There's another video that I have seen which I wont post. I will let you guys find it on your own. I noticed the Pilot didn't flare. What does flare mean? You can google it. Landed runway 23? Wind was 270 @ 28 gusting 38. That's a good wind. 40 degrees off the right. Looks like it was slammed pretty hard onto the runway. The aircraft looked crabbed into wind but did not execute a flare. Clean runway. CRFI ( Canadian runway friction index ) appears not to be a factor.
Sounds about the same thoughts as mine. I have some time on my hands and will add my comments from the jump seat! I've not had time to be on TERB or watch the video until now. But now that I've seen it and the winds etc here is my opinion and comments..
(All the usual caveats apply; let's not judge or blame or speculate or say anything until the OFFICIAL Report is released in a year or three.)
Main point first: Looks like a retired US Navy Pilot's first time not landing an F/A 18 on an aircraft carrier!
Navy aircraft carrier pilots make fun of land based Air Force pilots by the saying
"Flare to land, squat to pee!"
If the following is TLDR...here's a summary of my take on this accident: The pilot didn't '"flare" or round out his descent to soften the landing and slammed it down too hard.
And because he was flying in a crosswind, the right (upwind) wheel hit first and took ALL the impact load. That load was beyond the engineered strength of the wing so it broke off. (The wing had fuel in it, which caught fire from the sparks of the metal wing striking the asphalt.).
The left wing was still producing lift so it lifted the left wing up and over, rolling the fuselage upside down.
Now for those so inclined to understand more, here is a better, more technical explanation of my thoughts.
Again.... with the caveat that I am not going to go pull the pilot's license, tar and feather him etc based on my musings.
It is a fact though that the aircraft did NOT flare from an otherwise normal, stabilized approach descent rate AND angle of attack. As he approached the surface of the runway you need to raise the nose of the aircraft to slow the aircraft's rate of descent for touchdown.
Normally, depending on the size of aircraft and the height of the cockpit above the ground when parked, as your main landing gear wheels are, say, about 30' above the runway (but your eyes are maybe 50' above the runway in a long aircraft in the nose up landing attitude, with the main land gear relatively far aft), you begin to pull back on the controls to a gradually more nose up attitude, reduce power more and then just let the plane settle nicely to the ground as the speed and altitude bleeds off. If you do it right you come down those last feet, foot by foot, then holding it off inch my inch..... and the tires just kiss
the runway with a nice squeak. Then you roll out on the main wheels and hold the nose and nosewheel up until it settles gently to the runway. If you really
"paint her on" as the old timers say,
"it's like a paintbrush on a board fence!"
The videos ALL clearly show the aircraft did not change its attitude nor arrest its rate of descent and just slammed onto the runway.
This is pretty much only done on purpose when you land on an aircraft carrier.
HOWEVER.... when you have strong and/or gusty crosswinds, you do want to
firmly plant the main landing gear wheels followed quickly by the nosewheel so you can have directional control on the runway from the friction of the tires on the runway so you don't get blown off the side of the runway. But, you still flare.
Another important thing to understand is that when you are flying in a crosswind, while your track across the ground may be 230 degrees (heading southwest), in this case you have to point the airplane into the wind to some degree, depending on the wind velocity and direction.
You have all seen those dramatic airliners landing in storms videos where a plane looks like it's flying sideways but it's still coming straight at the runway. That angle is called "crab" as you are "crabbing" (like a crab moves sideways) into the wind to go in the direction you want to get to. Think of paddling a canoe across a flowing river. If you want to go in a
straight line to the other side, you have to point the canoe upstream and paddle faster to overcome the flowing water mass.
In this crash, the winds were strong and gusty, coming directly out of the west at 270 degrees at 40 km/h with gusts to 60 km/h. The Runway is on a Heading of 230 degrees (Runway 23) Those angles result in the airplane being blown sideways at about 30 km/h to the north/right as well as flying into the headwind which makes it look like you re going slower than you actually are.
So to fly to and land on Runway 23 in these conditions, you fly a bit sideways to the right (into the wind) and as you get near the ground you cros controlling the ailerons into the wind to point you into the wind, and the rudder to the opposite to stop you from banking and turning the aircraft to fly to the north. When you are just about to touch down, you need to ease off the rudder to straighten you out
just before you touch down so your tires don't grab the ashpalt and send you off to the side of the runway into the rhubarb! (Another old pilot saying!
). You don't cruise along the runway to kiss 'er on or else you will drift off to the side.
Here's the thing. When this plane was crabbing to the right to stay flying straight down the runway, the wings are not level. The right (upwind) wing is lowered to keep the plane travelling aligned with the runway.
Sooooo. when this plane slammed down, the right wheel touched down first and took ALL the initial impact energy... plus, if you look closely at the videos, you.can see the snow off the side of the runway shoot up from the wingtip hitting it. The CRJ-900's wingtip (like most or all Bombardier RJ's?) is pretty low. About 6' off the ground. And it's a pretty long wing with a wingspan of 80' or so IIRC. So even a bit of bank angle can cause the tip to strike the ground. If the wing didn't fail UPWARDS as seen in the videos and many still pictures, the wingtip hitting the ground would have caused the aircraft to spin to the right or maybe cartwheel to some degree.
Time and the investigation will tell why the aircraft did not flare and whether the structural failure of the wing was because the load exceeded the design limits or if there was a previous repair that may have compromised the strength.
There may have been a mechanical failure in the elevator pitch control. Maybe the autopilot was left or stuck on, or failed somehow. Sometimes it is as simple as an iPad falling and jamming the controls. Or a screwdriver left /lost/forgotten during maintenance.
It's also possible the pilot flying was new to the low slung RJ and wasn't used to the sight picture. It owuld be a step backward but maybe he is coming from another type like a 737 or some widebody freight dog. Flaring a B747 feels crazy the first time because the pilot sits at 30' above the ground while it's parked. When you flare that big long airplane, you are something like 60' above the runway when you see the 'tilt lights' indicating the main landing gear's rear wheels have touched and the others are on their way to contact. For a general aviation pilot, it feels like you are still flying along way above the runway.
Or maybe there was wind shear and the pilot wasn't able to react and have the control inputs effect a pitch up in the attitude.
Or just a momentary brain fart.
The FDR, CVR and maintenance records will tell all.
