CRJ900 accident in Toronto, Canada

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I saw one comment from a piece of shit related to this: "I want a high required level of pilot skill. This will eliminate most women and minority pilots, and I am fine with this because I live in the real world and don't have a fervent religious devotion to gay race communism."
 
This is almost as bad a the fing news outlets that as soon as it happened they had to do 24 freaking hours of "news" coverage speculating as to what was the "cause".

There is no need to speculate, wait for those trained in the art of accident investigations to come to a consensus as to what and why this happened.

I don't have any problem with any particular person at the controls as long as they are the most knowledgeable proficient people at their jobs.

I do have a problem with, should it be found, a company putting lives at risk for some political reason, selecting someone in any other reason to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Leave it be to get the real information, if it ever fully comes out.


 
I have flown as a pax with pilots of many nations and the only one who I refused to fly with was a white man. When he arrived on a charter flight to pick me up his circuit and taxiing made it clear that he was an accident waiting to happen. The two pilots who lost their jobs because of their piloting actions in one company I worked for were both white. One thought it fun to ignore the marshallers and park where he wanted. That included pushing the marshallers backwards when they were marshalling him when he was flying C404 twins. The other landed a helicopter in long grass and did major damage to the rear of the fuselage tub but continued operating for several days with that damage before the aircraft had to return to a base for routine maintenance. A third lost his job on the morning of the second day when he refused to obey the operations manager, a VERY competent lady, because she was black.

There were lots of less than flattering stories in PNG about the early national pilots and some were undoubtedly based on facts. More than once in the 70s I saw PNGDF DC-3s make nasty landings in Lae and every time those aircraft came in the Fire trucks were out and fully crewed several minutes in advance. Several pilots I knew who knew details of the PNGDF training by the RAAF said the problem was not purely the pilots themselves but transitioning straight from Winjeels to Dakotas and at lower density altitudes. There could well be a lot of truth in that.

I flew with many when they became civil pilots after they left the PNGDF and they were all excellent. One I know sent his son to NZ to do his pilot training and paid extra to have him do a lot of training in the South Island high altitude airstrips because a large percentage of PNG operations are from airstrips at altitudes double the highest airstrip in Australia. The fathers early experience showed that hot and high training was critical.

One company I worked for hired an Aus pilot with over 10,000 hours who crashed and killed himself and his passengers on his first flight into a high altitude strip. The subsequent investigation found early on that he had never operated anywhere higher than 5,000 ft. As soon as that was discovered the company changed its policies so that they only hired people with such experience if possible and if they had to hire an Aussie they gave him a lot of hot and high training before letting him loose on his own.

The exploits of women pilots in WW2 make it obvious that they can be just as good as any male pilot.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Looks like the pilot didn't flair their aircraft before touching down. The video of the rapid approach looks more like a F-18 about to violently trap on the USS Nimitz, rather than a CRJ attempting a smooth touch down.
Click to expand...
Is it possible that the ice detector sensors failed? The heavy landing looks like it could have been caused by a small amount of ice on the airfoil
 
Given that the aircraft was designed in Canada where icing is very well known and with full knowledge of the icing conditions world wide I would say highly unlikely. Most aircraft, the pre recertification B737Max's being a notable exception, have at least dual icing sensors and a method of identifying which of the two is malfunctioning.

Contrary to what you might expect icing is a also real problem in the tropics because of the high humidity and high dew points. In the case of one turbine aircraft that crashed in PNG on a high altitude airstrip with the outside temperature in the high 20s Celcius the cause of both engines flaming out was a combination of intake icing and inadequate intake anti-icing.
 
MiTasol thank you, that makes a lot of sense.

This was particularly worrisome to me because I visit the states regularly on a CRJ900. But those planes give me the impression of a well-designed, fast aircraft. The rear engine placement seems a little suspect, but otherwise everything on those planes is good. Particularly landing. The airport they land at in the states is known for crosswinds but even hard landings don't feel that hard in the 900. It's a shame Bombardier got sold to Mitsubishi because they made some great birds.

It looks like the two sensors are resonance-based and temperature-based. It seems you are right that unless both sensors were damaged, then there's little chance that the wings could ice up without the pilots' knowing. After rewatching the video a few times, it looks like the plane's descent was too fast with the right-wing dropped a bit lower than the left.

It makes me wonder if the right wing was a little bit heavier than the left. Or it could be a less effective aileron. My knowledge on this subject is poor though.
 
To tell you the truth, that did not look like an especially screwed up landing to me. While some say they looked too fast, they were heading into a 25 kt G 33 wind with a 33 deg crosswind component. Normal practice is to come in a bit faster under those circumstances. And that did not look like all that hard an impact, either. Most jet airliner landings feel like the pilot forget to put the gear down, anyway. I suspect there was some kind of a pre-existing problem with that gear or a design deficiency. And if that is all it takes to bust up one of those Bombardiers I think I'll stay away from them. Good job on keeping the fuselage intact, though; it was almost like an escape pod. Putting all the fuel in the wings was a good idea - unless a hard landing can set it all off.
 
Regarding one wing being heavier than the other. The fuel is in both wings on all transport aircraft, both are loaded identically and the fuel normally burns off equally. Running the APU in flight (not likely to be done on a CRJ outside of a declared PAN) is one of the few items that would normally cause an imbalance. 99.9999% of the time both engines will burn almost identical fuel but they can burn assymmetrically if there is a defect. (I met a DC-8 one day that reported high fuel consumption on #2 engine - it had swallowed a swan on take off and bent some of the fan blades without affecting the balance enough to cause the vibration to exceed any limits and otherwise flew normally for the three hour flight).

Any significant fuel burn imbalanve would be very unusual, provides a cockpit alert, and the crew would automatically react by using the fuel from the heavy side until back in balance.

As a rough indication of modern turbine engine reliability - in 1995 (30 years ago) the CF6-80 had a defect rate of 1 in flight shutdown every 186,000 flying hours. Modern engines will be more reliable. Engine overhaul lives are based mainly on cycles and many engines on long haul ops have 8 or more hours per cycle. The CF6-80 in 1995 was on 4-8000 cycles if my memory is correct. Obviously an aircraft on short intercity flights can have more than one cycle per hour. Other considerations that affect the number of cycles is takeoff power and many engines have different cycle lives for different power settings. The only difference in the engine family between each power setting is how the FADEC is programmed. Mechanically the engines are identical despite the different power ratings but obviously higher powered takeoffs impose greater stresses on the engines components.
 
Last edited:
MiTasol said:
Lets see what the Canadian investigator and NTSB say first. It could turn out that, like the Korean crash, there is a lot more at play than what the videos show.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the Delta crew and company cooperate. Twenty years ago an Air France A340 crashed at Toronto and the aircrew and airline were very uncooperative, including its pilots initially refusing to be interviewed, Air France refusing to share the CVR and FDR data, refusing to accept the CTSB's findings, and ultimately suing the Toronto airport authorities.
 
That's unneighborly.
 

From my experience that is normal for the French.

EDIT - The NTSB will automatically be involved in this accident investigation because the aircraft was US registered and the NTSB has always cooperated with all other nations. At present there is absolutely no reason to expect that to change. I would be expecting the CTSB and NTSB to be jointly releasing the CVR transcript very soon and releasing the preliminary DFDR analysis soon after.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Ground accident at Melbourne airport - Australia
Replies
15
Views
1K
SaparotRob
Message in a bottle from WWI soldier in 1916 found on Esperance beach
Replies
4
Views
582
SaparotRob
F-16 crash in Poland
Replies
9
Views
880
GTX
UPS Cargo Plane Crashes in Kentucky - Not Good
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
MiTasol
Helicopter near miss in Aus
Replies
5
Views
573
Gnomey
Menu
Log in
Register