places where there were no holes. The logic being that if a plane could get shot up in those areas and survive, they didn’t need to protect those areas, so they could concentrate on the spots where none of the surviving planes had holes, since it was obvious that damaging things in those areas was enough to bring the planes down.
Both will be valuable. The plane’s engines were both supposed to break off in a water landing scenario, but one of them didn’t, they’re going to want to know why, and what was different about the plane. They’re also going to want to look at what areas of the plane’s structure were damaged, to estimate how much force they endured, and if they need to be reinforced. Remember, this was as close to a perfect water landing as we’ll ever see, so if they examine part of the plane and discover that with a few more pounds of force in one spot, the plane would have snapped in half, they’re probably going to want to make some changes in the design.
Also, the crew was not able to hit the “ditch switch” so there’ll be questions as to why. Did the crew forget? Were they too busy? Should the system be automated somehow? All of these will be answered by the investigation.
Thank you for your part in causing the words, “having a long, soapy shower with Heidi Klum” to squirt through the internets and onto my screen. My life is just a smidge better as a result.
Just a heads up to an interview by Air & Space magazine to the pilot of the Airbus
According to the interview in Ale’s link, 1. there was not enough time to complete the 3-page checklist, and 2. Since the landing opened up large holes in the bottom, activation of the ditch switch, which only closed small holes, would not have made much difference.
Great interview, and my admiration of Sully can only go up.
When I was younger, we tested some emergency life preservers that inflated a balloon for buoyancy when a little water-soluble plug dissolved and allowed water into the sensor.
Why doesn’t the ditch switch use a system like this? The plug could be inside the fuselage so it won’t get rained on, but would still get wet as flooding started, and close the openings automatically. The pilot could be busy with other things, as was the case here.
Sounds like a good idea, but the problem with automatic systems is they sometimes trigger when you least want them to. Then you need an override. I wonder what the consequences would be if the ditch switch was accidentally turned on at other times? Would the air intake to critical systems cease? That might be a lot worse.
::bump::
Wow, has it really been 10 years already?
I thought another plane had gone down, not the smartest bump IMHO