From: T@ld.you   
      
   "Scott M. Kozel"  wrote in   
   news:gl0boc$hf1$1@news.motzarella.org:   
      
   > Bertie the Bunyip  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "Scott M. Kozel"  wrote in   
   >>   
   >>> I didn't know that either ... is it an urban legend?  After all,   
   >>> most ditchings result in (at the minimum) cracks in the fuselage,   
   >>> which would let in a lot more water than open valves.   
   >>>   
   >>> Besides, "waterline" is a nautical term, not an aviation term   
   >>> (unless talking about a flying boat, i.e. an aircraft that has a   
   >>> hull designed to land on water).  That would exclude the A-320.   
   >>   
   >> Actually, wrong on both counts. There is a term waterline" used in   
   >> aircraft ( as well as keel!) but it actually has nothing to do with   
   >> the way the thing sits in the water. That is considered, however, for   
   >> th epsecific purpose of figuring how the thing is going to sit during   
   >> a ditching.   
   >>   
   >> And all Busses have ditching swtiches. Closes all the various holes   
   >> in the belly to slow th eingresss of water. Theyre not the first or   
   >> only manufacturer to do so either. With Boeings an some others,   
   >> similar consideration is given but not to the same degree. In any   
   >> case, as has been seen, they float anyhow.   
   >   
   > I stand corrected, then.  It did indeed float, even though heavily   
   > loaded, as it had just taken off with a full load of pax.  It also   
   > showed that it is possible to successfully ditch a jet airliner,   
   > something that had only rarely been tried.   
   >   
   >   
      
   I can't think of a single one done anywhere near as succesfully. They   
   were very lucky in a number of ways. It'll be interesting to read the   
   whole account when it' sout   
      
      
      
   Bertie   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)