Tsunami about to smash an airport... what would you do?

[Green Baron]

7 minutes ago, Cassel said:

Coastline over the water.

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu_travel_time_events.shtml

[kerbiloid]

Also depends on bottlenecks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lituya_Bay_megatsunami

[mikegarrison]

As someone who has lived nearly his whole life under a volcano, I greatly respect that we are but insects upon the face of the Earth when it comes to real power. Where I live there was an earthquake on January 26, 1700, that is only known for sure because the tsunami hit Japan so hard that it was recorded in written history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1700_Cascadia_earthquake

If that happened today, millions of people would likely be killed.

Edited September 21, 2018 by mikegarrison

[Cassel]

5 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

As someone who has lived nearly his whole life under a volcano, I greatly respect that we are but insects upon the face of the Earth when it comes to real power.

Do you really have to do this? I just saw for the first time what strength the tsunami has, and you scare me with volcanoes.

[mikegarrison]

31 minutes ago, Cassel said:

Do you really have to do this? I just saw for the first time what strength the tsunami has, and you scare me with volcanoes.

Wouldn't live anywhere else. (I tried, and I missed it so much I came back.)

One of the most dangerous volcanoes in the world based on how often it erupts, how it erupts (Plinian), and how many people live under it. Right up there with the original Plinian volcano, which is also one of the world's most dangerous:

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by mikegarrison

[lajoswinkler]

Building. Tsunamis resulting from earthquakes arrive as flood that's relentless and nonstopping, growing and growing and are higher than 10 m only in most severe cases. Normal, multistorey, reinforced concrete building would have no immediate issues with that. Best idea would be to get to the top of the airport tower.

 

Being in a flimsy metal tube that loses buoyancy as soon as it crumbles is a recipe for dying when the water comes, lifts the airplane and smashes it into something.

[MaverickSawyer]

2 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Wouldn't live anywhere else. (I tried, and I missed it so much I came back.)

One of the most dangerous volcanoes in the world based on how often it erupts, how it erupts (Plinian), and how many people live under it. Right up there with the original Plinian volcano, which is also one of the world's most dangerous:

 

Aaaay, neighbor!

[1101]

So... I just did a flood response course a few weeks back, and as a guideline our instructor said to assume that 'floodwater' is about 50% water.

The other 50% is whatever was formerly on the floor, every bit of debris, rubbish, excrement, hypodermic needle, disease, dirt, assorted chemicals, animals (alive, maybe) plus the contents of the drains.  Obviously a tsunami is faster moving than your average (British) flood but the rule would hold for the water, where the hydraulic features aren't trying to kill you.  The water can pin you under a vehicle (or a plane why not), against a fence, in a tree, inside a building if or when it gets in and that's just off the top of my head.  If you're unlucky it could pull you down a manhole, the lid of which will be elsewhere.

 

So, my vote, is in the building, as far away as possible.  

Quote

Should you look for a sturdy part of the building,  maybe tie yourself to a roof pillar? 

Nope!

Rope is almost as good at getting you drowned as the water itself.

Edited September 21, 2018 by 1101

[YNM]

And so as it happens,

 

A 7.5-magnitude earthquake hits Palu, with a tsunami following.

 

On 9/21/2018 at 7:20 PM, mikegarrison said:

As someone who has lived nearly his whole life under a volcano, I greatly respect that we are but insects upon the face of the Earth when it comes to real power.

We're very insignificant indeed. (101:4)

Edited September 28, 2018 by YNM

[MaverickSawyer]

On 9/18/2018 at 5:12 PM, MaverickSawyer said:

And for those of you thinking that an airliner is tough enough to survive a hit from something like that, forget it. I'll have to take a picture of it next week, but at my school, we have the aft port section of a Boeing 737, from aft pressure bulkhead up to the wing root trailing edge. You get a VERY good idea of just how thin the skins of an airliner are. I could probably dent it by simply hitting it with my hand, and a hammer would simply knock a hole in it. Getting hit by a floating ground support vehicle would tear it open like a soda can. God knows the ramp rats put dents and knock holes in airplanes enough when they're trying not to.

As promised, albeit slightly later than I had intended, buuuut...

For scale, the thickness of the outermost skin layer is ~1mm It's doubled up around the stringers and formers with another layer, and at high-stress points, there's some pretty stout patches to handle the loads. But for the most part, the skin of an airliner is pretty thin.

[CharmSado]

Tsunamis can be deadly as their trajectory and speed are not predictable. So, the situation around me and my instinct will determine my next point of action. Of course, the information coming would not be an instant one, if it is that massive and close, the airport management wouldn't have allowed onboarding.

[AeroGav]

On 9/28/2018 at 6:16 PM, MaverickSawyer said:

As promised, albeit slightly later than I had intended, buuuut...

For scale, the thickness of the outermost skin layer is ~1mm It's doubled up around the stringers and formers with another layer, and at high-stress points, there's some pretty stout patches to handle the loads. But for the most part, the skin of an airliner is pretty thin.

I think it's an immovable force vs irresistible object problem.

If a huge , fast wave strikes something that is able to float and move,   the maximum amount of kinetic energy the structure has to absorb is equal to the amount needed for the airplane, or car,  to match velocity with the incoming wave.    The problem with being in a car or a plane is that you might then get dashed against a cliff (or a building that is still standing,  but if we're really talking about a wall of water going 100mph there won't be any of those).

On the other hand, a building fixed to the ground has to absorb a quantity of energy several orders of magnitude greater - it must bring the wall of water to a stop across a front equal to the width of the building , or break.

To put it another way,   would you rather be in your car as it gets dropped from a crane, nose first into the ground,  impacting at 30 mph,  or in a concrete building being dropped from the same height.    The steel skin of your car is only 1mm thick (though there are some sturdy girders and frames at points) and the walls of the building are much stronger.    But , the car will obviously do better (modern crash test standards are much more severe) because the impact force is proportional to the weight of the object being dropped,  and your car has a much better strength/weight ratio,  before we even get into crumple zones and airbags.

I guess from what people have said ,   100 foot walls of water moving at 100 mph are something that only happens in hollywood disaster films with bad science.    The main danger seems to be getting caught in the open,  getting swept away inside a car,  or being in a building that collapses when the wave hits.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf  

Re: the Hudson Ditching, the Airbus entered the water in the following condition

• 125 knot airspeed
• 12.5 feet per second descent rate
• nose pitched up at 10 degrees

This tore off one engine,  tore off the fuselage skins under the last dozen row of seats causing it to submerge almost to roof level by nightfall.   However,  a building being catapulted into the Hudson at the same angle and velocity would disintegrate immediately, if we're still considering the Hollywood Tsunami scenario.

[p1t1o]

Im thinking control tower, has anybody said control tower?

Also, these aircraft can be found at many airports, their flight properties are terrible, but they are extremely robust, they could make a viable refuge:

[MaverickSawyer]

2 hours ago, AeroGav said:

I think it's an immovable force vs irresistible object problem.

If a huge , fast wave strikes something that is able to float and move,   the maximum amount of kinetic energy the structure has to absorb is equal to the amount needed for the airplane, or car,  to match velocity with the incoming wave.    The problem with being in a car or a plane is that you might then get dashed against a cliff (or a building that is still standing,  but if we're really talking about a wall of water going 100mph there won't be any of those).

On the other hand, a building fixed to the ground has to absorb a quantity of energy several orders of magnitude greater - it must bring the wall of water to a stop across a front equal to the width of the building , or break.

To put it another way,   would you rather be in your car as it gets dropped from a crane, nose first into the ground,  impacting at 30 mph,  or in a concrete building being dropped from the same height.    The steel skin of your car is only 1mm thick (though there are some sturdy girders and frames at points) and the walls of the building are much stronger.    But , the car will obviously do better (modern crash test standards are much more severe) because the impact force is proportional to the weight of the object being dropped,  and your car has a much better strength/weight ratio,  before we even get into crumple zones and airbags.

I guess from what people have said ,   100 foot walls of water moving at 100 mph are something that only happens in hollywood disaster films with bad science.    The main danger seems to be getting caught in the open,  getting swept away inside a car,  or being in a building that collapses when the wave hits.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf  

Re: the Hudson Ditching, the Airbus entered the water in the following condition

• 125 knot airspeed
• 12.5 feet per second descent rate
• nose pitched up at 10 degrees

This tore off one engine,  tore off the fuselage skins under the last dozen row of seats causing it to submerge almost to roof level by nightfall.   However,  a building being catapulted into the Hudson at the same angle and velocity would disintegrate immediately, if we're still considering the Hollywood Tsunami scenario.

The comparison between the Hudson River Ditching and a tsunami is not an accurate one. The airplane was designed with such an event in mind, and it was descending into a fairly flat and calm body of water without debris at the surface. Tsunamis, however, as you mentioned, are not massive walls of water sweeping away everything. They're a relatively sudden but sustained rise in sea level and often are loaded with debris, moving at only a few tens of miles per hour, tops. It's the debris more than anything that injures and/or kills people in a tsunami, not the water itself. Modern construction is more than adequately designed to withstand this kind of situation for a limited time. An airliner would not, as it isn't designed to be slammed by turbulent, debris-laden water, not to mention the fact that aluminum and composite construction is actually quite fragile when hit with sudden force from a direction that it's not designed to withstand a strike from. If struck head-on, an airliner would survive better (see the pictures of airliners that flew through hailstorms for an example) than if hit by an equivalent force from the side or tail. A building is made of heavier and stronger materials, as weight isn't a factor like it is on an airliner.

[kerbiloid]

Somebody chose both.
 

Spoiler

 

[AeroGav]

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Somebody chose both.
 

  Hide contents

 

No, it was sent by the insurance company as a Dehumidifier.

[razark]

Quote

Tsunami about to smash an airport... what would you do?

Make my peace with what I've done in life, hope for the best, and then die before I have the chance to do anything else.