That's incredible. The plane literally turned over and burnt but no casualty. The flight staff must have done as amazing job keeping everyone calm and helped everyone get out of the upside, burning plane.
“We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training” – Archilochus
People like to imagine how they would act in an extreme situation that is unique and beyond anything they have ever experienced before. But the reality is people do very poorly most of the time without regular training. In a crash, the adrenaline is flooding your body, and most people are not “thinking” much at all. You know you need to get out but your brain is barely processing, so what do you do when you exit a plane? You grab your luggage and head for the door.
Flight attendants giving simple, clear, easy to follow instructions is partly because people are not thinking and processing properly and need help doing things that would be easy in a non-emergency situation.
Airline pilots I've worked with have said that this is also why when evacuating the jet in an emergency, they put on their uniform hat. So they're immediately mentally flagged as "authority figure."
Also, there was an emergency a few years ago where a jet lost cabin pressure, and people were getting dragged on social media afterwards for not putting the oxygen masks over their noses.
No medical condition has higher priority than getting out of a burning plane as fast as possible.
You may not survive a day without insulin, but the people behind you might not survive the next few seconds if they can't get out in time because you were fumbling with a bag
I hate your opinion not because leaving one's bag isn't a fair take most of the time but it is underpinned by a the fundamental contempt for the decision making of people who are actually there. It's like when a child gets a math problem right but the shown work makes it clear they're very wrong.
You don't know what's in that luggage. Maybe it's hard to source medication. Maybe it's very important legal documents. It's clearly not big enough to be typical low value personal belongings. The plane isn't even full of smoke yet.
I get that folks are going to make suboptimal choices in the heat of the moment, and I could see myself similarly making a dumb choice in the rush of an airplane evacuation. I don't think we should judge anyone's character too harshly, but that doesn't keep us from discussing what the actual optimal choices are.
>The plane isn't even full of smoke yet
The plane previously had some pretty impressive flames in the process of landing, and depending one what sort of fire gets going there might not be time for everyone to get out. That being said, insulin isn't actually a valid excuse nor are very important legal documents. Every second counts, and could be the difference between life and death for passengers and crew not yet evacuated. There's a reason that air traffic controllers ask pilots in emergencies for the number of "souls on board" referring to living humans and not important legal documents or medicine.
I don’t know much about T1 diabet so please excuse me if I’m asking the obvious: don’t you expect to find everything necessary in an international airport like Toronto? I mean in pharmacies but also with the airport medic team? My first though in a similar crash would be to get out ASAP to avoid me or someone else roasting, although it may be so stressful that rational thinking may not be at its best.
My wife is also T1 diabetic. In principle, yes, a major airport's medical team should have everything that a diabetic needs to survive. However, depending on the person's blood sugar level at any given moment, it may be necessary to give them either insulin or sugar immediately or they will become disoriented, unable to move reliably, and maybe pass out. Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia can quickly become medical emergencies. Given all that, it makes sense for a diabetic to be highly protective of their insulin and sugar supplements. In a crash, the medical team is probably going to be pretty busy and might not provide optimal treatment to a diabetic right away.
A "pancreas kit" can fit in a bag small enough to be carried in one hand, so it shouldn't be necessary to hold up an evacuation by carrying something large. As others have mentioned, this is also likely an instinctive reaction, and it's hard to criticize someone for reacting that way in such a stressful situation.
Maybe you’ll find everything you need readily available at the airport, or maybe everyone will be busy dealing with the current situation and won’t be able to help you on time. Maybe they’ll need to send someone back for your bag and that’s going to take hours or days before they give it back to you. Maybe you having to wait makes you miss on other care.
People die in hospital waiting rooms. Why risk it when you know you have everything you need right on hand? At this time in the video the situation looked to already be fairly under control. Worrying about recording a video on your phone to post to social media before you’re even out seems worse.
> People die in hospital waiting rooms. Why risk it when you know you have everything you need right on hand?
Because people also die in incomplete airplane evacuations. In the Aeroflot Flight 1492 crash, 41 of 78 occupants died while folks were seen evacuating with their bags. Some of them would have died no matter what, but somebody slowing down an evacuation from a serious airplane crash for even just seconds to quickly grab their insulin kit out from under the seat in front of them (let alone to film for social media or whatever else) could cost someone else their life.
The situation might look "fairly under control", but the plane is upside down, leaking flammable jetfuel, and surrounded by firefighting foam that no one wants to spend more time around than they have to. Leaving behind medical supplies in a crash has a real impact on a diabetic or similar, but any slowdown to the evacuation also has a real impact on all of the other passengers.
I carry a very small cross body pack with my essentials (passort, meds, emergency card and cash) that I strap on before descent and at any other time there's a chance I'll get separated from my bags.
A fanny pack is actually where my reserve insulin is at all times. And the pack is attached to me most of the time. There's also some sugar in there too.
People with T1 either have insulin pumps attached, or long-lasting insulin injected. They are not going to keel over from lack of insulin on most days, even if their pack is gone. Except if the pump stopped working hours ago, or they forgot to inject. Then they may be close to collapse already. And being away from sugar can become life-threatening quickly for people who shoot insulin. So overall they have a pretty good reason to always carry their stuff, even in an emergency. And yes, better always attached than in some bag than can get lost easily.
I flew out of Toronto Pearson the day before this crash (after moving my flight a day forward because of the storms :-/ ), and noticed that flight attendants require passengers to remove any cross body fanny-pack type bags during takeoff and landing. I'm not sure if this applies to wearing it on the waist or not. I would imagine not.
This might not be new or exclusive to Canada - it's just the first I've noticed it.
Yes, better use a fanny pack and have it on you at all times. Don’t even remove it and store it in your bag temporarily when on an airplane, you never know if it’ll capsize on landing and you’ll need to avoid people on the internet criticising you.
It also goes without saying that you should keep in on while showering and sleeping too, you never know when your hotel could catch on fire.
> Don’t even remove it and store it in your bag temporarily when on an airplane, you never know if it’ll capsize on landing and you’ll need to avoid people on the internet criticising you.
You'll need to first avoid succumbing to smoke inhalation or flames if you don't get out in time (or cause someone else to not get out because your fumbling).
The take-offs and landings (and perhaps add approach) phases of flight constitute ~5% of flight time, but the vast majority of the fatalities:
I'm not sure it's so easy, I travel a lot, and western cities are the hardest to get any medication.
In Hawaii we were robbed with my girlfriend and went to a pharmacy and to doctor with no papers and we weren't able to refill our contraception pill (pharmacy told us to go to doctor, doctors said we need a lot of tests even though she was already taking the medication and we had police reports). Generally it's not advised to skip a day, and skipping 2 is not allowed, but doctors didn't care.
(after a lot of search we found out that Amazon online clinic is much better and even cheaper with prescriptions).
In latin america or Thailand or anywhere else in the world we could just go to a pharmacy and get what we want.
Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards.
Of course the solution would be to make airlines liable to replace passengers' luggage in the event of a crash and inform the passengers that they will do so, but that's not how the world works currently.
Aren’t they? AFAIK it’s standard (if not required?) for airlines to have insurance which includes passenger legal liability.
Were there any recent crashes where passengers weren’t compensated? e.g. after US Airways 1549 everyone received at minimum $5k (or higher depending on damages) for lost luggage.
In general the airlines just ask you to leave your luggage. If they were legally obliged to replace all your items, they would inform you of such.
On international flights, an airline is liable for up to $1700 per the Montreal Convention. This might cover say half of one's laptop, which no matter how stupid it sounds, makes taking your luggage with you the only financially sensible choice in a crash (unless you have insurance). Now obviously such an event has other priorities than just financial ones, but it's no surprise if people choose to take their luggage with them.
On US domestic flights the amount is somewhat higher, $4700. However even this might not be enough for some. On EU domestic flights it's 1800€.
Airlines however are free to pay any amount they want, but they are not legally required to pay more than the limits set by law. So it is possible you will be reimbursed in full, but you wouldn't know that beforehand.
In terms of explaining the passenger's behaviour, though - presumably they didn't know this, and didn't have time to research it on their phone during the crash.
Airline customer service standards are very low; I can see how a person making the decision based on just their experience with airlines would conclude it was better to grab their carry-on if it was safe to do so.
> Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards.
One person's means are not more important than the lives of the people on board. Stuff can be replaced; get everyone to safety first, then worry about stuff.
And yeah airlines are liable to replace stuff in the event of a crash and pay for damages if it's their fault. If it's the fault of the airplane manufacturer, they will have to; Boeing paid out billions to all parties involved in accidents and groundings of the 737 max:
> On January 7, 2021, Boeing settled to pay over $2.5 billion after being charged with fraud over the company's hiding of information from safety regulators: a criminal monetary penalty of $243.6 million, $1.77 billion of damages to airline customers, and a $500 million crash-victim beneficiaries fund.
After touchdown, but it rolled sideways not end over end. This kept the fuselage intact and ripped off the wings (where all the fuel is) which is why everyone survived.
Maybe that would be a general great idea.. slide the people capsule away from the bomb in the final moments of a crash landing. But that would make it necessary to have the people capsule bolted on - with explosive destructible bolts and i think air-companies are not mentally ready yet for the crumble zone airplane.
Many airplanes (not sure about the CRJ) also have a center wing tank, which is directly under the fuselage, so would be kinda hard to separate cleanly. Also, explosive bolts might start a fire that wouldn't have started without the bolts...
And they purge the fuel, if its a controlled emergency landing.. but in a uncontrolled emergency.. to let go of the wings seems a good option for events to go.
What you describe in the second sentence - rotating around the vertical-axis - is typically termed a spin .
I think parent was saying the roll was along the planes' length rather than tail-over-nose, the latter usually result in the aircraft breaking up as the torque will be really high.
I’m guessing wind, ice, or something else moved the plane off the centerline and into a crab, it hooked a wheel off the pavement, and cartwheeled. 100% conjecture at this point, just seems like a possible chain of events.
Edit: listing to the ATC audio I think they said gusts in the 30s (man do they ever speak fast and mumble! Enunciate damn it! Unique New York), which is markedly slower than what the Apple Weather app reported for Pearson.
For anyone unaware, Walter worked for Boeing for years and probably knows more about planes than anyone on the forum.
It's likely not a morbid curiosity here, especially since noone died AFAIK, but genuine technical curiosity so he can see what happened, and perhaps educate us readers.
I do have a degree in aeronautical engineering, but I'm not a pilot and don't know a whole lot about flight ops and procedures. Interestingly, I lost my fear of flying once I found out how airplanes were built. I used to know everything there was to know about the 757 stab trim system. It's been a few years, though.
I don't suggest it is any sort of conspiracy, it seems more in line with the generally ancient technology in the air traffic control system, and COBOL for the government accounting systems.
Back in my 757 days Boeing ran individual wires for everything. I suggested using a bus to save weight and improve reliability. I just got blank looks in response. Modern cars use a bus now, and probably the airliners do, but I have no direct knowledge of it.
I seriously, seriously doubt it. The wings are so utterly critical to flight I can’t possibly imagine any situation they’d be engineered to snap off under. Further, that’s where the fuel is and any crash involving a wing rupture is dramatically more dangerous given the risk of fire.
Hell even in a crash landing like this you want the plane to stay upright and stable.
> The wings are so utterly critical to flight I can’t possibly imagine any situation they’d be engineered to snap off under.
I don't know enough about the details of the CRJ-900 to say for certain, but in general aerospace engineering does include considerations of this sort, where if a component breaks off you want to ensure that it separates in a specific way.
from an Admiral Cloudberg article [0] about El-Al 1862 [1]:
> The Boeing 747 engine pylon is attached to the wing by four fittings: one at the front, one in the back, and two in the middle (or midspar). Each of these fittings consists of a wing-mounted male lug and a pylon-mounted female lug, which are connected by a fuse pin. The four fuse pins are the weakest part of the pylon, but this is by design. Every airplane system and structure contains planned failure sequences which work to minimize damage in the event of an overload. In the case of the 747’s engine pylons, the fuse pins were designed to fail at a lower load threshold than the fittings themselves, ensuring that if the engine is torn off the wing — perhaps due to extreme turbulence, or a gear-up landing — the fuse pins will fail first, causing the engine to separate cleanly without ripping open the fuel tanks located directly above it. In theory, this should allow an engine to break off upon reaching its design load limit without starting a fire or otherwise compromising the plane’s ability to fly.
Nah, an engine getting ripped off will not tear off the wing since this is the level of force and flex they are designed to withstand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--LTYRTKV_A
The engines are built to rip off cleanly, because when they don't, they have caused https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 which were fairly serious and catastrophic accidents at least partially caused by the engines tearing off and damaging the wing in such a serious manner as to cause a stall and crash. The wings stayed on the aircraft in both instances. Interestingly, both accidents were caused by those same sheer pins being damaged in minor and unpredicted ways.
I highly doubt the wing is DESIGNED to cleanly separate. Planes are just very not rigid for something going such a high speed, and so tend to turn into confetti when faced with a harder surface, like a runway or a concrete building. Usually the only parts that survive serious crashes are the landing gear struts.
Look up stress to failure tests on commercial airplanes.
They know how much peak load is supposed to be for the airframe, then they go well beyond it to see how the plane fails. Generally you want the wings to break not the fuselage.
You can in a lot of situations land a plane with 1.5 wings. But once the spine cracks you’re just a ballistic object.
The parts are designed for "ultimate load" which is 150% of the worst case maximum load expected to ever see in service.
I used to work at Boeing on the 757 stabilizer trim system. There's the design group and the stress group. I was in the design group, the stress group double checks the design work.
One day the stress group called me on the carpet, and asked me why my designs consistently just barely exceeded 150%. I said I started with the ultimate load, and worked backwards to size the part. The stress groups said they prefered designs to be 10% over the ultimate load. I replied that I designed to the requirements, as adding 10% makes the airplane overweight. If they didn't like the design requirements, change them.
They grumbled, but I got my way :-/
A few months later, they offered me a position on the stress group. It was a nice compliment, as they normally required a masters' degree and I only had a bachelors. I told them I was honored by the offer, but my heart was in design.
Some time later, my parts were put on the torture rack to see if they passed the ultimate load test. All of them passed on the first try.
I also had the privilege in being mentored by some really fine engineers at Boeing, such as J Burton Berlin and Erwin Schweizer.
Am I proud of that? Yes. I love flying in the 757. Best airplane Boeing ever made. Whenever I fly in them I chat a bit with the flight crew, and they love it, too.
P.S. the jackscrew turned out to be stronger than I'd anticipated. The credit for that goes to Saginaw Gear, who made them. SG makes kick-ass airplane parts, beautifally made.
> If they didn't like the design requirements, change them.
If anyone is wondering, this is always the correct answer when there’s a disagreement between reality and the specification and you’re following the spec.
I always thought of you as the C++/D compiler guy - wow you did work in aerospace too!
Thanks for making the D programming language. If it did not insist on a GC and had a robust and stable GC-free stdlib, I believe it could have conquered the world.
I also love the 757, but never had as good a reason as you other than knowing the flight characteristics of the plane. Sad to see them disappearing from the icelandair fleet, is there anything else comparable? The modern 737 variants sure don't seem to be.
I would submit to you that it’s impossible to load the wings at 150% of max load without transferring any of that force into the fuselage. Look at any finite element analysis of complex shapes. The force spreads out from areas of max tension or compression, and goes around corners.
It's probably preferable to have the wing break off than for it to apply sufficient stress to the fuselage that the fuselage disintegrates - you're going to lose the wing either way and if you're in the air that's going to be bad, but if you're on or near the ground it's probably preferable to have an intact fuselage?
There are other parts like that, like the gear struts that are designed to bend and snap instead instead of puncture through the wings, or the centering mechanism on turbofan shafts that's intentionally designed to break off if a blade breaks and cause an imbalance (I think that's what you meant by a "fuse", or did you mean something that rips the engine off altogether? I had never heard of that one).
The "fuse" that holds the engine on the strut is a bolt or a pin that is weaker than the surrounding structure, so it will break first and the engine will fall free.
If the engine loses a fan blade, it will vibrate violently and it's probably better to lose the engine.
I don't know about the other two things you mention. Maybe it's a newer feature than my time :-/
> If the engine loses a fan blade, it will vibrate violently and it's probably better to lose the engine.
That's the idea with a fan blade loss, they didn't want to just drop an engine in that case so the centering mechanism on the turbine has an intentionally weaker part is designed to snap off to allow the spinning turbine to recenter itself as opposed to vibrating the whole structure off and causing more damage.
The gear thing is to prevent puncturing the fuel tanks in the wings on a hard landing. It's preferable to snap off the gear, otherwise leaking fuel has a good chance of it immediately igniting.
Small RC model planes often have the wings only loosely held on, such as by elastic bands, anticipating that the kids flying them will send them pinwheeling into the ground a few times while learning to operate them.
But yes, in a full size passenger aircraft I would expect the specification for wings falling off to say "avoid"
In normal operation, an aeroplane lands with enough fuel for one go-around and re-attempt at landing at the chosen airport, plus enough for diversion to their alternate, plus an additional 30 minutes of flight.
If an aircraft is anticipated to land with fuel for 30 minutes or less they must make a mayday call, and there's an incident report to fill in.
Yes they want to land with as little fuel as possible, but regulations require them to carry more because we know what happens when you let airlines carry less.
That's not really accurate. Commercial airliners typically land with significant reserve fuel remaining on board. If a post crash fire ignites and isn't rapidly put out then that reserve fuel will be plenty to destroy the aircraft and kill everyone who doesn't evacuate quickly.
Survive sure. But one of the people in critical condition is a small infant that got thrown out of their lap belt so they will probably have life-altering injuries from this.
