PDA

View Full Version : Dash 8 gear problems ( Merged)


teleport
9th Sep 2007, 15:02
http://politiken.dk/indland/article377278.ece
reports a Scandinavian Airlines De Havilland Q400 made an emergency landing at AAL EKYT.
Fortunately all passengers safely disembarked before the plane caught fire!!!

Subsequently: half an hour later it was reported that the fire was extinguished. And that the landing gear on one side was involved.

JEP
9th Sep 2007, 16:52
Link to danish newssite with link to video.
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-8216610.html?forside

Link to video:
http://www.dr.dk/NETTV/Update/2007/09/09/09180004.htm

RobertS975
9th Sep 2007, 16:57
I certainly do not understand the language... looks like the right main gear was simply not locked down. Was there a known problem while on approach? If not, why were these guys filming the landing? CFR got there real quickly, but they did not seem to be standing by as one would expect if there was a known problem.

Gooneyone
9th Sep 2007, 17:03
Looking at the video, it seems that the r. gear collapsed as soon as it contacted the runway.
Fire service response was fantastic, but were they on standby? If so, had the crew reported / were aware of a problem?

AlphaCharlie
9th Sep 2007, 17:10
If they weren't on standby then its a huge coincidence that a fire truck can just be seen in the video clip roaring down the runway behind the Q400 ... I think that answers the question about whether this was a planning emergency!

JEP
9th Sep 2007, 17:12
The problem was known.
According to the news a helikopter (S61 or EH101 based at EKYT) was scrambled to visually inspect the right landing gear.
The Q400 stayed in the air to give fire and rescue time and to burn fuel.
It is said, the plane landed with 900 kgs fuel, and passengers were removed from the seats adjacent to the prop.
It is also said, debris from the prop penetrated the fuselage.

AlphaWhiskyRomeo
9th Sep 2007, 17:13
You don't have a firetruck chasing an aircraft down the runway that quickly unless they were already standing by for an indicated unsafe gear fault, I reckon.

And the chances that there was a video and photographer at the airport to capture that landing, and not seem totally surprised when the aircraft slid off the runway makes me think that advance notice was given.

AlphaCharlie
9th Sep 2007, 17:32
Just watched the video again ... and even without the confirmatory info given above, right at the start of the video you can just make out that the main landing gear downs are still open. This is not status normal for the Q400 ... looks like emergency checklist consulted and normal landing gear hydraulics inhibited (whether as a precaution or whether they gear had to be lowered by the alternate method we can't tell yet).

Super VC-10
9th Sep 2007, 19:55
Non-pilot here.

Any reason why they didn't shut down the starboard engine before landing? :confused:

AlphaWhiskyRomeo
9th Sep 2007, 20:14
Was thinking the same - certainly would have made sense if parts of the prop penetrated the fuselage upon hitting the tarmac.

Maybe weather conditions dictated it to be difficult??

Blues&twos
9th Sep 2007, 20:26
Another non-pilot (well, only a few hours under instruction) - maybe engine not shut down in case go-around required?

mucatron
9th Sep 2007, 20:39
With consideration to my recent Twin Otter flight (with West Coast) I'd love to know if the fuselage on a prop is meant to withstand such impacts?

armchairpilot94116
9th Sep 2007, 23:52
Anyone hurt? Plane a write off?

thepeacock
10th Sep 2007, 06:38
Routed Copenhagen – Aalborg
Scandinavian Airlines regrets to confirm that one of its aircraft, a Dash 8-400 (Q400) with flight number SK1209 from Copenhagen to Aalborg was involved in an accident at Aalborg Airport, at 16:10 hrs local time today.
Prior to the accident problems with the aircrafts main landing gear was identified and the pilots prepared a controlled emergency landing. After landing the right main gear collapsed.
There where 69 passengers and 4 crew onboard and we can confirm that 5 passengers have been lightly injured during evacuation.
A team of specially-trained SAS personnel is at Aalborg Airport to provide assistance.
SK1209 is a code-share* flight with Spanair flight number JK9101, BMI flight number BD3923 and Lufthansa flight number LH6002.
The Danish Accident Investigation Board will investigate the accident. Scandinavian Airlines continues its operations as scheduled.

teleport
10th Sep 2007, 07:03
Politiken carries a story today citing strong criticism by the Danish CAA (SLF) about borderline maintenance standards.
The article states that between 2003 and 2006 SAS flew between 6,000-10,000 "illegal flights".
In Danish : http://politiken.dk/indland/article377415.ece

Founder
10th Sep 2007, 07:09
I'm a jet pilot (A320) so I'm not that familiar with turbo-prop procedures but you never shut down an engine unless you really really have to. If you shut down one engine you loose about 60-70% of your aircraft power.

And as a pilot you can not predict what's going to happen so you follow your checklists and procedures as they are written and nothing more. It's not up to you to start experimenting and preparing for any "perhaps". You follow the procedures and thats it...

Regarding the power for go-around, the aircraft can fly with 1 engine and it can make a go-around with 1 engine but with a reduced rate of climb but it is approved and certified for it.

Regarding the parts penetrating the fuselage. Most turbo-prop aircrafts has a strengthened structure abeam to the propeller, but this is mostly to defend the structure from ice being thrown of the propellers.

From my point of view (having seen the movie) I thought the pilots made a very good decision to burn off as much fuel as possible and regarding the landing it was a good landing...

If the landing gear is going to collapse it's not much you can do about it... not with an aircraft that has such long landing gear legs anyway. I'd prefer an aircraft with the landing gear attached to the main body, it would create less of a yawing moment incase of a collapse, but this is of course pure speculation...

/Tim

aero junkie
10th Sep 2007, 07:35
After several hundreds of emergency landings with the SAS Q400's, it was only a matter of time :ugh:

teleport
10th Sep 2007, 07:50
DR.dk (Danish Radio) reports citing a passenger from the flight that 3 rows in the vicinity of the propellers were vacated in preparation for the emergency landing.
And that bits of propeller did actually penetrate the fuselage entering the cabin.

Founder
10th Sep 2007, 07:57
aero junkie: on what facts do you base that comment on?

waav8r
10th Sep 2007, 08:25
aero junkie is most probably a Q400 driver, and as such would treat every landing like a "controlled crash".;)

cwatters
10th Sep 2007, 08:28
> DR.dk (Danish Radio) reports citing a passenger from the flight that 3 rows
> in the vicinity of the propellers were vacated in preparation for the
> emergency landing.

If that wasn't in the check list well done that crew.

Personally sitting next to any engine give me the willies. I know it shouldn't but then I'm not the sort who volunteers for the knife throwing act at the circus. Again well done crew.

antic81
10th Sep 2007, 09:46
Hi there

Would another reason for not shutting the #2 down have something to do with all the extra drag of the gear down, perhaps not being able to retract, and therefore, in the case of a go around, this having a severe effect on single engine climb performance?

Cheers

Ant

Guttn
10th Sep 2007, 09:55
The Danish "mountainous terrain" shouldn`t pose a problem regarding single engine missed approach climb gradient:}:ok:.

From my interpretation of the "facts presented", the gear was not locked. Cockpit indication would be 2 green, and 1 either orange or red, or maybe even flickering green :=. An uncertainty in any case, but you know something is not right. Well done by the crew for giving ATC an early notice and deciding to burn fuel to reduce landing weight (not as much pressure on the gear upon touchdown) and as we know; lower landing weight means lower Vref:D. Even better was the decision of the crew/cabin crew to move passengers away from the props:ok::D. Also, a good landing as seen on the clip. Too bad about the collapse though :ugh:

threemiles
10th Sep 2007, 10:19
Where were the paxes from the 3 rows moved to when the plane was full (69 pax)?

aero junkie
10th Sep 2007, 11:07
aero junkie: on what facts do you base that comment on?
In the news over the years..

Oct 2000
SAS grounds all planes of type Dash8/Q400 after a long series of instrumental problems.

SAS Q400s are out of service pending inspection of pitot/static system after an aircraft landed at Copenhagen with no speed or height information.

Jan 01
SAS Commuter and Bombardier work together to fix on going Dash Q400 problems.

Feb 01
Scandinavian carrier SAS Commuter is to ground all of its Canadian built turbo prop planes beacause of recurring inflight technical problems.

Jan 02
All Q400 grounded due to a crack found in main landing gear. This is after multiple problems with the fleet, including many unsafe gears, uplocked gear, hydraulic leaks and losses of quantity in one system, many faults related to vibration, parts of structure fallen off in flight, excessive wear on hoses, uplock hooks.

Sas examines 21 dash 8 Q400 planes for possible bolt defects.

Jan 03
An SAS (SK) Dash 8 Q400 had to make an emergency landing in Stavanger.

SAS Commuter had to ground it’s Dash8 Q400 fleet after several instances of false smoke warnings from the cargo hold resulting in multiple emergency landings.

Sep 07
Many SAS flights cancelled due to technical faults.

Sep 07
SAS Dash 8 Q400 makes emergency landing in Denmark due to landing gear failure.

aero junkie
10th Sep 2007, 11:14
Where were the paxes from the 3 rows moved to when the plane was full (69 pax)?


I believe there Q400's have 76 seats

Rickenbacker69
10th Sep 2007, 11:15
Official statement from SAS here:
http://www.sas.se/sv/Misc/Ovriga_sidor/Statement-on-Accident-SK1209---/?vst=true

Seems like they knew the gear was dodgy before landing. Looking at the video it seems like it just wasn't locked down and collapsed after rolling for a second or two?

AerocatS2A
10th Sep 2007, 11:26
Does the Q400 have the same landing gear system as the smaller ones?

teleport
10th Sep 2007, 12:49
Further reporting from Politiken.dk in Danish:
Apparently the Captain has been involved in dialogue on the web declaring that he believed a faulty sensor was to blame and was 90% certain the landing gear would hold.
The questioning was whether a landing on water was considered. The captain is quoted as stating that that was not considered.

lomapaseo
10th Sep 2007, 12:56
Any confirmation that a prop actually penetrated the fuselage and in what axial plane?

I'm not aware of how you can put an axial force large enough to break off a prop and still have it tangentialy have enough energy to penetrate the fuselage. Seems like we have visited this before in the New Zealand B1900 thread

Gooneyone
10th Sep 2007, 17:38
See link below for further info. Seems that the prop debris did penetrate the fusalage, slightly injuring one pax.


http://www.dr.dk/NETTV/Update/2007/09/09/09180004.htm

PaperTiger
10th Sep 2007, 17:42
The questioning was whether a landing on water was considered. The captain is quoted as stating that that was not considered.The captain is therefore also to be congratulated for his diplomacy in answering the most stupid question I have seen for a long time.

teleport
10th Sep 2007, 18:39
Gooneyone See link below for further info. Seems that the prop debris did penetrate the fusalage, slightly injuring one pax.

This link seems to encapsulate all reporting about the accident.
For a good video and interview with an English speaking passenger reporting on propeller debris penetrating the cabin click on the following (in Danish) on the DR UPDATE video website:

Propel-ramt passager fortæller
10.09.2007 17:18

teleport
10th Sep 2007, 18:42
And click on this link which shows the battered fuselage:

SAS-flytype: Højre hjul er knækket før
10.09.2007 15:56

angustias
10th Sep 2007, 19:11
See the story about Q-400 gear problems. Posted in the spring 2007 by a pilot with 3000 hrs on the Q400 for Scandinavian Airlines.

We have had an endless number of problems with the gear; I myself have had two occasions of the gear cycling itself multiple times, with the handle in the up and lock positions - Aparently caused by proximity sensors, as has been the case for many of my colleagues.
Looks kind of exiting with all the red, green and amber lights coming and going all the time, not to mention the actual feeling of doors and gear moving.
Fortunately, in my case, it never happend at 280 KIAS....I doubt the doors would remain attached.
In one case there was a problem with the actual uphook, very nearly causing one maingear to not extend....Crew extended it after trying alternate extension for about one hour and on a hot phoneline to Bombardier.
A few cases of trouble in the company too with nosegear extension - Don't remember the cause.
We still hear of problems on a regular basis with the prox sensors.

There has been, and contiue to be, problems with just about any system on this A/C....More interesting, we have had more than a few prop overspeeds in the last year - This results in shutting the engine down (in the case where you are able to regain some control with the propspeed) which is obviously not always a desirable thing to do in the Scandinavian winthers !

Very, very interesting aircraft indeed, and we are way beyond the "infant illness" period ....

F_Hercules
10th Sep 2007, 19:38
angustias

interesting stuff... where did you get it from?!

ok1
10th Sep 2007, 21:18
The original thread is here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=268902

Super VC-10
10th Sep 2007, 21:29
The English-speaking pax in the video mentioned in #32 says he hopes they can get the plane fixed by Saturday, when he has to fly out! :eek:

There is another video on that site showing the aircraft being towed away. Registration appears to be LN-RDA - seen briefly at very end of clip. SAS-flytype: Højre hjul er knækket før (http://www.dr.dk/NETTV/Update/2007/09/09/09180004.htm#)

Caudillo
10th Sep 2007, 22:25
Slight thread drift:

I checked out the second video of the second post - you see the right gear collapse, I think the aircraft apparently shifts over onto the grass. I can't make out any flames nonetheless the firetruck rolls up and blows its foam at the a/c.

I'd just like to get some opinions here for me to think over, and of course it's difficult without being there and knowing the exact circumstances.

However, given what I've described above - would you be thinking evacuation? It looks like a quiet airfield (may of course be mistaken) - how would you view an evacuation if the above had happened at say Heathrow or another busy airfield?

From here it's not clear to me one way or another - I'd assume given the nature of what happened that there's not been time to get onto 121.6, even if there hasn't been a fire indication - which I'd imagine likely - from the front they'd be unlikely to be able to tell what's going on in the back either way. Then again, the worst has probably happened - do you want people jumping out of a crooked aircraft? Busy airfield, lots of trucks - how about the chances of roadkill?

I've been thinking about this question recently - ie a soft crash - and would welcome some opinions.

Cheers

Alpine Flyer
10th Sep 2007, 23:15
While the actual damage to the A/C does not appear to be "beyond repair" a landing with a prop disintegrating ("exploding" is a bit steep), a wingtip touching the ground and the A/C turning 90 degrees into the grass must feel quite disconcerting from the flightdeck, even if you anticipate it (at least it always does on the Sim).

There appear to be flames in the right engine area after touchdown although they're gone by the time the fire truck arrives.

With damage like that I'd rather think "evacuate" than keep everyone on board with a risk of fire. There is no way to assess the whole situation from the flight deck and getting pax out seems to be the safer option to me.

---

While pilots are instructed to shut up after any mishap and usually do so, it is interesting to read how there's always someone willing to make unwarranted statements, in this case the chief of the Airport's fire department. Unless I make wrong conclusions from the Danish reports, he comments on how a foam carpet would have reduced the risk of fire on touchdown (although we have been taught for years that foam carpets are not such a good idea) and that it was seconds/millimeters from a full-blown catastrophe (how very reassuring to pax).

---

AFAIK the landing gear on the Q400 is similar in design and operation to the one on the Q300 but much beefier. Interestingly the Dash 8-100 had problems with "gear bumping" (i.e. gear falling onto the gear doors without apparent reason) later attributed to proximity switch problems in it's infancy (i.e. the mid-eighties). These were later resolved.

The Q400 seems to have had more than it's fair share of "infant illness". One sometimes has the impression that Bombardier was too eager to re-invent the wheel. Otherwise it is hard to understand that such basic things as gear, doors, rear airstair malfunctioned quite a lot. (I can't compare however. Reportedly early Airbuses weren't without fault either.) Systems-wise the Q400 is quite different from the Q300 and more of a new A/C. (While pilots only need 3 days plus some SIM for the transition as everything is designed to look/work similar to the Q300, mechanics need a couple of weeks as everything is differnt under the hood.)

thepeacock
11th Sep 2007, 10:24
Following Sunday's accident in Aalborg, in Denmark, in which one of the landing gears of a Q400 type aircraft collapsed on landing, SAS has today, September 10, conducted discussions with aircraft producer Bombardier.


The producer has confirmed that what happened in Aalborg has never occurred before with this aircraft type at any airline in the world.

SAS conducts regular checks and maintenance programs that meet official requirements.
However, after consultation with Bombardier and although this must be regarded as an isolated incident, SAS has decided to implement a number of extraordinary checks of the landing gear on the entire fleet of Q400 aircraft. These checks are additional to official requirements.

A special inspection of all aircraft of the type in question will be conducted without delay. Work will commence immediately and all aircraft are expected to be inspected within four days.

Porrohman
11th Sep 2007, 16:55
Passengers in the seat rows adjacent to the propellers were moved to alternative seats prior to landing and there were enough empty seats elsewhere on this flight to allow this. What is the procedure if the aircraft is full? Do you leave passengers exposed to the risk of propeller parts penetrating the cabin or do you try to strap three passengers across some pairs of seats in other parts of the cabin?

Was moving the passengers away from these seat rows a part of the normal checklist for main gear problems or was this something that the crew (very wisely) decided to do under their own initiative?

Ladusvala
11th Sep 2007, 22:07
When Flying the Fokker 50 for SAS Commuter I was taught that it might be a good idea to order the cabin crew to relocate the pax, just in case they forget.

thepeacock
12th Sep 2007, 05:34
Scandinavian Airlines regrets to confirm that one of its aircraft, a Dash 8-400 (Q400) with flight number SK2748 from Copenhagen to Palanga was involved in an accident at Vilnius Airport, at 01:48 hrs local time today.

Although no further details of the accident are available at the moment we can confirm that there are 48 passengers and 4 crew onboard. All passengers where evacuated after landing and no injuries are reported.

A team of specially-trained SAS personnel is currently on its way to Vilnius to assist all passengers and crew.

Scandinavian Airlines and Widerøe have decided to ground the entire fleet of Dash 8-400 aircraft until further notice.

Asdrius
12th Sep 2007, 05:44
SAS Q400 flying CPH-Palanga route after circling over Palanga for a long time trying to troubleshoot the problem decided to divert to Vilnius Intl. for emergency landing. Vilnius had better runways and better emergency response. On landing the plane was damaged but nobody hurt. It seems the plane is blocking the runway, and there are disruptions on this morning flights in Vilnius.

Some pictures here:
http://www.alfa.lt/pictureGallery.do?articleId=150004

akerosid
12th Sep 2007, 06:17
Interested to see comment from head of Lithuanian CAA:

"The plane went off the runway because the right landing gear did not function, but the plane landed safely," he added.

On what basis can a Dash 8 landing be considered safe, if the landing gear fails on touchdown?

Incidentally, Bombardier has requested that all Dash 8-Q400s with over 10,000 cycles be grounded for checks.

cwatters
12th Sep 2007, 06:47
>"The plane went off the runway because the right landing gear did not
> function, but the plane landed safely," he added.
>
> On what basis can a Dash 8 landing be considered safe, if the landing gear
> fails on touchdown?

How to spin an accident... Once the wheels have touched, it's landed. After that its taxi.

CaptainProp
12th Sep 2007, 07:54
These Q400s must have costed SAS a fortune by now! In the beginning they had lots of problems with aborted TOs, due to false warnings(?), and also quite a few with smoke development in the flight deck. I wonder if any previous, modern, ac ever had that many problem during their first 5-10 years of operation... Anyone who could comment? Any FlyBe guys around? Have you had as many problems with the Q400? Can the problems at SAS be traced to specific maintenance / operational procedures perhaps?

ORAC
12th Sep 2007, 08:40
VILNIUS (Reuters) - A plane with 52 people aboard crash landed in Lithuania on Wednesday but no one was hurt, the airport said, in the second such accident this week involving a turboprop of the Scandinavian SAS airline.

The plane ploughed through the ground with its fuselage and right wing and slid off the runway at Vilnius airport when the crew decided to put down there after noticing in flight that landing gear had failed.

Following a crash of the same type of SAS plane on Sunday in Denmark, also due to landing gear problems, the airline said it was grounding the Canadian DHC-8-400 aircraft and cancelling 112 flights.

None of the 48 passengers or 4 crew was injured in Wednesday's accident involving the plane, popularly known as the Dash 8, SAS said in a statement. The accident happened at 1.48 a.m. local time (2248 GMT), it added.

"The plane was en route from Copenhagen to the western Lithuanian town Palanga when the crew noted the failure of the front and right landing gear," said Vilnius airport spokesman Arunas Marcinkevicius.

The crew then decided to land in Vilnius, which has a longer and broader runway. Emergency crews raced to the scene to evacuate the passengers and crew, but no one was injured, he added.

Another SAS operated plane of the same type with 73 people on board crashed on Sunday due to landing gear failure in Aalborg in western Denmark, but no one was seriously injured.

The twin-engine turboprop is produced by Canada's Bombardier . Its Q400 version can seat between 68 and 78 passengers, depending on configuration.

AlphaCharlie
12th Sep 2007, 09:14
SAS and Wideroe Ground entire fleet ...

Bombardier ground all Q400s worldwide with more than 10,000 landings until an inspection programme is designed and implimented!

Racing Snake
12th Sep 2007, 09:18
12 September 2007

Bombardier, the manufacturers of the Q400, one of the types of aircraft operated by Flybe, has this morning recommended all operators of the aircraft to inspect the landing gear on all Q400’s with over 10,000 landings.

This inspection affects six of our Flybe Q400 aircraft. Flybe has 74 aircraft of all types in its fleet.

Flybe has immediately followed this advice and is inspecting the aircraft. We are reviewing options to minimise disruption to today’s flying programme. We have posted details of affected flights as shown below and will continue to update this information throughout the course of today.

We advise passengers to review this website on a regular basis if they are flying today. If you have any detailed questions, please contact our call centre on 0871 522 6157.


Flight delays and cancellations as caused by recent operational disruptions:

Isle of Man - London Gatwick
BE7331, due to depart 06:50, is now planned to depart at 08:20

Isle of Man - Manchester
BE7342, delayed, planned to now depart at 12:25

Edinburgh - Southampton
BE7240/BE7243 cancelled

Edinburgh - Belfast City
BE684/BE685 cancelled. Passengers will be reaccommodated onto BE127/BE128 via Glasgow

Exeter - Newcastle
BE701 cancelled. Passengers will be reaccommodated onto Exeter - Leeds Bradford service with bus travel provided on to Newcastle

Guernsey - Southampton
BE616/BE617 cancelled

Jersey - Southampton
BE228/BE229 cancelled

Alpine Flyer
12th Sep 2007, 09:57
8 out of 10 grounded at Tyrolean (Austrian Arrows).

Miraculix
12th Sep 2007, 10:20
This is the 3'rd Dash8-400 to have the right main landing gear fail, all with the same result. 2 for SAS and 1 in Japan some years back, an All Nipon if i remember correctly. Also All Nippon had a nosegear not extending in march of this year, all the -400.

ORAC
12th Sep 2007, 10:45
Flybe: Flight disruptions 12 September 2007 (AM)

After the initial disruption to Flybe’s programme outlined below (http://www.flybe.com/news/0709/12.htm), we are pleased to report that today’s schedule is now back on track with only minimal delays. Passengers should therefore check in as normal for their flights. Flybe expects tomorrow’s programme to operate as normal.

MeNelty
12th Sep 2007, 10:46
Yesterday, the 404 Birmingham - Belfast had gear problems, and had to go around. G-JECN landed successfully at Belfast upon second attempt.

slip and turn
12th Sep 2007, 10:54
Hopefully there's no Q400 flights being attempted into LCY right now. They don't have much room for groundloop excursions, do they?

monkeyboy
12th Sep 2007, 11:36
Tell me about it. I was listening to that most trusted of BBC wireless stations, Radio 4, when they announced on their 10:00 news that two SAS Q400s had crash landed. Oh, please! :hmm:

artbeat
12th Sep 2007, 11:40
View here (http://sputnik-dyn.tv2.dk/popup.php?nodeId=8218152&channelId=0).

vic12
12th Sep 2007, 11:54
ya, correct. One in Aalborg/DK/Sunday and one in Vilnus/LIT to day 12th.
Both with gear problems right side.
All SAS Dash grounded.
reg. vic.

old,not bold
12th Sep 2007, 11:57
Monkeyboy.....perhaps they took a lead from this thread?

Q400 Crash at Vilnius

teleport
12th Sep 2007, 12:13
_________
"Aviation accidents and incidents, a collision with or on the ground or between flying vehicles"

silverelise
12th Sep 2007, 12:20
crash /kræʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[krash] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
... snip ...
5. Aeronautics. to land in an abnormal manner, usually causing severe damage: The airliner crashed.
... snip ...

So per the dictionary definition, a landing in which the gear collapses is abnormal and thus a "crash landing". Admittedly people do tend to blur the words "crash" and "collision" in their minds eye.

Ranger 1
12th Sep 2007, 12:53
I have heard a number of comments from crews of the Q-400 srs, one was about the landing gear, when it first came into service.
I can't help wondering if the harsh enviroment the SAS aircraft sometimes operate in, has taken its toll sooner on the Landing gear of these aircraft than those operated in less harsh enviroments.
Despite all this I guess we shall have to wait for the full report from the investigators to be published.

jewitts
12th Sep 2007, 13:23
Currently being reported in the Danish press, the Pilot in the Vilnius incident, had shut down the right engine, mindful that the prop had penetrated the aircraft in the Aalborg incident. Both right side gear failures. Also being reported is that Pilots and Crew of the SAS Dash 8s are holding a crisis meeting and possibly a vote of no confidence. They have been reminded by management not to talk to the press.

nippysweetie
12th Sep 2007, 13:46
Bombardier recommending that all Q400s with more than 10,000 landing gear cycles be grounded for inspections work – about 60 aircraft affected.
Austrian Airlines as well as SAS known to be taking appropriate action. This is getting costly...

radiosutch
12th Sep 2007, 14:04
I understand a flight from Guernsey to Jersey (ex Manchester) with 74 pax on board on the 11th September had a baggage hold fire warning indication en route to Jersey. The plane stopped on the runway at Jersey and was towed off.

Later Ian Taylor the General Manager advised that it was a spurious signal/ electrical fault.

Source Guernsey Press 12.9.07

Asdrius
12th Sep 2007, 19:33
Some more pics of damage from local press:

Early morning, few hours after the event
http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/crime/article.php?id=14354764&pictureID=14363171
http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/crime/article.php?id=14354764&pictureID=14363195

Later in the day as the plane was moved:
http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/crime/article.php?id=14354764&albumID=14363914&pictureID=14363966
http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/crime/article.php?id=14354764&albumID=14363914&pictureID=14363962
http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/crime/article.php?id=14354764&albumID=14363914&pictureID=14363935
http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/crime/article.php?id=14354764&albumID=14363914&pictureID=14363941
http://www.alfa.lt/pictureGallery.do?articleId=150116

VIdeo link:
http://www.lrytas.lt/videonews/?id=11896095651187620067&sk=1
Funny thing at the end of the video you could actually see Austrian Q400 depart close to crippled SAS plane.

It is reported that on final approach the crew shut down the right engine and on touchdown, when right main gear collapsed, the remaining engine was shut down.

The damage does not look as extensive as in EKYT event, it might be repairable? Of course first the reasons for this MLG failure must be investigated.

normally right blank
12th Sep 2007, 20:06
While pilots are instructed to shut up after any mishap and usually do so, it is interesting to read how there's always someone willing to make unwarranted statements, in this case the chief of the Airport's fire department. Unless I make wrong conclusions from the Danish reports, he comments on how a foam carpet would have reduced the risk of fire on touchdown (although we have been taught for years that foam carpets are not such a good idea) and that it was seconds/millimeters from a full-blown catastrophe (how very reassuring to pax).
---

You're absolutely correct. This clown, however, is not from the airport's fire department. (It is handled by the Danish Air Force for the joint user airfield). But when there is a major incident, accident, catastrophe etc. this gentleman from the nearest "normal" fire brigade comes - usually late - in and takes over "operational control". Thank God, the air force firefighters were ready and put out the fire. (There is an "un-cut" version of the video out there somewhere).

RS999
12th Sep 2007, 23:19
On BBC News 24 Website.........

Flybe grounds aircraft for checks

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44111000/jpg/_44111242_q400flybe203.jpg Six Flybe Bombardier Q400 aircraft are being checked

The UK airline Flybe has grounded six of its Bombardier Q400 turboprop aircraft while safety checks are carried out on their landing gear.
Two of the type owned by the Scandinavian airline SAS have crashed on landing in Europe in the past three days but no passengers were injured.
The manufacturer has also asked for 60 of these aircraft to be grounded for safety checks.
The Flybe routes affected include those serving Edinburgh, Belfast and Gatwick.
Other affected routes include services from the Isle of Man, Manchester, Southampton and the Channel Islands.
The first incident occurred at Aalborg, Denmark on Sunday, and the second happened on Wednesday at Vilnius, Lithuania.
Bombardier and Goodrich, the landing gear manufacturer, has now asked for 60 of the aircraft operating around the world to be grounded until an inspection of the landing gear is carried out.
In July, a Flybe Bombardier Q400 with 36 people on board had to make an emergency landing in Edinburgh when crew members were forced to shut down one of its two turboprop engines.

samusi01
12th Sep 2007, 23:39
...and Horizon Air has grounded most if not all of it's Q400 fleet as well - I was emailed this link today.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/14097069/detail.html

-Sam

mohdawang
13th Sep 2007, 01:35
Time to recall all these products like Mattel & Fisher-Price?:rolleyes:

admiral ackbar
13th Sep 2007, 02:07
I have heard a number of comments from crews of the Q-400 srs, one was about the landing gear, when it first came into service.
I can't help wondering if the harsh enviroment the SAS aircraft sometimes operate in, has taken its toll sooner on the Landing gear of these aircraft than those operated in less harsh enviroments.
Despite all this I guess we shall have to wait for the full report from the investigators to be published.

Well Bombardier being a Canadian company you would think that they would be used to harsh environments and design for them, as I am sure all leading aircraft manufacturers do.

alph2z
13th Sep 2007, 07:25
4 news videos (english)
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070912/Bombardier_070912/20070912?hub=CTVNewsAt11

1 news video (english)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/12/bombardier-grounded.html

4 news videos from Bombardier head-office city (french).
http://lcn.canoe.ca/lcn/infos/lemonde/archives/2007/09/20070912-082631.html
.

Ranger 1
13th Sep 2007, 08:20
admiral ackbar; indeed they do design for these enviroments but.. stick the aircraft in service & you will no doubt over time find out all sorts of Snags that failed to surface during testing, I have known a few Mods on aircraft, over my few years in the world of aviation. Hope they get this one sorted soon :ok:

Jetney
13th Sep 2007, 08:46
Nice going Mohdawang, you little one with the horns! Even bigger loss of "face " here you reckon?

redED
13th Sep 2007, 10:16
Yesterday, the 404 Birmingham - Belfast had gear problems, and had to go around. G-JECN landed successfully at Belfast upon second attempt.
This was infact due to a flap problem apparently, the second attempt being a flapless landing.

Flap40
13th Sep 2007, 11:34
Looking at that Aalborg video I'm surprised that the lift dumpers were used.

redED
13th Sep 2007, 11:41
Looking at that Aalborg video I'm surprised that the lift dumpers were used.

They always are, as soon as there's "weight on wheels".

Flap40
13th Sep 2007, 11:49
I know that they always are for a normal landing but is there not an override facility to allow more control in gear unsafe landings? It seems to deprive the crew of some element of control as to how hard the wing hits the ground.

Alpine Flyer
13th Sep 2007, 11:49
Tyrolean reports internally that an inspection has been mandated/provided by Bombardier and that airplanes will be able to return to service upon satisfactorily completing this inspection. (No details on whether that is short-term recurrent until a permanent fix has been devised.)

Fred Elliot
13th Sep 2007, 15:47
Flap 40,

Nope. You land; you get the spoilers. End of.

You have a choice as to whether they stick up or not ('taxi' or 'flight') on the ground - usually to avoid comments of the "did you know your spoilers are out?" kind at the holding point but not in flight.

Fred.

brain fade
13th Sep 2007, 16:06
Don't these things often happen in threes?:uhoh:

redED
13th Sep 2007, 16:15
Don't these things often happen in threes?

Don't say that, i've got to fly 4 sectors tomorrow!

Alpine Flyer
13th Sep 2007, 16:54
It's been a while since I have flown in a Q400 but couldn't you disable the spoilers via one of the flight control push-off buttons on the glareshield?

(Not that that would be a recommended procedure, just a technical possibility.)

speed freek
13th Sep 2007, 16:56
You guys have to be kidding!!! Shut down a perfectly healthy engine?!?! As was mentioned earlier we do what it says in the checks and that's all. Leave the second guessing to other people. The aircraft is a bit of handful on two engines...but we're used to flying it with two engines. Now apart from introducing another problem to your already f:mad::mad::mad::mad:d up day you want to fly an assymetric approach, which means a reduced flap setting, different landing attitudes, lost some of your hydraulics.......the list goes on. You've got one problem....let's not complicate it. Personally, thought the crew did bloody well. Would hate to have been in their place.

ChristiaanJ
13th Sep 2007, 17:27
You guys have to be kidding!!! Shut down a perfectly healthy engine?!?!
From the Aalborg thread:Currently being reported in the Danish press, the pilot in the Vilnius incident, had shut down the right engine, mindful that the prop had penetrated the aircraft in the Aalborg incident.
Some people learn from experience.... some never learn.

JEP
13th Sep 2007, 17:48
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000433%20Preliminary%20Statement_LN-RDK.pdf

lomapaseo
13th Sep 2007, 21:38
From the Aalborg thread:
"Currently being reported in the Danish press, the pilot in the Vilnius incident, had shut down the right engine, mindful that the prop had penetrated the aircraft in the Aalborg incident. "
Some people learn from experience.... some never learn.
I wouldn't believe what is reported in the press, after all they probably don't know the difference between a hard shutdown and a prop feather.

lomapaseo
13th Sep 2007, 21:40
Quote:
Don't these things often happen in threes?
Don't say that, i've got to fly 4 sectors tomorrow!
well then just skip the third one and go directly to the fourth

RobertS975
14th Sep 2007, 00:09
Horizon Air Initiates Q400 Inspections Based on Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive 9/12/2007 5:20 pm (PT)


SEATTLE — Today, in response to a Transport Canada airworthiness directive (AD), Horizon Air initiated the inspection of the landing gear of its Bombardier Aerospace Q400 turboprops. To allow sufficient time for the inspection process and the reaccommodation of customers whose travels are being affected, Horizon announced it will be making additional flight cancellations through Friday.

The AD was produced in the wake of two landing gear failure incidents involving SAS-affiliated airlines in Europe. Horizon, which has operated the Canadian-manufactured Q400 since 2001 and now has 33 in its fleet, has never experienced any issues like those SAS recently encountered.

Horizon today canceled 120 flights out of its daily average of 500. Horizon is canceling 156 flights on Thursday, and those will appear in central reservations systems by 5:30 p.m. today. Additional cancellations are also expected on Friday as Horizon works through the inspection requirements. Horizon is asking its customers flying on those days to check on the status of their flights via horizonair.com or by calling the reservations center at 800-547-9308.

Through Friday, customers on affected Horizon flights are being offered refunds, being allowed to cancel at no charge, or are being reaccommodated without any change fee.

Aircraft will be returned to service and Horizon flights will be reinstated as the inspections are completed successfully.

Horizon currently operates the Q400 in 74- and 76-seat configurations. Horizon operates two other aircraft types in its all-Bombardier fleet, neither of which is subject to these inspections: 70-seat CRJ-700 regional jets and 37-seat Q200 turboprops.

Horizon serves 48 cities throughout California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and British Columbia and Alberta. Together, Horizon Air and Alaska Airlines serve 92 cities and are subsidiaries of Alaska Air Group, Inc. (NYSE:ALK).

Ignition Override
14th Sep 2007, 04:23
Founder:

That is true, in most situations. But "to follow your checklists and procedures as they are written and nothing more" resulted in a dual-flameout on that A-330 years ago over the Atlantic Ocean, as we all know. A mis-installed engine part allowed a problem to develop which had no simple list of procedures in a book.

As we went through years of accumulated experience, we noticed that sometimes no one list of procedures exactly fits the indications which we have. And fairly often, flying 3-5 legs per day. This happened to us with a hydraulic system along with other systems over the years. Out of about 15 hydraulic choices, no title (with assumed conditions) matched the indications.

When the right pack shows no pressure with a normal APU source, only years with the systems teach us whether to call Maint. or not (we wait until the right engine is started: resetting the pack and press. reg. + flow control circuit breakers often does nothing) . We have many pneumatic, anti-icing and some electrical anomolies.
A few weeks ago I lost my altimeter, EGPWS and TCAS, all at the same time. There is no magic procedure for this, and no circuit breaker pulling/resetting helped.

25 years of this present interesting surprises.

Ladusvala
14th Sep 2007, 07:08
Is it really that difficult to fly with one of the engines shut down? Is not that what every pilot has to be able to do? We practice it in the sim.

Another incident involving a Q 400 revealed that the emergency checklist could be interpreted in different ways.

It was a prop overspeed during approach. The crew followed the checklist and pulled back the throttle. This stabilized the rpm at a higher than normal value but still below the red line.
The checklist stated that if the rpm was uncontrollable, the engine should be shut down. The captain elected not to shut down the engine since the rpm was under control and he did not want to increase the workload by shutting down the engine.
That decision made the aircraft almost impossible to fly and offcourse the autopilot disengaged. According to the investigation report, they came close to crashing.
In his effort not to increase the workload, the captain actually increased the workload to the point that all his capacity had to be used just to fly the aircraft.

The reason was that the windmilling prop caused so much extra drag that they had to overboost the other engine just to remain flying.
Had they feathered the prop, there would never have been an incident.

It seems strange if the captain did not know that a windmilling prop would cause a lot more drag. Maybe he did not consider it to be windmilling. After all the engine was still running and the rpm was under control, is that the same as a windmilling prop?
Now it seems that Bombardier will rewrite the checklist on this point.

Guttn
14th Sep 2007, 09:22
Not completely correct... The checklist was never completed after the power lever was retarded,and the prop rpm was inside limits (controllable). :bored: The next step is to feather the prop, but keep it running - in case you for some reason need the engine later on... Don`t know the SAS procedures regarding this though, so I could be mistaken:ouch:

Ladusvala
14th Sep 2007, 10:16
Okay, anyway the report stated that the checklist could be misinterpreted at that point. I believe the training had focused on a prop overspeed during takeoff not during approach.

Strangely it had been another incident just like it in the same situation and with the crew leaving the prop unfeathered. That time it did not cause any similar problems handling the aircraft.
That is the reason the first officer did not insist on feathering the prop.

However, all pilots should be perfectly able to fly an aircraft with engine failure (shut down).

weasil
14th Sep 2007, 11:43
Horizon must be thanking their lucky stars they don't fly the CRJ200 also. A major AD for those came out this past week in the US due to constant and regular flap failures. I read through the AD last night and it puts some very complicated requirements on the flight crews with respect to planning for a flap failure.
The video of that Q400 gear collapsing is quite amazing, it looked like the gear held up for a few seconds before it decided to just completely give way. I can only assume that the cockpit indication was that the gear was not locked?

teleport
14th Sep 2007, 14:37
SAS Q400s grounded until Mon at the earliest as Scandinavian CAAs carry on inspections; reports politiken.dk

Basil
14th Sep 2007, 15:03
Once the wheels have touched, it's landed. After that its taxi.
Not necessarily my dear Watkins :hmm:
Some hairyplanes, from little narrow track taildraggers to big swept wing jets, need to be flown on the ground as well; esp in a crosswind or with control pproblems.

M609
14th Sep 2007, 17:12
Wideroe has found corrotion on the part in question on one of their Q400s.
A news crew from NRK was shown the offending part, which has been removed from the a/c for further inspection.

Head of the Norwegian CAA Heine Richardsen commented that he found the whole problem extraordinary, and that Bombardier has dropped the ball regarding inspection intervals on the part.

Richardsen inspected one Q400 himself today as part of a meeting with Wideroe management. Wideroe was commended for grounding their fleet early on.

NRK allso reports that Q400s on which corrotion is found, will stay grounded for some time, due to lack of spare parts. (Hydraulic piston)

ray cosmic
14th Sep 2007, 20:44
I remember from the Fokker 50 to shut down the engine at the moment you're already on the ground.

Landing is assured, and with the engine shut down it at least takes some energy out..

sparkies
16th Sep 2007, 14:19
Dear friends,

the corrossin on the retraction actuator wich was found on both AC broken were caused by the crash, but not the root cause as the gear locks mechanially by the overcenter.Of cause all parties have interest to get planes back in the air asap- but only if the real cause is known.
Just think how inprobably it is to have the same event within two days same operator and you can imagine what happened.

Sparkies

speed freek
16th Sep 2007, 23:38
Some people learn from experience.... some never learn.

Well what about a bit of common sense? Or experience on the type you fly?

Some background info on the Q400. Big props and an even bigger engine. Single engine it's fine to fly. Probably better than it is on two.....BUT.....it does increse pilot-flying workload because it has a two axis autopilot. ANY power change results in a rudder trim change. So most of your attention is gone just keeping the bloody thing in trim. Because of the two axis autopilot the approach has to be hand flown. Again, increase in workload, even if it is just following the flight director. The approach and landing has to be Flap 15 rather than 35 to meet performance criteria in case of a go-around and the extra drag isn't really needed any way. In the last stages of the approach the aircraft sits about 4-5 degrees nose up and we get a tail strike warning after 6. So you can't flare or arrest the descent with an increase in pitch or you'll bang the tail - every flap 15 I've had the 'pleasure' of being a part of has been a serious thumper.

So, back to our little scenario. You want to fly an aircraft, that has a dodgy main leg, and complicate it by flying a hand-flown single engine approach, which will result in a very firm landing. Fair enough.

And whoes to say that the prop won't still penetrate the fuselage even if it's 'stopped'? I'm sure Bombardier would have let us know that that was the recommended technique.



..........but what do I know? :}

F_Hercules
17th Sep 2007, 09:52
Sparkies,

Can you give us more info? Interesting since the Danish Accident Investigation Board clearly states in the preliminary statement:

"Examination of the internal threads of the retraction/extension actuator piston revealed the presence of corrosion, which led to separation of the rod end from the piston. The separation contributed to the landing gear collapse."

teleport
18th Sep 2007, 13:18
politiken.dk reports that the Lithuanian Accident Investigation Board found the very same mechanical fault being the cause as in the Aalborg accident.

excrab
18th Sep 2007, 14:15
I don't think the Q400 is quite as bad as speed freek makes out.

When I was at Flybe one of the training captains had the deck angles at which a tail strike would happen - if I remember rightly produced by Bombardier for the accident investigation concerning a tail strike SAS had in the very early days of operating the aircraft. The worst was about 7.5 degrees, but required full oleo compression and maximum tyre squash and ranged up to 12.5 degrees with oleos fully extended. These were actually higher than the attitudes for the dash 8 300 series, which was why the 6 degree warning doesn't appear in the Q400 like it used to in the 300. We used to do all our landings flap 15 unless it was what Flybe called a "short runway" when Flap 35 was mandated - and a gentle flare to about 6.5 degrees nose up gave consistantly smooth landings with a little practice.

Fortunately I never had to fly a real SE approach, but several TREs allowed me to try it in the sim when we had spare time and the autopilot was quite capable of doing it - once the engine is shut down and feathered and the approach stabilised the power changes and thus yaw resulting are minimal and easily compensated for by the rudder trim. I was told that the only reason for not using the A/P on SE approaches was that Bombardier were scared of possible law suits if something went wrong. I was also told that SAS had an SOP to use it despite what Bombardier said, and that the Swedish CAA was happy about that - however that may just have been heresay.

Whether you would intentionally shut an engine down in these circumstances is probably a question of personal preference which is open to debate, but it appears that one of these crews didn't - and there were injuries as a result of the prop disintegrating, and one crew did, and there weren't.

flybe.com
19th Sep 2007, 00:27
I can echo excrab's comments about pitch and flap 15 landings on the 400 - not a problem, unlike the uncomfortable approach and carrier-style Flap 35 landing technique that some Flybe trainers (the newer ones) seem to teach!

Speed freak - if you feel your rate of descent is a little too high just add a tiny squeeze of power in the flare to slow the descent rate, and I mean tiny, literally around 1cm of power lever movement. Alternatively, just be a few knots over Vref.

Mäx Reverse
19th Sep 2007, 05:24
I was told that the only reason for not using the A/P on SE approaches was that Bombardier were scared of possible law suits if something went wrong.

Well I guess that is the reason why we have Limitations, Warnings and Cautions in our Manuals. They're there for a reason, many of them created by blood, sweat and tears. With me company they are even valid for TRIs.

Regards, MAX

teleport
19th Sep 2007, 07:24
SAS spokesman confirms the fault has been located in other Q400s and predicts that the grounding could be lifted soon.

Alpine Flyer
19th Sep 2007, 16:21
The autopilots on the Q300 and Q400 are simply not certified for single-engine operation (which is a pity as it adds quite some workload when things are sh*tty anyway).

I personally doubt that the Q400 autopilot can fly a single-engine approach without any difficulties as the Q400 requires rudder trim changes for any power change and the autopilot simply cannot trim the rudder. Maybe already posted somewhere here, but it really is a pity that Bombardier/Sextant did not add some kind of auto-trim for power changes or a powerful yaw damper. AFAIK even WW2 Messerschmitts had something like that.....

Alpine Flyer
19th Sep 2007, 16:23
Tyrolean's Q400s are returning to ops one by one, most already back on the line. (There was no complete ban here, just for the high-cycle A/C as per Bombardier advice.)

AerocatS2A
20th Sep 2007, 00:19
The autopilots on the Q300 and Q400 are simply not certified for single-engine operation (which is a pity as it adds quite some workload when things are sh*tty anyway).
They can be used in the cruise on one engine. It's only the approach that they aren't certified for.

I personally doubt that the Q400 autopilot can fly a single-engine approach without any difficulties as the Q400 requires rudder trim changes for any power change and the autopilot simply cannot trim the rudder.
How is this different from a two engine approach? Any flying on autopilot in the Dash 8 requires retrimming the rudder during power changes. So an approach on two engines requires trimming as well. I sometimes use the rudder pedals myself in turns because the yaw damper doesn't do enough.

teleport
20th Sep 2007, 13:53
Danish CAA reported to be ready with a phased approach to allow DASH8's back in to service, following replacement of suspected parts.

readywhenreaching
21st Sep 2007, 19:03
just off the news:
unbelievable, but another -Q400 suffered nosegear failure on landing at EDDM this evening. (probably it was D-ADHA from LH-Regional member Augsburg Airways)
No injuries reported so far. I thought all 400s have been thoroughly checked:confused:

S (in german):
http://www.merkur-online.de/regionen/erding/Flughafen-Notlandung-Dash-key8;art8853,841192
http://www.merkur-online.de/storage/pic/alfaxml/regionen/erding/294639_1_xio-image-46f41f5ca684e.jpg

ChristiaanJ
21st Sep 2007, 21:23
I thought all 400s have been thoroughly checkedThe checks were for the MLG problem.
This is (yet another) nose wheel failure.

Sounds as if they should fit a ski under the fuselage, and no longer bother with the landing gear.

alexmcfire
21st Sep 2007, 22:12
5th landing gear crashlanding for the Q400 this year, not good at all.

Denti
22nd Sep 2007, 00:11
I personally doubt that the Q400 autopilot can fly a single-engine approach without any difficulties as the Q400 requires rudder trim changes for any power change and the autopilot simply cannot trim the rudder. Maybe already posted somewhere here, but it really is a pity that Bombardier/Sextant did not add some kind of auto-trim for power changes or a powerful yaw damper. AFAIK even WW2 Messerschmitts had something like that.....

Dunno, but our good ol' 737 classic needs trim changes for power changes as well (or you have to adjust pressure on the rudder pedals, your choice). Still i can fly single engine approaches down to 150ft although our company encourage us to fly most of it manually, just ot be prepared for the inevitable flight director/autopilot fail on go-around :}

Stuck_in_an_ATR
22nd Sep 2007, 09:48
Now, all these incidents are consistent with the recent rumors in my company of changing tha ATRs to Q400s - they'll be really cheap right now :}

brownwings
22nd Sep 2007, 19:07
Two accidents with SAS dash 8's, today one Lufthansa's Augsburg Airways, and two days ago one of FlyBe's aircraft could not raise the undercarriage so they had to do the whole flight the gear down. And all this has happened within a week. Scary!!!! I personally will not fly any airline that's using Dash 8-Q 400's......

NickBarnes
22nd Sep 2007, 19:10
Flew two days ago on a flybe Q-400, didn't really think about it at all, if price is right i will fly on any airline, whatever aircraft they have.

remoak
22nd Sep 2007, 23:24
The Q400 is a typical modern design - under-built, fragile, and built to a price rather than a decent set of design criteria. No wonder they have had so many problems with it.

They might be great when they are shiny and new, but a few years from now I am sure that flybe will be very sorry indeed that they ever got involved with them.

They might climb reasonably well, but in every other department, they are a complete dog.

UNCTUOUS
23rd Sep 2007, 16:35
Wrong alloy plus the type of runway de-icing/snow removal chemicals used in that neck of the woods??

Alpine Flyer
23rd Sep 2007, 16:39
@remoak: I don't think that is doing justice to the Q400. The basic design of the Q300 appears to be quite rugged and most of that has been taken to the Q400.

Most problems in the initial phase were with newly designed systems such as a new type of doors and the interfacing between a completely new avionics suite made by a company Bombardier was new in dealing with (AFAIK).

As for the gear, all of CATIA probably can't tell you where corrosion is going to happen in exposed parts. We'll see whether more greasing/checking of the broken parts would have helped or if it was simply poorly (cheaply?) designed.

SAS has not been that happy with the Q400 but most of the other operators seem to be quite content, now that the really frequent problems that arose shortly after entry into service have been weeded out.

There is no doubt that a "new big turboprop" (maybe the "Electra/Britannia 2010" :)) could be much better designed than the Q400 which is a stretch of a stretch (but yet maybe the basis of another stretch). Unfortunately no one has ventured to design such an airplane and so we'll have to keep up with the Q400 if we want near jet speeds at turboprop fuel burns.

Ranger 1
23rd Sep 2007, 16:40
A similar thing crossed my mind UNCTUOUS, in one of my earlier posts :hmm:

remoak
24th Sep 2007, 23:28
Alpine Flyer - when flybe ordered the Q400 at fire sale prices - and in so doing, saved the production from line from certain closure - they were advised that the first few aircraft could be delivered, but would have to be returned to the factory after a short time for "remanufacturing". Amongst the many, many problems that the three-month factory visit was supposed to fix, was the distortion that was occurring to the upper fuselage between the leading edge of the wing and the cockpit windows. This was happening because the structure was basically not strong enough to withstand the forces imposed on the stretched fuselage. Now, any vaguely competent engineer could have figured that out before any metal was cut on the prototype. But, because the aircraft was being built to a price - not a proper engineering standard - it was allowed to proceed to production. When the problems started appearing, the cost of the fixes was enormous. Just ask SAS. Fuel efficiency comes at a price. Now that flybe has committed to the type in such large numbers, they have no choice but to smile and sing the praises of the Q400, whilst behind the scenes there has been some serious blood-letting over the last five years as the Q400 proved to be thoroughly unreliable in the early days. That is the only reason that they seem "reasonably happy" with their purchase. They can't afford to appear anything else. Having spent more time on the things than I care to remember, I can honestly say that I never want to set foot on one again. Noisy, vibey, cramped and unpleasant...

flyingbug
27th Sep 2007, 09:37
Alpine flyer, I agree with your quote:

@remoak: I don't think that is doing justice to the Q400. The basic design of the Q300 appears to be quite rugged and most of that has been taken to the Q400.

I have flown the Q400 for several years (I no longer do), it is a fairly rugged aircraft, with (as most aircraft suffer) initial early tech problems, most of which were cured by reboot of the systems by crew.

remoak
27th Sep 2007, 12:19
The Q300 was quite rugged. However, stretch that rugged airframe to the extent that the Q400 did, and you lose a lot of the inherent strength if you don't add additional metal. Bombardier tried their hardest to not add additional metal, as doing so would negate the selling points of the aircraft. They had to add some eventually, but only because they had no choice.

How do you reboot a bent fuselage? Or, for that matter, the undercarriage?

Speaking of which, the aircraft appears to be impossible to land gently. No wonder bits break.

AerocatS2A
27th Sep 2007, 12:26
Speaking of which, the aircraft appears to be impossible to land gently. No wonder bits break.
Heh. All Dashes are nearly impossible to land gently, for me anyway.

flyingbug
27th Sep 2007, 12:43
Remoak,

are you saying that the airframe is unsafe?
If you are, be specific; you say that an earlier defect - which I was not aware of, even though I flew it - has been rectified. If a problem did exist with the airframe and it has now been rectified, what is your current example of "bent fuselages"?
If its "the gear failed" - we know that already, but you keep mentioning unsafe fuselages. What do you mean???:confused:

FB

embraernotworthy
27th Sep 2007, 19:24
Flyingbug- the fuse has been strengthened by a mod from bombardier and it was only on the very first aircraft and early SAS etc, as i remember doing the mods!!!! ever since that the fuse has been mod'ed at build, so absolutley no problems what so ever!!! Me thinks that remoak may have other issues with things!!!!!!!!!!!! the undercarriage is a seperate issue, with the vendor of the particular failed part working close with the operators as far as i'm aware. We certify these lovely Q400's and would not do so if WE didnt feel that us or our families, or anyone were'nt safe to fly on it!!!

flyingbug
28th Sep 2007, 08:50
Thanks embrearnotworthy,

I thought the truth would be along the lines of your post; thank you for clarifying the situation re the fuselage. Whilst I know that there aren't any problems with the Q400 fuselage, I just wanted to know what the justification was for previous posts re "bent" fuselages - and the answer it seems is "none".

FB

remoak
1st Oct 2007, 13:22
flyingbug

I never said that the fuselage on the Q400 is currently bent or unsafe, I am saying that this situation did occur on the early examples and was subsequently fixed in the "remanufacturing" that took place later. So nowhere have I said, or am I saying, that the Q400 is fundamentally unsafe (ie when the airframe is brand new).

What I AM SAYING is that the airframe was clearly built to the maxim of the late John W Thorp, who said that an aircraft design should start out just strong enough to keep the rain out, and then be tested to see where it broke first, fixed, tested again, fixed, etc etc etc. The point is, that the Q400 fuselage, as designed, was never strong enough. One wonders what else was under-designed on that airframe, and has yet to come to light (hopefully not via a catastrophic failure).

The Q400 is like many modern aircraft that are designed to be fuel-efficient and therefore light. They are only just strong enough to do the job, and consequently as they get older, the break more often and more easily. A classic example would be the difference between the manufacturing philosophies of the BAe 146 and the Boeing 737. The 146 has never had a structural or equipment failure that resulted in death... compare that to the 737, which has had many of both and consequently a lot of deaths from those causes. One was built to a standard, one was built to a price. Of course, the 146/RJ is no longer in production, but that was essentially a political decision, rather then an economic issue. The RJX would have been a winner.

As I said earlier, as far as I am concerned, the Q400 is a lightweight design that has many compromises, and I, for one, have no intention of ever flying in one again. Horrible. If you like it/feel safe in it, by all means enjoy your time in it.

alph2z
1st Oct 2007, 18:10
Heh. All Dashes are nearly impossible to land gently, for me anyway.

remoak and AerocatS2A,

Interesting,

Isn't that because the dashes are used more on shorter runways.

Also a bit on extra thrust near touch-down helps things; but harder to justify during short-field landings.
.

rotornut
3rd Oct 2007, 15:06
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071003.wbombardier1003/BNStory/Business/home

JW411
3rd Oct 2007, 16:45
High-winged aircraft are always a bit more difficult to consistently land nicely due to the relative lack of ground effect.

excrab
3rd Oct 2007, 17:20
It's getting off the subject a bit, but "A classic example would be the difference between the manufacturing philosophies of the BAe 146 and the Boeing 737. The 146 has never had a structural or equipment failure that resulted in death... compare that to the 737, which has had many of both and consequently a lot of deaths from those causes." is a totally meaningless comparison.

Only 387 146/RJs were ever built and only 150 odd are left flying, as against 7000 737s ordered or delivered, so it is hardly surprising that the 737 has had more problems.

Back to the Dash 8. As a result of these two incidents a new inspection has presumably been put in place which will probably result in components being replaced before failure from now on. This is normal for lots of aircraft (except perhaps the 146 of which not enough were built for any design problems to show up - assuming we ignore engine roll back, of course). In this case it got a lot of publicity because of Joe Spotter and his camcorder, otherwise would have probably gone almost unoticed.

As far as landing the thing goes, doing as Flybe.com says will result in smooth touchdowns in the 400, and in the 300/200 and probably 100 as well. However, the long undercarriage legs have to be built quite stiff, so they suffer from "wheel spin up shock" (for an explanation refer to the F27 flight manual!) and also feel horrible if you land with any drift on, so dipping the into wind wing and landing on one wheel first will also help.

JW411
3rd Oct 2007, 17:35
Drifting even further off topic, it is interesting to note that the PSA BAe146 (where a recently sacked and disgruntled employee, who was riding on the jump seat, shot both pilots) was supersonic before it hit the ground.

It was still in one piece.

Like the BAC 1-11, the BAe146 is built like a brick-built sh*thouse!

remoak
3rd Oct 2007, 22:26
excrab a totally meaningless comparison... Only 387 146/RJs were ever built and only 150 odd are left flying, as against 7000 737s ordered or delivered, so it is hardly surprising that the 737 has had more problems. Au contraire. There are many VERY high hour 146s around, and there have been a grand total of zero structural failures (including the supersonic one mentioned above). You do not need identical samples to make a valid comparison, as any inherent defects would have shown up on at least one 146 airframe by now, if there were any. The fact that no such defects have occured across all those airframes makes the point nicely. Now add up all the 737 issues that have come to light (losing large sections of fuselage and rudder hardovers to name but two that spring to mind)... This is normal for lots of aircraft (except perhaps the 146 of which not enough were built for any design problems to show up - assuming we ignore engine roll back, of course) So... how many Q400s have been built? And how many defects have shown up already on what are, by 146 standards, very young airframes? Did the 146 ever require "remanufacturing" on the scale that the Q400 has? As for rollback, which is not an inherent design fault that can lead to any sort of mechanical failure, how many people have been killed or injured by it? Compared to some of the issues that Boeing have had over the years, rollback is no more than a minor irritation.

excrab
4th Oct 2007, 09:23
Remoak,

I don't know much about 737s so I did a very quick search on the internet. I found two cases of structural failure, both on 737-200 aircraft, one which was extremely high cycles operating in a salty environment with deficiencies in the operators maintenance program, and one which appears to have suffered from corrosion due to the hold being repeatedly filled with fish!. There have been three events which can be blamed on the rudder actuator - and there has been a programme modifying all 737s still in service, plus crew training in unusual attitude recovery and "crossover speed" which should prevent any more.

These accidents have happened whilst the world wide fleet has accumulated 171million hours, according to boeing. That would give a figure for fatal accidents due to structural failure or loss of control which wasn't crew error as one in every 34.2 million flight hours. I haven't been able to find any figures for the fleet hours flown for the 146/RJ but based on the proportions of a/c manufactured for the two types it might be about 13.2million hours, so assuming the aircraft was no better than the 737 you could expect one fatal accident for similar reasons to occur to a 146/RJ sometime in the next 50 years.

Obviously all of that is absolute cobblers, as you can prove anything by statistics. But comparing individual airframe hours is meaningless - there may well be many high houred 146s about on which no problems have appeared, but equally there are many individually high houred 737s in service which have had no problems. But that doesn't mean that no 737s will suffer from any faults, nor does it mean that no 146s will, however much the fan club might like it to.

None of which is relevant to the dash 8. I know you don't like it so i'm not going to even try to convince you of it, but I would contend that it is perfectly adequate for what it does and it's build quality is probably no worse than any other regional aircraft currently in production.

teleport
4th Oct 2007, 10:50
SAS Q400 flies again with passengers. And is alledgedly demanding $95M from Bombardier.

teleport
19th Oct 2007, 16:26
Fire engines in attendance as SAS DASH lands. However landing gear door problem is reported as well documented and not dangerous as gear is confirmed extended and locked

Porrohman
23rd Jun 2008, 15:53
I read on another site that a Flybe Dash 8 (G-JEDP) had undercarriage problems arriving at EDI today. It landed safely with fire services on full alert.

Does anyone have further details?

Porrohman
23rd Jun 2008, 20:15
It couldn't have been a major fault as the a/c was back in service by late afternoon.

JEP
15th Jan 2009, 10:53
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000433%20Final%20report%20LN-RDK.pdf

crazyaviator
24th Jan 2009, 02:08
Me thinks the french ( moreso the canadian french) might be better in bed than in manufacturing Aircraft and especially maintaining them !!:rolleyes:

horsebadorties
24th Jan 2009, 17:40
The Q400 is assembled in Toronto, so no French influence I'm afraid.

If you go back to the early days of the Q400 with SAS, they had a number of teething problems. Funnily enough, the other operators, particularly Tyroloean (long term de Havilland customer) didn't have nearlyy as much difficulty, but then SAS Commuter (as it was then) had a highly unionised maintenance labour force that saw the aircraft as too close to the SAS main fleet for comfort. Their antipathy to the aircraft had a lot to do with the situation.

Ladusvala
24th Jan 2009, 19:16
Excuse my language, horsebadorties but what a load of horse****!

Are you actually accusing the maintenance personnel of sabotaging the Q400?!

SAS was the launch customer of this new aircraft, maybe that has something to do with it? The next customer would surely have benefited from the experiences of SAS and they would also have gotten aircraft with the fixes that Bombardier made.

Read the report and see what it says!

horsebadorties
24th Jan 2009, 20:23
The first SAS Q400s were early models to a lower mod standard, but the attitude of the maintenance guys at CPH was as I said..

The first problem was smoke alarms being triggered by mobile phones - SAS passengers stowed their bags in the forward baggage hold with phone switched on, incoming calls caused EMI and set the alarm off. Solution was to fit CRJ alarms. Not related to CPH.

Second problem was cracked engine oil pipes causing fumes in the cabin air - an inheritance from the Fokker 50, as the engine was a derivative. Aircraft were AOG at CPH, but no efforts made to get them back online: "AOG? End of my shift, sorry!"

The union saw the aircraft as a threat because of the number of seats, and felt it would be put into SAS mainline.

Severe CAVOK
25th Jan 2009, 11:25
Exactly which union are you referring to?

Ladusvala
25th Jan 2009, 15:16
Horsebadorties,

Aha, so the first SAS Q400´s was of a lower mod standard, funny you didn´t mention this in your previous post where you accused the maintenance personnel of being the reason for all the problems.

False Warnings was an everyday occurrence for pilots flying the Q400. Do you really mean that the cause for this was that mechanics actually went home after the end of their shift?

I don´t understand the connection, you claim, between number of seats and the mechanics union, maybe you can enlighten me?

horsebadorties
25th Jan 2009, 15:46
SAS Commuter was in danger of being absorbed into mainline. The Q400 seat size made that likely. In fact, it disappeared in the end. I didn't suggest sabotage, just an unhelpful attitude that didn't take commercial considerations of the airline into account. I think the result of that is pretty clear today.

Algy
25th Jan 2009, 15:48
Excrab says: Only 387 146/RJs were ever built and only 150 odd are left flying,

255 in active service in fact. 150 x RJ, 105 x 146. Give or take.

Source: Air Transport Intelligence (http://www.rati.com)

Ladusvala
25th Jan 2009, 19:22
Horsebadorties

You wrote:
"If you go back to the early days of the Q400 with SAS, they had a number of teething problems."
and:
"Their antipathy to the aircraft had a lot to do with the situation."

How can this mean anything else than that the alledged attitude of the maintenance personnel, to a large extent, was the cause of the myriad of false warnings and other problems with the early Q400´s?

I certainly don´t agree. The problems continued for years and the maintenance personnel are not off duty for such a long period.

MadDog Driver
25th Jan 2009, 21:36
horsebadorties




What a load of cr*p. The Q400's that SAS got were cr*p too. Corrosion in a place that was not supposed to be inspected,was the reason for the first accident in Aalborg.

I didn't suggest sabotage, just an unhelpful attitude that didn't take commercial considerations of the airline into account. I think the result of that is pretty clear today.

What do you mean by 'an unhelpful attidude' ??

Had nothing to do with maintenance people being afraid of being absorbed into mainline. That's one of the most stupid statements I've seen on Pprune. Great mechanics at SAS Commuter, that had their work cut out for them with this shi**y piece of airplane. Are you from Bombardier?

Pilot DAR
25th Jan 2009, 23:44
Me thinks crazyaviator might be better thinking more before saying stupid thing!!:rolleyes:


Agreed! This is the Professional Pilots Rumour Network, and it's polite to behave that way, SP!

Pilot DAR
27th Jan 2009, 01:33
Gee crazyaviator, is your apology for the remark which preceeds the apology, or the remark which follows it? Letting alone for the moment the highly inappropriate generalization about aircraft maintenance in Quebec, I think that if there is a maintenance failing associated with the SAS Q400 landing gear failure, it was probably a failing which occurred outside both Quebec and Canada. The Q400 is Toronto designed and built, but I don't believe that one was maintained in Canada. The landing gear is a well designed arrangement proven one hundreds of aircraft world wide. I don't see what Quebec has to do with this, or why the people of Quebec deserve this poor treatment from you.

Just in case there is a misunderstanding crazyaviator, the "Q" in Q400 does not stand for Quebec, it stands for quiet.

Perhaps reflection on that last term would be worthwhile....

Ladusvala
27th Jan 2009, 08:38
According to the final report, the reason for the gear collapse was that the different metals used where the corrosion occured, actually increased the rate of corrosion. SAS maintenance was found to be without fault.

allatp
30th Jan 2009, 21:56
What was the final word on the accident last August in SKBQ?
A DHC8-300, of AIRES (ARE), lost both tires of the right main gear at touch down!!!!

Let us know please!!

AA