YYZ Plane Crash

Forum Sponsor
MCT said:
Two things that had me not own an aircraft.

If it is a production aircraft, you cannot do the maintenance yourself without having an AME licence. When I was instructing, if the weather was down, I'd be in the hangar wrenching on aircraft, both club and member aircraft. The full time mechanic there also worked at Transport Canada on aircraft would have me do everything, sign it off and tell me "I'm not worried, you are flying it tomorrow". Now if it is an "Experimental Aircraft", even if you did not built it, you can perform all the maintenance yourself. How does that make sense?

The cost of a hangar because I am no about to park my aircraft outside with hail, snow, etc doing a number on it.

And owning an aircraft is like owning a sailboat. It should be your number-one hobby and it consumes your life. Why I have motorcycles and sports cars; at least I can store them in my garage. The happiest days in a boat owner's life is the day he buys it and the day he sells it.

Now if I did buy an aircraft, it would be a Mooney 201 or an Extra 300 to 330 series. Two totally different aircraft with totally different purposes. A commuter aircraft like the 201 is kind of boring due to its limitations. I'll fly Air Canada and get there.

Now this is flying...
Click to expand...
The hangar cost is surprisingly low imo. To me, a plane is like a cottage but worse. You need to use it at every opportunity or your laziness will bite you. They don't like to sit. My buddy is normally flying twice a week or more. Sometimes to get places but often just to keep the plane and skills up. At >$100 per hour, that is a cash burn that I could not deal with even if the plane and hangar were free.
 
You can sort of store a sailplane in your garage....most leave them out in the elements in their trailers.
1742855757018.png

:
Damn that took me back ....watching the 747 on final for Pearson from my perch at 2,000 m to the west,

Never flew in the level of plane that guy has ..17m high tech but close
1742857953004.png
Happy to see my fav plane in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington ...if you have not been you must go.
 
Last edited:
GreyGhost said:
The hangar cost is surprisingly low imo. To me, a plane is like a cottage but worse. You need to use it at every opportunity or your laziness will bite you. They don't like to sit. My buddy is normally flying twice a week or more. Sometimes to get places but often just to keep the plane and skills up. At >$100 per hour, that is a cash burn that I could not deal with even if the plane and hangar were free.
Click to expand...
Pretty hard to run a decent boat for $100/hr. A small plane might be cheaper than a small cruiser that gulps 120 l/hr!
 
Mad Mike said:
Pretty hard to run a decent boat for $100/hr. A small plane might be cheaper than a small cruiser that gulps 120 l/hr!
Click to expand...
Maybe. Almost no idling in a plane though. If the engine is running, you are normally over 10 gph (and depending on the plane sometimes way over). He's coming up on needing a major engine refresh due to hours. The bill will be In the ballpark of $10k/cylinder if he gets off lucky. Ouch. Overall, roughly an order of magnitude more than a bike to operate. Still cheaper than many expensive cars though.
 
GreyGhost said:
Maybe. Almost no idling in a plane though. If the engine is running, you are normally over 10 gph (and depending on the plane sometimes way over). He's coming up on needing a major engine refresh due to hours. The bill will be In the ballpark of $10k/cylinder if he gets off lucky. Ouch. Overall, roughly an order of magnitude more than a bike to operate. Still cheaper than many expensive cars though.
Click to expand...
Yeah my service bill on the Jag was eyewatering..but it was mostly voluntary preventative maint. and the car is 9 years old at this point. Time to start setting aside a $20 here and there for the next 9 year service 😫
 
GreyGhost said:
Almost no idling in a plane though.
Click to expand...

Welllllll..... I remember several flights on which I burned .5-.6 on the hobbs between winter warmup, runup/mag check, and then getting stuck in a conga line on the taxiway, or getting to the runway in reasonable time, being told to hold short, and then left waiting for a few minutes while something bigger than me was on an instrument approach and the tower didn't want to clear me for takeoff because rental plane, and sometimes rental plan pilots (*ahem*, quite possibly students) were known for sometimes not expediting takeoffs, or perhaps abandoning a takeoff, either of which could result in the much bigger plane needing to do a missed approach.
 
oioioi said:
www.facebook.com

228K views · 2.3K reactions | CRJ | Preliminary report into the Delta CRJ-900 crash at Toronto Pearson International Airport 17 February 2025 says the aircraft’s alert system indicated a... | By Airline Secrets Exposed | Facebook

Preliminary report into the Delta CRJ-900 crash at Toronto Pearson International Airport 17 February 2025 says the aircraft’s alert system indicated a...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
Click to expand...
5 Mins of "reporting" to tell the world nothing they didn't already know from just watching the video of the crash... what was the point of this? Why not release the whole flight recorder data and cabin recordings
 
DownUnder said:
Why not release the whole flight recorder data and cabin recordings
​
Click to expand...

Because it's still an active investigation and you don't release detailed evidence like this during an active investigation.

It would also only make an already bad situation worse when armchair pilots and other ******** online use it to jump to more unfounded conclusions, or conclusions based in lack of knowledge. We already saw people jump to so many conclusions in the days following, most of them nonsense, so we don't really need to fuel that more.

Let the investigation conclude and we can all read the final reports.
 
DownUnder said:
Hence why releasing the info would be beneficial to quash all of that.
Click to expand...

Except the average person doesn’t have the knowledge of aviation, weather, etc etc to properly discern it all. People will latch onto something and run with it online even if it’s just plain wrong.

Let the investigators and aviation experts that understand the data and the bigger picture come to their logical conclusion instead of throwing the data out there and an hour later “bob the airplane guy” who has never flown a real plane but has lots of Microsoft flight simulator time has a video up on YouTube jumping to all sorts of trash conclusions. It happened already with this crash, I don’t think it needs to happen even more.
 
I thought the TSB released their preliminary report ages ago?

I watched this video from an airline pilot that seems fairly balanced and clear about the likely factors:


Coles notes are:
- due to heavy snow, the runway was plowed more narrowly than typical (making visual cues less reliable because you look higher than you are)
- the wind was high and super gusty with big changes in wind speed and direction
- the approach speed was lower than it needed to be but still within SOP
- a gust made the IAS spike which triggered the FO to cut the throttles back to idle
- when closer to the ground, the gust stopped and wind speed dropped significantly causing IAS to drop equivalently
- this caused a big increase in descent rate with an uncontrolled sink
- immediately before ground contact, a possible second gust rolled the plane enough to the right that only the right landing gear made contact
- the vertical speed was high enough to collapse the single gear which then caused the right wing to drag because of the roll
- the right wing tore off and spilled jet fuel which subsequently ignited
- the lift from the left wing then caused the aircraft to roll fully over
- There is no initial evidence about the FO correcting for the drop in IAS or the increase in sink rate by either adding throttle in an attempt to go around or by adjusting pitch to trade airpseed for descent rate

The Captain had super low hours (especially considering his age and length of flying career), and may have been primarily a simulator instructor, while the FO had very low hours that are only allowed if a pilot is a graduate of a university course. It seems the airline made the biggest error in allowing two pilots with so few collective hours (especially recent hours) to fly together, and this was compounded by extremely difficult flying conditions.

(The FO was a woman, but anyone who claims this is a factor is, quite frankly, an idiot. No special dispensation had been made because of her gender, and there are literally thousands of female pilots out there with statistically identical flying records as men. A childhood friend is a female pilot with Air Canada and has been flying for 25+ years with an exemplary record.)
 
Not sure if I buy the gust of wind theory, it was not the only plane to land at the airport that day... hundreds would have done so and some much smaller and prone to wind gust difficulties but this was the only one that ended up on its roof.
 
Priller said:
The Captain had super low hours (especially considering his age and length of flying career), and may have been primarily a simulator instructor, while the FO had very low hours that are only allowed if a pilot is a graduate of a university course. It seems the airline made the biggest error in allowing two pilots with so few collective hours (especially recent hours) to fly together, and this was compounded by extremely difficult flying conditions.
Click to expand...
I agree with the first part.

As for extremely difficult flying conditions, I guess everybody that landed there in the last hour all crashed.

It is far more difficult to land in gusty conditions in an aircaft that have very low wing loading like a general aviation aircraft (Cessna, etc) as compared to a jet that has very high wing loading. Plus the fact the faster your touchdown speed, the less of an angle due to the crosswind. Do the simple trig.

On some airports where they only have a single runway, I had no issues landing with a very strong 90 degree crosswind (well beyond the maximum crosswind component in the manual) and rolling off the hillside to my starboard side. In fact I even used full flaps that blanket my rudder which does not help you in a sideslip. So I crabbed in on final and flipped it into a sideslip as the wheels were touching with full aileron into wind. I practice stuff and if it was a no-go, I'll overshoot.

Priller said:
(The FO was a woman, but anyone who claims this is a factor is, quite frankly, an idiot.
Click to expand...
Not really when you look at her hours and the amount of time it took her to get a check on type. Reports and not from armchair pilots mentioned that.
 
Priller said:
(The FO was a woman, but anyone who claims this is a factor is, quite frankly, an idiot.
Click to expand...

This was one of the very first things that (sadly) some latched onto and ran with. "DEI HIRE!" was bandied about by many and that got lots of internet time, also unfortunately, but the whole DEI thing is a firestick in the USA right now of course. Then they found out she had low hours and they latched onto and ran with that, coupled with the DEI thing still for many, because, you know, women would never be able to be pilots if it wasn't for DEI programs...right? /s

Most didn't care about the runway conditions, or crosswind components, or understand the optical illusions pilots deal with sometimes, or anything else, because most of these same people are not pilots.

These are the same people who get told that their flight was cancelled due to weather, and they pull out their phones and open their simplistic weather app and say "THAT'S A LIE, THE WEATHER IS GREAT AT OUR DESTINATION!". Meanwhile, they have zero concept of the weather between the two points, or lots of other things that would prevent a flight from being safely operated.

Which is why I feel the way I do about letting the final reports come out before they start dumping more things like CVR and FDR's out there onto the internet for all those same people to start new nonsense with.
 
MCT said:
Not really when you look at her hours and the amount of time it took her to get a check on type. Reports and not from armchair pilots mentioned that.
Click to expand...
There are no differences between men and women for the number of hours required to operate any aircraft. Is it an issue that you can shortcut the hours required by going to an accredited university? Probably. Is that a gender or 'DEI' issue? Absolutely not.

The fact that the captain was so short on recent hours suggests that they didn't have a huge surplus of pilots available, so it's unlikely that some big-hour Top Gun man was sitting idle. On the contrary, there is an established shortage of pilots willing and able to fly commuter routes. Whether that's because of crap pay and working conditions (pilot's union position) or because of a shortage of pilots (airlines position), it seems extremely unlikely that putting this particular FO in the right seat was done at the expense of someone more qualified because of equality measures.

The discussion isn't about gender, it's about training and regulations, same as it is with every one of the literally thousands of other plane crashes where the pilot is a dude...
 
Priller said:
Is that a gender or 'DEI' issue? Absolutely not.
Click to expand...

Absolutely yes. Unfortunately there are too many hirings based on DEI. Why is why our own PM had to have X amount of this and that. Pure BS and glad Trump did something about DEI and trans gender men in women sports.

And in law enforcement or in fire fighting, in the latter for example, if you cannot carry a 200# person on your back, time to take up basket weaving.
 
MCT said:
Absolutely yes. Unfortunately there are too many hirings based on DEI.
Click to expand...

So, you think that when 2 people, one male, one female, with identical skills, education, and ability are put side by side, if the female gets hired, it’s “DEI”?

Please tell us more about how women don’t belong in aviation, since this is the topic at hand, and what Priller was referring to.
 
I’d go along with some unfortunate wind conditions . YYZ is well known in commercial circles for having quite a few ‘hard’ approach days a year.
Apparently Phoenix sky harbour is a hard airport as in summer the asphalt gets so hot the air about twenty ft off the deck is really thin , your doing fine then the plane drops .


Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com
 
MCT said:
Absolutely yes. Unfortunately there are too many hirings based on DEI. Why is why our own PM had to have X amount of this and that. Pure BS and glad Trump did something about DEI and trans gender men in women sports.

And in law enforcement or in fire fighting, in the latter for example, if you cannot carry a 200# person on your back, time to take up basket weaving.
Click to expand...
I'd have to check references, but female fire fighters apparently do better than one would expect considering the body mass. Also, there's more to the job than dragging around 200-pound people.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom