DCA08FA018

The flight crew was conducting a straight-in ILS approach during instrument meteorological conditions with reported cloud ceilings about 100 feet above the decision height. During the descent into the terminal area and initial approach, tailwinds of up to 100 knots were affecting the flight and the crew reported feeling rushed because of the high ground speed. The crew did establish the airplane on the approach course at the proper speed and altitude, however they did not perform a complete approach briefing. The first officer (FO) was the pilot flying, and had very little instrument approach experience in the CRJ-200. Prior to making visual contact with the runway, the FO disengaged the autopilot and flight director, but only mentioned the autopilot in his verbal callout. At the time of the accident, there was no prohibition against making a raw data approach to minimums in the Air Wisconsin (AWAC) flight manual. Subsequently, the airplane drifted left of course and above the glidepath. As the airplane deviated from the approach course the flight was outside stabilized approach criteria, and as the airplane descended beneath the ceiling, both pilots noticed the deviation and misalignment with the runway.

At this point, the captain offered to take over control of the airplane and salvage the landing instead of abandoning the approach and executing a missed approach. At the time of the accident, Air Wisconsin procedures provided the crews latitude in determining when a go-around was necessary.

As the captain took control of the airplane, the FO misunderstood a statement by the captain and reduced power to idle without the captain’s knowledge. The airplane developed a high sink rate and during the flare likely stalled, impacting the runway at a high vertical rate. The forces developed during the flare and touchdown exceeded the certified limit loads of the landing gear and the gear support trunnion fractured as intended. There was no evidence of any pre-existing damage to the gear components, and the fracture and gear separation occurred as designed.

During his postaccident interview, the FAA aircrew program manager discussed the circumstances of some AWAC new-hire pilots who did not successfully complete initial training. Specifically, the FAA official stated that AWAC had changed the simulator time requirements for these pilots because they had completed a type rating course (provided by another training program) before starting AWAC’s training program. AWAC determined that these pilots needed fewer hours of simulator time than other new-hire pilots. However, according to the FAA official, these pilots had high initial operating experience times and “weren’t getting it, so [AWAC] let them go.” It is possible that these pilots might have performed better if they had been more thoroughly trained by the company.

A captain who was also a CL-65 flight instructor stated that, because of constraints with simulator time, all pilots needed to complete their training during the time that had been scheduled. The director of flight training stated that the simulator, at full utilization, provided 600 hours of training per month, but that the company needed 1,000 hours of simulator training per month. The amount of IOE time provided to new-hire FOs had significantly increased because AWAC had not revised its simulator training to accommodate the needs of pilots with little or no jet experience. As a result, IOE had to be routinely extended beyond the FAA’s requirement. Since many simulator training scenarios cannot be accomplished in an airplane, particularly during passenger carrying flights, IOE is not an adequate substitute for simulator training exercises.

Further, new-hire FOs who completed AWAC’s initial training program were subject to a 1-year probation period. However, unlike other 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 operators, AWAC did not effectively conduct a program to assess the performance of probationary pilots. The accident FO’s training and checkrides did not reveal his weaknesses with automation, pacing, and crew coordination, which rendered him unprepared to properly execute the approach into Providence during the accident flight. In addition, captains did not produce trip reports after flying with first officers, and, according to the Norfolk base manager, meetings to discuss probationary FO’s progress during their first year were no longer held because the base managers were “too busy.” Thus, two potential methods to identify FOs’ weaknesses were not used by AWAC.

Because the first officers hired by AWAC in the 2 years preceding this accident had decreased levels of experience, these first officers would have benefited from additional training and oversight. However, AWAC’s training program was ineffective because it did not accommodate these needs.

The FAA’s Principal Operations Inspector (POI) was based in Des Planes, Illinois, but AWAC’s primary training center was in Charlotte, NC. The POI stated that providing oversight of AWAC was difficult because of the required travel. Because of the limited on-site oversight of AWAC’s training program of new first officers, the FAA did not identify the shortcomings of AWAC’s program in preparing these less experienced first officers for flying in high-performance jet airplanes.

History of flight:

On December 16, at 1645 eastern standard time (EST), a Bombardier CRJ-200 (CL600-2B19), registration N470ZW, serial number 7927, operated by Air Wisconsin as flight 3758 (ATC call sign AWI758A), departed the runway after a hard landing at the Theodore Francis Green State Airport, Providence, RI (PVD). The flight was a regularly scheduled passenger flight which departed Philadelphia (PHL) at about 1600 EST. The First Officer, who had recently completed his Initial Operating Experience (IOE) in the CRJ-200, was the Pilot Flying (PF). This flight was the second time he had flown from Philadelphia to PVD, and the Captain, Pilot Not Flying (PNF), was aware that he was new to the airline. The accident flight was the fourth leg the crew had flown that day, the Captain was PF for the first two legs, and the FO flew the leg from Richmond into PHL. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed for all of their flights that day.

The flight to the PVD area was reported as routine, with IFR weather enroute. Winds aloft in the vicinity of the initial descent were reported as from 220 degrees at 100 knots, resulting in a large tailwind component. Both crewmembers stated they felt rushed during the descent. The flight was cleared for and executed an ILS runway 5 approach. The airplane was initially established and stabilized on the localizer and glideslope. Approximately 2 miles from the runway threshold, at an altitude of 700 feet, the FO disconnected the autopilot and flight director (FD) and announced that he had disengaged the autopilot. In an interview he stated that he wanted to get the feel of the airplane, and "declutter" the display. At the time, Air Wisconsin procedures allowed hand flying raw data instrument approaches.

About 30 seconds later, the airplane drifted to the left of the approach course, and continued to descend, although above the glidepath. The airplane broke out of the overcast at 300’ and the crew saw the approach lights at the 2 o’clock position. The Captain offered to take over the airplane and the FO concurred. The Captain made a statement which the FO incorrectly heard as a command to reduce power to idle, and he did so, without the Captain’s knowledge. The Captain maneuvered the airplane in a series of descending banks, reaching a maximum bank angle of 22 degrees at a height of less than 100 feet above the runway. A descent rate of up to 2000 feet per minute developed. During the landing maneuver, pitch attitude decreased to 7 degrees nose down, then flared to 4 degrees nose up within five seconds just prior to touchdown. The captain increased power to about 73% N1 during the flare maneuver. Airspeed was approximately 132 knots at touchdown. Due to the flare rotation and sink rate, the airplane exceed the stall angle of attack, and the stall protection system (stick shaker and pusher) briefly activated. According to a performance study, the airplane touched down in about a nine degree left bank, heading about 049 degrees with a sink rate of approximately 18 feet per second.

The touchdown point was approximately 1000 to 1200 feet from the threshold of runway 5. The left main gear collapsed and the airplane exited the left side of the runway and slid through a snow-covered grassy area. The airplane came to a stop on a magnetic heading of approximately 320 degrees at about 3700 feet from the threshold. The 3 crew members and 31 passengers were not injured, and exited the airplane via the normal airstair door.

Injuries to persons:

None.

Damage to aircraft:

The left main gear separated from the main landing gear support trunnion at the pivot assembly (pintle pin). The trunnion fractured, and the rear portion was forced upward and aft, bending the aft landing gear support "false spar" and separating it from the inner mounts. The wheel truck penetrated the flap and upper wing skin. Fractures in the upper wing skin of approximately 18" surrounded the penetration area. The aft main spar was bent in the vicinity of the forward support of the trunnion. The gear door was separated, and the door brace was broken. The main gear remained attached to the airplane by the actuator, and the actuator mounting supports were bent. The gear assembly itself was intact with scraping damage and cuts to the tires consistent with encountering the wing and flap components. Wing tip damage to the light and fairing was also observed. There was no fuel spill. The left engine had minor FOD damage causing numerous nicks and cuts to about 10 fan blades.

The airworthiness group examined the aircraft and landing gear components at PVD. The team found no evidence of fatigue cracking, corrosion damage, undue wear, arcing strikes or other damage on either the landing gear components or in the left hand MLG wheel well cavity.

The MLG mounting trunnion sustained a massive diagonal fracture, but remained attached to the wing structure. The trunnion pin (pintle pin) was sheared off and was seized in the housing. The trunnion parts were removed from the airplane for metallurgical examinations.

Other damage:

Three lights along the left side of runway 5 were broken when the airplane slid off the runway.

Personnel information:

The captain, age 30, was hired by Air Wisconsin (AWAC) on September 15, 2003. He held an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, multi-engine land, a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument-airplane rating, and was a certified flight instructor and instrument instructor. He had a CL-65 type rating and a BE-1900 type rating. He had a first class medical with vision correction required.

He had a total flying time of 5500 hours, of which 3000 was pilot-in-command (PIC), 2300 of which was in the CL-65, and 1000 of which was CL-65 PIC. His prior commercial flight experience was on the BE-1900D and C-182. He flew the BE-1900D at Great Lakes Airlines as First Officer and Captain.

The first officer, age 39, was hired by Air Wisconsin on July 22, 2007. He held an Airline Transport Pilot certificate single-engine land, a commercial pilot certificate multi-engine land with instrument-airplane rating, and is a certified flight instructor, instrument, single and multi-engine land. He holds advanced and instrument ground instructor certificates with an FAA "gold seal". He has a type rating in the CL-65. He held an FAA first class medical, dated December 7, 2007 with limitations.

He had a total flying time of 2000 hours, of which 1400 was single engine, 600 multi engine, and 150 hours of turbine time, all of which was on the CL-65 at Air Wisconsin. He had worked for two years as a Certified Flight Instructor (CFI), most recently for one year at Frederick, MD, and the year before that at Chesapeake, VA. Prior to that he managed a flight school at Frederick. He had an earlier career in accounting and consulting, held a degree in accounting and was a Certified Public Accountant.

Aircraft information:

N470ZW, a CL-600-2B19, serial number 7927, was about 3 ½ years old. Air Wisconsin acquired the airplane new. The airplane was equipped with General Electric CF34-3B1 engines. Air Wisconsin dispatch records indicate that the airplane was loaded within appropriate weight and balance criteria. Estimated landing weight was 45,052 pounds. Post-accident examination of the flight deck revealed that the anti-skid system was armed, spoilers retracted, thrust reversers armed, and flaps at 45 degrees. The speed card page for a 45,000 pound landing weight was open, which showed a Vref speed of 138 knots. There were no relevant open maintenance items in the aircraft logs. One MEL item "APU inlet door inhibited open" resulted in a speed limitation of 300 knots IAS. Flight recorder circuit breakers were found pulled.

Meteorological information:

The current observation at the time of the accident was reported at 2106 UTC, and indicated wind f