The problem in this particular case was caused by a main gear actuator too - but not corrosion in the rod end, as in the previous cases. Here there was a block in an 'orifice' which caused the actuator to not operate correctly. The following is an excerpt from the preliminary report.

The suspect actuator was taken to a workshop where a detailed examination was carried out.

This examination identified a blocked orifice within the actuator assembly which prevented the complete extension of the right main landing gear. This finding is not related to the two previous accidents which occurred in September 2007.

The source of the blockage is unknown at this time and the investigation continues.

It seems that the problem is with one component - are we going to ground all aircraft types which have the same or similar component fitted ? - I doubt it.
Apparently SAS changed all of their actuators following September's incidents - could it be that a bit of swarf or some other contaminant has been left in during the assembly process either in the workshop or the factory ??.

The Flybe response is well hidden on their website, not a direct news item you can click on from the main page............typical of them.

Jobsagoodun,

You are correct that Flybe are an approved Bombardier maintenance centre for Europe but they also maintain the SAS fleet as well as their own Q400's.

The point I was making to IOMSpotter was that SAS send their Q400's to be maintained at Flybe's EXT facility and therefore should benefit from the same high quality service. He was suggesting that SAS were not as experienced at maintaining these aircraft which is irrelevant seeings as Flybe do their base maintenance checks anyway!

I'm guessing that unless the faulty undercarriage system on the Q400 is modified imminently by means of an emergency AD, EASA will take the matter out of Bombardier's hands by grounding the europe wide fleet. Now that would be very hard to swallow for Flybe considering it is the mainstay of their fleet. They could well do without this considering the grief they have had with the BACON take over, the 146 gas chamber issues and the delayed deliveries of the E195's.

I flew with the family on a FlyBe Q400 on Monday, and I'll be flying with them again tomorrow. I'm comfortable after following the story of the MLG failures on pprune, the manufacturer's website and other sources, that the a/c is OK, although I would not have flown on an SAS airframe had they continued operating them. Lightning striking thrice etc would have frightened me away!

I do wonder where the o-ring which blocked the "orifice", and caused the latest incident, came from though...

(Incidently Mrs HAC, a nervous pax at best, and not aware of the latest SAS accident, leaned across the aisle to me after gear extension on Monday and said "I've got one, how about you?)

SAS will lose all the Q400's along with the few in WF. I understand that they will juggle group A/C around in the short term along with a few canx but it seems to me that it is consumer confidence along with the landing problems they have had recently that forces the removal of the Q400

Forgive me, you may have missed my point. Whilst I accept that Flybe do SAS's base maintenance this means that these aircraft come to Flybe once every 6-12mths, maybe less and so it is entirely unreasonable to insight Flybe as the root cause. There will be ongoing line maintenance that is nothing to do with Flybe that could also be attributed to the problems in some way.

Surely you are not saying that Flybe somehow treats a SAS Q400 differently than that of their own fleet. They would very quickly lose their reputation if this were the case and few businesses would even entertain that thought.
What is not questionable is that Flybe have more resources to call with a far higher number of trained Q400 engineers due to there high level of involvement with the airframe, and with respect, no-one can comment of what EASA are likely to do ahead of the report on the incident. If this events turns out to be entirely unrelated to those previously as being suggested right now, grounding the aircraft would be a massive step to take and I'm sure not one taken lightly.

OLD BMA MAN - I agree - it is poor passenger perception and a drop in consumer confidence due to recent incidents that has lead to SAS's decision.

Personally, I never got over the initial perception of the Q400 as the tamp*n, much along the same lines as the ATP Skoda when it first appeared

more info
 

Is the NWI - AMS route stopping as it can only be booked up untill January now, probally couldn't compete with KLM's well established route

corrosion
 

Has anything more been told regarding corrosion in the actuators? Mate told me that FlyBe replaced a number of theirs where corrosion was found and all OK since then.

SAS latest incident looks like it was a result of poor maintenance proceedures when swapping the actuators rather than the earler actuator problem occuring again.

Have Flybe Received there newist 195 yet?

I understand that the newest '195 (G-FBEG) is scheduled to be delivered into Exeter sometime today (Sunday). :ok:

New E195
 

G-FBEG was sat on the ramp in LPA last night

"SAS latest incident looks like it was a result of poor maintenance proceedures when swapping the actuators rather than the earler actuator problem occuring again. 1st November 2007 08:09"

I understood from a previous post the SAS aircraft are maintained by Flybe in Exeter.

I'm looking forward to my next BE DH4 flight this coming Thursday, routing BHX-GCI-JER. Does anyone know how busy the flight is?

Devon Guy says: The Flybe response is well hidden on their website, not a direct news item you can click on from the main page............typical of them

Or maybe, given the hysterical nature of the british gutter press, Flybe don't want to post a 'safety' news release on their front page but are happy to place something on the record elsewhere on their site?

> G-FBEG was sat on the ramp in LPA last night
>

Blimey, what routing do they use to get to Exeter??

dollydaydream--- you are correct in saying that flybe maintain sas q400 fleet, but the latest fault is one where the part at the source of the problem could quite well have been fitted at a line station where a defect may have arisen or even on an A check,which incidently flybe dont do!! jetstreamtechrecords--- i think you will find that the preliminary investigation into the latest sas incident concludes that it had nothing to do with the swapping of the actuators but an isolated problem with another hydraulic component!! just for the records guys , you know!!:)

andy,

I think previous delivery flights have routed Sao Paulo - Receife - Las Palmas - Exeter.

i'm assuming G-FBEG is the same.

Dollydaydream

in addition to embrearnotworthy's post, its also worth noting that Wideroe are also contracted to maintain the SAS fleet.
Flybe did not carry out the maintenance on the SAS landing gear that has subsequently been found to have had an o ring fitted by mistake.

There will always be those quick to post in criticism of any airline; eg Devon Guy is quick to post re Flybe, whether the criticisms are based on fact or not.:ooh: