And Thats Why I Don't Fly...

[Agent]

That kind of my point about 'landing' on the sea, if you can get to an airport or suitable bit of land the plane is going to head for that - if something catastrophic happens where the plane cannot make it back to dry land then it's not going to be a nice controlled landing on the sea it more likely you'll be hitting the sea at terminal velocity.

I wouldn't have thought it would get to terminal velocity assuming it was still under the pilots control?

[Stewart]

Has any bright spark worked out why the 777 went tits up yet?

[sleepyhead]

That kind of my point about 'landing' on the sea, if you can get to an airport or suitable bit of land the plane is going to head for that - if something catastrophic happens where the plane cannot make it back to dry land then it's not going to be a nice controlled landing on the sea it more likely you'll be hitting the sea at terminal velocity.

Of course you can't cover for all occurances, but you can cover as many eventualities as possible.

You can make any scenario you wish but you have to weigh that as a risk percentage of it occuring. Everything we do in life is a calculated risk. Air travel is no different.

My post was badly worded, I should have stated "in most cases" rather than just an ambiguous blanket statement of "anything".

As for landing on the sea...well that is down to what caused the aircraft to no longer be able to perform continuous flight and the conditions of the landing environment. It may safely belly flop on the water with minor damage or break apart.

Regarding the 777 not breaking up, that is a testiment to the fuselage design, the fact it was on landing approach and the landing environment.

[TeePee]

Has any bright spark worked out why the 777 went tits up yet?

Last I heard they were looking at cold-soaked fuel and Chinese Prist.

[manwithnoname]

Of course you can't cover for all occurances, but you can cover as many eventualities as possible.

You can make any scenario you wish but you have to weigh that as a risk percentage of it occuring. Everything we do in life is a calculated risk. Air travel is no different.

My post was badly worded, I should have stated "in most cases" rather than just an ambiguous blanket statement of "anything".

As for landing on the sea...well that is down to what caused the aircraft to no longer be able to perform continuous flight and the conditions of the landing environment. It may safely belly flop on the water with minor damage or break apart.

Regarding the 777 not breaking up, that is a testiment to the fuselage design, the fact it was on landing approach and the landing environment.

I am on about a specific scenario about 'landing' on the sea

I smile every time I listen to the safety information and the safety leaflet shows a plane on the water. This is my (deluded?) logic: a plane cruises at something like 40,000-60,000ft over the sea, something goes wrong resulting in the altitude been reduced to 0 without the plane been able to make it back to land - rather than the plane gliding to a rest and floating on the water, I thinking the plane will either be in little bits before it hits the water or will have reached terminal velocity by the time you 'land' on the water. And if you are seating next to me on a flight I will tell you this

I've got an irrational fear of needles, some people have an irrational fear of flying making logical arguments don't normal make any difference to them.

To the story I heard there were a few complains they the passengers were not informed by the pilot what was going on, an ex-pilot on BBC news this morning said he would concentrate on flying the plane rather than making announcements and assumed the pilot of this plane had done the same thing.

Anyway after watching that plane clipping the runway with it's wing, the other day, I must book a flight somewhere soon - beats a roller coaster any day.

[iranu]

I was shouting, "Go around, go around!" when I saw that clip. Looked really hairy. Love to have been a fly on the wall of the cockpit in that and the other instance.

From what I can gather the AAIB were looking into a faulty fuel valve, re the 777.

[sleepyhead]

Has any bright spark worked out why the 777 went tits up yet?

The latest I have heard in the crazy rumour mill...

Gordon Brown's ECM (or an ECM equipped vehicle of his) took out the FADEC on the two engines. BA etc have already been paid insurance money and it's all been pushed aside as a news item now.

[Lee H]

I heard it was the case that John Prescott is that large he's started to develop his own gravitional field which pulled the plane off course