Trjtdtk

Where and when has Thucydides been studied?

Is the time—manner—place ordering of adverbials an oversimplification?

French equivalents of おしゃれは足元から (Every good outfit starts with the shoes)

Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll?

.bashrc alias for a command with fixed second parameter

How to make triangles with rounded sides and corners? (squircle with 3 sides)

Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?

Is this Kuo-toa homebrew race balanced?

What did Turing mean when saying that "machines cannot give rise to surprises" is due to a fallacy?

Where did Ptolemy compare the Earth to the distance of fixed stars?

What does 丫 mean? 丫是什么意思？

Does the universe have a fixed centre of mass?

Why did Bronn offer to be Tyrion Lannister's champion in trial by combat?

What are some likely causes to domain member PC losing contact to domain controller?

What is a more techy Technical Writer job title that isn't cutesy or confusing?

Why does BitLocker not use RSA?

How to resize main filesystem

Russian equivalents of おしゃれは足元から (Every good outfit starts with the shoes)

What was the last profitable war?

Derived column in a data extension

Flight departed from the gate 5 min before scheduled departure time. Refund options

How to make an animal which can only breed for a certain number of generations?

Why can't fire hurt Daenerys but it did to Jon Snow in season 1?

Did John Wesley plagiarize Matthew Henry...?

Why are the 737's rear doors unusable in a water landing?

15

$begingroup$

The 737's rear exit doors cannot be used to evacuate the aircraft in the event of a water landing, as shown, for example, in this safety card:

(Image from flight-report, via Jordy here at AvSE.)

In contrast, the rear doors on (for instance) the A320 series can be used for a water evacuation:

(Image by Czechnology here at AvSE.)

Why can't the 737's rear doors be used during a water landing?

boeing-737 evacuation ditching

share|improve this question

asked Apr 4 at 0:28

SeanSean

6,38732980

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I like the optimism of these "safety cards" showing a pristine aircraft floating nicely on the water after a ditching. Statistically unlikely but makes for a pleasant looking card.
  $endgroup$
  – Ron Beyer
  Apr 4 at 2:55
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  There was that time a guy with a lot of glider experience landed an airliner in the Hudson River a few years back, after the engines died right after he took off from the airport.
  $endgroup$
  – nick012000
  Apr 4 at 3:55
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  12
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Yeah, and they couldn't use the rear doors. Know why? They were underwater... This was an A320.
  $endgroup$
  – Harper
  Apr 4 at 4:00
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @nick012000 and they call it "The Miracle on the Hudson" for a reason.
  $endgroup$
  – Arcanist Lupus
  Apr 4 at 6:02
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Looks like Airbus tell you to check, but Boeing reckon it's not even worth checking. In the one photo I can find of a successful Airbus landing on water, you wouldn't open the rear doors anyway... home.bt.com/images/…
  $endgroup$
  – Jason
  Apr 4 at 7:13
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

15

$begingroup$

The 737's rear exit doors cannot be used to evacuate the aircraft in the event of a water landing, as shown, for example, in this safety card:

(Image from flight-report, via Jordy here at AvSE.)

In contrast, the rear doors on (for instance) the A320 series can be used for a water evacuation:

(Image by Czechnology here at AvSE.)

Why can't the 737's rear doors be used during a water landing?

boeing-737 evacuation ditching

share|improve this question

asked Apr 4 at 0:28

SeanSean

6,38732980

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I like the optimism of these "safety cards" showing a pristine aircraft floating nicely on the water after a ditching. Statistically unlikely but makes for a pleasant looking card.
  $endgroup$
  – Ron Beyer
  Apr 4 at 2:55
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  There was that time a guy with a lot of glider experience landed an airliner in the Hudson River a few years back, after the engines died right after he took off from the airport.
  $endgroup$
  – nick012000
  Apr 4 at 3:55
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  12
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Yeah, and they couldn't use the rear doors. Know why? They were underwater... This was an A320.
  $endgroup$
  – Harper
  Apr 4 at 4:00
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @nick012000 and they call it "The Miracle on the Hudson" for a reason.
  $endgroup$
  – Arcanist Lupus
  Apr 4 at 6:02
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Looks like Airbus tell you to check, but Boeing reckon it's not even worth checking. In the one photo I can find of a successful Airbus landing on water, you wouldn't open the rear doors anyway... home.bt.com/images/…
  $endgroup$
  – Jason
  Apr 4 at 7:13
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

The 737's rear exit doors cannot be used to evacuate the aircraft in the event of a water landing, as shown, for example, in this safety card:

(Image from flight-report, via Jordy here at AvSE.)

In contrast, the rear doors on (for instance) the A320 series can be used for a water evacuation:

(Image by Czechnology here at AvSE.)

Why can't the 737's rear doors be used during a water landing?

boeing-737 evacuation ditching

share|improve this question

asked Apr 4 at 0:28

SeanSean

6,38732980

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

asked Apr 4 at 0:28

SeanSean

6,38732980

share|improve this question

asked Apr 4 at 0:28

SeanSean

6,38732980

asked Apr 4 at 0:28

SeanSean

6,38732980

asked Apr 4 at 0:28

SeanSean

6,38732980

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

15

$begingroup$

The bottom of the door opening sits too close to, or below, the water line when the airplane is floating.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 4 at 0:34

John KJohn K

26k13880

$endgroup$

We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  $endgroup$
  – Jamiec♦
  Apr 5 at 12:37
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

11

$begingroup$

It all goes back to how the aircraft is designed; the ways different planes float vary.
when the 737 ditches on water the tail-section of the plane is deeper in the water than front of it, because the wings are a huge floating point and support most of the weight of the aircraft when afloat, and the bigger front of the airplane contains more air so when floating it will be lighter hence pitching the nose up, causing the tail and the rear doors to be below or very close to the water. this is why these doors remain shut in the event of evacuating after an emergency water landing so that water doesn't get in any faster, giving the plane and its passengers and the crew more time to evacuate and stay afloat longer until help arrives.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 4 at 1:56

AndroidSmoker74AndroidSmoker74

25311

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  "[T]he bigger front of the airplane contains more air so when floating it will be lighter" and, by the same argument, a big empty box weighs less than a small empty box because it contains more air! You've forgotten that the bigger container also has bigger walls, which weigh more.
  $endgroup$
  – David Richerby
  Apr 4 at 10:23
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby You're forgetting the square-cube law.
  $endgroup$
  – Katastic Voyage
  Apr 4 at 12:03
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby - Yes, bigger empty boxes weight less than smaller empty boxes when both are submerged in water.
  $endgroup$
  – Pere
  Apr 4 at 15:18
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby You are the one introducing the interpretation of "lighter" in the answer as meaning less weight rather than more buoyancy. The answer did not say the former, and clearly meant the latter. If you really want to nitpick, it is the wording, not the concept.
  $endgroup$
  – Backgammon
  Apr 4 at 17:12
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby, the tail is a pointy cone with a bunch of thin bits of metal sticking off of it. It's got a lot of metal and only a little air. The nose is a rounded object containing a whole lot of air and only a little metal. It's not surprising that the nose floats higher than the tail.
  $endgroup$
  – Mark
  Apr 4 at 22:17
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 6 more comments

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61987%2fwhy-are-the-737s-rear-doors-unusable-in-a-water-landing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

15

$begingroup$

The bottom of the door opening sits too close to, or below, the water line when the airplane is floating.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 4 at 0:34

John KJohn K

26k13880

$endgroup$

We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  $endgroup$
  – Jamiec♦
  Apr 5 at 12:37
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

15

$begingroup$

The bottom of the door opening sits too close to, or below, the water line when the airplane is floating.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 4 at 0:34

John KJohn K

26k13880

$endgroup$

We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  $endgroup$
  – Jamiec♦
  Apr 5 at 12:37
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

The bottom of the door opening sits too close to, or below, the water line when the airplane is floating.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 4 at 0:34

John KJohn K

26k13880

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 4 at 0:34

John KJohn K

26k13880

answered Apr 4 at 0:34

John KJohn K

26k13880

answered Apr 4 at 0:34

John KJohn K

26k13880

11

$begingroup$

It all goes back to how the aircraft is designed; the ways different planes float vary.
when the 737 ditches on water the tail-section of the plane is deeper in the water than front of it, because the wings are a huge floating point and support most of the weight of the aircraft when afloat, and the bigger front of the airplane contains more air so when floating it will be lighter hence pitching the nose up, causing the tail and the rear doors to be below or very close to the water. this is why these doors remain shut in the event of evacuating after an emergency water landing so that water doesn't get in any faster, giving the plane and its passengers and the crew more time to evacuate and stay afloat longer until help arrives.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 4 at 1:56

AndroidSmoker74AndroidSmoker74

25311

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  "[T]he bigger front of the airplane contains more air so when floating it will be lighter" and, by the same argument, a big empty box weighs less than a small empty box because it contains more air! You've forgotten that the bigger container also has bigger walls, which weigh more.
  $endgroup$
  – David Richerby
  Apr 4 at 10:23
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby You're forgetting the square-cube law.
  $endgroup$
  – Katastic Voyage
  Apr 4 at 12:03
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby - Yes, bigger empty boxes weight less than smaller empty boxes when both are submerged in water.
  $endgroup$
  – Pere
  Apr 4 at 15:18
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby You are the one introducing the interpretation of "lighter" in the answer as meaning less weight rather than more buoyancy. The answer did not say the former, and clearly meant the latter. If you really want to nitpick, it is the wording, not the concept.
  $endgroup$
  – Backgammon
  Apr 4 at 17:12
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby, the tail is a pointy cone with a bunch of thin bits of metal sticking off of it. It's got a lot of metal and only a little air. The nose is a rounded object containing a whole lot of air and only a little metal. It's not surprising that the nose floats higher than the tail.
  $endgroup$
  – Mark
  Apr 4 at 22:17
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 6 more comments

11

$begingroup$

It all goes back to how the aircraft is designed; the ways different planes float vary.
when the 737 ditches on water the tail-section of the plane is deeper in the water than front of it, because the wings are a huge floating point and support most of the weight of the aircraft when afloat, and the bigger front of the airplane contains more air so when floating it will be lighter hence pitching the nose up, causing the tail and the rear doors to be below or very close to the water. this is why these doors remain shut in the event of evacuating after an emergency water landing so that water doesn't get in any faster, giving the plane and its passengers and the crew more time to evacuate and stay afloat longer until help arrives.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 4 at 1:56

AndroidSmoker74AndroidSmoker74

25311

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  "[T]he bigger front of the airplane contains more air so when floating it will be lighter" and, by the same argument, a big empty box weighs less than a small empty box because it contains more air! You've forgotten that the bigger container also has bigger walls, which weigh more.
  $endgroup$
  – David Richerby
  Apr 4 at 10:23
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby You're forgetting the square-cube law.
  $endgroup$
  – Katastic Voyage
  Apr 4 at 12:03
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby - Yes, bigger empty boxes weight less than smaller empty boxes when both are submerged in water.
  $endgroup$
  – Pere
  Apr 4 at 15:18
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby You are the one introducing the interpretation of "lighter" in the answer as meaning less weight rather than more buoyancy. The answer did not say the former, and clearly meant the latter. If you really want to nitpick, it is the wording, not the concept.
  $endgroup$
  – Backgammon
  Apr 4 at 17:12
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @DavidRicherby, the tail is a pointy cone with a bunch of thin bits of metal sticking off of it. It's got a lot of metal and only a little air. The nose is a rounded object containing a whole lot of air and only a little metal. It's not surprising that the nose floats higher than the tail.
  $endgroup$
  – Mark
  Apr 4 at 22:17
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 6 more comments

$begingroup$

It all goes back to how the aircraft is designed; the ways different planes float vary.
when the 737 ditches on water the tail-section of the plane is deeper in the water than front of it, because the wings are a huge floating point and support most of the weight of the aircraft when afloat, and the bigger front of the airplane contains more air so when floating it will be lighter hence pitching the nose up, causing the tail and the rear doors to be below or very close to the water. this is why these doors remain shut in the event of evacuating after an emergency water landing so that water doesn't get in any faster, giving the plane and its passengers and the crew more time to evacuate and stay afloat longer until help arrives.

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 4 at 1:56

AndroidSmoker74AndroidSmoker74

25311

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered Apr 4 at 1:56

AndroidSmoker74AndroidSmoker74

25311

answered Apr 4 at 1:56

AndroidSmoker74AndroidSmoker74

25311

answered Apr 4 at 1:56

AndroidSmoker74AndroidSmoker74

25311