A Water Landing? You’ve Got to Be Kidding

Back in 2006, I blogged about a bunch of nonsense that they do on commercial airline flights, including the idiocy of schooling passengers on what to do in the “unlikely event of a water landing.”

My friend Peter Thompson‘s research found that there had been more than 150 million commercial flights since 1970 without a single water landing.

How rude of Chesley Sullenberger to make Peter Thompson start counting over from zero after saving 155 lives in a water landing yesterday. Doesn’t he know how long it takes to count to 150 million?

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 62

View All Comments »
  1. Matt Heintz says:

    This guy is ridiculous… he runs a safety consulting firm and has a gliding license, talk about having the right person has a pilot

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. DB says:

    I was thinking of Levitt’s post yesterday as I watched coverage of the water landing.

    One interesting note: in the ubiquitous photos of the passengers standing on the wings (e.g. http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5527910.ece), almost none of them are wearing their life preservers! After listening to that song and dance every time you get on a plane, you finally crash in the water and still no one listens to the instructions!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Luke R says:

    That’s too funny. I remember reading this article which implied that a safe water landing was impossible and as a result, I never paid attention to the flight attendants’ instructions on what to do in a water landing.

    Thanks to Sullenberger’s heroics, I will now listen to the safety instructions.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Edward Hake says:

    Over 150,000,000 plus flights without a water landing will mean nothing to the lawyers. Only question is which shark will file the first suit.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. John Buckmaster says:

    Ditching in commercial flights is rare, but check Wikipedia to see a list of such incidents, all with high survival rates, since 1956, and some since 1970. And there have been many ditchings of small airplanes. Anyone who learns to fly understands that, in the event of an engine failure, water can often be a better choice than land. And certainly a slow nose-up flare, of the kind used in the old days when landing airplanes with rear wheels (a 3-point landing), is the way to do it. For a single engine airplane with retractable wheels and a low wing, landing on smooth water, there is every reason to believe that the outcome will be successful, with plenty of time to exit onto the wing. For other geometries there could be greater risks of nosing over, and/or exit problems.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. econobiker says:

    “without a single water landing”

    Is anyone parsing the term “landing” versus “crash”? there have been multiple water crashes since 1970- world wide.

    A crash would be a plane interacting with a body of water in such a destructive way that it didn’t matter whether the passengers had floatation devices or not.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. Nosybear says:

    Did any of the passengers use any of those inflatable life vests under the seat? If so, that would be the first known use of the vests since they were required on aircraft.

    It’s comforting to know that the odds of winning Powerball are greater than the known odds of an emergency water landing (1 in 150 million). We’ve finally found something less likely than winning the Mega Jackpot.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Calvin Cheng says:

    At least we now know what the odds are of an unlikely water landing. One in 150 million.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0