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

Is the wreckage situated on pavement? I can imagine flipping if it went off runway and the main gear snagged on something while it was still moving at high speed, but that seems unlikely if it ended up on pavement.
 
With that wind what runway did they land on? Looks like every possibility was going to be a good crosswind vector.
 
Princesspilot206 said:
What is up with all these accidents? Can we fly safely? WTH.
Click to expand...
I don't know that we've had more accidents than normal, but we've certainly seen a lot more news coverage of them than normal.

Keep in mind that "Normal" means about 1/10th of a fatal accident per year these days, plus several nonfatal incidents and countless emergencies.
AvNavCom said:
Of course, no idea of the factors involved in the particular accident (may very well be mechanical or just plain bad luck), but I suspect someone out there is sharpening a pencil to create a thesis that looks at the accident rate and how well it correlates with the gold-rush to get would-be airline pilots through puppy-mill training as fast as humanly possible. I recall some folks voicing concerns that people were getting into regionals and major airlines with relatively low experience and whether this might impact safety. Possibly we'll find out there hasn't been a safety issue stemming from that experience gap. But boy this run of accidents recently has the hair standing up on the back of my neck.
Click to expand...
I have the solution! Let's make the minimum be 2500 hours. Surely another thousand hours in the right seat of a 152 going around the traffic pattern will make it all better. :rolleyes:

It'll be interesting to see what the experience level of the pilots is, but I bet neither one is less than 2500 hours.
tobnpr said:
35 knots appears to be right at the crosswind limit for that jet...on a bare/dry runway.
Click to expand...
The METAR indicates that the winds were 30 degrees off runway heading, so that means the crosswind components were only half of the listed wind speed. This is well within the capabilities of the airplane.
tobnpr said:
Haven't seen a video of the landing itself, hard to believe there wouldn't have been a camera to catch it.
Click to expand...
Hope so. It's definitely hard to visualize how you end up upside down and missing a wing without killing anyone.
 
Flying Keys said:
CYYZ 171900Z 27028G35KT 6SM R24L/3000VP6000FT/U BLSN BKN034 M09/M14 A2993 RMK CU6 SLP149

CYYZ 171932Z 27020G32KT 6SM R24L/2600VP6000FT/D BLSN BKN030 M08/M13 A2994 RMK CU5 ACCIDENT REPORT SLP151
Click to expand...
Todd82 said:
With that wind what runway did they land on? Looks like every possibility was going to be a good crosswind vector.
Click to expand...
Again, 28G35 at 30ish degrees to the runway means the crosswind component was 14G18. That should be well within the capabilities of the jet and any professional pilot.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Again, 28G35 at 30ish degrees to the runway means the crosswind component was 14G18. That should be well within the capabilities of the jet and any professional pilot.
Click to expand...
I cant think of any other scenario than some exceptionally strong gust getting under the wing and then things going south from there …
 
So Rwy 23, winds from 270, right crosswind component. Right wing no longer connected to plane. Over correction into the wind on touchdown, gust dissipates, right wing hits ground, wing bent back or comes off, left wing still has lift and rolls the plane inverted. Guessing of course.
 
Airplanes don’t really bounce. But, if you land TOO FAST, and are still producing enough lift, this could happen.

1. Land too fast and handle poorly
2. Spoiler malfunction of some sort, handled poorly
3. Combo of above

Don’t really see a scenario that doesn’t incorporate “handled poorly”. And if there is one, it probably incorporates a bad decision, leading to a scenario requiring massive skill.

Had to be horrifying! No doubt a “no… no! NO!!! NOOOOO!!!!!!” somewhere on that voice recorder, and some.

Tools, who has made a bad decision AND handled it poorly, so not getting judgy here.
 
tobnpr said:
35 knots appears to be right at the crosswind limit for that jet...on a bare/dry runway.
Click to expand...
The winds read to them by the tower controller when he cleared them to land were less than what was on the ATIS. The gust would have been at about 20kts of crosswind component.

Crosswind limit would depend on the brake action report for the runway. The wind, as stated, would have been fine, not even out of the ordinary, on a dry runway.
 
just to add to the fun. Grabbed it from the other cone of confusion site...

According to a witness,

Fourth hand info but a pilot witness that saw the landing attempt claims that it struck one wing, breaking that wing off, then "cartwheeled" busting the tail off before coming to rest on its back.
Today 04:19 PM
Click to expand...

See in the sim it only goes red, pause, then they put ya back for another one. MPL is gonna be a fun ride for the american flying public when they ever crack the ab initio code and fully capture the FAA on that front.
#livinduhdreem
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I have the solution! Let's make the minimum be 2500 hours. Surely another thousand hours in the right seat of a 152 going around the traffic pattern will make it all better. :rolleyes:

It'll be interesting to see what the experience level of the pilots is, but I bet neither one is less than 2500 hours.
Click to expand...
That’s probably the root problem right there. It’s all about getting the hours, not the experience, the skills, or proficiency. It’s about “how many people can log PIC on a single flight?”
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
So Rwy 23, winds from 270, right crosswind component. Right wing no longer connected to plane. Over correction into the wind on touchdown, gust dissipates, right wing hits ground, wing bent back or comes off, left wing still has lift and rolls the plane inverted. Guessing of course.
Click to expand...
Or stuffed the right wingtip into a snowbank and attemped a new CRJ pole vault WR.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I have the solution! Let's make the minimum be 2500 hours. Surely another thousand hours in the right seat of a 152 going around the traffic pattern will make it all better.
Click to expand...

Or maybe mandate 500 hours at a flying job other than being a CFI.

There are major airline captains currently flying 737s that the biggest thing they’d flown prior as PIC is a Seminole. If that doesn’t make the hair on the back of your neck stand up I don’t know what will.

Not that experience probably had anything to do with this accident. Just food for thought.

edit: I’ve flown with CFIs that are very good stick and rudder pilots, and some that aren’t. But I’ll take someone who has been flying around in a 207 in western Alaska for 500 hours or done 500 hours of night freight over someone who has only been a CFI every day of the week. There is absolutely no comparison in judgement, situational awareness, or flying ability.
 
Jim K said:
Damn. Still had a lot of energy to end up upside down. Amazing if only 8 injured.
Click to expand...
I'm still trying to figure out the physics on that one. I hope someone technical can shed some light on that. I've never in my life seen something like this before.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't know that we've had more accidents than normal, but we've certainly seen a lot more news coverage of them than normal.

Keep in mind that "Normal" means about 1/10th of a fatal accident per year these days, plus several nonfatal incidents and countless emergencies.

I have the solution! Let's make the minimum be 2500 hours. Surely another thousand hours in the right seat of a 152 going around the traffic pattern will make it all better. :rolleyes:

It'll be interesting to see what the experience level of the pilots is, but I bet neither one is less than 2500 hours.

The METAR indicates that the winds were 30 degrees off runway heading, so that means the crosswind components were only half of the listed wind speed. This is well within the capabilities of the airplane.

Hope so. It's definitely hard to visualize how you end up upside down and missing a wing without killing anyone.
Click to expand...
I've seen so many mishaps on youtube that I don't think experience matters much. I've found that both highly experienced and beginners get into accidents the same. To me there doesn't seem to be a correlation at all. If something happens, I think people just freak out -- experience or not. I know I would.
 
To be clear, I'm not implying that pilot experience was any factor in this particular mishap, especially since we really don't know any of the facts yet. I am curious to see whether there is in fact any observable safety effect that came from the mass pilot hiring we've seen over the last few years. I suspect it will be a decade or so until we know, and unfortunately I also suspect we're going to see a lot of confounding factors, such as the second- and third-order effects of DOGE cannonballing into the middle of the FAA.
 
Aceman said:
I've seen so many mishaps on youtube that I don't think experience matters much. I've found that both highly experienced and beginners get into accidents the same. To me there doesn't seem to be a correlation at all. If something happens, I think people just freak out -- experience or not. I know I would.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately experience and skill are not as tightly correlated as we would like.

As an FO I was landing in a light crosswind once. It was reported by the tower as 9 knots, but I had no noticeable crab angle on short final. Immediately after touchdown, the captain, who was a check airman and sim instructor, yelled "CROSSWIND CORRECTION" and grabbed the yoke, turning it full lock left into the wind. The airplane then felt like it was fishtailing and became harder to control during rollout.

Same guy is flying a 737 for a major carrier now.
 
AvNavCom said:
I am curious to see whether there is in fact any observable safety effect that came from the mass pilot hiring we've seen over the last few years. I suspect it will be a decade or so until we know,
Click to expand...
It may be a decade or so before any study comes out, but I can assure you that pilot proficiency has decreased over the last ten years or so in my corner of the world.
 
MauleSkinner said:
lack of understanding how to control an airplane, lack of basic understanding of navigation tools, and moving up from there into the avionics and automation.
Click to expand...

Weird that going immediately from the flight training environment into the 121 environment isn’t producing well-rounded pilots. Who could’ve thunk that?

(Sullenberger did, several years ago)
 
I cannot count the times I’ve felt a wing rising while a student just did nothing. Reach up, grab yoke or stick and set it back down. Problem solved. Or on short final for that matter.

LOTS of just plain experience matters, AND the willingness to use it. Sometimes you gotta use EVERYTHING you have.

Airlines aren’t known for rewarding that sort of ability or willingness. They preach go around if it don’t look good, but the reality is they DONT want you going around. Training ensures you NEVER go around….
 
Experience matters, yes. In this case the CA was supposedly a lifer with 20 years at the company so….

Also, an “experienced” A350 crew ripped an RJ tail off a few months ago. Could happen to anyone. Be careful out there there guys/girls. We’re under a microscope
 
jordane93 said:
Experience matters, yes. In this case the CA was supposedly a lifer with 20 years at the company so….

Also, an “experienced” A350 crew ripped an RJ tail off a few months ago. Could happen to anyone. Be careful out there there guys/girls. We’re under a microscope
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s always interesting a select few here likes to jump to a lack of experience and assumptions on it being a recently minted 1500hr CFI turned airline pilot before even knowing any details of such.

Some of the nose high ‘seniors’ of this board need to get a grip.
 
Can't prove it, but if they are using AI candidate screening it doesn't make it easier to pick out the truly capable pilots. I had "heard" that they were putting anything with an NTSB report on the bottom of the stack. That might be a good thing, or it might weed out people who have survived mechanical issues in the past and will have skills to do so in the future.

Experienced and capable don't always equate, but there is usually some correlation. 1500 hours with some actual emergencies and "learning the hard way" is probably better than 2000 hours in a perfectly "safe" controlled environment.
 
RyanB said:
Yeah, it’s always interesting a select few here likes to jump to a lack of experience and assumptions on it being a recently minted 1500hr CFI turned airline pilot before even knowing any details of such.

Some of the nose high ‘seniors’ of this board need to get a grip.
Click to expand...
I don’t see anyone placing this on a lack of experience. We’ve had some thread drift that indicates things are getting worse, but crappy pilots have been around for a LONG time.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I don’t see anyone placing this on a lack of experience. We’ve had some thread drift that indicates things are getting worse, but crappy pilots have been around for a LONG time.
Click to expand...

Since we’re all conjecturing here, if it was indeed a 20 year “lifer” captain, what are the odds he was a Check Airman giving OE to a brand new pilot?

I’d put like $10 on that maybe being the case here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top