Actually, apparently some overzealous passenger did begin to open a tail exit slightly before being stopped by a cabin crew member and re-closed. I believe that water did enter the cabin from that door while it was open. Well, considering that everyone survived, that wasn't a catastrophic mistake.

The passenger obviously made a huge mistake because the first thing to do when reaching an unopened exit is to look though the window for any hazards, like fire or being underwater.

This is purely my own thinking, but it doesn't seem to make sense for the cabin crew to advise everyone to head to the tail unless the plane was noticeably tilted nose down and was underwater. In this case, since the tail section was submerged and not the nose section, reports that the crew advised passengers to the tail doesn't seem logical to me, unless it was an early command for passengers in the tail section to head for the tail exits since those are the closest exit for that particular section.

Word I heard is that for flights over water the ramps as rafts, and any rafts, are collectively rated to nominally exceed the passenger capacity of the aircraft. In other words there is, at least theoretically, enough spots on the rafts for all the passengers and aircrew.

Nominal ratings for persons are not very generous. Something like three square feet per person. Which means that if everything goes perfectly, plane intact on a smooth sea, all the slides inflate and are accessible, and the passengers are properly dispersed between rafts that everyone could be part of our happy little navy. Failing that they have life preservers and seat cushions.

This kicker here is that the odds of an airliner making a successful water landing aren't that good even in perfect conditions. Pilots don't practice it and manufacturers don't test their planes by landing them in the water. In part because it usually destroys the airframe even if it stays in one piece. The forces are too high and there are just too many variables to predict.

Pilots are, from what I heard, given only general advice for how to do it. Pretty common sense stuff like draining off speed and planning the approach to end in a nose high, wings level attitude with the plane set up to perform as close an approximation of zero-speed stall a few feet off the water as possible.

One bit of advice offered is to try to land near boats to allow swifter rescue of the passengers. The pilot didn't come down near the ferry piers out of chance. He aimed to be close to the ferry terminals. Good thinking.

As a matter of fact I heard one of the ferry crewmen saying that they practice water recovery, including the deployment of ladders and/or nets less than a week ago. Evidently they train regularly. Makes sense in that people sometimes fall off ferries and they sometimes sink. Ferries crews rescuing each other is good, and if the odd airliner wants to get in on the act, so much the better.

Of course if there is any significant wave action, cross winds, limited visibility, a successful water landing goes from being possible to not so much. Such conditions also pretty much make deployment of slides as rafts and an organized evacuation onto them less likely. Imagine landing in a 60 mph gusting and shifting wind, 20 foot waves of 35F water and visibility of ten feet. Imagine having received a miracle and come down in one piece trying to deploy the slides and keep everyone together. Nobody expects it to go well.

It isn't really much of a problem considering that the odds are the plane cracks up after hitting a wave and all the occupants are stunned on impact and drown. Those few that don't are unconscious from hypothermia in a few minutes and a short bit after that they are dead.

If an airliner goes down in a storm over cold water the odds are your all dead. Good thing, for the most part, they don't go down. There are cases of military pilots going down in storms where they made it but, husky military aircraft, warm water, survival suits, dedicated life rafts, survival training, and a relatively low numbers of people all played a part in making it possible. Even with all that going for them most don't make it.

I watched a lot of Star Trek: The Next Generation and got used to hearing stuff like "Performing that operation will result in anti-matter containment failure." "Computer, override safety protocols, authorization Lt. Geordi La Forge, Zulu-Sierra-5-Foxtrot"... or something. Anytime there was a limit, it could be overridden. The day my automobile does not allow me to exceed the speed limit, is the day I become a felon when I disable it.

The information that I read indicated that one of the flight attendants tried to open the rear door and couldn't (water pressure?), so then she directed the passengers to the front exits, which two passengers opened. The article indicated that if the flight attendant had been successful, it would have been disastrous, as the tail was under water from the very beginning, even before they stopped completely.

Pay attention to the directions. Both of the passengers who were attempting to open the front doors were PULLING on them until another passenger yelled that they open outwards, and they need to PUSH on them.

There was also the mention that one woman had two broken legs, which I don't understand. They said the landing felt like a regular hard ground landing, then nothing, they didn't realize they were now floating on the water. How would she have broken both legs???

Sue

Looks like they found "organic material" already inside one engine and elsewhere on the aircraft. News Story

I also saw, but have since lost, a story stating the same aircraft had a compressor stall on one of the engines earlier in the week.

That story was on CNN, but I cannot find it anymore. There was an interview on daytime CNN.

This is related, but a little off to the left of topic...

At the end of the video that is connected to the linked story, there is a picture of a group of people that were in the crash. As the camera panned across the photo I noticed that there appeared to be a man wearing his inflatable life jacket backwards.

If the man had been in the water, would wearing the pfd in this way be dangerous?

I read somewhere that the rear doors are locked as part of the "ditch" mechanism on the Airbus.

Ya but. . . I thought the flight crew didn't engage the ditch switch. Good thing the door didn't want to open.

Here is a link to the news story about the salled compressor that occurred a few days before the jet went down.