Arthur_Foyt
“her flight experience exceeded the minimum”
She slammed a perfectly good airplane into a runway.
Delta is saying that meeting the minimums is safe? I disagree.
“her flight experience exceeded the minimum”
She slammed a perfectly good airplane into a runway.
Delta is saying that meeting the minimums is safe? I disagree.
Kinda like being ‘right’ and being ‘dead right,’ eh, Art.
My original flight instructor of 54 years ago (a 30K Captain Airbus pilot / check airman) had lots to say about what it means to be a Captain. We’re opining about the FO’s failure to flare but the Captain is just as guilty for not recognizing that the weather conditions that day were not conducive to allowing a newly minted restricted ATP to do the landing OR to decide to either go around or go elsewhere. The only defense of the whole situation is that it all happened SO fast that there was no time to act. That no one perished is a true act of God.
1 reply
Well, I for one think that Dispatch (and the Captain) should have cancelled or re-routed the flight - regardless of the crew pairing.
“The airline hasn’t named the pilots but they are being identified in some of the social media content”
Delta is the entity that is actively delaying flight crew information.
By holding back that information (on a non-fatality crash) that makes Delta the reason for all the online conjecture about the crew.
Delta is the cause of that conjecture, not a victim of it.
1 reply
Yeah, minimum standards… what everyone should strive for and be measured against. You can’t escape the results. It’s like sitting back and watching a slow motion explosion.
What I think of you sir I will keep to my self, but publicly you are a pretty petty person. I read your comments and almost to a one they are negative, lacking in thought and understanding and this one is the same, but hits a new low for you.
First to all, if you are here on this site then you are or have been pilots. For one moment, put yourself back into a cockpit where maybe something went wrong but maybe that time you saved it, but if you had not…would you love having the world pick you apart before ever knowing what happened, what decisions you made up to that point? We are suppose to be a brotherhood, but what I read on this site most times are axes to grind, willingness to throw a pilot under the wheels without even knowing anything but gender or time in a seat. Maybe think one moment before saying stupid crap like Artie here just did.
Artie, She did not slam an airplane into a runway. You have no F’ing clue who was flying yet you go right to your misogynistic view thinking “well of course the female did it”. What a small world for you.
None of us here know, at all, what decisions where being made, who was flying, what they were experiencing. All we know is their experience and from that one fact, we have “they were qualified” and that should define every damn pilot that sits in a seat.
Who has not had nature throw a curve at the last moment on final. Until actual evidence is shown from the FDR we will not know if the plane was hit with a gust at the worst possible moment, but as to a go no go decision, we know other planes had landed, the overall conditions (cross wind component) were not being exceeded so a qualified pilot could make a decision to land and still have it get twisted. I’m thinking about TACA 110 and unknowing flying into enough rain to shut down two engines. Artrie, try reading Fate is the Hunter and learn something about dealing with the unknown.
Sailing in strong winds, I remember a number of times when the wind, without warning changed direction, in an instant causing the boat to crash gybe so I leave open the possibility that in that last moment, the most vulnerable time when kicking out a crab, having to drop that wing, plant that upwind gear that the plane got hit by weather.
I am thankful no one died. This was an accident, the investigation will reveal facts, not speculation. Also what I believe is that those two pilots are alive, and will one day, hopefully, return to their job and I believe it is sick to demean their character and their skills publicly, realizing how this will not just hurt the two pilots, but their family and friends.
1 reply
It’s good to see that after 30 years of mainstream internet, even the PR guys still haven’t learned:
That being said, all of the PR in the world can’t change the fact that the crew involved seems to have performed a carrier style landing with a normally operating regional jet, luckily resulting in no fatalities but still injuring innocent people.
JHull, this is a serious business we are in.
Most of my comments are negative because most of these stories (like above) try to put a happy party hat on some very bad decision making. Having airlines and pilots say “well nobody died” makes aviation look bad.
Information about the flight crew does not throw them under a bus. The flying public deserves to know. Holding it back (as we see) only breeds suspicion and mistrust.
As far as “brotherhood”, that reminds me of police unions protecting bad cops. I always hope that aviation was better than that.
1 reply
I just don’t see why the name of anyone, unless the person is charged with a crime, is needed by any of us for any reason. Pilot, controller, car driver, what ever the event, just not needed by us or the press. What exactly does it accomplish, other than maybe reveling a female was involved…which we still don’t need to know. What Delta released, assuming it is honest info and I’ll assume it is until proven otherwise, is all our curiosity or the press needs.
1 reply
And, exactly what were the “bad decisions” here. There may later become some determined. But as of now who has issued that opinion. For now how about weather, mechanical, and many other possibilities.
1 reply
When a perfectly good aircraft is turned into an upside down heap, it’s on the PIC.
Support for that comes from simply looking at the multiple videos.
I did not see good judgement on that landing.
If anything it looked like a mis-judged flare, and still having a bit of right wingtip down (instead of using the rudder) to correct for a crosswind, and thus putting ALL the landing weight on the right main that promptly folded under the overload. So yea, a perfectly good plane was wrecked. It’s not the planes fault.
The problem is that the majority of todays flight instructors don’t know how to teach and don’t know much about flying. An aviator who had survived a pretty ugly situation on a DC8 post maint test flight said regarding learning the basics without all the bells and whistles:
In that area the Piper J3 stands tall. I would take that a step further and say that those who soloed a glider at age 14 and then transitioned to the J3 are far better than those who skipped the basics.
I am a huge supporter of hiring based on knowledge and skills and physical strength and size. Not based on favoring DEI as Delta has stated in theri recent ads for pilots.
As far as the 99’s I sincerely believe that the WASP pilots were better than the women airline candidates of this era. There are exceptions to that and I have met quite a few of them and flown with some.
I have watched several different source videos. It does not look to me to be a hard landing. It also does not look like the crosswind correction with the right wing low actually contacted the runway. Sure there was little flare but transport category planes are built to take a 3 degree glide path without a flare to landing. The fact that the “expert” news media has not reported any back injuries by passengers or crew on board makes me think more of a structural failure, not pilot error. We will just have to wait until the transportation board of Canada issues their findings.
2 replies
Regarding the crash the failure of the wing is indicative of forces far in excess of the design limits.
Flying the glide slope does not help if the speed is allowed to get too low. That was a combination of sink rate, low speed and dropping the nose in an extremely aggressive manner just before the mains touched down.
Any landing that results in losing a wing and skidding to a halt upside down caught on video allowing for replay begs a boatload of questions. These would include captain and FO credentials and currency. These videos clearly shows … for whatever reasons…this airliner did not flare…resulting in stresses that exceeded the structural limits of this airplane. Audio reveals the voice of a male responding to ATC/Tower. The one handling the radio is normally the one not flying the airplane. Since there is a female and male in the cockpit, that audio, by the process of elimination, would identify the female is flying the airplane. Nothing sexist or irrational to come to this conclusion.
There are plenty of online videos showing normal airliner crosswind approaches crabbing into wind landing in a crab pirouetting on the downwind MLG at touchdown…because of engine or wing clearance issues common to virtually all airliners. Why did this approach mimic more a GA light plane crosswind approach with the upwind wing low and top rudder to maintain directional control? The rate of descent was high enough that it negated any ground effect cushion normally experienced in low wing airplanes as well. The result was the upwind wing hit the ground either first, at the same time the right main gear contacted terra firma, or a split second later. Video shows the downward bending of the right wing from the right MLG ground contact, further reducing remaining ground clearance.
FDR and CVR data will conclusively reveal who was flying. What I saw made me question … whoever was flying… which indicates by the audio it was the female FO… why he or she chose this type of crosswind approach and touchdown technique?
Once again, currency, time in type, ratings/qualification and CRM questions naturally arise. Delta seems to be slow in responding.
To grasshopper. The mind doesn’t like loose ends, so folks tend to fill in the blanks when facts are missing. That’s human nature, but it can lead to jumping the gun in accident discussions. Right now, there’s more guessing than real analysis. Until the FDR and CVR tell the whole story, everything else is just noise. Best to wait for the facts.
1 reply
The late Capt. Dave Gwinn (if memory serves me correctly), when asked, “Where’d you learn how to do that?” [land a transport category jet airliner in a crosswind using a crab kickout] - “In Cessna 150s.”
I used to like to fly it sideways down to fairly close to touchdown, then straighten it out. If there’s a stiff crosswind from the right, you’d expect the touchdown to be on the right main gear first. Just not quite that hard, lol. Looked like the bottom dropped out from them and they just slammed it down on the runway.
Nothing is “new” as far as crashing airplanes go.
When a perfectly good airplane in daylight VFR conditions and no traffic interference crashes onto an active runway; then the simplest explanation is usually the one closest to the truth. Occam’s razor.
It would be “wild speculation” and “pure guessing” to suggest anything other than pilot error at this point.
1 reply
You may be right, Arthur, pilot error could be the cause. It’s the leading theory and at first glance the simplest explanation. But simplicity doesn’t guarantee accuracy. Occam’s razor isn’t about rushing to judgment; it’s about starting with the most straightforward possibility while relying on evidence, not assumptions. The TSB’s investigation, through FDR and CVR analysis, will reveal what truly happened.
2 replies
Facts many times lead to fiction and that is a fact. Think about it for awhile. Sometimes the obvious is just that. Sometimes it’s not. That being said, I’m with Arthur on this one.
When 75-80 percent of aviation crashes are pilot error,
When no report of mechanical problems were reported,
When other similar planes were landing normally,
When multiple cameras caught a no-flare very hard landing,
WHO is the airline to tell people it’s wrong to connect the dots?
The sheer arrogance of that is galling.
People can think and say and question and judge if they want wile waiting.
Delta is digging a tall public relations hole by chastising customers.
Matt, I am not sure what you fly but I am Type Rated in 5 Part 121 large aircraft. Not ONE of them are built to take a 3 degree glide path without a flare to landing. On an ILS in a 777 your rate of descent can be at times over 800’/min. Not within the aircrafts limits. We actually have a readout after every landing that gives us touchdown parameters. If those are out of limits there is an investigation and remedial training is the norm. Crosswind controls in a commercial aircraft are required. You do use rudder and slight wing low to keep track until the mains touchdown. How you can watch that and think it’s structural failure caused by anything else than pilot error is beyond me. I feel for those pilots. If the FO was flying then there needs to be a hard look at the Captain. Captains are required to make landings under difficult conditions, which this was.
*I have 8000 hours in the DC9. A mix of short body, 30 series and MD 82. My first thought is that I have seen landings in the 9 that probably were as bad as that . All observed from the right seat or the jump seat. During my first few months in the 9 I flew with some Captains that were excellent. and taught me a lot. One memorable event was a Capt who gave a long explanation about how
wingtip clearance is not a factor in a maximum limit crosswind landing. This included a long explanation of the math involved. Airplanes with wing mounted engines are a different matter. Especially the four engine airplanes which are largely gone. One small factor that should be considered is the relationship of the main gear to the wingtips. On the 9, the CRJ and others the wingtips are aft of the main gear. The best wingtip clearance in a maximum crosswind is obtained by a relatively flat landing attitude, keeping the nose just high enough that the mains touch before the nosewheel touches the runway
I have for my entire career been a severe critic of my own performance. In addition I would watch how Captains performed. In many cases I would mentally catalog the worst performances and make a commitment to myself that I would not do those dumb, sometimes careless and reckless mistakes.
I spent far too much time with Captains who simply did not know how to land the airplane. I believe some could not be taught. The worst landing I ever made was not even close to the best landing I saw with some of those Captains. In 10 years with the airplane I have never seen a scraped wingtip or landing gear failures due to hard landings. One copilot who simply could not land the airplane made a hard landing with another Captain that broke the overhead compartments and dumped the contents on the passengers. The lawsuits were still pending when the company folded.
Looked to be about 5g impact to me. Way to hard. Whether lack of flare or loss or shift of headwind, they hit very hard.
It is controversial speech that needs the most protection and exposure says the first amendment, but not AvWeb apparently. We are all adults here and should be able to see and judge every comment for ourselves, then respond or ignore without them being censored (“flagged”) by uberlib progressives, MAGAs or religious fundamentalists.
1 reply
I enjoy the Monday morning quarterbacks, with their theories, philosophies, impact Gs… etc. To those of you passing judgment, or making claims to have the answers? You are all clueless without a clues that least up to the accident. Some posters with their sarcastic comments “Yeah they exceed the FAA minimums”. How about mainline crews who landed at wrong airports? How about mainline crews who ran aircraft off the end of the runways causing fatalities? Didn’t they exceed the FAA minimums? Oh wait… crews who shut wrong engines down?
1 reply
My first flight was 03-01-53… Boy I never seen so many idiots in my lifetime as some people who write about air crashes before they are investigated…Please go out and get yourself a life…Fred
1 reply
Some folks just enjoy the thrill of being unapologetically unkind. That’s the era we live in and now is politically encouraged.
I suspect the social quality for the USA
will turn out about the same as this landing…
Ps. Good luck to the mods.
I agree Raf… let’s wait for the data before speculating. Armchair guessing is worth exactly what it costs to produce. Other than that, the landing appeared to be my normal crosswind technique…
Seriously, I’m so thankful there were no fatalities and that (from my armchair) is a tribute to the Lord and the aircraft engineers.
Under which “category” do you place yourself ?
Sincerely wondering.
Thanks
“How about mainline crews who…”
Monday morning quarterbacks rightly criticized those events as well.
Why excuse bad pilotage this time?
Fred, in the “old days” investigators had to go to remote areas and pick through the wreckage and try to reconstruct the physics involved so they could have some idea of the impact and some idea of how the aircraft had to be in order to end up like it did. So yea, ordinary people had no real information and had to wait for the investigative report.
In modern days everyone already knows the ADS-B flight path data, the recorded ATC radio communication, weather data, and we all had a front row seat to the accident via multi-angle recorded video. Only thing missing from the public at this point is the CVR “oh crap” at the end.
For most pilots, getting your rating with the “minimum” required flight hours and instruction is a goal. Going well over that raises red flags for most instructors and examiners.
My wife is a pilot and has had to put up with all the crap from “old timers” like on this forum.
I was forced to retire a little over two years ago because I had reached an arbitrary age of 65. I had achieved over 26,000 accident and violation free hours after spending 38 years as a pilot for a major airline, most of those in the left seat. I will not judge why this accident happened until the NTSB makes it’s final investigative report, but I have to tell you, the arrogance of the decision makers in our federal government has caused me some anger since then. Airlines Can't Keep Baby Boomers Pilots Flying 'Indefinitely:' Buttigieg - Business Insider
A follow up on attitudes towards women pilots…
During a hanger session at the FBO where she got her PP the week before, my wife, twice as old as the young, male instructor pilots there, decided to game them on the attitudes she had been seeing over the past six months.
Knowing that almost all of them were building hours (for the minimum) needed for that right seat job at Mesaba, she mentioned how she was just hired at another FBO with a corporate charter service. After jaws dropping, muttered cursing and a few “damn women” comments, she happily explained the job was in the FBO’s upholstery shop. Their reaction to that was priceless.
1 reply
An undetected hairline crack in a drag link or manufacturing defect could easily been the cause of the collapse. Where do you think AD Notes come from?
In the old days when men were men and women were stewardesses, an ATP was not needed to sit in the right seat of anything and a 250 hour male with a brand new commercial license could have been sitting there.
In the old days the captain was the captain and even if he got a 12 year old girl up from the cabin to land the airplane, the results thereof were on him.
I didn’t know you had to be a 99 to fly for an airline. Is this kind of like the Vermont Pilot’s Association not giving scholarships to people from New Hampshire?
Maybe it wasn’t the pilot’s fault. Maybe it wasn’t the plane’s fault. Maybe it was the asphalt. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Would you have said something this asinine in public? If not… Maybe skip saying it here.
1 reply
If that was directed at me, yes. Say it all the time. It’s funny.
Delta’s comments are typical. The issue is very very simple; as long as non aviator financial people have been empowered with the decision making, the issues in all of commercial aviation will continue to degrade. Even the focus of technology and research in aviation is financially centered. The only stand out might be the NTSB, who are continually ignored if it “cost too much”. Argue all you want, but when we see the manufactures, such as Boeing, putting non aviation decision makers empowered to make engineering decisions, this issue will only chip away public trust and real airline safety. Painting “Delta” on the side of a commuter who is operated by another company entirely (other than the few standards Delta does set for its commuter sub contractors) is only a false sense of security. Of course there are good aviation centered commuter operators out there, but when we see these continuous “buy-outs”, it is likely a financial interest and not an aviation centered transaction. Yes, we need the financial folks in aviation, but not in positions way over their heads. For many years in the free world, people went into business primarily to make a good product. And, they knew profit would follow. But when the sole goal is profit and not reputation for quality and high standards, it starts the clock of eventual disaster and destruction of a company. Trust me, Jack Northrup, Bill Boeing and people like Gordon Bethune would know exactly what we are talking about here. Bethune while not an engineer, knew how to listen and understood what was the right thing to do, (unlike people like Frank Lorenzo who was continuously fined by the FAA for safety violations). Bethune’s first act was to build back Continental’s reputation starting with safety (and clean airplanes…lol)
An absolutely ridiculous statement.
Just look at the “diversity hiring goals” of the major airlines.
Don’t try and tell me making “diversity” your PRIMARY hiring goal doesn’t affect the quality of the people who get hired.
It’s simply a lie. And if you deny it, you’re a liar.
I watched the beginnings of this crap during my career at my airline, and was told on several occasions by instructor/evaluators that they’d been informed before training/checking events that a particular pilot “will pass” this ride, or you won’t be doing this job.
It’s easy to say they shouldn’t succumb to that pressure, but it’s naive as hell to say that, too.
Let’s just stop lying about it.
DEI is a stupid idea in ALL situations.
But in critical safety positions it has already, and will again, gotten people killed.
1 reply
There ya go again, AJ. Disparaging a fully qualified pilot with your usual BS. She didn’t slam a perfectly good airplane into the runway and you are in no position to judge anyone. And nobody gives a rat’s ass if you disagree. There’s a reason why what you say is a fart in a hurricane.
I’m more amazed that AvWeb still allows your unhinged rants.
From Russ:
I’ll admit I cringed at that but it is one possibility in the myriad potential causes being argued here. Art annoys us with his manner but his comments do not violate any community guidelines, which I’ll admit to applying liberally. I wish he was more generous and empathetic but he’s not. The difference is that I have to read his comments and you don’t, Chuck
What do WE THINK?
Don’t ask us to support your butthurt over support for women in aviation. There has been discrimination, a lack of recognition and denying women’s abilities in many ways over the years, and in some places there are ways it still exists. Even without it, there’s nothing wrong with anyone supporting women’'s place in aviation.
You can’t change history, Mike. It isn’t discrimination. Nothing here discriminates against men.
From Russ: No name calling.
You certainly are hell bent on hanging the pilot(s) prior to the official factual findings. Perhaps you are right; but maybe not completely. Pilots (assuming you may be one) that quickly jump in to hang other pilots are usually attempting to elevate themselves based on their own shortcomings. It’s best to wait on transport Canada and the NTSB before degrading the crew without the hard facts.
2 replies
So there is a reddit thread from 4 years ago about “CRJ Landing Tips” where CRJ pilots were discussing how difficult it is to get a “good” landing in a -900 and not slam the mains down. From reading that it seems this -900 is especially tricky to land nicely, and especially for newly minted ATP’s. I know I am not qualified nor will I ever be qualified to be in the front two seats of a jet.
This airplane was built in 2008 right down the Trans-Canada a few clicks from where the crash happened. I wonder how many cycles/hard landings it has had in its 16-17 year life.
The FAA/TSB/MCAI put out a service bulletin FAA-2022-0885 670BA-32-062A MCAI-2021-01429-T requiring inspection of the NLG and MLG components for age. Apparently there were/are some old worn out corroded landing gear parts out there that weren’t getting scrapped. This SB might or might not be related.
The real question is why did the wing box fail? It seems a “really hard landing” would first scrub the tires off, then the MLG fail, and then you would see an airplane skidding down the runway veering to the right due to the RH wing dragging on the concrete with a load of pax sitting(upright) on broken seats(designed to absorb energy while crumpling up) and spinal compression injuries. Didn’t that just happen to a Lear recently and it held together for the most part? Instead, in this case the RH MLG touches down and the wing liberates immediately and the pax were walking away shooting video with their phones that they were supposed to leave behind. Sure the RH wing tip might of tagged the runway, but the contact force wasn’t even enough to turn the airplane to the right let alone break the wing box at the wing root. Primary structure like wings don’t just liberate from an airplane due to a hard landing. This smells like stress corrosion cracking in the wing box/fwd/aft spar. Maybe a few to many hard landings left some undetected now corroded cracks? If so, the whole CRJ fleet could be in for a messy AD/TC investigation. I am not sure I feel safe flying in an airplane that has history of wings “just breaking off…” Which serial number is next?
Door plugs, MCAS, yikes, they grounded a whole fleet for these transgressions, guessing there are some stressed out stress engineers in Mirabel. Luckily the investigators and metallurgists have something to inspect and not a just a smoking hole.
The whole issue isn’t even about a single person in this event. This is a situation of unintended consequences of a new government regulation. In the past, you could put a 500 hour commercial pilot in the right seat, but they couldn’t be PIC until they earned their ATP. Fast forward to the Colgan accident when the FAA changed the rules requiring both to have their ATP. The unintended consequence is that the right seat pilots get most of their hours acting as a flight instructor. Reality is that most people shouldn’t be flight instructors unless instruction is truly a passion. I have known plenty of 1500 hour pilots who truly have about 400 of “real” flying experience, and even fewer hours where they were in tough weather conditions, had to evaluate weather, and had to be on-their-game. How do we fix it? Take away the stupid ATP requirement for right seaters on some of these regionals and go with perhaps 500 to 700 hour commercial pilots with no more than 100 hours of “delivering primary instruction” in their logbook. Making real decisions on cross country flights in a fast airplane is a completely different story than right seating a 172 in VFR weather.
1 reply
You are right that it SHOULD be the case, especially when lives are on the line.
But, if you or anyone else wondered about an ATC’s selection criteria, it sure as hell shouldn’t have been over gender or another discriminatory reason. DEI hiring SHOULD NEVER have been “part of the conversation” in the DCA collision, as it was based on a bullshit politically motivated comment by (guess who?) who was and never will be an aviation expert and certainly not qualified to say “he knew what caused the incident” a half hour after it happened.
If industries hurt themselves by hiring unqualified workers, regardless of their reasons, is is their doing. If lives are lost in the process, they have blood on their hands.
For sure, that controller had more on his plate than it was reasonable to expect him to handle. I expect the NTSB will, as usual, attribute it to pilot error. To me, whoever decided that it was a good idea to have a helicopter training route under short final at a busy civilian airport bears significant responsibility.
But looking at the country at large, the prioritization of DEI over ability in hiring across the FAA as well as so many other industries has indisputably resulted in a lowering of standards. I’m not the only pilot I know who has had to respond “Unable, going around,” to unsafe instructions issued by what certainly seemed to be a DEI-hired controller.
Pilot error doesn’t cause the right main gear to collapse, and neither did gender. Either one.
THIS!
A copilot could have had 250 hours back in the day. A new 1FO was in many ways an apprentice learning all about the DC-3 or 727 from the highly experienced captain.
Now we seem to have forced a system of sit in a C-172 until you have memorized every stain on the carpet in every plane in the fleet.
If all your CFI work is primary students doing VFR stuff you will learn a lot, but only about landing 172s in VFR.
Laughed at “memorize every stain on the carpet in every plane in the fleet”. Nicely stated.
1 reply
The weather: the weather system that had produced a lot of snow had moved on. A careful examination of the videos will show some blue sky mixed with scattered to broken clouds. Note that some of the videos show the airplane some distance from the runway so not a low ceiling or low visibility. The surface wind. Who cares. Other airplanes landed successfully.
Did the wingtip scrape the ground? Who cares? Scraping the wingtip on the ground does not break the wing off at the fuselage. The wing broke because the right main gear transferred loads to the wing root that exceeded the design limits of the wing.
At Reno the crosswind runway is not long enough to accomodate large airplanes. I have watched many airplanes including 737’s land in direct crosswinds with gusts over 50. Piece of cake if you know what your’re doing. Probably significantly over company limits. Two opposing forces. The airline doesnt want pilots exceeded crosswind limits but they dislike ever more the phone call “we’re in Sacramento with a load of Reno passengers”. keep the company and the passengers happy and don’t break the airplane. A delicate balance done all over the world thousands of times a day.
In my DC9 days the conditions at Montreal would be completely routine. A Beech 18 on an icy runway in a crosswind a whole nother story.
My first experience with a female pilot was watching a 14 year old girl fly solo in a glider. Winch tow. I was a pre solo Piper J3 student. The winch tow in the glider scared the hell out of me. Routine for the girl.
Between jobs I was instructing part time in Cherokees and Cessna’s. A gentleman who I had been flying with in his personal airplane asked me to teach his wife to fly. We started in the 152 and then she bought her own 172. I had my own unique agenda which included a lot of cross wind landings which she learned to handle very well. She probably had 60 hours when she took her check ride but she was performing at a commercial pilot skill level.
Decades ago I had the honor of conducting a special program for the graduates of the Navy
Test Pilot program. This was done in the Russian Sukhoi SU29, a taildragger with some quirks. There were something around 12-15 pilots, all got two flights. A lot of spin work including upright and inverted flat spins. There was one person in that group who was so much better than the next best that it was an embaressment to the rest She was six ft tall with long blonde hair. I was later told she was overhauling Corvette engines when she was 16 years old. I have always wondered what path her career took.
Yeah! Every single person who crashed an airplane was a DEI hire! US Airways knew they had too many Americans on-staff and hired a Sullenberger to increase their German diversity. United hired a Haynes because of a shortage of Welshmen. Even Bob Hoover, who crashed 17 airplanes(!!!), was a DEI hire from a lack of Dutchmen.
And AJ is right–I beg to differ that Bob Hoover was “FAA Qualified”. 17 crashes tells me he shouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near an airplane. Thank Goodness the FAA revoked his credentials.
1 reply
Commander1,
You need to differentiate between wartime flying, test pilot flying, and exhibition flying. Hoover never crashed a perfectly good civilian aircraft.
Point is that UNLESS there is some very improbable cause yet to be discovered, then the probable cause from all the video and flight data points to pilot error. Not sure why that makes people upset.
1 reply
Badmouthing Bob Hoover is not a good way to win friends and influence people. It however a confession of ignorance.
1 reply
Yep, NOTAM as Notices to Air Missions absolutely needed to be changed back to Airmen. Because only men have to read them?
Art, the PF didn’t slam a perfectly good airplane into the ground, he/she FLEW a perfectly good airplane into the ground/runway. In all my years of worldwide military, charter, corporate, and airline flying, dating back to 1969, I have never seen anyone do what the PF did. No airplane is designed to be actively flown into the ground. That is called crashing. To watch what the PF did was stunning.
2 replies
Are you a CFI ?
If so, is your focus while teaching “carpet stains” ?
Who’s looking for traffic while teaching ?
Yep, judging from the videos, he/she FLEW a perfectly good airplane into the ground/runway. “I” use the word slam whenever I see anyone obviously exceed what the landing gear can arrest.
That’s not the way we teach radio communications. 
Find a good CFI and enjoy learning !!!
Good luck to you.
Roger, roger! Gonna be interesting to see what the G-force was at impact. And, Canadair and the rest of us will know what the ultimate limits of the RJ’s landing gear is.
Bob Hoover was the epitome of what a pilot is. Legend has it he stole an ME-109 from an German airfield during WW II. He was a WW II fighter pilot. test pilot at Edwards after the war, corporate certification and demo pilot, and air show entertainer, among other things. His medical certificate was stolen from him by a couple of jealous FAA thugs. It is evident you have no clue about Bob Hoover.
1 reply
What? Huh? I should get to know the facts before I bash someone? What country are YOU from? That’s not how we do things here in America anymore.
For the record, Sully, Haynes, and Hoover were all awesome pilots, despite crashing things. My point was about jumping to conclusions based upon the “obvious facts” rather than getting educated…
1 reply
No sarcasm, I am glad Russ kept the comments. This was a really good read.
Yes, we should all wait a year for the final report to come out on what happened - but that’s asking an awful lot of mere mortals. In the meantime we all researched the field, the winds, the conditions, and we all saw the videos. A year from now we will all read the final report and find out how right or wrong our guts were.
The crew was newer than most. That is the unavoidable result of our seniority system. More experienced crew fly heavier birds. [I will go out on a limb and agree with others that it is likely (not confirmed) that the first officer was the pilot flying.] The winds were gusty, but not dangerous. The visibility was not an issue. It would seem to be one of two things: (1) either the plane was sufficiently compromised that it could not withstand an acceptable landing (corrosion, fatigue, previously undiscovered Achilles heal), or (2) the landing exceeded the limits of an acceptably good aircraft.
From my armchair at 30,000 feet, scenario (1) although a possibility, seems unlikely. Scenario (2) could be caused by either (a) outside agents - such as wind shear - that sucked the lift out from under the wings at the last moment or (b) the crew failed to arrest the descent rate before touchdown (either they flew it into the ground with no flare, or they got too slow before landing and they dropped it on the ground).
Option (a) seems highly unlikely since the prevailing weather was not the right type to produce wind shear sufficient to crash a regional jet. Option (b) could have been caused by any number of human factors. (i) I might go out on a limb and suggest that a newly minted flyer stressed by the wintertime conditions could have been in a hurry to put the plane down and rushed the touch down. (ii) I might also ask if the blowing snow on the runway surface might create any visual illusions that would confuse a newly minted pilot as to how high above the asphalt they really were. I grew up driving in that part of the world and am familiar with white roads and blowing snow only a foot or so above the ground making a unique visual environment. Or maybe they just, you know, (you fill in the blank). We’ll never know why they didn’t haul back on the yoke at the precise moment when we all intuitively know to do it.
Regardless of what thought process guided the actions of the PF, if the plane was airworthy (and I’m assuming it was), there is no explanation I can fathom that can justifiably explain the outcome of this landing as not being the pilot’s fault.
I would like to know for certain who was the pilot flying. Not for any political or discriminatory purposes, but to further understand the tools that that individual brought to work that day. If it was the younger first officer, I would like to know in what part of the world did they do their training? If they did all of their training somewhere like Florida or Phoenix and not Chicago or Minneapolis, how much experience had this individual accrued on this route in winter storm conditions vs. cold and clear?
I also think it is valid to ask about legitimate training and performance scores by both crew members. The current environment has led to much distrust in the system. If it becomes clear that the PF simply flew the plane into the ground, was this an amazingly capable pilot who was momentarily confused by a white on white illusion, or was this an individual who struggled with eye-hand coordination when timing the landing flare? Inquiring minds want to know.
1 reply
It really has gone WAY over your head. WAY WAY over.
Just in case you are a very literal person:
While flying airplanes, instructing or not, like most pilots I look outside a lot and study the carpet rarely. This is a literary device called humor or exaggeration used to make a point. It is a common literary device used in books, short form articles, and forum postings. See the other post about Bob Hoover wrecking numerous airplanes for another example of this.
Third choice: They banged the plane on hard enough to reveal a weakened wing spar, so both a compromised airplane and bad landing.
You missed it. Claiming that Hoover “was a DEI hire from a lack of Dutchmen” is dog-whistle code for <sarcasm> on.
“My point was about jumping to conclusions based upon the “obvious facts””
We already knew the facts of Hoover.
We were responding to someone who was using them out of context.
Sully, Haynes, and Hoover did not crashed perfectly good airplanes.
Probable cause here is that a perfectly good airplane was guided right into the ground. The context here is that the PIC probably caused people to be in peril, not saved them from it.
Literally …literal.
I admit guilt 
Thanks for the lesson 
Hoover learned to fly before WWII. Legend is that he taught himself aerobatics in a J2 Cub.
At primary training his instructor went to his supervisor about a problem with Hoover. The supervisor said “wash him out” The instructor’s response “Sir its not that kind of problem, he is a better pilot than anyone on this base”.
Hoover was doing an initial test on a modified F86 with fly by wire pitch control. Takeoff at LA, when he raised the gear the airplane pitched up out of control. The next excursion was recovered below some buildings. He got the airplane under control and went to Edwards, losing control and recovering in turbulence over the mountains. Perfect landing at Edwards. Company people at LA had been telling him to eject. The ejection seat had never been armed.
I first saw Hoover fly shows in the P51 and F86 at Rockford EAA in the 60’s. Very few airshow pilots had a career that lasted as long as Hoover. “Fly the airplane until it stops moving”.
The copilot came from the UND( Grand Forks??) program. So likely significant winter flying experience. But if most or nearly all of her time building was as an instructor, mostly in light singles, that is another red flag. Regarding Sully and Hoover there are probably not a dozen pilots in the world who could have survived the Sully scenario or Hoovers F86 incident. Good to remember that it was the pilot kneeling on the floor who was mostly responsible for the outcome. A company that I was working for had an uncontained failure on a wing engine on a DC10. years before the Sioux City accident. I knew just enough about the DC10 to understand that an uncontained failure of the center engine would likely be fatal.
1 reply
A friend of mine retired from a long career at United Airlines. Back in the 60s he went straight from having never flown anything bigger than a 172 to jets. At least back then the copilot was not assumed to be fluent in big jets before arrival.
United in that era the new hires were flight engineers. I think I still have a magazine with United Ads.
2 replies
April 1945, Hoover escaped from prison, stole a FockeWolf190 and flew to Holland.
True, but sitting sideways looking at gauges wasn’t exactly improving anyone’s stick and rudder skills.
Yea, my post that mentioned unions was “flagged” as inappropriate.
But since the U.S. pilot database is open to the entire world then it was kinda funny that the airline was chastising the aviation community for looking it up ourselves.
I keep watching the approach and landing repeatedly, and it appears to be quite a stable approach despite the 18 knot direct crosswind component and the gusty 21 knot headwind component. This data is derived from a Crosswind Component app based on 230@23G33 surface wind.
The landing is of course flat without a flare BUT I’ve seen a lot worse without the tragic results of this one. So this is puzzling and the fact of the first officer’s restricted ATP dated 9 January 2025.
The worst wind I’ve landed in was 010 variable 080 @ 26G42! That is in West Maui on a 3,000’ runway close to the mountains at Kapalua.
We’ve done several go-arounds there in a Dash-8, just due to the wind alone.
So this weather/wind scenario in Toronto doesn’t appear to be all that extreme.
My very first impression was that the right main collapsed. And why was Delta so quick to offer not only pax a $30,000 apology, but the pilots? “Things that make you go, Hmmmm?”
Gosh,AJ, I didn’t realize you had access to a read-out of the panel and control deflections. You are basing your (jumped to) conclusions on a grainy video and the final position of the A/C. We’ll notify the NTSB that they can go home because you’ve got it all figured out.
I’ve hit a rotor that drifted across the field from a long-departed chopper, just as I was flaring. With full elevator, I was along for the ride.
Accidents happen to highly-trained and -skilled pilots. Were you this much of a (knee-) jerk about US1549? Or is your enmity limited to pilots of a particular gender?
1 reply
“Accidents happen to …pilots”
That’s what I said, Data so far shows exactly that.
We agree.