Toronto - Delta Airlines CRJ-900 upside down, Flight 4819 from Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP) to Toronto

jordane93 said:
Generally, the flight ops manual governs the whole airline such as operating rules, deadhead, uniform appearance, ferry operations, etc. Each fleet has their own “POH” which has rules on how they operate their own aircraft. Low time FOs restrictions would probably be in the flight ops manual as it’s not fleet specific. Those are company restrictions.
Click to expand...
My understanding is the CA was a check airman. If so low time rules for the FO do not apply.
 
Jeff767 said:
My understanding is the CA was a check airman. If so low time rules for the FO do not apply.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it was originally reported that he was just a sim instructor, not necessarily a CKA. I'm sure we'll find out more soon.
 
Jeff767 said:
My understanding is the CA was a check airman. If so low time rules for the FO do not apply.
Click to expand...
It was said on APC the FO was a Feb. 2024 hire. May not have been low time.

The issue date for her ATP could have be a paperwork thing. Her CFI was re-issued the same day so it's peculiar. They don't normally re-issue certificates for change of address, but I think they can if you want. Or she lost them.
 
dmspilot said:
The issue date for her ATP could have be a paperwork thing. Her CFI was re-issued the same day so it's peculiar. They don't normally re-issue certificates for change of address, but I think they can if you want. Or she lost them.
Click to expand...

That's actually really interesting. There have been times that my CFI and ATP issue dates are the same, and it's when I change my address and pay the four bucks for new certificates. Like you said, perhaps she's not as green as everyone is assuming.
 
Princesspilot206 said:
I was simply making a statement that "My first thought was that cockpit (FO videoing) was not sterile." Is that a bizarre thing to think? General aviation is one thing, but that flight at the hold short line video taping was either Part 91, 135, or 121.
Click to expand...
I had the exact same thought …

but I’m a dork. My phone is off and stowed for the entire flight.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Def shows right wing low, but res too low to see details of strike.

I would suppose there are HD security cameras at the airport with footage that hasn't been leaked yet.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the right main gear even landed on the runway, and not off. That might have been enough to get it to fail. I suppose it is possible the LG failed on itself, but don't thing that likely.
 
At the risk of continued derailment, The entire PED in the non-mishap aircraft discussion is irrelevant. In no way, shape, form, fashion, or other is it causal or contributing to the mishap.

As for company policies and such in the 121 space, there’s enough US airlines that tolerate their employees snapping a pic and posting it to social media that spewing forth on the sanctity of the FARs or FOM is disingenuous.
 
TCABM said:
At the risk of continued derailment, The entire PED in the non-mishap aircraft discussion is irrelevant. In no way, shape, form, fashion, or other is it causal or contributing to the mishap.

As for company policies and such in the 121 space, there’s enough US airlines that tolerate their employees snapping a pic and posting it to social media that spewing forth on the sanctity of the FARs or FOM is disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Right or wrong the video is the best we have so far and 1000 times better than the first one regulations aside. It's a big plus that it was taken.
 
TCABM said:
At the risk of continued derailment, The entire PED in the non-mishap aircraft discussion is irrelevant. In no way, shape, form, fashion, or other is it causal or contributing to the mishap.
Click to expand...

of course it was not related to the mishap. The way I read the original comment about it was the poster was wondering about the procedures in the airplane where the pilot was sitting taking the video. More of an aside.
 
DavidWhite said:
It appears it is I who shall eat the crow.
Click to expand...
I've heard it goes well with grains of salt that may have been skipped previously. ;)

news.delta.com

Delta News Hub | Delta News Hub

The latest Delta Air Lines news covering business, health and safety, leadership, routes and waivers, Delta people, our values and more.
news.delta.com news.delta.com


Screenshot 2025-02-20 at 11.58.19 PM.png
 
Ok, so, if they were qualified, and we don’t find out about unexpected windshear or something, we’re supposed to feel better about the whole thing?
 
When reading corporatespeak, you have to look at what they didn't say. Delta didn't say the CA was rejected by DAL, just that he wasn't rejected due to training failures. Delta didn't say that the FO needed extra or remedial training, just that she didn't have training failures.
 
What exactly is “remedial” in a train to proficiency situation?

This was inevitable.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Ok, so, if they were qualified, and we don’t find out about unexpected windshear or something, we’re supposed to feel better about the whole thing?
Click to expand...
I've read and re-read the press release and I can't find anywhere it stated that we should feel better. Only that it was "correcting disinformation on social media".

Or did you think the final report comes from the airline in less than a week?
 
Tools said:
What exactly is “remedial” in a train to proficiency situation?

This was inevitable.
Click to expand...
I used to live in an area where the public electrical utility made numerous media statements that, in order to minimize costs, all equipment was utilized until failure.

Naturally, these expected failures occurred during rainstorms, ice / snowstorms, and / or periods of extreme temperature.

I cannot say for certain if this policy led to actual savings. While I lived there, the utility was sued and made out of court settlements for negligence in electrocution deaths and flooding caused by the failure of an earthen dam.
 
dmspilot said:
When reading corporatespeak, you have to look at what they didn't say. Delta didn't say the CA was rejected by DAL, just that he wasn't rejected due to training failures. Delta didn't say that the FO needed extra or remedial training, just that she didn't have training failures.
Click to expand...

Not sure how it is today, but back in the early days of the flow at AA, if someone struggled in training, they were told they could 'resign' and go back to their regional. That way they didn't have an actual recorded failure. Now I have absolutely no information about what happened here, but I can see something like that happening and Delta's statement still be 'correct.'
 
RyanShort1 said:
Ok, so, if they were qualified, and we don’t find out about unexpected windshear or something, we’re supposed to feel better about the whole thing?
Click to expand...

Even the best, most qualified pilots make mistakes. Its called being human. There have been a lot of rumors about the qualifications of the crew, and Delta was trying to set the record straight.
 
Is it possible she was hired before meeting 1500 hours (I believe that’s the way the UND program works) then met the 1500 and got the ATP in January 2025? This would explain the restrictions on the Airman record that is being shown on social media.
 
TrueCourse said:
Is it possible she was hired before meeting 1500 hours (I believe that’s the way the UND program works) then met the 1500 and got the ATP in January 2025? This would explain the restrictions on the Airman record that is being shown on social media.
Click to expand...

I actually went to the FAA website and verified what @dmspilot wrote earlier. Her CFI and ATP were indeed issued on the same date. Now it could have been a coincidence, but I think it's highly likely she just changed her address (or lost the certificates) and had the FAA reissue both at the same time.
 
kayoh190 said:
I actually went to the FAA website and verified what @dmspilot wrote earlier. Her CFI and ATP were indeed issued on the same date. Now it could have been a coincidence, but I think it's highly likely she just changed her address (or lost the certificates) and had the FAA reissue both at the same time.
Click to expand...
And/or decided to remove the “R-“ and SOE along with renewing the CFI in one trip to the FSDO.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Even the best, most qualified pilots make mistakes. Its called being human. There have been a lot of rumors about the qualifications of the crew, and Delta was trying to set the record straight.
Click to expand...
I know, but I was pointing out that the corporate release wasn't giving me warm fuzzies, and sounds like damage control - which they absolutely should do, but still leaves one wondering if a crew pairing mistake was made.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Ok, so, if they were qualified, and we don’t find out about unexpected windshear or something, we’re supposed to feel better about the whole thing?
Click to expand...
That will depend on what the DFDR has to say about their rate-of-descent at touchdown.

Tools said:
What exactly is “remedial” in a train to proficiency situation?
Click to expand...
Extra sims? Many AQP programs have a footprint with a number of sims during which most pilots can meet standards and there is the expectation that some will need additional sims.

TrueCourse said:
Is it possible she was hired before meeting 1500 hours (I believe that’s the way the UND program works) then met the 1500 and got the ATP in January 2025? This would explain the restrictions on the Airman record that is being shown on social media.
Click to expand...
The UND program would qualify for the rATP at 1,000 hours. However, the image of her certificate data shows that the ATP issued last month still has the restrictions. That, along with the CFI being reissued on the same date, suggests that it was a change of address that generated the Jan 25 date on them both.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I know, but I was pointing out that the corporate release wasn't giving me warm fuzzies, and sounds like damage control - which they absolutely should do, but still leaves one wondering if a crew pairing mistake was made.
Click to expand...

I get it. I also saw a lot of people immediately attacking the crews experience, qualifications, gender, etc., without much to officially go on. We don't even know who was PF/PM. All we know is what was seen in the videos of a hard landing and the wing coming off, and that the weather wasn't the greatest with high and gusty winds. I even question how hard was the hard landing? It wasn't pretty, but in my opinion on first glance at the video, I've seen harder. Maybe it was worse than it looked, maybe the aircraft had a pre-existing weakness, maybe Sasquatch was standing there and ripped the wing off. That will be up to the investigation to determine.
 
Just maybe the slip was aggressive enough that the wing hit the snow berm before the landing gear hit the runway. It sure did happen fast.

As Larry in TN said, we will find out those FACTS when the DFDR is analyzed.
 
Larry in TN said:
. The CRJ-700 (and CRJ-550) has very stiff landing gear making is difficult to get a smooth touchdown. The CRJ-900 has training-link main gear which makes a smooth touchdown easier to obtain.
Click to expand...

The 200 was the only CRJ I know of with 'soft' trailing link gear. Made is sit very low and made servicing a real PITA.

The 700/900 have straight struts with torque links... sits much higher and easier to service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top