Air Canada Jazz - No more life vests.

[Gabriel]

I don't know, but I would think 3:1 L/D is a little conservative for any airplane. I would suspect 6 or even 8:1 is more realistic. I'll gladly accept being wrong if someone knows the real figures.

I think even a C-152 or a Piper Cub are not as bad as 6 or 8 to 1. And I've never said L/D = 3:1. It's 3NM per 1000ft. Note the units are not the same at both sides of the ratio. Put that in the same units to get an adimensional L/D ratio. For example 3NM is some 18,000ft, so that gets to 18,000:1,000, or 18:1.
Transport category jets tend to be pretty efficient aerodynamically wise. And then you have a bit of energy stored in form of speed. If your true speed (TAS, not IAS) at cruise is say 400kts and at the bottom of the glide 200kts, then you have an energy that is equivalent to another 5600ft of altitude to glide from.

[Deadstick]

I think even a C-152 or a Piper Cub are not as bad as 6 or 8 to 1. And I've never said L/D = 3:1. It's 3NM per 1000ft. Note the units are not the same at both sides of the ratio. Put that in the same units to get an adimensional L/D ratio. For example 3NM is some 18,000ft, so that gets to 18,000:1,000, or 18:1.
Transport category jets tend to be pretty efficient aerodynamically wise. And then you have a bit of energy stored in form of speed. If your true speed (TAS, not IAS) at cruise is say 400kts and at the bottom of the glide 200kts, then you have an energy that is equivalent to another 5600ft of altitude to glide from.

Good answer Gabriel. I didn't think it through.

[Spad13]

Transport category jets tend to be pretty efficient aerodynamically wise. And then you have a bit of energy stored in form of speed. If your true speed (TAS, not IAS) at cruise is say 400kts and at the bottom of the glide 200kts, then you have an energy that is equivalent to another 5600ft of altitude to glide from.

I wouldn't want to try it.

[Dmmoore]

For aircraft with engines below the fuselage, such as the Boeing and Airbus medium and long haul aircraft, could the solution be a way of having the engines detach upon impact or before impact so that the aircraft would not be torn apart by the forces? Part of why ET 961 was destroyed is because the engines dragged in the water.

On Boeing aircraft, the pylons are fuse pinned to allow the engines to detach at the pylon / wing interface when the force on the pylon exceeds a preset limit.

The fuse pin is intended to prevent the force applied to the wing box structure from rupturing the fuel tank.

It should be pointed out that fuse pins only work as advertised when the airplane is flown into the water under full control. ET 951 was not a text book example of how to ditch a modern airliner.

[andrasz]

How do you get out of such asituation with a seat cushion under your arm?

There is a simple, maintenance free, and most importantly totally weightless floatation device that can be used in any on-water emergency, not restricted to aviation. It is called SWIMMING

[ZilogMan]

There is a simple, maintenance free, and most importantly totally weightless floatation device that can be used in any on-water emergency, not restricted to aviation. It is called SWIMMING

Cute

I suppose someone can't fly (over water) if someone can't swim?

[andrasz]

Must be slow news day, even CNN picked up the story:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video...rline.vest.ctv

They even made the effort to put up a poll, which shows a suprisingly balanced +/- opinon.

[Uncle Jay]

Masks

Smoke Masks would save far more lives than life vests.

Another ditching example was Air Florida 90, and a few runway overruns like the US Air incident.

[Cam]

Must be slow news day, even CNN picked up the story:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video...rline.vest.ctv

They even made the effort to put up a poll, which shows a suprisingly balanced +/- opinon.

F--K I hate the media....of course, get an NDPer (A useless Socialist) to answer questions.....