Toronto CRJ inverted on landing

[GeeBee]

19 minutes ago, Slick Nick said:

Who fed you that line of BS? There is absolutely ZERO pressure to do anything unsafe in a commercial jet airliner. Of course, as professional pilots, you want to “complete the mission” but never, ever by compromising safety to do so. Never once in my entire command experience, have I ever felt the slightest bit of pressure to do something unsafe, never mind because I might cost the airline some extra money. 

Airlines look at diversions and delays as a normal cost to doing business. They, like everyone, understand that it’s a lot cheaper to divert a flight than it is to settle lawsuits and cover a hull loss. 

40 years of flying for the majors, I've had a few times.

 

[Slick Nick]

7 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

40 years of flying for the majors, I've had a few times.

 

Times have changed. 

21 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Auto-thrust claims another victim.

 

There are no auto throttles on the CRJ. 

[A64Pilot]

9 minutes ago, Slick Nick said:

Who fed you that line of BS? There is absolutely ZERO pressure to do anything unsafe in a commercial jet airliner. Of course, as professional pilots, you want to “complete the mission” but never, ever by compromising safety to do so. Never once in my entire command experience, have I ever felt the slightest bit of pressure to do something unsafe, never mind because I might cost the airline some extra money. 

Airlines look at diversions and delays as a normal cost to doing business. They, like everyone, understand that it’s a lot cheaper to divert a flight than it is to settle lawsuits and cover a hull loss. 

While I have never been an Airline driver I have been a Professional pilot for 30+ years and over 10,000 hours.

If you believe there is ZERO pressure to push limits and therefore make decisions that do in fact reduce the level of safety your exceedingly Nieve or perhaps don’t understand that in almost every case the safest course of action is don’t go, but as most often you must go your reducing the level of safety.

That's where risk assessment comes into play, as there is always risk if you go it’s prudent to determine the level of risk going incurs and decide if the risk outweighs the reward.

So yes there IS pressure I’m sure to deliver the pax to the correct location and on time, there should be. Issue is or can be is this perceived pressure excessive?

A junior pilot wanting the perfect record so they can move up, make more money, live a better life etc. may weight the getting there stronger than they should, or the senior pilot wanting that next jump or if they believe their position is in jeopardy etc could too.

These types of considerations is to a great extend why NTSB investigation take so long, you would think that with all the data available in this accident would mean the investigation would be over in a week, but it will take months because I bet every part of the Crews life will be investigated, financial, personal as in relationships, drinking habits etc. and I guess it should be

[Slick Nick]

12 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

While I have never been an Airline driver I have been a Professional pilot for 30+ years and over 10,000 hours.

If you believe there is ZERO pressure to push limits and therefore make decisions that do in fact reduce the level of safety your exceedingly Nieve or perhaps don’t understand that in almost every case the safest course of action is don’t go, but as most often you must go your reducing the level of safety.

That's where risk assessment comes into play, as there is always risk if you go it’s prudent to determine the level of risk going incurs and decide if the risk outweighs the reward.

So yes there IS pressure I’m sure to deliver the pax to the correct location and on time, there should be. Issue is or can be is this perceived pressure excessive?

A junior pilot wanting the perfect record so they can move up, make more money, live a better life etc. may weight the getting there stronger than they should, or the senior pilot wanting that next jump or if they believe their position is in jeopardy etc could too.

These types of considerations is to a great extend why NTSB investigation take so long, you would think that with all the data available in this accident would mean the investigation would be over in a week, but it will take months because I bet every part of the Crews life will be investigated, financial, personal as in relationships, drinking habits etc. and I guess it should be

Pressure is self induced. You can’t let it get to you. If you don’t think it’s safe, don’t do it. Doesn’t matter if it’s in a Mooney or a Boeing, the same rule applies. 

There’s a huge difference between acceptable risk, and doing something dangerous. Don’t conflate the two. As professionals, we’re paid to complete the mission, safely. Being able to handle challenging conditions, is part of why experience matters, and as you gain experience and get more comfortable, your level of what is deemed acceptable will increase. 

I landed in CYYZ not long before this incident. I’d call the conditions “sporty” by Canadian standards, certainly not dangerous. At first glance, it appears as though this approach was mishandled. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:45 PM by Slick Nick

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Slick Nick said:

Times have changed. 

There are no auto throttles on the CRJ. 

Since 2017? I don't think so. The only thing that has changed is less net experience.

[jlunseth]

There is a video out now of the landing. https://www.foxnews.com/world/delta-up-side-down-plane-crash-toronto-airport-marks-north-americas-4th-major-aviation-disaster-month

Geez, it looks like the plane came in a little flat but nothing spectacularly wrong until it contacts the ground. Looks like a gear collapse or possibly a very hard landing causing the collapse, then a wing hits the dirt and shears off, and then the plane just rolls over. Does not look like gust was a factor.

[GeeBee]

In 2017, I had a 12 hour flight that was ending at an airport for which a hurricane that would be downgraded to a tropical storm was forecasted. The east-west runway was forecast to have a wind of 180/40. Crosswind limit was 40. Company guidelines said for a wet runway 29 knots. I was on a re-dispatch flight plan so at around 50W I received a re-dispatch clearance to my destination. I queried the dispatcher about the winds and he said, no problem now forecast 180/38. I said, "Not landing". He said, "Your crosswind limit is 40". I said yes but on a wet runway guidelines is 29. He told me to keep coming that 29 is "just a guidelines" and that "other airplanes were landing". I said, "We're not landing in excess of 29." We kept on coming and I said to my crew, "You know, we have to fly to KXXX but nothing says, we have to land". I arrived at KXXX the winds were 180 35G40 along with rain. I put the airplane on approach, at 500' I asked for a wind check and it was 180 at 39. I pressed the TOGA switches and went to an alternate. We could have saved a lot of time and money if the dispatcher had not refused my concerns and pressed the arrival. 

As an LCA I had a lot of access to data and for that day  I correlated the airplanes that landing on a wet runway beyond company cross wind guidelines simply using AFM limits vs those like me who bailed. There as a direct correlation to seniority. The most junior Captains were more likely to land to the airplane limits rather than the recommended guidelines. 

[N201MKTurbo]

I will never hesitate to take a flight on a CRJ. Any airplane that you can crash that bad and everybody walks away, seems like a great airplane to me.

[exM20K]

14 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I will never hesitate to take a flight on a CRJ. Any airplane that you can crash that bad and everybody walks away, seems like a great airplane to me.

It is astonishing that it didn't come apart and even more astonishing that it didn't deform enough to jam the doors.

-dan

[dkkim73]

19 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I will never hesitate to take a flight on a CRJ. Any airplane that you can crash that bad and everybody walks away, seems like a great airplane to me.

Do you work for Volvo marketing?

[bigmo]

After watching that excellent video, I have to suspect the right gear collapsed. 
Based upon the winds, the approach looked pretty appropriate from the perspective of that camera. 
If the right gear collapsed, what we know occurred seems pretty plausible/likeky.

Nonetheless, incredible design and even more amazing job by the crew to get 80 people hanging from the ceiling out in under 2 mins.

[flyboy0681]

1 hour ago, bigmo said:

After watching that excellent video, I have to suspect the right gear collapsed. 
Based upon the winds, the approach looked pretty appropriate from the perspective of that camera. 
If the right gear collapsed, what we know occurred seems pretty plausible/likeky.

Nonetheless, incredible design and even more amazing job by the crew to get 80 people hanging from the ceiling out in under 2 mins.

Let's not forget those that had the presence of mind to record the evacuation. Important stuff you know.

[Coachella Bravo]

Navy Carrier Landing SOP

 

[bigmo]

2 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

Let's not forget those that had the presence of mind to record the evacuation. Important stuff you know.

I understand a sense of sarcasm, but that video will most certainly become a training video.

[aviatoreb]

13 hours ago, bigmo said:

After watching that excellent video, I have to suspect the right gear collapsed. 
Based upon the winds, the approach looked pretty appropriate from the perspective of that camera. 
If the right gear collapsed, what we know occurred seems pretty plausible/likeky.

Nonetheless, incredible design and even more amazing job by the crew to get 80 people hanging from the ceiling out in under 2 mins.

I don't know.  A gear collapse causing the plane to roll and rip off a wing is just bizarre in my mind.  Seems if that rolling moment would start, then it would lead to a cartwheel or a ground loop of some kind which would have likely lead to a much worse outcome.  Everything about this crash sequence seems bizarre to me, but very fortunate in any case.

[FlyingDude]

As a lowly 1600hr CFI with no jet experience, I watched the videos numerous times. I noticed that the right gear was lower than the left gear: that's a sideslip to align the fuselage with the runway. All other videos I've seen on airliners and the times I was a guest in the Gulfstream Sim at flight safety, the technique was to either land sideways and then align or to kick in the rudder while in flare. So my guess is that the plane landed on the right gear first and the wing tip touched the runway.  Due to runway ice and slush, it didn't just skid but rather got stuck, so the wing fell off.  Maybe the hard landing collapsed the right gear, exacerbating the wing touching the runway. @Andy95W please correct me if I'm wrong.  

I'm glad all walked away from this unfortunate event. 

[Pinecone]

19 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

Do you work for Volvo marketing?

They are boxy but they're safe.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099316/

 

[Slick Nick]

21 hours ago, GeeBee said:

In 2017, I had a 12 hour flight that was ending at an airport for which a hurricane that would be downgraded to a tropical storm was forecasted. The east-west runway was forecast to have a wind of 180/40. Crosswind limit was 40. Company guidelines said for a wet runway 29 knots. I was on a re-dispatch flight plan so at around 50W I received a re-dispatch clearance to my destination. I queried the dispatcher about the winds and he said, no problem now forecast 180/38. I said, "Not landing". He said, "Your crosswind limit is 40". I said yes but on a wet runway guidelines is 29. He told me to keep coming that 29 is "just a guidelines" and that "other airplanes were landing". I said, "We're not landing in excess of 29." We kept on coming and I said to my crew, "You know, we have to fly to KXXX but nothing says, we have to land". I arrived at KXXX the winds were 180 35G40 along with rain. I put the airplane on approach, at 500' I asked for a wind check and it was 180 at 39. I pressed the TOGA switches and went to an alternate. We could have saved a lot of time and money if the dispatcher had not refused my concerns and pressed the arrival. 

As an LCA I had a lot of access to data and for that day  I correlated the airplanes that landing on a wet runway beyond company cross wind guidelines simply using AFM limits vs those like me who bailed. There as a direct correlation to seniority. The most junior Captains were more likely to land to the airplane limits rather than the recommended guidelines. 

I'd do exactly what you did, you're further proving my point. Whenever I'm questioning doing something close to the limits in an airplane, I always ask myself; "If this goes sideways, and I'm standing in front of a tribunal, can I justify the reason for my actions?" If not, I stick to the book.

If I follow the SOP's, and something goes awry, the company is the one at fault. They wrote the SOP's and limitations. If I do something reckless or outside established limits or procedures, I am the one at fault.

Back to the accident in question, slow-mo video of the flare shows full aft elevator deflection, without the plane reacting. Either a wind gust / downburst type of situation, or they were way too slow on approach maybe?

Edited Wednesday at 03:15 PM by Slick Nick

[GeeBee]

24 minutes ago, Slick Nick said:

I'd do exactly what you did, you're further proving my point. Whenever I'm questioning doing something close to the limits in an airplane, I always ask myself; "If this goes sideways, and I'm standing in front of a tribunal, can I justify the reason for my actions?" If not, I stick to the book.

If I follow the SOP's, and something goes awry, the company is the one at fault. They wrote the SOP's and limitations. If I do something reckless or outside established limits or procedures, I am the one at fault.

Back to the accident in question, slow-mo video of the flare shows full aft elevator deflection, without the plane reacting. Either a wind gust / downburst type of situation, or they were way too slow on approach maybe?

The point of my post is companies do pressure their pilots. The fact that you have to tell the company no, reflects that fact. It happens every day and in every way from operations, to maintenance, to scheduling. The fact is the more junior pilots are more susceptible to that pressure and commuters are typically junior pilots.

As to the accident I agree. I would certainly do a load audit as first order of business as the airplane may be heavier than believed which would have resulted in a low Vref, add in some gust or shear, mix well. Low Vref from bad W&B firms the argument for AoA.

[neilpilot]

3 hours ago, FlyingDude said:

As a lowly 1600hr CFI with no jet experience, I watched the videos numerous times. I noticed that the right gear was lower than the left gear: that's a sideslip to align the fuselage with the runway. All other videos I've seen on airliners and the times I was a guest in the Gulfstream Sim at flight safety, the technique was to either land sideways and then align or to kick in the rudder while in flare. So my guess is that the plane landed on the right gear first and the wing tip touched the runway.  Due to runway ice and slush, it didn't just skid but rather got stuck, so the wing fell off.  Maybe the hard landing collapsed the right gear, exacerbating the wing touching the runway. @Andy95W please correct me if I'm wrong.  

I'm glad all walked away from this unfortunate event. 

What makes you think that there was "runway ice and slush"?  The reports I've heard indicated that wasn't the case.

[FlyingDude]

37 minutes ago, neilpilot said:

makes you think

Sorry, I don't feel like arguing with you. Google it for yourself. Anyway, reread where I said "my guess". It was a guess. Everybody here is sharing their opinions/guesses. If you're not happy with my guess, ignore my profile, and you'll never see me again. 

Live long and prosper.

[Andy95W]

Giving credit where it’s due- the Flight Attendants did their jobs in a difficult situation and did them well.

And their jobs are exactly that, getting the passengers’ asses off an upside-down burning airplane without loss of life, not schlepping drinks or stowing customers’ bags.  And certainly not taking lip or eye-rolling from passengers when they have to be reminded to fasten their seat belts.

Edited Wednesday at 06:44 PM by Andy95W

[skykrawler]

Looks to me like a hard landing (for whatever reason) that broke the right gear and perhaps the spar.  After the right wing departed the lift of the still flying left wing rolled the airplane.   The tube was intact because they didn't hit anything other than the ground.

Watch the Asiana 777 crash at KSFO to see a miracle.   The wings stayed on and the fuselage intact.

 

[Skates97]

On 2/18/2025 at 10:58 AM, exM20K said:

It is astonishing that it didn't come apart and even more astonishing that it didn't deform enough to jam the doors.

-dan

I wonder how it would have been different if it was sliding across cement or grass and not snow.  I think the snow helped it along to slide past where the wings/fuel/fire stopped.

[CL605]

The right gear obviously collapsed and I suspect we will know why fairly soon. It certainly was a very hard landing with no discernible flair. I once watched a light twin try to flair while approaching near a stall. Full up elevator did result in some increase in pitch, but the stall resulted in an increase in an already high descent rate. It hit so hard it bent the wing and dug both props into the dirt. Shortest stopping distance I've ever seen in a light twin.

Whether the CRJ exceeded structural limits or whether there were other factors remains to be seen. Vince Neil's Lear had prior damage to the left main and that may have contributed to that gear failing on landing in Scottsdale.

Also, when the right gear of the CRJ collapsed the aircraft not only rolled but also would have pitched up a few degrees, supported by the nose gear and left main. The increased lift from the one remaining wing would have caused the subsequent rollover. Like many have expressed, great respect is due the flight attendants. That was professionalism in action.