Just a few thoughts about this.
We are either looking at:
A. A depiction of an actual event and we are looking at the photos of that event.
B. A TV-like enactment of a plane ditching using actors etc. for some propaganda purpose or news ratings boost.
C. A digital scene of a plane ditching the likes of which we are familiar with, for some propaganda purpose etc..
If it is A. there are some issues with it. As Simon has pointed out there are a hundred people 'missing' from this depiction.
They must be inside the plane. Would you risk staying in a plane which was filling up with water or would you exit the plane and take your chances outside? I would prefer to at least be outside the craft blowing on my whistle and waving my little light around than be entombed in that watery aeronautical
Euro terrine .
Like all these 'events' which get coverage on TV it is useful to look at the numbers. 155 passengers.. contains a multiple of '11'. In addition '77' people where injured. (c.f.The Chilean miners - 33 of them found on the 22nd August, 7/7 etc. ). If this depiction is fake one possible way to interpret the scene is the simple masonic imagery of emerging from the dark to the light. Here we have 55 people in the 'light' and the rest (us plebs!) in the 'dark' perhaps?
Simon has also mentioned the 'floating' issue. Once a plane fills with water it will sink. When a car hits the river it floats for a little while but will sink as water finds its way in.
An Airbus 320 has a 'ditching' switch
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flightblogger/3204171049/in case of an emergency which closes valves underneath the craft to stop the inrush of water..
However from the above page, an observer notes the following:
"
For the Airbus it closes all the external valves. Like the outflow valve (Used for regulating a/c pressure) and equipment colling inlet & outlet valves. Plus other things. In essence it seals the airplane. In a low altitude situation, these valves are normally open, allowing water to fill the lower section of an aircraft.
If you look at the pictures of the plane after it was pulled out, you could clearly see that the valves I listed are open. So in the short time (3.5 mins after they hit the birds) they had no time to finish the dual engine failure check list. And that switch is near the end."
Water in cabin = plane sinking. The quicker the inrush of water to the cabin, the quicker it will sink ,hence the logic of the ditching switch. Did water get into 1549? I am pretty sure you are supposed to evacuate a ditched aircraft from the front doors only as the plane will settle nose high in the water and you can see these doors clear the water line in the depiction. BUT the middle doors are open also! AND half submerged! Jet fuel is a little lighter than water and so will add a some small buoyancy to the craft,but there are loads of people standing on the wings! The cabin filled half up with water, and then decided to stop filling up with water and also then decided not to sink for some reason. This is the biggest problem with this whole scenario.
This is also ( as far as I am aware) the first time ever an aircraft with wing slung engines has successfully ditched into the drink.
Here is a passage from the wicked about this topic..
"
While there have been several 'successful' (survivable) water landings by narrow-body and propeller-driven airliners, few commercial jets have ever touched down 'perfectly' on water. There has been a good deal of popular controversy over the efficiency of life vests and rafts. For example, Ralph Nader's Aviation Consumer Action Project had been quoted as saying that a wide body jet would “shatter like a raw egg dropped on pavement, killing most if not all passengers on impact, even in calm seas with well-trained pilots and good landing trajectories."[3]
Also, in December 2002, The Economist had quoted an expert as claiming that "No large airliner has ever made an emergency landing on water" in an article that goes on to charge, "So the life jackets ... have little purpose other than to make passengers feel better."[4][5] This idea was repeated in The Economist in September 2006 in an article which reported that "in the history of aviation the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made successful landings on water is zero."[6]
Of note is the January 15, 2009, ditching of US Airways Flight 1549, an Airbus A320 narrow-body jet, which successfully ditched in the North River section of the Hudson River mid-river between Manhattan in New York City and Weehawken in New Jersey. All on board survived, showing that inflatable slide-rafts and life jackets can sometimes serve their purposes, although photographs from the incident show that very few passengers were wearing life jackets. After take-off from La Guardia, initial reports cite dual engine failure due to bird strikes at a low altitude. Pilot Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger was able to cross the Bronx in a slow turn to the south-west, pass over the George Washington Bridge and ditch the plane in the Hudson River. The left engine broke away on contact with the river.[7] All 155 passengers and crew survived with only one major injury and 77 minor injuries,[8][9] in part because the plane came to a halt adjacent to the passenger ferry route between NYC and New Jersey."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing
Flight 1549, like flight 175 etc.. is another first in aviation history.
Here is an example of brilliant piloting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRBuUR-N1I
A plane hitting water is another story though.
The plane is more or less intact. This is highly highly unlikely.
The engines still spooling around, once encountering water will ingest it and there is an immediate braking effect which (ok my guess here) would shear off the wings from the fuselage.
Compare-
Where is the wingtip device (winglet) gone in the lower photo at the end of the right wing?
THis is a wingtip device.
mondo bizzaro ....Options B and C at very top of post are looking good IMO.