Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Featured Replies

  • Popular Post
13 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Also don’t know shit but how dramatic of an effect does wind speed have on lift, relative to the speed of the plane?  This was a crosswind, yes?  If it’s blowing at 10 or whatever the max allowed is, and suddenly drops to say 2, would that be sufficient to cause the plane to lose enough lift to cause the vertical decent that happened?

Most planes either use automation or have a manually added fudge factor to account for gusty winds. For example an Airbus automatically adds 5 knots to the minimum approach speed (which itself is 1.3x stall speed in general terms) for a given approach. Book procedure is to increase that buffer by 1/3 of the gust value over the steady wind if 1/3 exceeds 5 knots, but not to add more than 15 knots. So if the winds are 10 gusting 30, then the gust factor is 20. 1/3 is roughly 7 knots which exceeds 5 knots so we’d manually add that to the minimum speed. 

Additionally, some aircraft take the steady state wind, and add it to the  derived approach speed above in order to maintain a constant ground speed and energy level. So if the approach speed is 138 knots and the steady state wind is 10 knots then the plane will try to maintain 148 knots of airspeed to keep a ground speed of 138 knots. This is called ground speed mini (minimum) in Airbus world. 

In more pithy terms, yes, a drastic falloff could cause the plane drop. More so if it’s already near its minimum approach speed. 

It looked like they never flared or flared very late to me which is not overly uncommon in low visibility conditions or semi white outs. The visibility didn’t look too bad from the video above, but keep in mind that the pilots are looking down through more air than the observer on the ground. They’re essentially staring down the hypotenuse of a right triangle whereas the observer is looking down the base leg. This is called slant range visibility.

2 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

They’re essentially staring down the hypotenuse of a right triangle

I was told there would be no geometry. 

Most of us have been on a flight where the pilot just flew it  right down onto the runway and you hit pretty hard, usually in gusting crosswinds.  I don’t know anything about the robustness of the main landing gear on a CRJ, but they take a beating. 

As another poster noted above, the landing gear looks a little bit "stubby" as if it might not be fully extended.  But I have no idea what is "normal" for a CRJ like that.

I also don't see much of a flap angle, but the video isn't very sharp.  In crosswind conditions it may be normal to use a reduced flap setting.

 

One of the pilot forums I follow mentions something about flap issues prior to landing. Might explain why the crew on the other plane were recording the landing. 

26 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Most planes either use automation or have a manually added fudge factor to account for gusty winds. For example an Airbus automatically adds 5 knots to the minimum approach speed (which itself is 1.3x stall speed in general terms) for a given approach. Book procedure is to increase that buffer by 1/3 of the gust value over the steady wind if 1/3 exceeds 5 knots, but not to add more than 15 knots. So if the winds are 10 gusting 30, then the gust factor is 20. 1/3 is roughly 7 knots which exceeds 5 knots so we’d manually add that to the minimum speed. 

Additionally, some aircraft take the steady state wind, and add it to the  derived approach speed above in order to maintain a constant ground speed and energy level. So if the approach speed is 138 knots and the steady state wind is 10 knots then the plane will try to maintain 148 knots of airspeed to keep a ground speed of 138 knots. This is called ground speed mini (minimum) in Airbus world. 

In more pithy terms, yes, a drastic falloff could cause the plane drop. More so if it’s already near its minimum approach speed. 

It looked like they never flared or flared very late to me which is not overly uncommon in low visibility conditions or semi white outs. The visibility didn’t look too bad from the video above, but keep in mind that the pilots are looking down through more air than the observer on the ground. They’re essentially staring down the hypotenuse of a right triangle whereas the observer is looking down the base leg. This is called slant range visibility.


Just curious about how scary certain situations are: I was flying out of Newark on a DC10 in one of the storms of the century - JFK and LaGuardia were already closed. And just after takeoff and the wheels had just left the ground, the tail moved violently to the side. Supposedly they closed the airport right after us. It happened so quick, there wasn’t even time to react or worry.

 

another time when I was just a young kid, we were flying Delta from Florida to Atlanta and we hit crazy turbulence which I thought was fun because I would lose my stomach each time the plane dropped drastically. I remember the stewardess crying and a few of the overhead luggage compartments opening and stuff flying out of them. The oxygen masks never came down, though. It seems like these days, planes don’t hit that kind of turbulence much anymore where people get hurt.

I was also on a prop jet float plant that seated around 20 when the engines went out. That didn’t scare me much as I figured we could glide into a lake. It was eerie though as prop jets are loud and then everything went silent for what seemed like a very long time. My dad seemed scared shitless.

One would have to assume there was some sort of last second wind shift that affected the flare just before touchdown, because the flare just didn't seem to be there at all.  Winds were 23 mph with gusts to 33 mph as reported by ATC when landing clearance was given.  Incredibly unlucky timing on a gust starting (or stopping)?

  • Popular Post
34 minutes ago, Bevo said:


Just curious about how scary certain situations are: I was flying out of Newark on a DC10 in one of the storms of the century - JFK and LaGuardia were already closed. And just after takeoff and the wheels had just left the ground, the tail moved violently to the side. Supposedly they closed the airport right after us. It happened so quick, there wasn’t even time to react or worry.

 

another time when I was just a young kid, we were flying Delta from Florida to Atlanta and we hit crazy turbulence which I thought was fun because I would lose my stomach each time the plane dropped drastically. I remember the stewardess crying and a few of the overhead luggage compartments opening and stuff flying out of them. The oxygen masks never came down, though. It seems like these days, planes don’t hit that kind of turbulence much anymore where people get hurt.

I was also on a prop jet float plant that seated around 20 when the engines went out. That didn’t scare me much as I figured we could glide into a lake. It was eerie though as prop jets are loud and then everything went silent for what seemed like a very long time. My dad seemed scared shitless.

We have a lot of tools now to avoid the worst of the bumps generally from radars that will depict it, forecast maps, and even a feature that records the accelerometer readings of iPads on other participating aircraft in the air and displays it on a moving map with a time stamp, altitude and intensity so we can see real time what’s coming up. That supposes there’s someone ahead of you at your altitude and you’re not the weather recon plane of the day. 

Once we were working our way around a line of weather extending into the Gulf and thought we had skirted it on a late night flight when we stumbled right into something billowing up to our altitude. A couple of nasty jolts and the airspeed briefly got a lot lower than we’d like and then we were out the other side. The other pilot looked at me and said “ You know for a second there I was kinda wishing I was a realtor.”

Edited by Bobby_Batronic

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

do not say the s word on this site.

S**n*r

4 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

do not say the s word on this site.

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

43 minutes ago, Bevo said:


Just curious about how scary certain situations are: I was flying out of Newark on a DC10 in one of the storms of the century - JFK and LaGuardia were already closed. And just after takeoff and the wheels had just left the ground, the tail moved violently to the side. Supposedly they closed the airport right after us. It happened so quick, there wasn’t even time to react or worry.

 

another time when I was just a young kid, we were flying Delta from Florida to Atlanta and we hit crazy turbulence which I thought was fun because I would lose my stomach each time the plane dropped drastically. I remember the stewardess crying and a few of the overhead luggage compartments opening and stuff flying out of them. The oxygen masks never came down, though. It seems like these days, planes don’t hit that kind of turbulence much anymore where people get hurt.

I was also on a prop jet float plant that seated around 20 when the engines went out. That didn’t scare me much as I figured we could glide into a lake. It was eerie though as prop jets are loud and then everything went silent for what seemed like a very long time. My dad seemed scared shitless.

Remind me to consult with you when flying in the future....that way we don't end up on the same aircraft.  

  • Author
2 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

I suspect several someone’s from Endeavor and the FAA will want to have a word with the individual recording from the flight deck. 

welp, that particular visual documentation is going to be definitive in corroborating what the boxes say

will the boxes say the crew had a gear locked indication?  if true and the gear was not locked or failed that video is key

  • Author
1 hour ago, CycleTex87 said:

Most of us have been on a flight where the pilot just flew it  right down onto the runway and you hit pretty hard, usually in gusting crosswinds.  I don’t know anything about the robustness of the main landing gear on a CRJ, but they take a beating. 

that's called a navy landing

southwest crews also specialize in hard landings

14 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

welp, that particular visual documentation is going to be definitive in corroborating what the boxes say

will the boxes say the crew had a gear locked indication?  if true and the gear was not locked or failed that video is key

It is, and they may have extenuating circumstances to have been recording, but generally a very, very big no, no.

6 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

It is, and they may have extenuating circumstances to have been recording, but generally a very, very big no, no.

What if he had his camera phone out to record himself getting a blowie from a stewardess?  I presume that is still allowed, even encouraged.

Bobby,

 

that video is so new it was posted on Page two, 15 hours ago

Just now, Brisketexan said:

What if he had his camera phone out to record himself getting a blowie from a stewardess?  I presume that is still allowed, even encouraged.

well. it IS in Canada afterall

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What if he had his camera phone out to record himself getting a blowie from a stewardess?  I presume that is still allowed, even encouraged.

Ahh, the welcome to the airlines bit?

5 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

Bobby,

 

that video is so new it was posted on Page two, 15 hours ago

well. it IS in Canada afterall

Sorry. Can’t delete.

  • Author

primer:

image.png.a1e2a79d6f2d999b12009b1a723b0111.png

 

revising my take

it wasn't a gear-not-locked situation

2 things:

pitched down 2-3 degrees, i.e. "no flare"; should be pitched up at least 10 degrees at touchdown

20-25 degree roll to the right - this happens but a single gear bogey is supposed to be able to take the "impact" until the other gear makes contact

speculation: the front gear impacted first and failed causing the starboard main gear to fail when it had to bear the weight of the entire hull

in essence, it's a controlled flight in to terrain disguised as a landing

flap settings and shear data are going to be the tell

 

 

roll no flare.jpg

35 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

primer:

image.png.a1e2a79d6f2d999b12009b1a723b0111.png

 

revising my take

it wasn't a gear-not-locked situation

2 things:

pitched down 2-3 degrees, i.e. "no flare"; should be pitched up at least 10 degrees at touchdown

20-25 degree roll to the right - this happens but a single gear bogey is supposed to be able to take the "impact" until the other gear makes contact

speculation: the front gear impacted first and failed causing the starboard main gear to fail when it had to bear the weight of the entire hull

in essence, it's a controlled flight in to terrain disguised as a landing

flap settings and shear data are going to be the tell

 

 

roll no flare.jpg

I've seen less blurry footage of Bigfoot.

1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

It is, and they may have extenuating circumstances to have been recording, but generally a very, very big no, no.

The fact they were recording seems to be a pretty strong indication that other traffic had been halted for that landing.

19 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

6ef0aac0-e6ed-4acb-bedc-4336ae28ffa0_tex

Yaw Patrol!!!!! yaw yaw yaw yaw yaw!  

 

58 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

The fact they were recording seems to be a pretty strong indication that other traffic had been halted for that landing.

 

Exactly my thoughts as well. With the quick response and info upthread about how that happens, it would appear that something was called in, or that they knew weather was getting bad and they already had a response on alert “just in case.”

I would think at this point if there was a distress call, it would have been part of the dataset by now?

1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

primer:

image.png.a1e2a79d6f2d999b12009b1a723b0111.png

 

revising my take

it wasn't a gear-not-locked situation

2 things:

pitched down 2-3 degrees, i.e. "no flare"; should be pitched up at least 10 degrees at touchdown

20-25 degree roll to the right - this happens but a single gear bogey is supposed to be able to take the "impact" until the other gear makes contact

speculation: the front gear impacted first and failed causing the starboard main gear to fail when it had to bear the weight of the entire hull

in essence, it's a controlled flight in to terrain disguised as a landing

flap settings and shear data are going to be the tell

 

 

roll no flare.jpg

Front landing gear still there...  

A Delta Air Lines regional jet sits upside-down after crashing upon landing at Toronto Pearson International Airport on Monday.

2 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

The fact they were recording seems to be a pretty strong indication that other traffic had been halted for that landing.

Perhaps. Hopefully. The inability to put the smart phone away is not a small problem in aviation these days. 

2 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

 

Exactly my thoughts as well. With the quick response and info upthread about how that happens, it would appear that something was called in, or that they knew weather was getting bad and they already had a response on alert “just in case.”

I would think at this point if there was a distress call, it would have been part of the dataset by now?

Doubt any emergency was called in.   ATC audio seems pretty normal up until the crash.

 

 

10 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Doubt any emergency was called in.   ATC audio seems pretty normal up until the crash.

 

 

Was just coming here to post that. Sounds like a pretty routine landing until it wasn’t.

21 hours ago, Bill Brasky said:

I get that this is the social media world we live in, but goddammit if you are healthy enough to take a video then you are healthy enough to help fellow passengers off the plane 

I'm not arguing with you.  At the same time, it looks like the FAs and a couple of other pax who were already outside the plane had everything under control and were providing all the assistance anyone needed.  And at that point, aren't passengers coming out of the plane just best served to get the fuck out of the way?

And in the course of getting the fuck out of the way, they ought to keep their heads on a swivel so they don't get run over by emergency vehicles as happened with the KE 777 that crashed at SFO some years ago.  I don't know that that necessarily means you ought to put your fucking phone away, . . . but yeah--probably a good idea.

 

In any event, and going to the issue at hand--wind at 270 isn't much of a crosswind when you're landing on Runway 23.  It's a bit of a crosswind, but it shouldn't account for that roll to the right.

Internet info popping up that the pilot flying was the 25 yr old low time first officer IOE with a senior Captain/instructor in the left seat monitoring. 

5 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

primer:

image.png.a1e2a79d6f2d999b12009b1a723b0111.png

 

revising my take

it wasn't a gear-not-locked situation

2 things:

pitched down 2-3 degrees, i.e. "no flare"; should be pitched up at least 10 degrees at touchdown

20-25 degree roll to the right - this happens but a single gear bogey is supposed to be able to take the "impact" until the other gear makes contact

speculation: the front gear impacted first and failed causing the starboard main gear to fail when it had to bear the weight of the entire hull

in essence, it's a controlled flight in to terrain disguised as a landing

flap settings and shear data are going to be the tell

 

 

roll no flare.jpg

The 900 may be one of those planes whose main gear are behind the center of lift meaning a technique to soften touchdown is to push the nose forward which decreases the sink rate of the mains as they are rotated away from the ground as the nose lowers. Possibly trying that here? Also, I’m sure you know this but possibly using a reduced flap setting to keep more energy on the plane and account for possible windshear leading to a higher AOA?

19 minutes ago, CycleTex87 said:
6 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

that's called a navy landing

southwest crews also specialize in hard landings

Meh… whatever works at Midway in a blizzard ought to work just as well everywhere else too. 

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

What if he had his camera phone out to record himself getting a blowie from a stewardess?  I presume that is still allowed, even encouraged.

That doesn’t happen… holding short of a runway just before taking off. 

I don’t know what kind of botched up typing I did to accidentally quote some quotes inside another quote… but whatever. 

Edited by Your Mom

51 minutes ago, CycleTex87 said:

Internet info popping up that the pilot flying was the 25 yr old low time first officer IOE with a senior Captain/instructor in the left seat monitoring. 

 

image.gif.a9090fed831b181323fd091ec67076f3.gif

 

 

  • Author
16 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

The 900 may be one of those planes whose main gear are behind the center of lift meaning a technique to soften touchdown is to push the nose forward which decreases the sink rate of the mains as they are rotated away from the ground as the nose lowers. Possibly trying that here? Also, I’m sure you know this but possibly using a reduced flap setting to keep more energy on the plane and account for possible windshear leading to a higher AOA?

no clue on any of this

On 2/18/2025 at 12:59 PM, Brisketexan said:

What if he had his camera phone out to record himself getting a blowie from a stewardess?  I presume that is still allowed, even encouraged.

MV5BOTQyMTdlMDgtN2ViMC00ODAyLTg2ZWQtNjMyNmU3ZGMyMmEwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTExNDQ2MTI@._V1_-2120983699.jpg.1510241119900f4c7556cd31ba202352.jpg

I aint gonna be flying a crj any time soon. Fuck those planes. Even if this one did a hell of a job holding together. 

Edited by Anastasis

21 hours ago, CycleTex87 said:

Internet info popping up that the pilot flying was the 25 yr old low time first officer IOE with a senior Captain/instructor in the left seat monitoring. 

well... 

 

guess we are gonna mark this down as a fail.   unless Brisket objects....

 

 

2 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

well... 

 

guess we are gonna mark this down as a fail.   unless Brisket objects....

 

 

I need to hear more about whether the pilot in the other plane recording the crash was getting a blowie from a stewardess before I issue a ruling.

Not because it's relevant....it's just because I want to know.

Experienced does not always equal safe.  The Yeti Airlines check airman who feathered the props instead of extending the flaps, and then didn't notice it for the rest of the flight, had 21000 hours with 3300 in type.  Just pure hubris (and maybe sexism, since the PIC was a woman).

Quote

Delta Air Lines is offering each passenger $30,000 after they survived their jet bursting into flames and flipping upside down as it tried to land in Toronto on Monday. 

"Delta Care Team representatives are telling customers this gesture has no strings attached and does not affect rights," the airline said in a statement to FOX Television Stations.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/delta-plane-crash-toronto-money

3 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

If you want to know how the pilot shortage is affecting the industry it's right there at 6:25 - 7:05.

Delta:  You have failed our training program and you're fired.  But you can keep carrying our passengers...  just do it on a jet someone else owns so there's an added layer separating us from the liability.  

To be fair, Delta owns that particular jet since Endeavor is wholly owned.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.