Talk:Water landing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Water landing appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 May 2006.

[edit] GeoBias

I'm tempted to place a GeoBias tag on this article, but I'm not sure what good it would do. I'm also uncertain if it really fits this article, any views on this? I, for one, see a strong systematic bias towards the US in this, but anyone's free to comment. Also, any views on which tag to use, {{limitedgeographicscope}} or {{globalize/USA}}? --TVPR 10:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that! It's just that whenever my references say anything concrete, they're either talking about 1) a specific flight or 2) a US-exclusive statistic. (It doesn't help that the US is the only country that did splashdowns; heck, the German article even leads with an Apollo image.)

As for tags, I think {{globalize}} is actually a better fit than {{globalize/USA}}, although I might just think that because the language is softer.

I agree that there's a problem, but I generally wouldn't want us to remove information, and I don't know where to find more. Any particular suggestions? Melchoir 10:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly not, I'm completely blank on water landings (except that they sound mysteriously like "crashing into the ocean"). But we should certainly get more information. One could, for starters, expand on country-specific... "things". Such as, this infamous seat cushion is in Scandinavia replaced by a life vest under the seat. Or something - anything, really.--TVPR 11:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

For a first base to do research, www.airliners.net forums can be useful: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/88773/6/#ID88773 (you can also use the search function of the Tech/Ops forum to find other, similar threads, they pop up every few months)

www.airdisaster.com can be used to augment the discussions (which are not wholly reliable)

Interestingly, the forums usually provide several details that should be chackable against NTSB crash reports and other sources: "Here is a quote from "Aiport International", a book by Brian Moynahan, relating to the event (NTSB AAR 70-2):

A Japan Airlines DC8 was making an approach in bad visibility to San Francisco Airport. The pilot thought he was close to the airport when he was still over the bay. Calmly and with great precision, he let the great aircraft down through the murk to a pillow-soft landing in the Pacific. All the 107 passengers and crew clambered out and sat on the wings as the tide went out and the aircraft settled on a mudbank. "

There is a more detailled article on the same website: http://www.airliners.net/articles/read.main?id=1

There is also this, separate incident from Africa: (including photos) http://www.avweb.com/news/news/182363-1.html

Great examples, thanks! I'll incorporate them eventually, but feel free to save me the work! Melchoir 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I would, but if I don't get about 4000 words of coursework done by tomorrow, I'm in deep trouble.

[edit] Lost

I'm not sure whether the crash in Lost could be classified as a water crash-landing (for the central portion of the fuselage, anyhow), but a small reference to it could be made, as it's more or less where the plot begins. Cctoide 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm ignorant about Lost but from Oceanic Flight 815 it doesn't sound like a water landing or really even a water crash to me. When I wrote the original version of this article, I purposefully excluded planes that broke up in mid-air, even from the "Crashing" section, since they're not examples of plane-flies-into-water so much as debris-falls-onto-water. Well... should the article mention them anyway? Melchoir 22:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism or poor research?

the article as at today says that no US aircraft has ever ditched. However, on 16 October 1956 Pan Am Boeing Stratocruiser Clipper Sovereign of the Skies piloted by Capt. Richard N. Ogg ditched mid-point between Honolulu and San Francisco. I believe all passengers and crew survived. More info at: http://www.looksmartcollege.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200006/ai_n8911736/pg_8?pi=sclPaddington62 07:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting... it's the Slate article that claims "But there has never been a single ditching by a U.S.-flag commercial airline." It's conceivable that this is a precision issue, since Pan American World Airways says it was "the unofficial flag carrier of the United States"; I'm not sure what to make of the unofficial bit. But that's a technicality; the phrase in our article is wrong. I'll remove it and work in the incident. Good catch! Melchoir 07:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "the unofficial flag carrier of the United States" was marketing hype on the part of Pan Am. Other countries had a "official flag carrier" i.e. the national airline. The U.S. never did, but during the early days of regulated international travel, Pan Am came close to filling that role. There is no question that Pan Am was a U.S.-flag airline. In general, I think this article has an "isn't this stupid" attitude that is uncalled for. Accidents in general on commercial aviation, particularly U.S. carriers, are rare. The sorts of incidents that would result in a forced water landing--complete loss of engine power or running out of fuel--almost never happen on commercial carriers. But the overall safety record is due to a strong culture of safety in aviation. Commercial airliners have many layers of backup systems, some of which are rarely used, but all contribute to a low fatality rate compared to other forms of transport. That commercial aircraft carry equipment to be used in the event of a survivable water landing is not foolish, make the passengers feel good nonsense, but part of that safety culture. Much of the equipment is dual use. Seats need cushions anyway, and they have to be removable for cleaning, so make them flotation devices too. Believe me, the airlines would rather not carry a single ounce of unnecessary equipment and passengers would be happier if they were never reminded of the possibility of a crash. All this stuff is forced on them by people who are obsessive about safety. Would you rather it was some other way?--agr 14:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is ironic! I'm responsible for most of the article, and I personally favor the point of view you just outlined, also laid out by Patrick Smith in the three cited "Ask the pilot" columns. If I had any point to make by writing the article, and by including the quotes at the beginning of "Commercial aircraft", it was to set them up for looking foolish in comparison to the evidence! Perhaps in masking that motive I went too far in the other direction? How would you improve it? Melchoir 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, you get points for trying, but the subtlety went over my head. I think encyclopedia articles should be direct, but I trust we can work this out together. For starters, I'd question the scope of the article. There are two others that overlap, landing and emergency landing. Maybe this article should focus on ditching (and maybe be called that) and move the normal water landing stuff to landing. There is a lot to say just about ditching. I would move the press stories questioning these measures to a controversy section toward the end of the article.

Some of the comments in the article that bugged me include calling water landing a euphemism. I think it is the technical term, ditching being aviation slang. I also question "Commercial airliners almost never make water landings. The FAA does not require commercial pilots to train to ditch, regulating instead the distance a plane can stray from an airfield.[1] Nonetheless, airlines regularly give safety briefings including the infamous:" The "nonetheless" and "infamous" have negative implications. "Almost never" is similarly misleading as your list shows. And I question the bits about commercial pilot training. Ditching was part of the curriculum when I got a private ticket and commercial pilots are presumably responsible for that knowledge as well. There is a section on ditching in the FAA's Aeronautical Information manual [1]. I'd also add material on close calls that could have resulted in an at sea ditching. See Category:Fuel exhaustion on commercial airliners and Air Transat Flight 236 in particular, a very close call. There may be more, I haven't checked all the articles in the category. --agr 23:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the minor wording issues I'm certainly not going to argue with; by all means correct them yourself!

As for the FAA issue, are you saying we should discount the Slate citation as simply ignorant? I'd be fine with that in principle, but I'm unfamiliar with the context of the procedures you linked to, and it would be nice to have more solid evidence to the contrary.

And... let me see if I understand your scope proposal. We could split Ditching into a separate article, move the remainder into Landing#In water, and include summaries of Ditching at both Landing#In water and Emergency landing. (Speaking of which, Landing should have a summary of Emergency landing, too.) I did set up most of the incoming links to accomodate such shuffling. But where would Water landing redirect? Melchoir 00:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty much what i had in mind, with some good additions. I'd either redirect Water landing to Ditching or make it a disambig page (for emergency water landing see Ditching, for planned water landings, see Landing). I'd also ignore the Slate reference. It's somewhat misleading. My understanding is that pilots are expected to know the basics of ditching (land as slow as you can parallel to the swells). Pilots do train in emergency landings and ditching is not that different. Here is a link to a ditching course that Ariane offers: http://www.ariane-info.com/aia012e.htm We could even include one of the illustrations in the AIM. By the way, most of the links to this article are via Ditching. --agr 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)