CRJ100/200/Challenger (and Similar Type Aircraft) Wing and Wing-Icing Related Accidents
Date/Type Regn Description Link to accident report
22 Nov 72

YAK40

CCCP-87819

 Krasnoyarsk Airport, Russia. Aircraft crashed on takeoff after taxiing and holding in snowing conditions link

 
26 JAN 1974

Fokker F28

TC-JAO

 Izmir-Cumaovasi Airport (ADB) (Turkey)The Fokker aircraft became airborne after a ground run on runway 35 of approx. 3200 feet. At a height of 8-10m the aircraft suddenly yawed left and pitched nose-down. The aircraft contacted the ground again and struck a drainage ditch, skidded, disintegrated and caught fire.
The aircraft had just accumulated 2269 flying hours in 3133 flights.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The aircraft stalled on takeoff due to over rotation and frost accretion on the wings.		 link
03 APR 1980

CL600

 Mojave Ca. A non-scheduled stall was conducted after the scheduled test and AOA increased past maximum of 34deg. Control was lost and couldn't be regained, the spin chute was deployed and the crew baled out. link
10 Mar 89

Fokker F28

C-FONF

 

 Dryden Ontario. Aircraft was being refueled with one engine running, because of an unserviceable APU. Although a layer of 1/8-1/4 inch of snow had accumulated on the wings, no de-icing was done because de-icing with either engine running was prohibited by both Fokker and Air Ontario. Since no external power unit was available at Dryden, the engines couldn't be restarted in case of engine shutdown on the ground.
At 12:09 CST the aircraft started it's take-off roll using the slush-covered runway 29. The Fokker settled back after the first rotation and lifted off for the second time at the 5700 feet point of the 6000 feet runway. No altitude was gained and the aircraft mushed in a nose-high attitude, striking trees.		 link
25 Nov 89

Fokker F28 HL7285

 Seoul (Kimpo). The accident report says that wing ice was shed, ingested by No 1 engine and the aircraft left the runway and caught fire. The sequence of events here has been much debated - and it may well be a similar, but misinterpreted, wing-induced icing crash link
22 Mar 92

Fokker F28

N485US

 LaGuardia. PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the airline industry and the Federal Aviation Administration to provide flight crews with procedures, requirements, and criteria compatible with departure delays in conditions conducive to airframe icing and the decision by the flight crew to take off without positive assurance that the airplane's wings were free of ice accumulation after 35 minutes of exposure to precipitation following de-icing  (Type I de-icing fluid safe holdover time is 11 mins). The ice contamination on the wings resulted in an aerodynamic stall and loss of control after lift-off. link
05 MAR 1993

Fokker 100

PH-KXL

 Skopje Macedonia. Two seconds after lift-off the Fokker experienced heavy vibrations followed by a sudden 10º right bank, a 50º left bank and a 55º right bank. The right wingtip struck the ground, 382m past the runway end with a 90º bank. The wing separated and the fuselage broke into three pieces.
PROBABLE CAUSE: Loss of roll controllability due to contamination of the wings with ice. This situation resulted from an omission to carry out spraying of the aircraft with de-icing or anti-icing fluid in meteorological conditions conductive to icing.		 link
26 Jul 1993

CRJ100

C-FCRJ

 Wichita Kansas. Deep stall and the anti-spin drogue chute was inadvertently jettisoned link
16 Dec 97

CRJ100ER

 

C-FSKI

 Fredericton New Brunswick. Stick-shaker and stall/flick on low go-round in icing conditions.

The limitations of the ice-detection and annunciation systems and the procedures on the use of wing anti-ice did not ensure that the wing would remain ice-free during flight.
- Ice accretion studies indicate that the aircraft was in an icing environment for at least 60 seconds prior to the stall, and that during this period a thin layer of mixed ice with some degree of roughness probably accumulated on the leading edges of the wings. Any ice on the wings would have reduced the safety margins of the stall protection system.
- The implications of ice build-up below the threshold of detection, and the inhibiting of the ice advisory below 400 feet, were not adequately considered when the stall margin was being determined during the 1996 certification of the ice-detection system and associated procedures.
- The stall protection system operated as designed: that it did not prevent the stall is related to the degraded performance of the wings.

The aircraft stalled at an angle of attack approximately 4.5 degrees lower, and at a CLmax 0.26 lower, than would be expected for the natural stall.
- On final approach below 1000 feet agl, the wing performance on the accident flight was degraded over the wing performance at the same phase on the previous flight.
- The engineering simulator comparison indicated two step reductions in aircraft performance, at 400 feet and 150 feet agl, as a result of local flow separation in the vicinity of wing station (WS) 247 and WS 253.
- Pitting on the leading edges of the wings had a negligible effect on the performance of the aircraft.
- The sealant on the leading edges of both wings was missing in some places and protruding from the surface 2 to 3 mm in others. Test flights indicate that the effect of the protruding chordwise sealant on the aircraft performance could have accounted for a reduction of 1.7 to 2.0 degrees in maximum fuselage angle of attack and of 0.03 to 0.05 in CLmax.
- The maximum reduction in angle of attack resulting from ground effect is considered to be in the order of 0.75±0.5 degree: the aircraft angle of attack was influenced by ground effect during the go-around maneuver.
- The performance loss caused by the protruding sealant and by ground effect was not great enough to account for the performance loss experienced; there is no apparent phenomenon other than ice accretion that could account for the remainder of the performance loss.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1997/a97h0011/a97h0011.asp

link
10 OCT 2000

Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604

C-FTBZ

 Wichita Kansas. Excessive take-off rotation/stick-shaker/bank angle & aural stall warning preceded a crash on takeoff link
04 JAN 2002

CL604 

N90AG

Birmingham UK - crew did not ensure that N90AG's wings were clear of frost prior to takeoff.; 2. Reduction of the wing stall angle of attack, due to the surface roughness associated with frost contamination, to below that at which the stall protection system was effective.

Takeoff appeared normal up to lift-off. Rotation was started at about 146 kt. Lift-off occurred 2 seconds later, at about 153 kt and with a pitch attitude of about 8 degrees nose-up. Immediately after lift-off, the aircraft started to bank to the left. The rate of bank increased rapidly and 2 seconds after lift-off the bank angle had reached 50 degrees. At that point, the aircraft heading had diverged about 10 degrees to the left. Opposite aileron, followed closely by right rudder, was applied as the aircraft started banking; full right aileron and full right rudder had been applied within 1 second and were maintained. As the bank angle continued to increase, progressively more aircraft nose-up elevator was applied. Stick-shaker operation initiated 3.5 seconds after lift-off. The left winglet contacted the runway shoulder, the outboard part of the left wing detached and the aircraft struck the ground inverted, structurally separating the forward fuselage.

 link
21 NOV 2004

CRJ200LR 

B-3072

 Baotou China. The wings were contaminated by the overnight frost, which severely degraded the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing. Shortly after the airplane rotated, it entered a stall. The pilots were not able to regain control. link
28 Nov 2004

CL600

N873G

 

 Montrose Colorado. Airplane remained parked for approximately 50 minutes until the crew received their IFR clearance at 09:55. The airplane taxied out to runway 31. After rotation the airplane reportedly yawed to the right. The airplane impacted terrain to the right of runway and slid approximately 1,400 feet, through the airport perimeter fence, across a road and through an adjacent fence.

Probable cause of this accident was the flight crew's failure to ensure that the airplane's wings were free of ice or snow contamination that accumulated while the airplane was on the ground This resulted in an attempted takeoff with upper wing contamination that induced the subsequent stall and collision with the ground.

 link
02 Feb 2005

CL600

N370V

 Teterboro NJ  When takeoff speed was reached the pilot tried to lift the plane off the runway but, according to his statement the control wheel was stuck. He then aborted the takeoff, but the plane skidded off the runway. Preliminary investigation results indicate that the airplane's center of gravity (CG) was well forward of the allowable limit.
On December 16, 2003 another Challenger jet aborted take-off at Teterboro when the flightcrew was unable to rotate the airplane. The aircraft overran the runway. In this case, the NTSB determined that the plane was above the maximum gross takeoff weight, and outside the forward center-of-gravity envelope.		 link
25 Jan 2007

Fokker 100

F-GMPG

 Pau, France. Preliminary analysis, plus witness statements, shows that the aircraft accelerated normally up to Vr. Immediately on becoming airborne it rolled rapidly to the left, rocked to the right and then again strongly to the left. It struck the ground, rebounding into the air. At this point its speed was 160 kts. The crew closed the throttles and the aircraft struck the ground again and followed a course to the right of the approach lights, going through the perimeter fence and crossing the road upon which was the lorry whose driver was killed. No loss of engine power is evident during the flight phase of the aircraft.” Temperature at the time was 0°C and dew point was -1°C and the aircraft was not de-iced prior to departure. link
13 Feb 07

Challenger 850

N168CK

 Moskva-Vnukovo Airport Russia.   Challenger 850 a corporate version of the CRJ-200LR  RegionalJet, crashed back onto the runway on takeoff. It skidded and overturned before coming to rest.
Weather at the time of the accident (13:36 UTC) was reported as: UUWW 131330Z 13005MPS 1000 R06/1000N SHSN VV003 M06/M07 Q1009 TEMPO 0700 +SHSN RMK 06511040 QBB100= (wind 130 degrees at 10 kts, visibility 1000 m in snow showers with a 300 ft. vertical visibility, Temperature -6 C, Dewpoint -7 C, QNH 1009 hPa)		 link
 

IMAGERY

TYPE

LE SLATS
www.tinyurl.com/379fsa Challenger 601 NO
www.tinyurl.com/2u7j3b CRJ-100 NO
www.tinyurl.com/2pjcwe CRJ200LR NO
www.tinyurl.com/2xdoxy  Challenger 850 NO
www.tinyurl.com/2lk3xq BD700 Global Express YES

Out of 6 corporate and 10 regional jet (CRJ100/200/Fokker) write-offs , we have 9 (i.e. well over half) that are associated with the basic unslatted wing's characteristics.

That's disregarding the Pinnacle Airlines CRJ crash which related to a mishandled stall at the aircraft's service ceiling.