A disclaimer! The author is not a pilot, only a member of the flying public with tens of thousands of miles as a passenger and a student of physics.. The following “analysis” is derived from publicly available photographs, data and descriptions in various media reports.
Yesterday, February 17, 2025, a Delta Air Lines CRJ 900, flying from Minneapolis to Toronto crashed while attempting to land at Toronto Pearson Airport, Canada. The aircraft a short-haul aircraft (CRJ 900 Bombardier, originally produced by Canadair Inc.) is in the same “family” of jets as the CRJ 700 involved in the recent tragic mid-air collision with a US military Black Hawk helicopter on 29 January 2025 over Reagan International Airport DC. That tragedy led to the death of 67 crew and passengers on both aircraft.
A little more than two weeks after the DC mid air collision, another Delta Airline,flight-a CRJ900 with 80 crew and passengers aboard—was attempting to land at Toronto in strong winds and wind-whipped blowing snow. The runway was cleared of snow and the Toronto Pearson tower gave permission to land. Tower warned the pilot of gusty winds up to 30-40 mph which were blowing across the runway.
The pilot began descent attempting a “crabbing” maneuver, a common pilot strategy to avoid effects of string crosswinds on landing. In this maneuver the plane approaches the landing strip flying into the cross wind, then turns to fly over the centerline of the runway, while keeping the orientation of the aircraft partly directed into the crosswind (nosing the plane partly into the cross wind). The pilot continues its crabbing descent, until close to the ground where it corrects its path to steer directly down the centerline..
For some now unknown reason, the CRJ900 began its decent at its @ 3 degree glide path slope onto the runway at a speed well above the 150mph desired “landing speed”. At a critical point just before actual touch down the angle of approach to the runway was “level” or parallel to the ground, described as “a flat attitude” to the ground.
In a flat attitude the plane is not slowed and continues in its near approach flying speed. On landing in such a case the aircraft tends to skip and bounce like a “skipping rock” thrown across lake water. Just prior to touch down, the pilot should have begun to “nose up” or to “flare” the aircraft. In this landing attitude perhaps with its fuselage at a 2-5 degree angle to the ground. In this attitude the wings lose lift, and the aircraft tends to settle gently toward the ground and forward speed slows. As this occurs its rear two rear wheels should hit the ground simultaneously, equally distributing the force of landing to both wheels.
Since there was no flare, the aircraft came down in a level and high speed bounce-a hard landing. Its right (starboard) landing-gear wheel stuck the tarmac and may have collapsed as a result of the hard landing. The collapse of that wheel at high speed caused the starboard wing to strike the ground. At the high speed the aircraft was moving, contact with the ground ripped the wing off, compromising the wing fuel tanks. Fuel sprayng from the tanks was ignited by sparks generated as the aluminum wing and airframe ground against hard tarmac concrete. The detached wing fuel-tanks exploded into a huge fireball.
Fortunately, the fuselage now separated from the flaming wing, continued speeding down the runway with its 80 passengers and crew. The dangerously flaming wing, pouring black smoke and flames into the air was left behind.
As a result of frictional drag on the starboard wing caused by its contact with the ground the fuselage began to rotate approximately 90 degrees (right angles) to the runway centerline and its original landing position. Thus after the loss of one wing it was now sliding broadside down the runway at high speed.
As a result of the rush of air, friction with the ground and other factors, the port side wing and tail fins, also detached, during this broadside portion of the crash landing. This probably as a result of the wing being stressed by forces it was not designed to resist.
At this point the remaining cylindrical fuselage-a cigar-shaped remnant of the aircraft— still sliding down the runway, pushing up clouds of fallen snow, finally slowed, then rolled over, like a long giant aluminum rolling pin, as it came to a stop with its scraped and torn undersides facing the still overcast snow-filled, gray sky.
Thankfully and unbelievably, almost all the passengers were safe, still bound into their upside down seats, hanging —as one passenger described —like bats in a cave. Cross lap seatbelts held them dangling from the plane ceiling. The air was filled with fumes of jet fuel and rapid departure was essential. To escape, they had to pull the release bar on their seat belt, knowing they would free fall head first down into the “overhead” luggage compartment which had become the “floor” of the plane.
Many older passengers had difficulty and were hurt falling. A small child was grievously injured. Perhaps, rather than being strapped to a seat, the infant was held by its parent during the crash, and during the crash was thrown from their grip. Eighty passengers and crew (80) all on board, survived. Seventeen (17) were injured, 3 were hospitalized in critical condition.
If all that has been reported so far is accurate, it does appear that this was a miraculous escape from a horrible second air tragedy in only a few weeks. The primary cause of seems to suggest the concatenation of poor visibility, cross winds, blowing snow, all resulting in a hard landing.
Tragedy appears to have been averted by several circumstances. The Bombardier CRJ 900 was well designed to protect passengers. The wings with remaining fuel were engineered to detach from the fuselage. They burned in place while the fuselage, perhaps due to runway snow cover, continued to slide to safety. The fuselage remained intact, seats and seatbelts held passengers as they were designed. The air crew and ground crew were well prepared and efficient in getting the passengers to safety. The snow may have reduced visibility, but may have also reduced the possibility of fire(?)
Was it possible that blowing snow and poor visibility of the runway or a cross wind might have caused the pilot to mis-calculate the plane’s precise height-above ground at touch down- the critical moment when the landing attitude slope should have been corrected to flare the aircraft and slow it down? That seems a likely possibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment