Question on - Sully's: Hudson ditching
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The land of the Incredible
Age: 56
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question on - Sully's: Hudson ditching
Why did the airplane keep afloat even hours after the ditching inspite of it's packs, outflow valves not being closed during the ditching process?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the valves were closed? Skiles hit the ditching pushbutton did he not? Although it made little to no difference as the high sink rate in the last milliseconds ripped the rear fuselage which allowed water to ingress at the rear.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure? The tail was badly damaged, I am not sure the metal was broken open, and I am pretty sure the hull was intact, eg, the aft bulkhead was not holed.
I think the wings had alot to do with the flotation. The fuel helped, but the voids in the wing provided a good deal of buoyancy. Besides, any modern a/c is pressurized, and designing a device that keeps air in will probably keep water out? The fit on the skin is designed to be tight, since any "leakage" of air, no matter where, means 'drag'? Even the interior penetrations for cabling, ducting and plumbing are sealed, not so much to make her watertight, but to prevent abrasion, and wear on the interior hull.
Not to mention coating the entire a/c with Paint, to lessen drag, an additional benefit would be "watertight". The 1500 pounds of resin/paint have to perform beyond their dead weight, else paint would not be used.
The injured FA was said to have been in knee deep water, at the aft door. I think this intrusion was from the open door, which was then closed? All things considered, an a/c like the 320 is a better boat than alot of boats.
I think the wings had alot to do with the flotation. The fuel helped, but the voids in the wing provided a good deal of buoyancy. Besides, any modern a/c is pressurized, and designing a device that keeps air in will probably keep water out? The fit on the skin is designed to be tight, since any "leakage" of air, no matter where, means 'drag'? Even the interior penetrations for cabling, ducting and plumbing are sealed, not so much to make her watertight, but to prevent abrasion, and wear on the interior hull.
Not to mention coating the entire a/c with Paint, to lessen drag, an additional benefit would be "watertight". The 1500 pounds of resin/paint have to perform beyond their dead weight, else paint would not be used.
The injured FA was said to have been in knee deep water, at the aft door. I think this intrusion was from the open door, which was then closed? All things considered, an a/c like the 320 is a better boat than alot of boats.
HPBleed: Although it made little to no difference as the high sink rate in the last milliseconds ripped the rear fuselage which allowed water to ingress at the rear.
Lyman: Sure? The tail was badly damaged, I am not sure the metal was broken open, and I am pretty sure the hull was intact, eg, the aft bulkhead was not holed.
Lyman: Sure? The tail was badly damaged, I am not sure the metal was broken open, and I am pretty sure the hull was intact, eg, the aft bulkhead was not holed.
At the site where the Structures document is found, the entire Docket can be accessed for further reading.
PJ2
Last edited by PJ2; 29th Mar 2012 at 16:18.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bathyscaphe float is full of gasoline for buoyancy, the descent weights (shot) are jettisoned by electromagnet for ascent, and trim is achieved by substituting seawater for gasoline in the buoyancy tank.
Truly the design of a mad genius.
Truly the design of a mad genius.
Bathyscaphe float is full of gasoline for buoyancy, the descent weights (shot) are jettisoned by electromagnet for ascent, and trim is achieved by substituting seawater for gasoline in the buoyancy tank.
Truly the design of a mad genius.
Truly the design of a mad genius.
Tis true and a small amount of air trapped in a battery compartment vent tube can be disasterous while submerged
Surely the fuel kept it afloat, not long after departure the wings would have had a significant amount of fuel in them. Fuel is not as dense as water so in effect you have two massive floatation devices keeping the rest of the aircraft above water.
Sure, fuel is less dense than water, but air is less dense still. So empty fuel tanks would have contributed more buoyancy than full ones. I suppose the bathyscaphe float was filled with gasoline so that it could be exposed to external pressure without compressing. Not a problem for an airplane, at least as long as it stays on surface . . .
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Middle East
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since they were only going about 500nm on that flight, they probably only had 6.5 to 8T on fuel(depending on alternate) on board at takeoff, well under half of max, which means the fuel tanks had mostly air in them.
Fuel in the tanks, being an incompressible fluid, should have increased the strength of the structure. Possibly being a bigger advantage than having damaged empty tanks.
Skiles didn't activate the ditch switch, IIRC
GF
Skiles didn't activate the ditch switch, IIRC
GF
Aircraft are quite bouyant and can float for a while. The RAF nimrod which ditched in the Moaray Forth in the late 1990s floated for some hours and a 707 which landed in lake Victoria floated for three days.
The ditching button will close all the holes on the 320, but the heavy engines should come off as well. The 'fuse pins' have a relatively weak breaking point in the event of a aftwards shock and they would normally come off on ditching. on Sully's aircraft, one came off. It's possible, the very low touchdown speed he acheived didn't rip both off. Also the high nose attitude meant the tail touched first casing the breach in the rear cabin.
The ditching button will close all the holes on the 320, but the heavy engines should come off as well. The 'fuse pins' have a relatively weak breaking point in the event of a aftwards shock and they would normally come off on ditching. on Sully's aircraft, one came off. It's possible, the very low touchdown speed he acheived didn't rip both off. Also the high nose attitude meant the tail touched first casing the breach in the rear cabin.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#1 engine parted company at touchdown, and that side was more bouyant than the other. When "docked" on the Manhattan waterfront, the right wing slowly sank while the left rode high in the water.
The #1 engine was later recovered from the river bottom.
The #1 engine was later recovered from the river bottom.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi barit1. #1 fell off the wing, but not at touchdown, I think. From the Harbor master video, a pronounced Yaw left whilst skidding across the water indicates the engine was dislodged, and perhaps presenting more drag than normal. Then, when a/c stopped, the engine fell free.
That is from memory, so use a pound of salt, eh.
That is from memory, so use a pound of salt, eh.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC USA
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeff Skyles NOT pressing the "Ditch Switch" had absolutely no affect on the sinking of 1549. Pressing the switch would have closed the two outflow valves on the Aft Pressure Bulkhead. The fact that nearly 25% of the APB was ripped out negated his actions or lack there of.
The aft cabin flooded up to a depth of about 5ft (~2.2m) within minutes of coming to a stop (last row of passengers were 3ft ((1m)) deep within 60 seconds). The forward cabin remained relatively dry for a much longer period of time. The cabin was "habitable" for about 30 min after the ditching. The aircraft remained technically afloat for 22 hours before completely submerging (all except the left wingtip). Yes, it was right wing heavy due to the loss of No.1 engine. It didn't sink further because the right wingtip was stuck in the riverbottom.
The main source of bouency was the fuel in the tanks (and a bubble in the crown of the cabin). That fuel slowly leaked out through fuel lines and punctures solwly allowing the aircraft to sink.
C2j
The aft cabin flooded up to a depth of about 5ft (~2.2m) within minutes of coming to a stop (last row of passengers were 3ft ((1m)) deep within 60 seconds). The forward cabin remained relatively dry for a much longer period of time. The cabin was "habitable" for about 30 min after the ditching. The aircraft remained technically afloat for 22 hours before completely submerging (all except the left wingtip). Yes, it was right wing heavy due to the loss of No.1 engine. It didn't sink further because the right wingtip was stuck in the riverbottom.
The main source of bouency was the fuel in the tanks (and a bubble in the crown of the cabin). That fuel slowly leaked out through fuel lines and punctures solwly allowing the aircraft to sink.
C2j
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Cubs2jets
"Jeff Skyles NOT pressing the "Ditch Switch" had absolutely no affect on the sinking of 1549. Pressing the switch would have closed the two outflow valves on the Aft Pressure Bulkhead. The fact that nearly 25% of the APB was ripped out negated his actions or lack there of."
The aft Pressure Bulkhead is effectively in two parts, above the floor, and below it. The dump valves communicate with the cabin, the damaged portion with the hold. If the APB (cabin portion) was undamaged, and not leaking into the cabin, the open valves would allow water ingress. If the valves had been closed, there would have been less water in the cabin, and the a/c would have remained afloat longer, No? Or, are we looking through the APB directly into the cabin and looking at a seat?
Bottom Line? Should the valves have been closed by crew? Yes.
"Jeff Skyles NOT pressing the "Ditch Switch" had absolutely no affect on the sinking of 1549. Pressing the switch would have closed the two outflow valves on the Aft Pressure Bulkhead. The fact that nearly 25% of the APB was ripped out negated his actions or lack there of."
The aft Pressure Bulkhead is effectively in two parts, above the floor, and below it. The dump valves communicate with the cabin, the damaged portion with the hold. If the APB (cabin portion) was undamaged, and not leaking into the cabin, the open valves would allow water ingress. If the valves had been closed, there would have been less water in the cabin, and the a/c would have remained afloat longer, No? Or, are we looking through the APB directly into the cabin and looking at a seat?
Bottom Line? Should the valves have been closed by crew? Yes.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC USA
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is pretty clear in the picture that the APB is essentially one unit that encompasses above and below the floor, not two parts one above and one below the floor.
Inside the pie section labled "Damaged Bulkhead" on the picture you are looking through the APB at the backs of the galley cabnetry located on the forward side of the APB. The bottom of the white structure is the floor level (cabin/baggage seperation). This is a massive breach of the APB. Closing the two outflow valves with the "Ditch Switch" would have made little or no difference in keeping water out of the cabin.
C2j
Inside the pie section labled "Damaged Bulkhead" on the picture you are looking through the APB at the backs of the galley cabnetry located on the forward side of the APB. The bottom of the white structure is the floor level (cabin/baggage seperation). This is a massive breach of the APB. Closing the two outflow valves with the "Ditch Switch" would have made little or no difference in keeping water out of the cabin.
C2j
Last edited by Cubs2jets; 1st Apr 2012 at 18:19. Reason: Clarity and edification