Delta crash at Toronto

[Just a civilian pilot]

Interesting story/information by Airbus regarding an A330 that had a hard landing.

They hit the runway at 1,260 FPM and recorded 2.74 G.

Notice the “ sink rate “ warning they had, even below 50 feet.

Curious if that CRJ got a sink rate warning.

The A330 was damaged, but the gear didn’t collapse and the wings didn’t break off.

https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/hard-landing-a-case-study-for-crews-and-maintenance-personnel/

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I just read the accident report regarding the CRJ that had a hard landing in 2005.

It bounced 10 feet into the air, came down at twice the certification limits ( which is 10 per second but it came down at 20 feet per second ). Spoilers deployed after the bounce and it came down like an elevator with no cable.

20 feet per second is 1,200 FPM.

The gear collapsed but the wings stayed on.

Investigators found a problem with the struts that contributed to the bounce.

 

[MolaKule]

I was thinking that a rear engine jet had more of it's fuslagage ahead of the wings to help balance the engines weight aft.

Well, that's not quite how the CG is determined.

In general, the main landing gears are positioned at the static (on ground) CG or slightly aft of the CG point, where the CG point is determined by the positions of various load forces (forces = massesXEarthG) along the fuselage.

The main landing gear and supports are positioned within the wing box area.

 

[Astro14]

Interesting story/information by Airbus regarding an A330 that had a hard landing.

They hit the runway at 1,260 FPM and recorded 2.74 G.

Notice the “ sink rate “ warning they had, even below 50 feet.

Curious if that CRJ got a sink rate warning.

The A330 was damaged, but the gear didn’t collapse and the wings didn’t break off.

https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/hard-landing-a-case-study-for-crews-and-maintenance-personnel/

If you have both main landing gear taking the shock, even though the load limit was exceeded, I can see that surviving.

But, put all that load on one gear?

That’s like having a 2,520 FPM landing at 5.48 G…

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

If you have both main landing gear taking the shock, even though the load limit was exceeded, I can see that surviving.

But, put all that load on one gear?

That’s like having a 2,520 FPM landing at 5.48 G…

That’s very true but I can only recall two hard landings at Toronto making news because the gear collapsed ( and wing came off ) and they have both been CRJ. This one also had both wings break off.

The CRJ in 2005 came down on both gear.

I can’t recall ever ( I will check later ) hearing about the gear collapsing on any Airbus or Boeing even after some horrendously hard landings. There are thousands of A320 flying, same with Boeing. There must have been one that also landed hard on one gear. Maybe a nose gear after porpoising, but not the main gear.

Either both had bad luck or they aren’t made as tough.

Maybe that’s an unfair comment but it just seems weird.

 

[Astro14]

That’s very true but I can only recall two hard landings at Toronto making news because the gear collapsed ( and wing came off ) and they have both been CRJ. This one also had both wings break off.

The CRJ in 2005 came down on both gear.

I can’t recall ever ( I will check later ) hearing about the gear collapsing on any Airbus or Boeing even after some horrendously hard landings. There are thousands of A320 flying, same with Boeing. There must have been one that also landed hard on one gear.

Either both had bad luck or they aren’t made as tough.

Maybe that’s an unfair comment but it just seems weird.

Alternatively, this type of aircraft is routinely subjected to much higher stresses from pilots with a much lower average experience level.

I felt a lot of truly hard landings in the back of a CRJ, or an Embraer. It’s a lot more common for an RJ to get pounded onto the runway in Norfolk than it is for a 737 or a 320 to have the same kind of hard landing.

So, maybe these airplanes are actually built just as well, but they keep getting hammered, and have a much higher structural fatigue after all those hard landings…

Which would make it a lot easier to break the wing off with yet another hard landing…

 

[Astro14]

On airliners.net theres lots of chatter that the PF was pretty green:

Chatter I am getting from another source says the FO was brand new, was flying and had had to go back to sim recently because of “difficulty landing.” (I know… I know).

In the CA seat was a Sim instructor of a type that only flies minimum hours and did not save the situation. This is a rumor, but from sources that seem credible enough to me. If true, this simply points to a bad landing that endangered pax, enabled by staffing and training policies that need to be torn up and rewritten.

Yeah, while it wouldn’t surprise me, and it is certainly a believable tale, it’s also just rumor at this point.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Alternatively, this type of aircraft is routinely subjected to much higher stresses from pilots with a much lower average experience level.

I felt a lot of truly hard landings in the back of a CRJ, or an Embraer. It’s a lot more common for an RJ to get pounded onto the runway in Norfolk than it is for a 737 or a 320 to have the same kind of hard landing.

So, maybe these airplanes are actually built just as well, but they keep getting hammered, and have a much higher structural fatigue after all those hard landings…

Which would make it a lot easier to break the wing off with yet another hard landing…

Lots of low time pilots flying Dash 8 or Q400 into Toronto, and despite some hard landings, I don’t recall any having the landing gear collapse.

There have been several very hard landings involving those planes around here.

I don’t remember any Embraer having the gear collapse either.

Maybe just coincidental but strange to me.

Air Canada had a DC hit the runway so hard ( 1972) due to the FO deploying ( versus arming ) the spoilers in the flare. It hit so hard that it lost one engine on the runway and bounced so high the Captain did a go around.

Wing was damaged but it stayed on and intact until it blew up coming back for another landing.

That’s an extreme example but obviously some aircraft are tougher than others.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

FO deployed the spoilers at 60 feet above the runway.

https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-douglas-dc-8-63-toronto-109-killed

 

[JimPghPA]

That’s very true but I can only recall two hard landings at Toronto making news because the gear collapsed ( and wing came off ) and they have both been CRJ. This one also had both wings break off.

The CRJ in 2005 came down on both gear.

I can’t recall ever ( I will check later ) hearing about the gear collapsing on any Airbus or Boeing even after some horrendously hard landings. There are thousands of A320 flying, same with Boeing. There must have been one that also landed hard on one gear. Maybe a nose gear after porpoising, but not the main gear.

Either both had bad luck or they aren’t made as tough.

Maybe that’s an unfair comment but it just seems weird.

I have never even seen these landing gear in person.

That said, I would bet that when engineers design main gear shock absorbing systems, they can design in a much better ability to absorb impact with tall mains like those on aircraft with the engines below the wings, compared to the much shorter mains of aircraft with high mounted engines. It just makes sense that more room for the shock absorber to move results in less impact above that shock. I know it's more complicated than that, but basicly if the main can move much more it results in a much better damping of the impact force.

 

[MolaKule]

I know it's more complicated than that, but basicly if the main can move much more it results in a much better damping of the impact force.

You might want to study this:

https://insights.globalspec.com/article/12954/how-do-oleo-pneumatic-shock-struts-work

What you are neglecting to digest is that each component of the aircraft is designed for maximum load forces and stresses; exceed those loads and stresses, and things break.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I won't go into detail, but I know who the FO is and it appears the FO was PF as the captain was heard taking the landing clearance from ATC. Can't speak to anything regarding the CA or the FO's training history, but I can confirm the FO was green. We will wait and see what the report brings out.

While the chances of screwing up a landing are less the more experience you have, especially during challenging weather conditions, even experienced pilots can screw up.

There are weak pilots who have lots of experience.

Even experienced strong pilots can screw up landings.

The fatal FedEx MD11 crash in Japan had two ex military pilots at the controls.

The FO, who was flying, was a former u.s airforce C5 pilot.

FO had over 6,000 hours.

 

[Astro14]

While the chances of screwing up a landing are less the more experience you have, especially during challenging weather conditions, even experienced pilots can screw up.

There are weak pilots who have lots of experience.

Even experienced strong pilots can screw up landings.

The fatal FedEx MD11 crash in Japan had two ex military pilots at the controls.

The FO, who was flying, was a former u.s airforce C5

FO had over 6,000 hours.

This is tangential, but I came to realize a long time ago, that experience alone doesn’t make you a better pilot.

It is the reflection on, and analysis of, that experience that makes you a better pilot.

In both my military, and airline, careers, I have seen lots of people with very “high time“ who really weren’t very good.

So, experience alone doesn’t perfectly correlate with capability/skill.

That said, low time, low experience, pilots are more easily overwhelmed by demanding circumstances.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

This is tangential, but I came to realize a long time ago, that experience alone doesn’t make you a better pilot.

It is the reflection on, and analysis of, that experience that makes you a better pilot.

In both my military, and airline, careers, I have seen lots of people with very “high time“ who really weren’t very good.

So, experience alone doesn’t perfectly correlate with capability/skill.

That said, low time, low experience, pilots are more easily overwhelmed by demanding

This is what I have noticed. Pilots hands and feet improve with experience but not for weak pilots.

I would not say the same for developing situational awareness, that comes from learning from mistakes or learning from other pilots mistakes and increased knowledge ( analysis ).

Now, when it comes to being knowledgeable , there are a lot of lazy pilots who don’t really care except knowing enough to pass an evaluation.

I just finished my sim, I am about to make some coffee and take some notes about what I learned from mistakes I made or things I learned.

 

[loneryder]

I won't go into detail, but I know who the FO is and it appears the FO was PF as the captain was heard taking the landing clearance from ATC. Can't speak to anything regarding the CA or the FO's training history, but I can confirm the FO was green. We will wait and see what the report brings out.

Could you translate. PF,FO,CA??

 

[Astro14]

This is what I have noticed. Pilots hands and feet improve with experience but not for weak pilots.

I would not say the same for developing situational awareness, that comes from learning from mistakes or learning from other pilots mistakes and increased knowledge ( analysis ).

Now, when it comes to being knowledgeable , there are a lot of lazy pilots who don’t really care except knowing enough to pass an evaluation.

I just finished my sim, I am about to make some coffee and take some notes about what I learned from mistakes I made or things I learned.

Amen, Captain.

 

[Astro14]

Could you translate. PF,FO,CA??

PF = Pilot Flying (the pilot who is actually operating the flight controls of the aircraft)

PM = Pilot Monitoring (the pilot who is assisting in the operation of the aircraft, usually by talking on the radios, running checklists, and programming the flight management computer)

CAP = Captain. The pilot in command of the flight. Sits in the left seat, sometimes “Left Seat” is referred to in discussions.

FO = First Officer. A pilot assigned to the flight, but not in command. Sits in the right seat.

The captain does not always fly the aircraft. We typically alternate legs, so that the first officers gain experience in handling the aircraft.

 

[KrisZ]

Were the names of the pilots released?

 

[CharBaby]

It’s a miracle that no one was killed.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

The name of the FO is in the media now and they would be getting sued if they were wrong so I trust it.

I care more about the experince than who the person is , or what gender.

Very low experience if it’s true.

I don’t like how the pilots name is in the news but hearing how inexperienced they are interests me.