it looked to me that the right wing broke off on touchdown and the asymmetrical lift then rolled the plane over on its back.
This is going to be more about the high descent rate and no apparent flare than much else. Might be more complicated than it appears. Was the ILS shaded by another aircraft? Did visibility degrade depth perception, such as happens in skiing? Did a wind gust suddenly subside, subtracting 30-40kts from the airspeed?
1 reply
The video I saw on CTV this morning showed a pronounced drop of the nose in last couple of seconds before touchdown. Hate to speculate, but if I had to I would suspect stall due to wind shear. Kudos to Pearson emergency crews that got the fire under control quickly. Of course,wings being broken clear of fuselage also hslped.
2 replies
In the video I saw that was apparently taken from a car dash camera, it looked like a rather flat hard landing. Have to wait for more analysis as to why.
A lot of questions will need to be answered. For me, I would like to know why the fire chief, in his press briefing, tried to deflect all blame away from the airport stating that the runway was “dry”, and that there was “no crosswind“.
It is good to see so many sticking to facts and refraining from unwarranted speculation. 
The landing video on X shows the plane roll right just before touchdown. It landed on its right gear which collapsed, then the right wing hit and was at least partially torn off, fuel from the wing ignited, it skidded like that for a little and then flipped over.
From the video there doesn’t appear to be any flare for the landing. The aircraft just descended flat onto the runway at a high descent rate. Your theory about wind shear seems pretty plausible.
A good intelligent discussion of what is discernible from the video. I did not see a flare but the nose may have dropped. another person stated could eb wind shear. If blowing 40 knots that could very well be quite real esp as a 40 degree crosswind is nothing to be taken lightly. While 27 Kts is CRJ 700 900 max crosswind…some people forget that it is the crosswind component that is the limitation . (ie a little trig is required). Godspeed to recovery for those injured .
1 reply
From the video I saw a very high sink rate, the nose was very aggressively lowered just as the mains were touching. The right main gear filed on touchdown, almost simultaneously the right wing was failing upward at the fuselage and spilling fuel which caused a large fireball which didn’t last long because the wing and the fire were left behind.
This was a terrible landing, likely far in excess of the design limits for the main landing gear.
Ironically the nose gear which slammed into the runway, appears to be intact after the airplane comes to rest upside down.
Not a stall. The pilot flying very aggressively lowered the nose a few feet above the runway. A severe gust would be countered by holding the pitch angle and simultaneously applying maximum power
1 reply
The DC9 will survive a no flare landing from a stable 600 ft minute descent. As the airplane enters ground effect the descent reduces to 300 ft/min with no flare.
I had the misfortune of flying with new Captains who were supposed to make all the landings for their first 100 hours. Seven short legs, the first landing was terrible and they went steadily downhill for the rest of the day. I desperately wanted to tell them to sit on their hands and I will teach you how to land the airplane. I kept my mouth shut and hoped for the best. I was afraid of losing my job even though I was long past probation. I went from a Beech 18 to right seat on the DC9 and never made a marginal landing in 8000 hours.
I suspect that the gusty crosswind had blown snow onto the runway, and the pilot was not able to determine the height above the it, and didn’t flare and slammed the aircraft hard onto the runway. ??
An old pilot saying, any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.
Plus, though critical for some, all survived. This is to give thanks.
If you step very carefully through the car video you see a firm decent, you see the mains hitting. The nose dropped from drag after “something” dragged on the runway (I would figure the wing) and given the speed of the transition from “flight” to crash, the pilots did not have any real input in those moments.
Was it a too steep descent and break the gear?
Was it a gust that just F’ed up a controlled landing in a situation that could have dictated a go around, but too late?
Was it … well something?
At the moment, best thing is to let the experts put the story together. I am just glad no one died because that…that was a miracle it did not turn into something worse.
1 reply
No fatalities but they do not release the name of the pilot?
It’s reminiscent of the 2023 Navy P8A hard landing in Hawaii where we still don’t know who was flying the aircraft! Not sure why…
Joe Hopwood is correct that the RT wing broke off in the footage taken from within a vehicle showing the pancake landing from the right side and eventually from behind. The X footage I referred to was probably from a security camera and was quite fogged and taken from the left side and showed the left wing flattening in smoke.
But here’s a question -and maybe it’s an artifact from the vehicle’s windscreen or my fevered imagination:
On the latter footage at 13 or 14 seconds there looks like a sequence of black puffs from behind the horizontal stabiliser and a second set just before touchdown. Any idea what that is about?
From what I’ve seen, the PF was had been with the airline for over a year. The PM was the airline’s check pilot.
No idea on hours.
Why is the name of the pilot important to those who have no need to know? Conspiracy? Or…could it be a female name??? Why do we care about a Navy pilots I.D.??? I just don’t get it.
1 reply
As usual, conflicting claims of what was seen - no flare versus lowered nose versus …
Does take some time, several seconds on JT8D series but much less on engines with digital control (‘FADEC’).
When it’s only important to not release information, people become rightly curious.
1 reply
AJF:
Reread and edit - not making sense.
Thankyou for information.
Looks like the beginning of a flare is visible, but the plane just kept descending at high FPM and ploughed into the runway.
The information from cockpit recorders and captured automated WX data will help us understand what was going on here.
. . . the 2023 Navy P8A hard landing
The landing was soft enough, it just wasn’t on the runway.
[It overshot into the Kaneohe Bay. No casualties.]
A great landing lets you use the airplane again.
I’m grateful no one died.
Once again, I am asking if anyone can explain the 2 sets of grey/black puffs that follow the descent path of the CRJ at about 60 feet vertical just before the pancake landing. If you view the Youtube footage or from Avherald (Ground observer video) at precisely 14 seconds you can see the first set of 5 smudges behind the horizontal stab. Anyone?
Whoaa.
What is the expected pitch attitude at touchdown of that airplane?
How much flare is needed?
The original B737 with flaps 40 at VREF was level, very little flare needed - just to check descent then push nose down very close to the ground was the optimum technique Pacific Western Airliners demonstrated. I was involved in the testing.
In this case crew might add some speed to account for gusts if they were reported/forecast, there used to be a maxim of adding half of wind and all of gust (or the other way around, I forget).
Going out on a limb, it is conceivable one MLG broke when it hit first due to some roll. IOW pre-existing crack.
The main landing gear is mounted on the wing. It retracts partially into the wing and partially into the fuselage.
The CRJ hit so hard that the force on the right main caused the wing to fail.
I can think of at least three examples of jet airliners running out of fuel and landing with no power. One was a Boeing 737 near New Orleans that landed on a levee. No significant damage and the airplane was flown out. Air Canada 767 landed on an airport that was being used for a car race. Nos gear was not extended which helped stop the airplane. Another Canadian airplane, I think an Airbus, landed out of fuel in the Canary Islands. No damage.