Delta Flight Crashes In Toronto: Plane Lands Upside Down, Wings Torn Away

[Quickstatus]

This may simply end up being an open and shut case of human error,

Though human error in the final analysis is very rarely open and shut. It's a lot more complex/nuanced that pilot got it wrong.

.....

Crosswind approach and landing.
The wind direction was 270 on a RWY23. 5deg off the perpendicular vector (275).
Maybe 20kt for that vector? But gusting as well...

In an approach such as this, would the right wing be normally a little lower as the aircraft crabs in on approach?

What's the height of the wingtip above ground, and how does it compare with other aircraft.

 

[RooFlyer]

In an approach such as this, would the right wing be normally a little lower as the aircraft crabs in on approach?

The video posted by @Himeno above ( by a Pilot) goes into this sort of stuff.

 

[DejaBrew]

Though human error in the final analysis is very rarely open and shut. It's a lot more complex/nuanced that pilot got it wrong.

More of a an overly-simplified statement on my part, but yes, I take your point.

 

[jb747]

Though human error in the final analysis is very rarely open and shut. It's a lot more complex/nuanced that pilot got it wrong.

Very true. But, any blame will stop before it attaches to the regulators or management. Pilots are convenient for that.

Crosswind approach and landing.
The wind direction was 270 on a RWY23. 5deg off the perpendicular vector (275).

It's back to school for you. Perpendicular means it would be at 90º, so that would need a direction of 140º or 320º. Here it's roughly 40º off so the crosswind component would be about 65% of the wind's strength. So the 28-35 knots they had at the time converts to a crosswind component of 18-22 knots, which is windy, but nothing outlandish.

In an approach such as this, would the right wing be normally a little lower as the aircraft crabs in on approach?.

No. There's no point in being wing low if you're also 'crabbing'. When you decrab (i.e. squeeze it straight), you may need a small amount of bank to minimise any downwind drift, but we're only talking a couple of degrees. The wing has struck the ground because the right oleo has failed, not because too much bank was applied. The rollover is caused by the other wing. From the video, there doesn't appear to have been any flare, so chances are there was no decrab either.

What's the height of the wingtip above ground, and how does it compare with other aircraft.

Low, but it's the angles that count, not the height. Draw a line from the wing tip to the bottom of the tyre, on a compressed oleo, and that's the angle needed for a strike. I expect it will be in the order of 10-12º.

Going back to the wind, the headwind component is 21 to 27 knots. A sudden reduction in the wind (or a swing further right), approaching the flare can rob you of IAS, and badly effect your ability to flare. The counter is a handful of power, but if you've already reduced the power to idle for the landing, the response may not be fast enough to be useful. With low slung engines, that handful of power will also tend to pitch you up, perhaps helping the flare. But fuselage mounted engines would have minimal, and perhaps even an adverse, trim effect (i.e. add power and it pushes the nose down).

 

[drron]

There has been a lot of speculation on social media that the flight was an unmanned flight by Endeavour. Normally I wouldn’t believe it but Delta have not named the pilots just saying they were both very experienced.
On top of that Delta is giving each passenger $US 30000 with no strings attached. Seems unusual.

There is also a partial dispatch report which names the FO who apparently has only just got their ticket. Also people have posted the name of the Captain who certainly is experienced and a male. So the “unmanned” story is certainly wrong.

 

[jb747]

There has been a lot of speculation on social media that the flight was an unmanned flight by Endeavour.

This sort of s**t makes me quite angry. I've flown with numerous female pilots over the years, and as a group they were just fine. Some outstanding, some not, but overall zero difference to their male counterparts. I would have no problem flying on an 'unmanned' aircraft.

There is also a partial dispatch report which names the FO who apparently has only just got their ticket.

And all FOs have to start somewhere. What may be an issue (for me at least) is allowing FOs to operate in relatively limiting conditions. QF placed a 15 knot crosswind limit on newer FOs, and would raise that to 20 after a year. They were never allowed to operate to the aircraft limits.

Also people have posted the name of the Captain who certainly is experienced and a male. So the “unmanned” story is certainly wrong.

Supposedly also a sim instructor, which would make him our equivalent of a senior check Captain.

 

[Quickstatus]

Perpendicular means it would be at 90º

yes maths out by 45deg.

There's no point in being wing low if you're also 'crabbing

is there a tendency to roll due to differential lift?
....

A sudden reduction in the wind (or a swing further right), approaching the flare can rob you of IAS, and badly effect your ability to flare

Did it stall?

 

[jb747]

is there a tendency to roll due to differential lift?

No. There is no differential lift. You’re crabbing, not sideslipping.

There is a crosswind technique that uses sideslipping instead of crabbing, but it isn’t generally used, especially on airliners.

The aircraft will want to roll when you put in rudder to push it straight for the landing. In the case of this aircraft, it would have wanted to roll left (if they’d got as far as the rudder input).

Did it stall?

No. But if it robs you of IAS, you’ll end up with a higher AoA, and probably a greater sink rate. So, you’ll need more flare, and earlier. Basically it ‘falls through’ the flare, and arrives.