Toronto CRJ inverted on landing

[Yetti]

There is another event with a CRJ at John Wayne Airport and a gear issue.    There is also a corrosion issue with the CRJ.    Flare would have been nice.    We have all had the wind drop out from beneath us on a gusty day.   In a prop plane you can throttle up and catch it sometimes.

[hais]

On 2/18/2025 at 7:10 AM, Pinecone said:

No, this is a good landing.

"A good landing is one you can walk away from.  A GREAT landing is one where you can reuse the airplane."

So it was a good one.

Then how do you call the one where you get to reuse the underwear?

[Hank]

5 hours ago, hais said:

Then how do you call the one where you get to reuse the underwear?

That's all of the great ones!

[GeeBee]

Same plane, same airline almost the same accident

https://www.yahoo.com/news/planes-wing-hits-runway-during-003535414.html

[201er]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Same plane, same airline almost the same accident

https://www.yahoo.com/news/planes-wing-hits-runway-during-003535414.html

Some are saying that's an improvement compared to last time. Maybe next time they can initiate a go-around before anything touches the ground.

[CL605]

https://avherald.com/h?article=52439b47&opt=0

[Ragsf15e]

Maybe one of the airline/jet guys can speak up because it’s been a while for me, but if you drastically reduce power in a jet during wind sheer close to the ground (due to increased IAS) there will not be time to spool the engines back up when the inevitable speed loss from the opposite side of the sheer hits.  Power in our pistons and even turboprops comes in much faster.  When the IAS drops, and the power is back, descent rate can increase quickly (thus the sink rate warning).  1100 fps is a pretty hard hit.

[CL605]

1100 fpm is very hard, but it seems likely that the side load from the 7 degree right bank, combined with a 3g impact, over stressed the MLG side brace and caused the collapse.

[201er]

1 hour ago, CL605 said:

1100 fpm is very hard, but it seems likely that the side load from the 7 degree right bank, combined with a 3g impact, over stressed the MLG side brace and caused the collapse.

What would a landing like that do to a Mooney? Probably a prop strike and collapsed gear? Doubt it would rip the wing off or flip over though.

[Hank]

For the RJ, that 1100 fpm was 3Gs. Hars to believe that a 1-wheel landing at 3g made the gear collapse,  or that collapsing one main gear would be enough force to break off a wing at the root . . .

[GeeBee]

3.6 sec before touch down they were 1100fpm. That is a required go-around.

[PT20J]

I did a quick look at Part 25 and it specifies a max vertical speed at touchdown of 10 fps (600 fpm) at max landing weight.

[cliffy]

JMO-

The right gear failed at the wing spar trunnion due to hard landing-

The right spar failed due to damage from the gear failure and contact with the ground

The rest is lucky history for those involved

Airports wouldn't normally "close" for the kind of weather shown here.  Challenging but not unheard of.

Observations of no flare probably correct. 1100 FPM is a valid data point.

We don't know at this time if the proper airspeed was calculated (ref + ?) or if it was maintained throughout the approach. We don't know if the bottom fell out right at the end , or if the controls were activated to counter that fall out, or if the throttles were pushed up at the end to gain speed.  All of this will be on the data recorder. Pilot inputs at the end will play a big part in the causal determination. 

Mechanical compromise due to corrosion in the gear mount will be looked at. 

As will pilot's history and competency.

Just my postulation- for most of the commercial aviation history we were effectively "skimming the cream" off of the pilot pool barrel. Now for a generation or two we have been digging deeper into that barrel, at times scrapping the bottom of the barrel, to fill the pipe line. The deeper you go the closer you get to the competency line. 

Even when I was flying 121 years ago you always had 1 or 2% of the pilot pool at any airline that really needed to be doing something else but flying as is evidenced by many of the historical accidents we have all read about over the last 50 years. Chief Pilots always spent 90% of their time on 10% of their pilots. Its just a fact of life.

NOT EVERYONE IS CUT OUT TO BE A PILOT- even if they can get through the training. 

The deeper you go into the pilot pool barrel the more chance you will have of pulling out a dead fish. 

I'd really like to see a chart of the number of jet rated pilots, year by year, over the last 50 years. And the same chart with numbers of ATPs. 

When the numbers were low you could pick and choose (mostly military pilot pool to draw from). Now with the high numbers needed?

ALL the training in the world can't replace experience!

(Used to be that one sat side saddle for 2-5 years then right seat for another 3-6 and then you got the left seat.  Now there are lots of 90 day wonders in comparison.

We now have many who have never hand flown a sweep wing at high altitude (due to RVSM). The sim just don't cut it for this. I used to make all my copilots on IOE hand fly at altitude to get a feel for it. One refused - he didn't make it through IOE. 

Again JMO from 60 years in the business.  Shields are up. 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

Even when I was flying 121 years ago...

You're older than I thought! 

[CL605]

The descent rate was close to double the max, which means the load was close to 4x max. I’ve been in both a 757 and a A321 where, for unknown reasons, the PF did not flare. At all. It was ugly, some O2 masks dropped on the 75, but no damage was found. That was with about 600-700 fpm. In those cases, it no doubt helped that both mains made contact at the same time 
 

Procedures are relatively easy to teach. Airmanship, not so much. 

[GeeBee]

You got to work hard to. screw up a 757 landing.

[cliffy]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

You got to work hard to. screw up a 757 landing.

Not so the 727!  Hardest landing I've ever been in was a 727 where the Capt didn't flare. We went back in the air 35 feet, dropped most of the masks and 6 ceiling panels. We missed hitting the hard landing indicators by 1/8th of an inch.

Its an interesting story from long ago.

 

4 hours ago, EricJ said:

You're older than I thought! 

Touche'      :-) 

[GeeBee]

Yeah the hardest to land after the MD-80 series. The trick to the 727 is to ease forward just before the mains touch, but if  you are low on speed dropping the nose will decrease lift rapidly and slam the mains down anyway. Never get slow in a 727.

[A64Pilot]

Report I saw said 1172 FPM, that 72 isn’t insignificant, that combined with the fact that the right gear took almost all of the load instead of half if it touched down normally is probably well in excess of ultimate load. Touch down was at 7 deg right roll, so the right took most.

The pitch attitude at touchdown was from what I read 1 deg nose up, meaning to me no flare.

We can all demean the little CRJ, and maybe one of the old gen Boeings would have shrugged it off, but I think the Pilot takes the blame on this, but the non flying Pilot shares some too in my opinion unless they were raising hell for a go-around and were ignored. They have a vote or are supposed to surely, Military they do anyway.

Pilot reduced Ng to 40 ish percent (idle) higher up than called for too so I assume he perceived he was high and or fast. I think he was over 100 ft and the Airline called for 50 I think, the approach was otherwise on speed etc. normal until right at the end from what I read.

Turbo- props normally have two idles, ground and flight, flight is higher to help reduce spool lag, but the bigger PT-6’s anyway you can slam from flight idle to full and it’s about three seconds before it comes back, but when it does you had better reduce throttle quickly or you will overtorque and over temp in a hurry, Garrets being single spool engines respond nearly instantly just like a piston does. I have no jet time, but assume they are similar to the PT-6. Smaller PT-6’s respond more quickly than the bigger ones.

[cliffy]

Here's a first breakdown of what transpired-

 

 

[Pinecone]

On 3/21/2025 at 6:25 PM, cliffy said:

Not so the 727!  Hardest landing I've ever been in was a 727 where the Capt didn't flare. We went back in the air 35 feet, dropped most of the masks and 6 ceiling panels. We missed hitting the hard landing indicators by 1/8th of an inch.

Rode through a hard one into SAT.  Delta, back when the pilot flying stood in the cockpit door and said good bye to pax.  FO was at the door, with the door shut behind him.  Me being me, asked who the Navy pilot was.  He looked sheepish and stared at his toes and say, "I have no excuse, I was Air Force."

I almost felt sorry for him, but it was hard enough, I actually look out for a gear leg sticking up though the wing.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Rode through a hard one into SAT.  Delta, back when the pilot flying stood in the cockpit door and said good bye to pax.  FO was at the door, with the door shut behind him.  Me being me, asked who the Navy pilot was.  He looked sheepish and stared at his toes and say, "I have no excuse, I was Air Force."

I almost felt sorry for him, but it was hard enough, I actually look out for a gear leg sticking up though the wing.

Next time, ask him if you landed or were shot down . . . .