Antonov 26 ditches in Libreville bay

The higher the speed the more water loses its cushioning effect. So an incorrectly performed water landing or landing into choppy water will severely damage a plane as in the Ethiopian saga. In Sully’s case, the water was smooth and he did a perfect landing, so the plane didn’t break up. I have a feeling our Bulgarian friends stalled the plane at some height above the water which is why they were injured. Fortunately those planes are built like brick outhouses 😀 The “hardness” of the water is noticeable in the boat at 30 knots already as it bounces on the waves.

Hi Ralph
The crew are lucky and hopefully will recover to fly again.
Is that your cruiser/yacht in the post above where you comment on the texture of the water?:cool:
You describe the water as hard, by that I presume you mean it has a high density/specific gravity. Is that purely in the bay area or out in the ocean outside the bay area as well?

I got another angle on the plane, seems that the boats tore into the tail. Yesterday’s paper had a picture of two injured crewmen but I don’t think it is respectful to publish such pictures.

No AF447 was not a landing/attempted landing

If you are referring to AF447 it would appear that that was more of a stall induced free fall and pancake into the ocean, than a ditching attempt.

Hi Sandy
No AF447 was not a landing/attempted landing. It was uncontrolled and it is sadly unlikely that the pilots had any reckoning of when they actually hit the water as it sounds as if their horizons were completely in a disoriented state; but there have been others (not certain if an attempt to land/pancake on to the water was made) e.g.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13320313 Merpati Airlines
http://www.super70s.com/super70s/tech/aviation/disasters/78-01-01(India).asp Air India
http://www.plasticpilot.net/blog/2008/11/27/airbus-a320-ditched-in-the-mediterranean-sea-abeam-perpignan/ Airbus A320

Here’s one supposedly successful a Boeing 737 http://www.askcaptainlim.com/ditching-flying-81/389-can-a-boeing-777-ditch-safely.html (scroll down to second section)

Maybe they’ll have to think of re-inventing a modern day Sunderland 😉

An ocean is something else especially in the middle of no-where

An ocean is something else especially in the middle of no-where.

I am a keen oarsman (rowing/sculling) and what a shock I had when I went from the calm of the Moselle (even with tandem barges [penache the French call them]) to the 100 km race on the Rhine.

There’s a river to match many oceans, but in reality the major problem on the Rhine is the huge waves created by the immense volume of very fast river traffic (cruisers, large yachts, ships, etc)

I am glad the bay offered the shelter it would as it meant lives were saved in the case of the AN-26 crew

A Nimrod successfully ditched in the Channel a while back.

There are hardly any waves in LBV bay. But apparently these guys landed quite hard. Sully had it good too. Smooth water. If the waves are too big, it could cause the plane to roll over or break up. From boating, even at 35 knots, the sea is as hard as concrete.

T e.g. in the dead of night in the middle of a great ocean.

If you are referring to AF447 it would appear that that was more of a stall induced free fall and pancake into the ocean, than a ditching attempt.

There’s also the aspect that the Hudson is a river in contrast to an ocean

There’s also the aspect that the Hudson is a river in contrast to an ocean.

Granted not a small river but still less forceful than an ocean.

This AN-26 has made it’s landing in the ocean quite close in to the shore where the waves possibly aren’t so devastating.

It is a different ‘ballpark’ ditching under extreme conditions, hijack, loss of power, de-pressurisation, e.g. in the dead of night in the middle of a great ocean.

…But the latter can also happen with low winged planes, for instance with the highjacked Ethiopian B767.
….

It should be noted that that particular incident is not the best example to use, as there was interference.
The pilot had made a good approach and was on track to nail the ditching perfectly, but at the last moment one of the hijackers decided to wrestle for the controls. This led to the left wing dipping and contacting the water first.

The Hudson incident shows what a wings level impact can achieve.

Guess the mail will be delayed.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110606-0

And soaked in brine 😀

There are some more pictures here

The text basically says no deaths but injuries. Note that they criticize the speed at which the emergency services arrived.

I will try get some more info today. ASN says that they were inbound from Port Gentil but others say that they had just atken off from Libreville, which correlates with eyewitness accounts of where they hit the water and where they ended up.

Both high and low wings have their own advantages when crashlanding on water. A low wing will have better stability as its main advantage due to the wings, but decelerate a lot faster due to the engines acting as anchors.

A high wing will decelerate less fast, but “slide” through the water, leading to less impact damage. But the stability is a lot less so if the approach ain’t level it can easily tumble over and you end up rolling over. But the latter can also happen with low winged planes, for instance with the highjacked Ethiopian B767.

Of course the above comparisson assumes equal factors for both approaches with regard to approach speed, angle of attack etc.

This will silence some of those A.net “experts” that always say surviving a water ditching in any plane is doubtfull, more so in a high-winged aircraft.

Guess the mail will be delayed.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110606-0

It must be a ****** ditching into water in an aircraft with a high mounted wing. What chances the passengers of a BAe 146 in the river Hudson?:confused:

Glad the crew are all okay 🙂

Thanks to the man on the spot! 🙂