COOL!!! My news tip just got used on CNN!!

[ddeclue]

I sent them an email pointing out that contrary to their earlier statements on the air that the fact that the plane was full of fuel was actually helping to keep the plane afloat.

They were overlooking the fact that jet fuel is lighter than water (6lb/gallon vs. 8lb/gallon for water).

The fact that the plane was full of fuel meant that water couldn't rush into an empty tank and fill it up so easily. Instead the fuel in the full tanks was providing bouyancy that was keeping the plane afloat.

Doug D.

[Massacure]

1. Cool! Did they actually say your name on air?

[ddeclue]

3. no they referred to aviation experts had informed them....

:)

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Oil and water don't mix. Congrats to you!

You are now famous.

[ddeclue]

4. no my name wasn't used...just my information...

[NYC_SKP]

5. You'll hate me for this, but how do you know five other people didn't contact them?

Or they learned in some other manner?

OTOH--If they DID read your email, that's awesome, but I think they should credit the helpful viewer.

So, either :toast: or :hide:

I'll play it safe and go with :donut:

[ddeclue]

8. I'm assuming that I'll have to share credit with five other pilots/engineers

who realized this just like I did.

[NYC_SKP]

15. I'm giving you credit for having this knowledge and using it.

Pretty masterful landing.

Others express fear with flying over water, but I'd prefer a water landing to the alternative, unless it's a very rural airport near flat cropland.

Assuming it's near rescue services, as this one was.

[ddeclue]

16. In little planes I've flown I prefer a highway or farm field to water.

could get knocked out and drown or die of hypothermia or have to fight off the sharks...

Doug D.

[NYC_SKP]

17. For sure, low mass and inertia for a small craft allow it to flip at the slightest

irregularity, including the chop of rough water. Nose-in on contact.

The longer body and greater mass, if the speed isn't too great and the attitude on contact is ideal, make a water landing a little less precarious.

I don't know where a regional jet would find clear roadways or fields for their longer required landing path near LGA.

[ddeclue]

18. Actually a water landing is never a good thing unless you are in a float plane.

Big planes stall faster than little planes fly.

This was an A320 which is actually bigger than a regional jet and no there really weren't a lot of options. He made the only choice possible. Teterboro was the next closest option and he wasn't going to make that.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. Brilliant, obvious but still brilliant. good tip

[a kennedy]

7. Kewl.....

good for you, and good for DU to have such a brain here. :fistbump:

[valerief]

9. You're certainly no fuel. Applause, applause! nt

[awoke_in_2003]

10. Putting it down...

in one piece also helped. Had the fuselage breached it would not have been so pretty.

[ddeclue]

13. Ummm YUP!! No kidding nt

[awoke_in_2003]

14. He did a fine job...

of keeping that nose up and rooster tailing the tail to drop the speed before the engines the water.

[Uroboros]

11. I heard mention on one of the newscasts

..that the plane's fuel tanks probably weren't 100% full because the of the fact it was only going to N.C.

Of course, unless I'm wrong, if what's in the tanks beside fuel is air; then that would provide buoyancy too.

[ddeclue]

12. Well actually NO.. that's the trick here..

if the tanks were empty, water would have a much easier time rushing in and filling up the tank.

They keep saying the tanks were full but if that's not true then all bets are off.