SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10 [Archive] - Page 2

Tailspin Tommy

9th Nov 2007, 11:04

EASA, Canadian Authorities To Discuss Q400 Woes
Investigation Points To Maintenance As Cause Of One Gear Incident
Officials with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will meet
Wednesday with their counterparts from Transport Canada, to discuss a recent spate of incidents involving Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 regional turboprops flying for Scandinavian Airlines (SAS).

EASA called for the emergency meeting last week, reports the International Herald Tribune, following the announcement by SAS it would stop flying all its Q400s. As ANN reported, three SAS Q400s suffered nearly-identical failures of their right main landing gear assemblies in less than two months, resulting in emergency landings.

Separate investigations by the Danish government determined the first two incidents -- in Aalborg, Denmark on September 9, followed by another failure in Vilnius, Lithuania three days later -- were caused by a corroded bolt in each plane's landing gear assembly. However, a third incident on October 22 may have been caused by a loose rubber O-ring, which jammed and kept the gear leg from extending.

Furthermore, according to the preliminary report by the Danish Accident
Investigation Board, a portion of the right maingear was replaced six days
before that accident -- using parts intended for the nose gear. The parts
were "reconfigured by maintenance personnel" for use by SAS on the main gear, according to the report.

If those findings hold up in the final report, it would give credibility to
those who have said the problem lies not with the aircraft, but with SAS
maintenance... a position held by the plane's manufacturer, Bombardier.
In a statement this week, Bombardier said the Danish report "clearly
supports" its position, that "the Q400 is a safe and reliable aircraft." A
SAS spokeswoman declined to comment on the preliminary report's findings, saying only the airline "doing everything to help" authorities determine the cause of the problem.

Authorities in Denmark, Sweden and Norway supported the decision by SAS to permanently ground its 27-plane Q400 fleet... a position contrary to EASA's, which had upheld the aircraft's airworthiness certification.
Resolving that "non-harmonized situation," in the words of an EASA
spokeswoman, is one of the goals of Wednesday's meeting.
FMI: www.bombardier.com (http://www.pprune.org/forums/www.bombardier.com), www.flysas.com (http://www.pprune.org/forums/www.flysas.com), www.easa.int (http://www.pprune.org/forums/www.easa.int)
aero-news.net

Severe CAVOK

9th Nov 2007, 15:26

Nothing new, really.

Bombardier still claims themselves "not responsible" well before any final conclusions have been drawn. They must be scared stiff, since they take such an agressive stand.

And everyone seems to accept, that there are loose parts flowing around in the hydraulic system in the first place.

A lot of firefighting going on. And its very unpretty, as long as the final report isn't published. :yuk:

snowfalcon2

9th Nov 2007, 17:15

Can somebody comment on the actual design of the hydraulic valve part where the fault occurred? I mean, if a pinhead-size O-ring fragment can block this small orifice and thereby prevent both normal LG extension and the emergency extension method? I can understand that putting a filter in each and every hydraulic line is not practical. But if this hydraulic valve part had two small orifices instead of one, maybe the landing gear would still have functioned even if one was blocked? :rolleyes:

fermented herring

10th Nov 2007, 12:37

being a SLF and only IPR PPL in the past I guess I should stay off, but maybe a frequent SAS SLF perspective could add something?

In the beginning I was a bit hesitant to go on routes with the Q400 due to bad regularity mainly. Then there where incidents also influencing. When the Kalmar incident was reported last spring I made the conclusion that I do not trust the Q400, at least with SAS. According to the incident report, the overspeed of the engine initiating the event was a frequent problem being reported as a minor problem. SAS did not recognize the pattern as they only monitored problems being reported with higher severity. this combined with jet pilots being transferred to turboprop and not being trained properly on flight idle for turboprops created a very dangerous situation. I then (without professional expertize) for myself decided that the frequency of "minor" faults in the Q400 is dangerous, and I should stay away from the aircraft.

Then the first two landing gear accidents came this autumn, the first one was again considered as a stand alone event by SAS for two more days before it showed up again. From outside it seems that SAS again missed the opportunity to analyse what has happened before deciding to continue to fly. After the second incident this autumn I thought SAS would make the same conclusion as I did, it does not work. After the third incident the conclusion came- ironically it might be a SAS maintenance issue this time. It seems that the aircraft had an issue with the landing gear some days before, this was taken care of and the plane was again declared ok- but it wasn't.

Sorry for this lengthy and non professional reflection on how I experinence the situation.

From my perspective it is a combination of issues with the Q400 and SAS flying commuters that is the problem. I would expect that after this turbulence, other companies in Scandinavia like Cimber air and Skyways will take care of the thinner routes and SAS has to exit this segment.

Ladusvala

10th Nov 2007, 20:48

May I just point out that from around 1990, SAS has had a fleet of Fokker 50´s that has been replaced by the Q400 and there´s now only 5 F50´s left.

The Fokker 50 is a turboprop and has been flown by many pilots coming from SAS´s jet fleet. The F50 operations has a very good reputation for safety and reliability.

The Kalmar incident was preceeded by a few flights with the same malfunction and on these earlier flights there were no control problems. Bombardier has now changed the Q400 "emergency" checklist so there won´t be an incident next time it happends.

Things are selldom clear cut, even if we like them to be. However; I can understand that passengers don´t trust the Q400 and that´s the reason SAS has grounded it´s Q400´s.

Rollerboy

10th Nov 2007, 21:37

I just can't understand this, 2 problems occur then changes are made. All aircraft back in service, I wonder if there was any change in the loads pre and post?

One further 'unrelated' problem occurs and within 2 days SAS have decided all their pax have lost confidence in the D8-400.

Where is this rubbish coming from:

1. How do SAS decide pax have lost confidence in D8-400 in 48 hrs?

2. Who are SAS to make bold statements about their own countrymen and women?

Tell you what if I needed to fly a D8-400 to get back to my girlfriend after 5 days of work I would have the confidence to fly.

3. Or maybe load figures have fallen BUT is that because their countrymen and women have lost confidence in the airline?

wonder if anyone has the answers.

Roller

snowfalcon2

10th Nov 2007, 21:51

Rollerboy,

you should see the local newspapers.

When the main frontpage news in ALL newspapers is a crash-landed Q400 and the story repeats three times in a period of five weeks, it's a wise option to cut your losses and start over.

Rollerboy

10th Nov 2007, 22:01

snowfalcon

I see your point, but does that mean the media have made the decision to create a loss of confidence in the D8-400. Interested to know if they are still following the story or just the initial accidents?

Roller

snowfalcon2

10th Nov 2007, 22:19

I don't think there is one answer to your question.

Having followed the news it has become clear to me that the type has had an extraordinary amount of problems over the years. Somewhere I read that it has caused more than 50% of the rescue standby alarms at CPH even though it represents only 10% of the operations (or thereabouts). So far the consequences have been limited to decreased passenger confidence in the type, but following these accidents the company had to act resolutely to avoid further badwill. That's how I see it anyway.

Cyclone733

11th Nov 2007, 00:53

Any reason to believe the Q400 is causing more 'rescue standby alarms at CPH' due to the types' tendency to fly short routes, thereby making CPH the nearest and most suitable (engineer cover, flight time etc) aerodrome as opposed to Airbus/Boeing aircraft which are more likely to have a closer alternate enroute?

deHavillandUser

11th Nov 2007, 14:53

Here's the secret folks...fly the aircraft at the AFM approach speed...add no buffers for crosswind or gust conditions...this is a turboprop with 'blown lift' and not a jet. Crosswind certification in 30+ kt winds conducted at Vref...not at Vref + half the crosswind component and as will all DH products, bleed the speed off from 50 ft down and flare at the bottom end.

tristar500

12th Nov 2007, 11:40

Any truth in the story that flybe have dispatched a team of engineers to assess the SAS Q400 fleet in general - possibly about to put an offer in for the lot?

I know flybe already do a lot of maintenance work on the SAS Dash 8 fleet.

Just curious...

embraernotworthy

12th Nov 2007, 13:47

None whatsoever!!

maxrpm

14th Nov 2007, 08:27

The European Aviation Safety Agency today (07/11/2007) invited officials of the airworthiness authorities of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Canada as well as representatives of
the plane manufacturer Bombardier and component manufacturer Goodrich to an airworthiness review meeting for the Bombardier Dash 8-400 aircraft at the Agency’s
headquarters in Cologne.
All participants concluded that the incident of an SAS Dash 8-400 on 27 October at Copenhagen was not due to a design error and that the airworthiness of the aircraft is
maintained. The Agency understands that the Scandinavian airworthiness authorities will reissue the Certificates of Airworthiness relevant to this aircraft type in the coming days.
The meeting also confirmed that the incidents with SAS aircraft on 9 September and 12 September were not related to the incident on 27 October. The Agency has already
addressed these previous incidents with the remedial actions prescribed in its Airworthiness Directives issued on 13 September and 16 October.
The Agency’s Executive Director Patrick Goudou welcomed the good spirit of co-operation of all participants as “a good example of European and transatlantic co-operation in
the area of aviation safety”.

lomapaseo

14th Nov 2007, 12:11

So that settles it then and my post will be the last one in this thread :D

Severe CAVOK

14th Nov 2007, 18:13

Okay, thanks :ouch:

I'm just curious: what settles what??

Miraculix

20th Nov 2007, 14:54

Press send me a PM
Hi Miraculix,
I was just looking at your posts on the Q400 landing gear failing. I'm doing some research on the aircraft at the moment for a possible BBC documentary.
You mentioned pilots aren't happy with the plane's performance - do you know any pilots who fly or flew the plane?
I'd love to speak to one of these pilots - off the record if necessary - to help with my research. I know there are other pilots who don't really have a problem with the plane.
Anyway, if you can help put me in touch with anyone, I'm on [email protected] ([email protected]) or 00 44 xxxx xxxxxx.
I hope to hear from you.
Best wishes,
Joe
My answer:
Hi Joe
I think you will have a great deal of problems finding a pilot who will talk to anyone from the media. This is due to the fact that:
1 The press sensationalize.
2 The press often makes mistakes in their reporting and twist the words.
3 In aviation we try and solve problems, the media places blame, thereby often hindering progress in aviation safety.
Good luck in finding a person who want's to talk to you.

maxrpm

21st Nov 2007, 06:57

SAS Q400 accident probe points to maintenance error
By David Kaminski-Morrow

Danish investigators are indicating that a maintenance error led to the landing-gear actuator blockage which led a Scandinavian Airlines Bombardier Q400 to conduct a gear-up landing at Copenhagen last month.

It follows their discovery that an O-ring from a newly-replaced door valve caused the blockage of a restrictor valve in the actuator assembly. The blockage prevented the right-hand landing-gear deploying.

The subsequent gear-up landing was the third suffered by a Scandinavian Airlines Q400 since early September and the carrier opted to remove the entire fleet permanently from service.

But while the underlying reasons for the first two accidents, which resulted from actuator corrosion, have yet to be determined, Danish investigation agency HCL is suggesting that a maintenance error contributed to the third.

The finding lends support to claims from manufacturer Bombardier that there is no inherent problem with the aircraft.

HCL says that in-depth analysis of the Q400’s hydraulic system shows that the O-ring “could not have travelled” from the solenoid valve to the actuator because certain components, such as the mechanical sequence valve, would prevent passage.

But it points out that the right main landing-gear’s solenoid valve was replaced on 16 October and the mechanical sequence valve was replaced on 22 October – just five days before the Copenhagen accident.

Scandinavian Airlines replaced a number of landing-gear components on its entire fleet after the first two gear-up events, at Aalborg and Vilnius, on 9 and 12 September.

HCL says that, during replacement of the mechanical sequence valve, the rogue O-ring could have “unknowingly been transferred…by maintenance personnel” from one side of the valve to the other.

If this was the case, it says, the O-ring would have been able to travel through the hydraulic lines towards the landing-gear actuator. HCL states that the investigation is continuing and the organisation has yet to reach final conclusions

M609

21st Nov 2007, 08:00

And today the Norwegian newspaper Dagens Næringsliv reported:

"SAS is a fragile and vulnerable airline"

Says Kjell Klevan in the N-CAA in a letter to the CAA in Sweden and Denmark in march of this year.
He goes on to state that there is a poor safety culture in the company, with little ability to admit errors, and poor cooperation with the aviation authorities.

(My translation)

In Norwegian: http://www.dn.no/forsiden/utenriks/article1240035.ece?jgo=c1_re&WT.svl=article_title

Story picked up by Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten as well.
Not the kind of thing SAS want to be associated with perhaps? :sad:

Ladusvala

21st Nov 2007, 09:25

Who is this Kjell Klevan?
The newspapers stated that he is an ex SAS captain, anybody who knows why he´s not working for SAS anymore?

Severe CAVOK

21st Nov 2007, 10:39

Don't you just love a good oneliner, left unchallenged and out of context :}

I love it :yuk:

Ladusvala

21st Nov 2007, 10:58

Kjell Klevan himself has now made a comment in the media:

"Han mener at mye har endret seg i SAS siden notatet ble skrevet."

Translation:
"He says that, since this report was drafted, a lot of changes has been made in SAS."

Nardi Riviera

21st Nov 2007, 11:58

Mr Klevan is retired from SAS, as in pensioned. As M609 states, he is now employed by the Norwegian CAA.

I believe his report was made for scandinavian CAA-use, not intended for the media. Maybe that's why it has been fairly misinterpreted.

rotornut

22nd Nov 2007, 15:09

QANTAS obviously has faith in the airplane:

Qantas Places Firm Order For 12 Bombardier Q400 Turboprops

Toronto, November 20, 2007

Previously announced Qantas Airways commitment now firm order
Bombardier Aerospace announced today that Qantas Airways of Sydney, Australia has signed a firm order for 12 Bombardier Q400 turboprop airliners on behalf of its QantasLink regional airline. Qantas has also taken options and purchase rights on an additional 24 Q400 aircraft. Four of the 12 firm-order aircraft announced today represent conversions of existing aircraft options. On October 22, 2007 Bombardier Aerospace confirmed it was in discussions with Qantas Airways with regards to this transaction.

Based on the list price of the aircraft, the contract for the 12 firm Q400 airliners is valued at approximately $339 million U.S.

“Our initial investment in the Q400 in 2005 has resulted in new regional routes, an increase in capacity and reduced flight times on some routes by up to 20 per cent,” said Narendra Kumar, Group General Manager, Regional Airlines, Qantas Airways. “These additional aircraft will be used to increase capacity and service frequency on key regional routes, as well as pursue new growth opportunities.”

“This follow-on order is further evidence of the Q400 airliner’s value to the airlines that operate the aircraft,” said Steven Ridolfi, President, Bombardier Regional Aircraft. “Quite simply, no other regional turboprop aircraft matches its speed, passenger comfort and operating economics.”

QantasLink currently operates seven Q400 aircraft and another two ordered in January, 2007 are to be delivered in January, 2008.

Including the order announced today, Bombardier has received firm orders for 276 Q400 airliners, with 164 having been delivered as of July 31, 2007.

http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp

maxrpm

22nd Nov 2007, 15:18

Accident report: SAS crew nearly loses control of a Dash 8 Q400 on approach
By David Learrmount

A mishandled propeller overspeed in an SAS Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 on approach almost led to loss of control, says a new report by the Swedish accident investigation board. The board was critical of the crew, their training, SAS's maintenance, and the emergency checklist and operations manual for the type.

The incident took place on 6 April 2006 during an instrument landing system approach to Runway 16 at Kalmar, near Sweden's south-east coast, with four crew and 69 passengers on board. The report says: "During the flight a technical failure occurred, which meant that the right-side propeller overspeeded. According to the emergency checklist a number of actions are to be taken, ending with feathering the faulty propeller and switching off the engine to reduce the drag of the propeller.

"The commander decided, however, to keep that engine at flight idle during the approach, which meant that the angle of the propeller blades remained flat to the aircraft direction, thereby causing severe drag. This severe drag caused great control problems for the aircraft and the commander thus had to use a power output from the other engine that exceeded the maximum permitted power. The approach was not stabilised and the final stage was at a very low height."

According to the report: "The crew had not practised dealing with faults in this system during approach and landing, and considered that the emergency checklist was unclear. During the three-week period immediately preceding the incident, three failures of the same type occurred on this individual aircraft. In no case had the crew completely followed the instructions in the emergency checklist. Nor had the technical fault been located correctly."

The investigators have recommended that the European Aviation Safety Agency "makes efforts to set up a working group, with representatives of the manufacturer and the airline, and possibly other operators of the Q400. The purpose should be to improve both the content and the method of application of the emergency checklist for the Q400".

ManaAdaSystem

22nd Nov 2007, 16:29

And the other half of that report?

Ladusvala

22nd Nov 2007, 21:23

I believe this incident has been discussed in another thread.

THEICEMAN

23rd Nov 2007, 05:46

(Moderator...I promise to keep it clean!)

http://www.aviation.com/safety/071108-ap-turboprops-airworthy.html

According to the EASA, the most recent incident "was not due to a design error" and said the airworthiness of the aircraft is maintained.
Danish aviation authorities had earlier issued a preliminary report (http://www.aviation.com/safety/071101-ap-sas-q400-crash-cause.html) indicating that a piece of rubber stuck in the landing gear had prevented the gear from extending properly, causing the incident.
To all the people who made false allegation about the Q400...told you so!:)

The Danish media & politicians have made a big fuss about this issue. They have caused much damage towards the reputation of Canadian quality aircraft!
Will they tell make the effort to admit they were wrong?

Ladusvala

23rd Nov 2007, 07:23

Should one have to expect o-rings flowing around in the hydraulic system?

Maude Charlee

23rd Nov 2007, 13:38

If somebody puts something where it shouldn't be, you could expect almost anything you like floating around any system you like in any aircraft type you like, so yes.

Severe CAVOK

23rd Nov 2007, 20:04

Rotornut:

To use a poker-expression: Quantas is pot committed.
And their Q400 might actually work fine, lets not rule that out.

When they work properly, its a very nice aircraft. Indeed.

Regarding the source of the O-ring:

I'm very convinced, that the Danish HCL (the "NTSB") is very interested in finding out, where that O-ring came from, and I'm sure they will actually print their findings in the FINAL report.

So to all the wICEguys: put a sock in it, and read the FINAL report. Prrretty please. :ugh:

Ladusvala

25th Nov 2007, 21:19

Maude Charlie, I disagree.

Hopefully the final report will clarify if the part was used in an unauthorised way and where the o-ring came from.

flyingbug

25th Nov 2007, 22:15

Ladusvala,

An O ring will always be in the wrong place if someone put it there in error.............

quote from the initial Danish report:

Investigators said the ring did not belong in the system, but were not sure when it was introduced. They said it could not be ruled out that it came in by mistake during the maintenance checks ordered by SAS on all its turboprops after the first two accidents in September.

Ladusvala

26th Nov 2007, 08:36

I also read a report where it stated that the investigators said that there were no o-rings of that dimension in the work shop, indicating that it came from somewhere else.

fermented herring

7th Dec 2007, 14:42

Swedish media (Dagens Nyheter) are currently reporting that Bombardier has admitted deficencies in an oil filter relating to the October accident according to danish aviation authorities. Bombardier is said to have agreed to introduce a new stronger filter, as the current one might collapse.

dusk2dawn

7th Dec 2007, 23:47

A new and stronger filter that does not collapse when subjected to o-rings not belonging in the system?

flaps2billion

8th Dec 2007, 00:58

Oh come on! That's media rubish & you know it! Before everyone starts taking a news report as the gospel, keep in mind that BBD is a public company and is under an obligation to file "material change" reports and issue press releases in respect of material events (good or bad).

Yes clearly a failed filter caused the O-ring to magically appear in the hydraulic actuator.........:ugh:

"Bombardier has up to now banked on a preliminary report from the Danish Accident Investigation Commission, where it says that SAS mechanics had used parts for the rear of the landing gear that were intended for the nose portion."
BBD 1, SAS 0

Sorry for picking sides here, but Just trying to introduce some balance to counter all the Q400 bashers from Scandinavian countries!

No I ask, why only SAS?

The Bartender

8th Dec 2007, 02:05

flaps2billion wrote:
Yes clearly a failed filter caused the O-ring to magically appear in the hydraulic actuator.........:ugh:
From the Preliminary Report, dated 03-11-2007 (http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000449%20LN-RDI%20Preliminary%20Report%20UK_03112007.pdf):

The physical dimensions of the rogue O-Ring was similar to that of the NAS1611-110 O-Ring identified on the drawings for the door solenoid sequence valve (SSV). It was further determined that the only component in the landing gear system that incorporated this O-Ring was the SSV.
A review of the maintenance history identified that an SSV on the right main landing gear system had been replaced on 16 October 2007. This component was located and examined. The examination revealed that a filter element and an O-Ring were not present in the down port in the SSV.

To establish similarity with the rogue O-Ring, an O-Ring was removed from a second SSV and was examined. They were found to be identical in both size and in material composition.

In the course of this investigation, the Danish AIB became aware that past occurrences showed that filter elements in the SSV can collapse and migrate into the landing gear hydraulic system. In the past occurrences, O-Rings (situated adjacent to the filter) from the SSV´s are not known to have migrated into the landing gear hydraulic system.

However it is the conclusion of the Danish AIB, that the O-ring found blocking the right main landing gear actuator restrictor valve, was from the SSV that was previously installed on the occurrence aircraft.
Not much magic involved here, me thinks...

flaps2billion wrote:
"Bombardier has up to now banked on a preliminary report from the Danish Accident Investigation Commission, where it says that SAS mechanics had used parts for the rear of the landing gear that were intended for the nose portion."
BBD 1, SAS 0From the same report:
A further review of the maintenance history revealed that the MSV (mechanical sequence valve) of the right main landing gear was replaced on 22 October 2007.
According to the maintenance records, the replacement MSV, supplied, was a P/N 48303-7 which was initially configured for installation into the nose landing gear hydraulic system. Prior to installation on the occurrence aircraft, the supplied MSV was reconfigured by maintenance personnel. To make the MSV P/N 48303-7 compatible with the installation requirements for the main landing gear, the unions from the replaced MSV P/N 48303-5 were used.In other words, an identical part, with identical functions, but with different external fittings on it, as indicated by the different dash-number on the part...

Miraculix

8th Dec 2007, 08:55

Flyprodusenten Bombardier skifter ut et filter i understellet til alle Dash 8 Q400-fly fordi filteret kan kollapse.
Feilen på filteret skal ha vært medvirkende til at et Dash 8 Q400 havarerte på Kastrup flyplass 27. oktober, og flyprodusenten Bombardier innrømmer nå at det også tidligere har vært problemer med filtre av samme type.
Den canadiske flyprodusenten har fram til nå vist til en foreløpig rapport fra den danske havarikommisjonen som sier at en SAS-mekaniker brukte en gummipakning til understellet som var ment for nesehjulopphenget. Den lille gummiringen blokkerte en hydraulisk arm, slik at høyre landingshjul ikke kunne slås ut.
Men nå erkjenner Bombardier at det var en svakhet i understellets hydraulikk.
- De har erkjent at det er et problem med filteret som kollapset og fikk o-ringen til å komme ut i systemet. Det har kollapset ved tidligere anledninger. Derfor har Bombardier nå gjort det kjent at de skal produsere et nytt og sterkere filter, sier det danske luftfartsverkets informasjonssjef Thorbjörn Ancker til nyhetsbyrået Ritzau.
Dette øker sannsynligheten for at den danske havarikommisjonen i sin sluttrapport kommer til å peke ut Bombardier som ansvarlig for havariet på Kastrup.

In essence:
Bombardier is changing all filters on all Dash 8-400's as the current hydraulic filters are to weak and prone to collaps. Bombardier admits that there has been problems with the filters collapsing on prievious occations.

flaps2billion

9th Dec 2007, 03:17

Bombardier is changing all filters on all Dash 8-400's as the current hydraulic filters are to weak and prone to collaps. Bombardier admits that there has been problems with the filters collapsing on prievious occations.

& that's the cause? Highly doubt it......I hink it's a desperate attempt to evene the score!

The last Q400 gear failure at SAS was due to a screw up by someone, not the aircraft or it's systems. Please see link below for details:
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000449%20LN-RDI%20Preliminary%20Report%20UK%2030102007.pdf

Severe CAVOK

9th Dec 2007, 10:08

I hink it's a desperate attempt to evene the score!

So you think it's a game? And if I read you correct, you think Bombardier has the lead for the time being?

:hmm:

Miraculix

9th Dec 2007, 12:05

From the link you provided:

The continuing investigation will focus on the source of the O-Ring.

Will a collapsed filter let an O-ring through?

The Bartender

9th Dec 2007, 13:50

The last Q400 gear failure at SAS was due to a screw up by someone, not the aircraft or it's systems.

You seem to miss a important point here...
The Danish accident investigation board concluded, in their third Preliminary Report, that the O-ring was introduced into the hydraulic system by the failure of the filter. As the O-ring is installed next to the filter, this would seem like a flaw in the design.

You're pointing to the second Preliminary Report, wich does not include these findings...

Surely, the O-ring got some help on the way when the old unions, including the O-ring, were transfered from the old MSV to the oposite end of the new MSV, and the accident would probably not have happened had this not been done, but fact is that the O-ring should not have been there in the first place...

So yes, someone did screw up when the O-ring was transferred past the MSV, but the manufacturer screwed up at the design-level, and THAT is what introduced the O-ring in the first place..

flaps2billion

10th Dec 2007, 14:04

Fine, agreed & it's a good point, although not conclusive...

But now I ask you, why only SAS? The other Q400s have same filters?
Horizon has received Q400s along the same time as SAS.....

The filter is vey minor desig flaw. Other aircraft, like 737, had major design defects...It's rare to find a perfect airplane!
Does a small filter problem justify SAS having to get rid of the fleet & get compensation? Highly doubt it!

Correct if I am wrong, but the first two accidents were due to corrosion on certain bolts.

Would the weak filter justify compensation & liability???

you think Bombardier has the lead for the time being?

Of course they do. Findings of the investigation so far, show that maintanence has put parts, that were intended for the front gear, on the right & left.:=

I am not accusing SAS tech, I will wait for final reports! SAS tech is most probaly very good, but things canhappen even to the best!

Miraculix

10th Dec 2007, 15:12

You want to make it a game, here is how I see the "game" so far:

The first crash was due to corrosion and the inspections required by Bomardier not good enough, no chance for SAS to find the fault.
Bombadier behind by 1.

Bombardier tells SAS this is an isolated "incident" and they should keep flying!
Bombadier behind by 2.

Number 2 airplane crashes:
Bombardier behind by 3.

The judge is still out on the final crash, the the score so far:
SAS 3 Bombardier 0.

But now I ask you, why only SAS?

That could be a million things, but most probably enviroment. Scandinavia has a very humid climate, mix that with slush and ice for a good part of the year and you have wear and tear not seen many places in the world.

Hudson Bay

10th Dec 2007, 18:10

ANA Dash 8 in Japan lands without gear down. Reported by UK BBC.

Is this SAS's fault aswell?

In all my flying life I have never known an aircraft to have as many gear up landings as this naf Dash 8. Ground the world wide fleet before somebody dies.

flaps2billion

10th Dec 2007, 18:37

Everybody relax & calm.....

Miraculx:

The first crash was due to corrosion and the inspections required by Bomardier not good enough, no chance for SAS to find the fault.Reports that corrossion was partly due to maint. using a Non aviation grade corrosive lubricant...
No chance to find fault? Are you joking me!?!?!? What else did they not do?
(upon inspecting the gears) "hey look rusty bolts...what do we do now? Ahh just leave it"
BBD 1 SAS 0

Bombardier tells SAS this is an isolated "incident" and they should keep flying!Of course it was. But during the inspections, somebody put something in that right gear, that was not suppossed to be there. How is it a design error?
Tie....BBD1 SAS 0

Number 2 airplane crashesRe-red 1
BBD2 SAS 0

SAS placing parts that were intended for the front gear, on the right & left.
BBD3 SAS0

Incidents like these only happening at SAS??????

That could be a million things, but most probably enviroment. Scandinavia has a very humid climate, mix that with slush and ice for a good part of the year and you have wear and tear not seen many places in the world.Oh c'mon! Horizon operates on the weast coast & still has no problems. Very humide there also!
Slush & Ice! Hello...the aircraft is made in Canada! We tested them & operate them in the snow/slush/ice/etc....

How many more euro agencies have to assure you people that the Q400 is safe?? Or did the media in your home countries already decide that for you?? They already made their decision long before any report ever came out!

ANA Dash 8 in Japan lands without gear down
In all my flying life I have never known an aircraft to have as many gear up landings as this naf Dash 8. Ground the world wide fleet before somebody dies.Short memory? & the 737 should of been grounded when it's rudder deflects in the opposite direction forcing two (almost three) airplanes into the ground killing hundreds of people???? Are they not still flying???

ANA was because some idiot forgot to place a bolt in the front gear. Not a design flaw.....mistakes like that happen all the time. It's a human factor.

Severe CAVOK

10th Dec 2007, 22:05

flaps2billion:

I'm afraid it's a complete waste of time discussing these items with you, because either:

1. you haven't read the preliminary reports from the Danish AIB at all, or

2. you have completely missed the essentials of these written statements, which is incredible, since they are in your native language, or

3. you are winding things up.

I'm not sure, which option is more likely, but I'm quite sure, that it makes NO sense to wait for the final report before discussing with you again, cause option 1, 2 or 3 will almost certainly apply then again.

And, by the way, you have also completely missed the seven years of agony, SAS has experienced with the Q400, leading to the "No more"-decision after the 3 accidents in 1 month. But whats the point... you know everything there is to know about this, and therefore you will now state the truth in your next reply. :sad:

Educate us. :rolleyes:

Ladusvala

10th Dec 2007, 22:29

flaps2billion, you are frustrating me!

Were the bolts rusty on the outside, have you seen them?

Please give us the link to the report about non aviation grade corrosive lubricant.

After the first gear failure, what was put there that didn´t belong there?

After so many gear up landings by SAS aircraft, is it any wonder why passengers has lost confidence in the Q400? That´s the reason SAS don´t want it any more - the passengers don´t want it.

What´s your connection to the Q400?

flaps2billion

10th Dec 2007, 23:50

Look, I am waiting for the final report. My responses are just based on the fact that most of you have already decided on the issue.

Yes I agree with SAS management, that they had to dump the fleet. it was a business decision not a safety one. People just don't know better & can be easily persuaded by the media.

But the media and politicians of your country have already decided on this issue long before any report. Is it not true that Danish politicians have requested that the Q400 should be banned in europe?

What get's to me, is that none of you are willing to mention or accept the slight possibility, that it could be a maintenence problem? Why....could you at least consider it?
This should not be a national issue, it should be about finding the truth!

after the 3 accidents in 1 month

of course it's bizarre....what I find even more bizarre is, why only SAS? Please give me a logical answer, no rhetoric! Why only SAS?

After the first gear failure, what was put there that didn´t belong there?
Laduslav your lost....
First two accidents were similar. The third one was different....please read link below!
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...2030102007.pdf (http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000449%20LN-RDI%20Preliminary%20Report%20UK%2030102007.pdf)

punkalouver

11th Dec 2007, 02:44

Might as well just wait for the final report as neither side is going to agree with the other and both are angling the facts in favour of their own biases. I hope that Bombardier comes out on top because of my bias but the truth is more important.
So lets wait and spend our energy fighting over something much more important......Hans Island. It belongs to Canada and we will never let the Danes take it from us.:D

http://www.rickbroadhead.com/hans.htm

Ladusvala

11th Dec 2007, 08:30

flaps2billion, you say that I´m lost but my question was about your statement that, after the first gear collapse, something was put there that didn´t belong there.
Please re-read your own posts!

QUOTE
The first crash was due to corrosion and the inspections required by Bomardier not good enough, no chance for SAS to find the fault.
Reports that corrossion was partly due to maint. using a Non aviation grade corrosive lubricant...
No chance to find fault? Are you joking me!?!?!? What else did they not do?
(upon inspecting the gears) "hey look rusty bolts...what do we do now? Ahh just leave it"
BBD 1 SAS 0

Quote:
Bombardier tells SAS this is an isolated "incident" and they should keep flying!
Of course it was. But during the inspections, somebody put something in that right gear, that was not suppossed to be there. How is it a design error?
Tie....BBD1 SAS 0

Quote:
Number 2 airplane crashes
END OF QUOTE
I ask again, what was put there after the first gear collapse?

Ladusvala

11th Dec 2007, 08:46

flaps2 billion, you write something that is correct but you don´t tell the whole story.

QUOTE
SAS placing parts that were intended for the front gear, on the right & left.
END OF QUOTE

Isn´t it true that this part is intended for both the nose gear and main gear, provided you change the fittings?

Bombardier is smart enough to use interchangeable parts where possible, it reduces the cost of the aircraft.

fermented herring

11th Dec 2007, 08:58

I am surprised to see that there is an expectation to have a winner and a loser in this "game". As SLF I consider myself part of a bet that I didn't want to be in, and cannot see anything than two losers- maybe it can be discussed to what level the two are losers (in addition to SLFs).

Ladusvala

11th Dec 2007, 09:08

flaps2billion:

Please give us the link to the report about non aviation grade corrosive lubricant, you claim was used.

The reason I want to read that particular report is that I want to know the truth. Surely you also want the truth to be known, so why don´t share the report with me as I can´t find it. Please!

Why only SAS, you ask...
Well, until you post the report you claim to have read, I believe that it is due to SAS having the oldest aircraft with the most cycles.
Remember that if it was a design flaw, it will not break after exactly the same number of hours or cycles on every aircraft. That means that there is an element of coincidence also, just as it was with the collapse being on the right side only. (Isn´t that strange, the SAS mechanics can only maintain the left main gear, not the right?)

flaps2billion

11th Dec 2007, 16:15

QUOTE
SAS placing parts that were intended for the front gear, on the right & left.
END OF QUOTE

Isn´t it true that this part is intended for both the nose gear and main gear, provided you change the fittings?
Bombardier is smart enough to use interchangeable parts where possible, it reduces the cost of the aircraft.

You never use interchanged parts between the front & main gears.....two different systems!

I have to go back to the link, but in the prelim. report, it mentions that parts between the front & left/right were mixed.....

Concerning the lubricants...let's just say I heard through the grapevine & it would be a conflict of interest to name the source...but time will tell.

(Isn´t that strange, the SAS mechanics can only maintain the left main gear, not the right?)

That I have to admit, is a good point. But the investigation will tell...

fermented herring:
That is what it has become. SAS wants compensation & BBD doesn't believe this scenerio merits one.

The question is now, given the scenarios, does SAS deserve one? will see......

maxrpm

12th Dec 2007, 08:26

Isn´t that strange, the SAS mechanics can only maintain the left main gear, not the right?)
That I have to admit, is a good point. But the investigation will tell.
The guys from maintence told us that the layout of the hydraulic system puts more strain on the right acctuator thus enhancing the danger of something breaking on the right side when there is corrision.

Kiwiconehead

14th Dec 2007, 22:31

The Bombardier info we saw pointed out SAS not using Mastinox (yellow gorilla snot stuff) when assembling the rod end as specified but a graphite grease instead - not up to the job and allowed water/salt etc into the threads and corroded internally.

The only sign would be the loosening of the jam nut as the rod end started pulling out (hence the AD inspection requirement).

Ladusvala

16th Dec 2007, 15:25

When did this assembling take place, before the first gear collapse or after the first inspection?

If using the incorrect type of grease caused the corrosion, it must have been applied a long time before the first gear collapse, for enough corrosion to develop.

If it was used after the inspection, it can´t have anything to do with the gear collapses, isn´t that right?!

Cyclone733

16th Dec 2007, 16:14

Ladusvala,

The inspections only took place after the second main gear failure (the first two were in a short space of time) these inspections were to find evidence of corrosion on the rest of the fleet. The third incident has nothing to do with the type of grease used.

Ladusvala

16th Dec 2007, 18:37

My question still stands...

...because I´m trying to find out if the gear collapses has something to do with the type of grease used (as Bombardier seems to suggest in it´s info that Kiwiconehead refers to)

Mad (Flt) Scientist

16th Dec 2007, 20:43

Two different gear collapse mechanism at work in the three accidents.

First two - attributed to corrosion, in turn partly attributed, it seems, to use of non-standard grease. Aircraft had presumably been like this for a while, in order to corrode. Grease presumably applied during some routine maintenance or inspection action.

Then ... mandatory inspections.

Then ... third gear collapse, apparently due to the much discussed migrating O-ring. Migration believed to have been facilitated during the disassembly/reassembly required for the mandatory inspections.

The only link between the grease/corrosion and the third accident is that it prompted the inspections, which caused maintenance to be done in the area, which apparently caused the O-ring migration.

That's my understanding of the situation, from watching the various discussions and reports.

flaps2billion

17th Dec 2007, 04:12

Talks of SAS now ordering CRJ 700-900 to replace Q400? Looks like both are settling behind he scenes??????:hmm:
http://epn.dk/industri/article1204734.ece

Friend of mine from CPH sent this to me. Can anybody fully translate it?

Ladusvala

17th Dec 2007, 07:17

The reason that the corrosion wasn´t discovered was that the failed part wasn´t supposed to be inspected before sometime in the future.

If the failed part hasn´t been disassembled, how can the non-standard grease cause the corrosion of the threads?

Maybe there´s other reasons, except for an inspection, to disassemble the part but then it seems to have been done on all SAS Q400´s.
If it happends frequently, maintenance personell should have seen the corrosion before the part failed.

Is the info about the non-standard grease just Bombardier blowing smoke?

Can someone who has read the Bombardier info, tell us if the non-standard grease was used before or after the gear collapses?

It would be an elegant solution if SAS replaces the Q400´s with CRJ 700-900, both for SAS and Bombardier. The decision is supposed to be taken on a board meeting today, monday.

Torquelink

18th Dec 2007, 08:25

Advantageous trade-in terms?

:)

flaps2billion

20th Dec 2007, 05:05

Can someone who has read the Bombardier info, tell us if the non-standard grease was used before or after the gear collapses?
Is this guy for real?
If the final report shows it, accept it! SAS tech is probably good but not perfect. I am sure that BBD is partially at fault too....
Problems happen all the time in aviation might I remind you? Can you honestly give me an example of a perfect airplane????
How many more euro agencies have to confirm that the Q400 does not have a design flaw before you guys give up?:ugh:
If they used a corrosive grease.....well, it happened. What are going to do about if. If BBD did not provide check for grease, well it happened.
Moral of the story, now both know better!
BBD is not putting out lies! Nor is SAS publically going against the information.
Stop your pro SAS attitude & focus on the facts with a neutral perception!
It looks like both want to settle behind the scenes. BBD will most probably give them a really good deal. I would really like to see CRJs in SAS colours! If this is the case, the lawsuit must be out the window....

Miraculix

20th Dec 2007, 06:58

Are you for real?

Ladusvala is simply asking where to find the information, that SAS has used the wrong grease. And honestly, I can't find it in the report you are refering to.

It's a valid question, but you seem to know it all, so maybe you can post a link to mentioned information, instead of puffing smoke.

chksix

20th Dec 2007, 07:31

He's trying to defend his aircraft company while asking for a neutral standpoint from everyone else.

Not very neutral is it? :rolleyes:

F_Hercules

20th Dec 2007, 11:09

Flaps2billion

Final report? Have I missed something? I can only find a preliminary report, the latest
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000433%20LN-RDK%20Preliminary%20Report%20med%20header.pdf

Can´t see anything about grease in this report. I am also interested to read the document you are refering to.

Ladusvala

20th Dec 2007, 11:59

Thanks Miraculix.

Chksix and Flaps2billion, I really hope that SAS maintenance hasn´t made a misstake with the grease but at the same time I like to know the truth and that´s why I´m asking for facts.

Why can´t you just provide a link to the report you are refering to? That would make it more credible and easier to believe.

flaps2billion

21st Dec 2007, 19:49

I have it on paper......but will send as soon as I can find it online!

Wait for the final report, wait...
Unlike the media in your countries!

flaps2billion

21st Dec 2007, 19:52

Also, correct me if I am wrong. But I don't think there has been a prelim. report for the first two accidents?? Only the third?

If so, then the lubricant problem may has yet to be official????

F_Hercules

21st Dec 2007, 20:30

The link in my post above is to a preliminary report for the first accident.
I havn´t seen any report from Lithuania för the second accident.
Below you will find the latest preliminary report for the third accident
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000449%20LN-RDI%20Preliminary%20Report%20UK_03112007.pdf

We are all waiting for the final reports! But no info about grease in the preliminary reports yet.....

Miraculix

23rd Dec 2007, 10:59

dash7fan

23rd Dec 2007, 14:32

And I loved the Dash 7 (6000 hrs) and Dash 8 (11.500 hrs)

Great aircraft for the regional market.

The press is able to kill any aircraft.

maxrpm

23rd Dec 2007, 16:56

Hello DH7 Fan!

Who ever you are - I was propably flying Copilot with you a decade ago.
I did not really fall for the DH7 in the 1000h I flew one. But the DH8-300 are good solid airplanes and the DH8Q400 is a real pilot´s plane.

SAS tried to destroy the reputation of that plane in order to handle their own media problems.

Had they succeded that would have endangered a lot of jobs in Europe, US and Canada. Non wonder people are upset.

Blaming others is no way to handle a crisis.

bjornhall

23rd Dec 2007, 18:12

SAS tried to destroy the reputation of that plane in order to handle their own media problems.

Absolutely! But that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the plane.

flaps2billion

23rd Dec 2007, 23:03

On a paper here in front of me it say's: "flaps2billion is a Xxxx", now does that mean its true? See my point?

In one post you refer to a report that has not even been produced, saying one company is in the wrong another in the right. In another you tell people to wait for the report, while you yourself hammer one of the companies.
Funny how one set of rules apply for you and another for the rest of us.

I have flown several Bombardier turboprop products and honestly, Bombardier has not produced a good turboprop since the De Haviland Twinotter, loved that plane! (take care of its nosewheel though ;)On paper here in front of me it say's "Miraculix is a pro/SAS nationalist ",now does that mean its true? See my point?

When coming into this forum, I was just trying to give balance to all the pro SAS B.S that was flooding around. Counter-acting people who already came to conclusions long before any report!
BTW, those can't be the full prelim. reports! The one I saw on the third was longer then that...

You must have bad judgment! I have been flying the Dash 8 for 6 years & what an amazing aircraft! Is there anything in the past 25 years that can compete? Saab??:}

Dehavilland Canada & now BBD, have an excellent reputation for making some of the finest Canadian turbo prop aircraft worldwide.
Not every aircraft is perfect, but still excellent! The Q400 is still selling strong as all clients know that the SAS incidents were isolated! Danish, Canadian & Euro agencies confirm that.....

99% of the customers believe that the Q400 is the best in it's category! Hands down.

I also loved flying the Twin otter when I was younger!
Oh ya genius....BBD never produced the DHC6 as De havlilland was under Hawker Siddley in the 1960s!

I know where you are trying to go with this! Your just like all the others who have decided on this matter since day 1!
Well sir, all I tell you is wait & see!

Ladusvala

25th Dec 2007, 06:44

Flaps2billion, found the report yet?

May I suggest you type the essentials down and post it here for the rest of us?!

Miraculix

25th Dec 2007, 07:51

Oh ya genius....BBD never produced the DHC6 as De havlilland was under Hawker Siddley in the 1960s!

You're cathing my drift ;)

Flap40

25th Dec 2007, 08:04

Dehavilland Canada & now BBD, have an excellent reputation for making some of the finest Canadian turbo prop aircraft

Now that I will agree with! How many other Canadian turboprop manufacturers are there?

flaps2billion

25th Dec 2007, 10:07

have an excellent reputation for making some of the finest Canadian turbo prop aircraft worldwide.
Maybe not worded properly, but please copy entire quote!
Re-word: these Canadian built turbo props are recognized as some of the finest regional aircraft worldwide.

Severe CAVOK

25th Dec 2007, 16:09

Flaps2billion:

Here is the link to the 3 prelim. reports so far on the third accident: http://www.hcl.dk/sw152431.asp

Pick your favourite length :)

Miraculix

24th Jan 2008, 08:33

have been checked. In 16 of them the before mentioned Hydraulic filter was either defect or missing and in 2 cases an O ring was found in the hydraulic fluid.

http://www.berlingske.dk/article/20080124/danmark/701240007/

talent

24th Jan 2008, 10:13

"...have been checked. In 16 of them the before mentioned Hydraulic filter was either defect or missing and in 2 cases an O ring was found in the hydraulic fluid."

Miraculix,
Many thanks for that post. I'm assuming that the above is a summary of the newspaper article in the link? (Oh if only I hadn't skipped Danish classes in school). Sounds very embarrassing.

When you say two o-ring particles - I wonder does that mean two in addition to the crash-landed plane, or does that figure include the crash-lander?

A missing filter is rather a poor show but, from my limited knowledge of hydraulics, many systems can tolerate quite a considerable amount of sludge and, to a limited degree, could tolerate a missing filter (providing there are no large bodies like o-ring particles). A defective or completely blocked filter is another matter and, unless there is some sort of fail-safe or emergency bypass, or a complete alternative B system, could result in no pressure getting through to an effective component.

Wonder where the additional 0-ring particles were found? In the actuator where they possibly originated, in a filter, or swishing around in the general body of fluid?

Where the air is rarified, we'll just glide, starry-eyed ...

Miraculix

24th Jan 2008, 16:19

It dos'nt specify if the o-ring in the "crashlander" is in the tally.

My own translation, please don't smack me for faults...

SAS flew dangerous planes for years

http://images.berlingske.dk/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Avis=BM&Dato=20080124&Kategori=ABMDANMARK

27 aircraft had dangerous, but hidden designflaws.

First SAS found corrosion in 25 out of 27 Dash8 aircraft. Now a new inspection shows, that something was wrong with a filter in the landinggear. Writes danish newspaper Politikken.

SAS has for years been flying around with 27 Dash8 aircraft, that had serious, but hidden designflaws. After two emergency landings in september last year it was revealed, that 25 out of 27 aircraft had corrosion in the landinggear.

Now a new inspection from SAS reveales, that also the hydraulic system in the landinggear on most planes was flawed. So far 18 of the 27 aircraft has been inspected and 16 of these has had either defect or totally missing filters.

I a minimum of two cases an o-ring was in the hydraulic system. SAS had no chance of finding the corrosion or the flawed filters. The corrosion was in a piston, that should only be inspected after about 10 years use - SAS recieved their aircraft in 2000.

The European agency, EASA, that type approves the aircraft flying in Europe, was on january 10 this year notified by mail with documentation that, SAS had found defect filters en almost all inspected aircraft.

The notification came from Statens luftfartsvæsen (SLV) (the Danish CAA), that at the moment is in charge of the three scandinavian countries overseeing SAS.

SLV had, before SAS found the many falts, assesed, that there was a designflaw.

Allready then EASA said after a meeting with among others the Dash8 constructor, Canadian Bombardier, that the crash on 27 october i Copenhagen Kastrup was a unique fault and therefore was of no importance to other Dash8's.

Now in almost all inspected SAS aircraft defect filters has been found. But EASA is not changing their view. Allready on january 11, the day after the mail from SLV, the technical director of EASA answered in a mail, that:"the found faults will only be critical in a combination with maintanance faults".

EASA still decline, that its a designflaw, but at the same time adds:"Bombardier is designing a new filter".

SLV is standing fast on its view that its a designflaw.

"the scandinavian CAA's are not on par with the view of EASA" says Per Veingberg, technical director of SLV to Politikken. He says the crash on 27 october, was caused by the defect filter, that was flawed in design. SAS does not want to comment the new inspection and it was not possible to get in contact with Bombadier.

talent

24th Jan 2008, 16:36

Miraculix,
Brilliant translation. No smacks.

Seems the local Aviation Authority is backing up SAS against the opinions of the Easa. That will be an interesting turf war to watch. Lot of self-serving interpretation going there, methinks.

Wonder if any other airline flying the type experienced the same level of problems? For example, corroded pistons are often a function of contaminants in the fluid, mostly water, which is a common contamination due to moisture precipitating out of air in the system. Routine maintenance should deal with it.

The final report into those incidents will be interesting to read.

Winnie

24th Jan 2008, 21:01

Designflaw in the aircraft????

Or a faulty type of filter.

Certainly not a designflaw in the design of the aircraft??:ugh:

talent

25th Jan 2008, 00:28

Perhaps not the most perfect aircraft in aviation history but I doubt if such a basic bog-standard system as the Q400's hydraulics would have passed certification on both sides of the Atlantic if items like filters, and maintenance intervals, were not up to scratch. Makes you think.

They certainly had a design-and/or-maintenance problem with the actuator rod threads but again we must wait for the final report to see if there wasn't a mitigating factor. Absolutely ignorant of things like de-icing fluids but have seen suggestions (which may have been self-serving on someone's part) that this may have been cused by a particular type of fluid which reacted poorly with the u/c.

flaps2billion

25th Jan 2008, 01:48

SAS has for years been flying around with 27 Dash8 aircraft, that had serious, but hidden designflaws

Is it just me, or did anybody else find this article loaded & bias? Who wrote this article & does he know anything about aviation?

Since when would a faulty filter constitute as a major design flaw?

I a minimum of two cases an o-ring was in the hydraulic system. SAS had no chance of finding the corrosion or the flawed filters. The corrosion was in a piston, that should only be inspected after about 10 years use - SAS recieved their aircraft in 2000.

They are trying to link the third accident with the first two! Both had nothing to do with each other.
They mention nothing about where the corrosion came from?

After looking at the facts, I do believe that the faulty filter may have been a reason for the third. Maybe something during the inspections triggered it?? Who knows??

But this article tries to blame the first two on BBD with no substance at all! Corrosion? Where did the corrosion come from & how? Why no other airline?

the technical director of EASA answered in a mail, that:"the found faults will only be critical in a combination with maintanance faults".

Well no kidding!

"the scandinavian CAA's are not on par with the view of EASA"
:hmm:

SAS flew dangerous planes for years

I found this article extremely shameful! Without any final report, they already come to a conclusion! Is this the way news is presented to people in Denmark?
They try to link the first two accidents with the third without any proper reasoning!

Transport Canada does not do this, the FAA does not do this & the media on our side of the pond does not make loaded statements without a final report. At least they use words like suspect or possible!

The Q400 is still manufactured the same way! Does this mean that Flybe, Horizon, ANA, Austrian, Porter, Frontier.... have flying dangerous airplanes?

This is how you ruin reputations! The average reader who is not into aviation won't know better. They can easily be fooled by loaded statements!

In my 15 years of flying pros.....I have never seen something this ridiculous!

Is the SLV looking for the truth or are they trying to defend SAS?
Anyways, let's cut the talk & see what the final report says!

talent

25th Jan 2008, 07:19

flaps2billion wreote:
"Is the SLV looking for the truth or are they trying to defend SAS?"

Quite.

talent

25th Jan 2008, 07:31

Flaps2billion wrote:
"After looking at the facts, I do believe that the faulty filter may have been a reason for the third. Maybe something during the inspections triggered it?? Who knows??"

Actually the interim report report from the official Danish investigation suggests the o-ring fragment was probably introduced into the actuator with the swap-over when they replaced a corroded u/c actuator with a similar, but perhaps not identical, part used to open the front nose-wheel door. So it was (inadvertantly) put directly in the business end of the system and could not have otherwise passed through the system. Don't know the layout of the system but perhaps a filter, even if present, might not have been in the right place to catch it.

See: http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000449%20LN-RDI%20Preliminary%20Report%20UK_03112007.pdf

talent

25th Jan 2008, 07:35

Actually I'm perhaps jumping to conclusions in my last post when I say the replaced actuator was corroded. All we really know is that one, part of the system to open the wheel bay doors, was replaced and that replacement introduced the o-ring fragment which ultimately blocked an orifice in a downstream component which prevented the undercarriage extending.

http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000449%20LN-RDI%20Preliminary%20Report%20UK_03112007.pdf

Finn47

25th Jan 2008, 11:05

I read in today´s ATW Daily News concerning the main landing gear:

SAS technical Dpt has found problems in 63 % of the SSV valves on the grounded Q400s.
"The SSV valve has a construction error and is currently being modified by the supplier", SAS concluded.

I take it SAS means Goodrich is modifying the valve design. While this probably is not "a major design flaw in the aircraft", surely this, if true, means that not everything can be blamed on SAS maintenance?

talent

25th Jan 2008, 11:38

So far SAS is the only one complaining, makes you wonder?

krujje

25th Jan 2008, 18:48

flaps2billion:

the media on our side of the pond does not make loaded statements without a final report. At least they use words like suspect or possible!

Are you serious??? Talk about a loaded statement.... :D

flaps2billion

25th Jan 2008, 19:34

I take it SAS means Goodrich is modifying the valve design. While this probably is not "a major design flaw in the aircraft", surely this, if true, means that not everything can be blamed on SAS maintenance?

Well said! I do strongly believe that it is a combined problem.....

But to make statments such as, "SAS flew dangerous planes for years", without any final report is wrong!:=

If I were a BBD employee working on the Q400, I would be super upset! Remeber that Goodrich makes the landing gears, not BBD.

So far SAS is the only one complaining, makes you wonder?

Really? I thought they have been silent.....according to the article, SAS has refused to comment. It's the Danish media that has been looking for somebody to crap on.

Are you serious??? Talk about a loaded statement.... :D

Please, show me one Canadian report which makes definate claims prior to a final report?

Does anybody know where I can find the writer's email address for the article? Sorry don't know the language...

WHBM

25th Jan 2008, 19:44

Breaking through the chit-chat here ......

I think several of us would be interested to know what has happened to the aircraft, because this may give a hint about their future.

Are they stored by SAS and Wideroe ? Notes elsewhere say they have gone from their initial parking points. Have they returned to North America ?

Also what has happened to the three involved in the landing incidents ? Have they been repaired, broken up for scrap, or stored damaged pending a decision ?

The Bartender

25th Jan 2008, 20:14

Are they stored by SAS and Wideroe ? Notes elsewhere say they have gone from their initial parking points. Have they returned to North America ?

Most of them are stored at their respective bases, while some are stored elsewhere. None has gone over the pond, AFAIK...

...and Wideroes fifth Q400 is in Canada, ready for delivery...:\

barrymung

25th Jan 2008, 20:19

Finn47, it *could* mean that correctly designed parts were assembled incorrectly, rather than a design flaw.

barrymung

25th Jan 2008, 20:35

Since when would a faulty filter constitute as a major design flaw?

When it means that a relatively large percentage of landings are controlled crashes due to undercarriage not deploying correctly, because of a design aspect??

flaps2billion

25th Jan 2008, 22:07

When it means that a relatively large percentage of landings are controlled crashes due to undercarriage not deploying correctly, because of a design aspect??

Incorrect statement. The faulty filter only accounts for the third accident. The first two were due to corroded bolts!

barrymung

26th Jan 2008, 10:23

Hold on a minute! I was merely answering the OP's question.

One of the crashes was caused by a defective filter but a relatively LARGE NUMBER of other planes have been found to be suffereing the same problem.

In due course, how many of these other defective planes would have suffered the same fate as the first one? I'd wager the chances were fairly high.

I'd say that constitutes a major design flaw, wouldn't you? If the landing gear had been designed differently then it is very likely landing gear would be near 100% reliable...

Also, it is not clear whether the two planes with corroded bolts had deficient filters or not. It is also not clear whether the faulty filters could contribute to the corrosion or otherwise aggravate the problem.

What is clear is that the landing gear needs investigating and potentially re-designing. It seems that maintenance/inspection procedures should be tightened up too, and documentation re-writing.

flyingbug

26th Jan 2008, 10:58

Hold on a minute! I was merely answering the OP's question.

No, you are speculating an answer is more accurate.

In due course, how many of these other defective planes would have suffered the same fate as the first one? I'd wager the chances were fairly high.

Speculation.

I'd say that constitutes a major design flaw, wouldn't you?

Speculation

If the landing gear had been designed differently then it is very likely landing gear would be near 100% reliable...

Speculation

Also, it is not clear whether the two planes with corroded bolts had deficient filters or not.

If thats true, what's your point?

What is clear is that the landing gear needs investigating and potentially re-designing.

Speculation.

:D:D

krujje

26th Jan 2008, 12:41

flaps2billion:

Please, show me one Canadian report which makes definate claims prior to a final report?

It appears you live in Montreal, so you've obviously heard of the "Journal de Montreal"... their recent coverage on the Air Canada in-flight upset has been almost pure speculation.

Maybe you don't consider the "Journal de Montreal" to be a Canadian publication?

borghha

26th Jan 2008, 14:16

I ve taken the trouble to read through the Luftfartvaesenet 's reports on the last accident, in English and Danish, as well as the the article in BT, the latter being a good example of SAS PR efforts and Bombardier bashing it would seem to me.

The prelimanary, but updated reports state clearly that a MLG component (MSV) was replaced by a nosewheel MSV that had been 'worked' by maintanance services. In order to fit this modified part into the MLG, fttings from the original MSV were used, those possibly 'hiding' an O-ring that later on caused the accident.

(Ref http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000449%20LN-RDI%20Preliminary%20Report%20UK_03112007.pdf page 2)

Can a manufacturer be accused of design flaws if a company doesn t use the right parts and follows its own procedures during maintanance operations?

Looking forward to the final report.

Fly safely.

DK_FCI

26th Jan 2008, 14:40

The prelimanary, but updated reports state clearly that a MLG component (MSV) was replaced by a nosewheel MSV that had been 'worked' by maintanance services. In order to fit this modified part into the MLG, fttings from the original MSV were used, those possibly 'hiding' an O-ring that later on caused the accident.

AFAIK - That is a BBD approved procedure, discribed in the AMM.

flaps2billion

27th Jan 2008, 01:53

Can a manufacturer be accused of design flaws if a company doesn t use the right parts and follows its own procedures during maintanance operations?

Bingo!

That is a BBD approved procedure, discribed in the AMM.

Is it a Goodrich or BBD approved procedure?

It appears you live in Montreal, so you've obviously heard of the "Journal de Montreal"... their recent coverage on the Air Canada in-flight upset has been almost pure speculation.

??? Im not talking about speculation...I am talking about absolute statements prior to final report..

Was the article headline similar to this, "Air Canada has been flying dangerous airplanes for years when the aircraft rolled 60* for no apparent reason."
:ugh:

so, it is not clear whether the two planes with corroded bolts had deficient filters or not

That's just speculation. The reports I have seen so far indicate that they are isolated problems.

Why is SAS the only company that had a corrossion problem? Horizon operates on the west coast & have been flying their q400s for a while, with no corrossion.

It seems that the article was written by a political writer. Judging by the way he wrote the propaganda piece, he knows very little about aviation. The writer makes a big deal about a little thing without looking at all the facts. The writer talks as if the faulty filter caused all three accidents! Did he at least mention that a NOn avaition grade/ corrosive lube was used on the gears??:ugh:

It seems that the media is trying to convince the people that SAS is not at fault. The investigation is still not finished! We don't if the faulty filter is the cause. Its goodrich who makes the gears....not BBD.

Making a big deal out of the little things in order to convince the people is wrong!
& making statements, "SAS has been flying dangerous airplanes," is shameful!

The thing the pisses me off is, that an average person can pick up the paper, read the article & say, "wow! those airplanes are dangerous."
If the investigation favours BBD....will the media & politcians take the time to apologize to the BBD company???

punkalouver

27th Jan 2008, 02:33

Its goodrich who makes the gears....not BBD.

As much as I hope that BBD is not at fault here.....The gear on the Dash 8 is part of the Dash 8. Just like the infamous rudder power control unit servo valves built by Parker Hannifin for the 737 are part of the 737.

Ladusvala

27th Jan 2008, 08:29

I quote Flaps2billion:
"Did he at least mention that a NOn avaition grade/ corrosive lube was used on the gears??"

That´s speculation. I´m still waiting to see any document saying this, I have also asked you guys to post it on Pprune.

Isn´t it right that BBD is now changin the design of the filters?
Why are they doing that if nothings wrong with them?

Does it matter if it´s a Goodrich or BBD approved procedure when it´s approved in the AMM?!

Headlines like "SAS has been flying dangerous airplanes" doesn´t help SAS´s image so I don´t think that they wanted the article printed.

DK_FCI

27th Jan 2008, 09:27

@flaps2billion - Just out of curiosity – what is your profession, and whom do you work for?

maxrpm

27th Jan 2008, 15:52

There are rumours that Wideroe is operating their DHQ400 fleet again. Can anybody confirm this?

Ladusvala

27th Jan 2008, 17:33

Negative, they are not.

The Bartender

27th Jan 2008, 17:47

There are rumours that Wideroe is operating their DHQ400 fleet again. Can anybody confirm this?

No, they don't...

pineridge

27th Jan 2008, 18:46

I have heard that Wideroe have agreed with Bombardier to return their existing complement of 400`s to Bombardier and shall take delivery of new generation 400`s (five machines) in March.
How do you like them apples!

Ladusvala

27th Jan 2008, 19:52

Actually I would like that.
I have also read the same rumour in norwegian papers.

barrymung

27th Jan 2008, 21:00

Flyingbug,

I'm an Engineer by trade and when you see a number of catastrophic failures you check things out pretty carefully!

When you subsequently see problems with additional items out in the field alarm bells start to ring as it's apparent there is some kind of problem!

You can't seriously be telling me that this is all coincidence, surely??

Even if the fault is down to maintenance being carried out correctly (or incorrect assembly), it's still a design issue! Either your documentation is inadequate or the thing you designed is inherently difficult to maintain. Either way the designer is ultimately at fault.

flaps2billion

27th Jan 2008, 22:51

Negative, they are not.

My friend, who is a test pilot for BBD, told me that they will be receiving new Q400s.

I tried to look it up on google & found this picture:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1317525&sok=WHERE%20%20(MATCH%20(aircraft,airline,place,photo_date,c ountry,remark,photographer,email,year,reg,aircraft_generic,c n,code)%20AGAINST%20('+

Concerning the corrossive lube......that's the talk around BBD. Note that others have given the info on this thread...if you look back. So it's not just me.
Judging by the way the media in your country has been telling the story, do you think they want to make this public?
All I have to say is, wait for the final report on the first two accidents.

The EASA strongly believes that the problem lies between maint. & fault design. Now that they have discovered the problem, they

I have one question though.
What is it not an SSV valve on the right main gear that was replaced on Oct. 16th, that triggered the rogue o-ring to migrate in the hydralics lines?

what is your profession, and whom do you work for?

I fly Fly Dash8 & teach M/IFR.......whom do I work for? None of your business!

flaps2billion

27th Jan 2008, 23:10

Either way the designer is ultimately at fault.

Since when? During an investigation, they first try to determine if it's a design flaw. If it's not, then they examine maintanence.

The EASA did clear it from being a design flaw, but the SLV found concrete information concerning a faulty filter in the hydraulic system.

Concerning the third accident...... It is a desing error & one hydraulic filter is substandard and will need to be replaced....the changes that are being made will minize the probability of this ever happening again.

Concerning the first two....I have an important question that nobody has answered. Why was SAS the only company that has rusty bolts in the main gear assembly?

Cyclone733

27th Jan 2008, 23:27

Concerning the first two....I have an important question that nobody has answered. Why was SAS the only company that has rusty bolts in the main gear assembly?

Who says SAS were the only ones with corrosion?

Longtimer

27th Jan 2008, 23:48

And the others with corrosion problems are???????????

flaps2billion

28th Jan 2008, 00:11

And the others with corrosion problems are???????????

I believe ANA reported a minute amount on one airplane. After that, nobody else!

:hmm:

Ladusvala

28th Jan 2008, 08:12

Flaps2billion, on the 21st of December you wrote:
"I have it on paper......but will send as soon as I can find it online!"
and now you write:
"Concerning the corrossive lube......that's the talk around BBD."
i.e. it´s a rumour from the BBD factory!

If it´s true, I´m sure that BBD will make absolutely sure that SLV knows about it and then we will read about in the final report. Until then please stop stating it lika a fact.

If you believe that SLV is protecting SAS in this issue, you should know that although Sweden, Norway and Denmark is far from Canada, it isn´t third world countries, Scandinavia is one of the least corupted areas on the globe.

If SAS is at fault, we will get what we deserve in the final report, as will BBD.

dusk2dawn

28th Jan 2008, 09:07

Ladusvala writes:
If you believe that SLV is protecting SAS in this issue, you should know that although Sweden, Norway and Denmark is far from Canada, it isn´t third world countries, Scandinavia is one of the least corupted areas on the globe.Can I just bring your attention to an often overlooked detail in the TI worldwide Corruption Perceptions Index: The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. <more> (the TI FAQ ) Also bear in mind, the response Eva Joly gave in BBC Hard Talk with Tim Sebastian when he claimed the UK was "not that corrupt":Oh - You just don't have the means to investigate!We like to think.... most likely we just believe.

flaps2billion

28th Jan 2008, 14:26

Ladusvala......Nobody is talking about corruption here! dusk2dawn explains it best, it is a perception issue!
Don't worry, we recognize the fact that the Scandinavian countries always top the U.N charts!

But I am deeply concerned, that nationalist sentiments may affect the judgement of the SLV.

So far, the media in your country has been extremely one sided. Without any final report, they release articles that title, "SAS has been flying dangerous airplanes for years"....

Below is a link to what the Montreal gazette released on October 28th, 07......notice how neutral the article is?
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=feb12a90-4f9c-4eb4-bef2-bd4409f9b963

Furthermore, after BBD acknowledged that the filter needed to be re-designed, the media jumps & makes claims that BBD admits design fault that caused all three accidents. Little do they know, the third was completely different then the first two!
I find it odd that every is concentrating on the findings of the third accident & not the first two?

All I can say is, wait for the final report because:

-The investigation has still not concluded what triggered a small elastic piece used to seal gaskets, to migrate in the hydraulic system & block an orifice? Faulty filter that didn't do its job or not, we still need to know how it got there!

-What is causing the corrosion? Although I have receive info "from the grapevine" concerning the use of non-aviation grade lubricants, we still don't have a final report that confirms this. I admit that I should not have presented it as a fact find, since the investigation has not confirmed it.
From my understanding, corrosion usually happens when metal is exposed to water, citric acid, salt air (which attracts a high moisture content) or Galvanic corrosion (when two different metal types, with different electrode potentials come in contact).
It is also from my understanding, that many lubricants contain critic acid. Nevertheless, the final report is not out yet.

In conclusion...I have no conflict with the Scandinavian people. I am just disappointed by the way the media has handled the situation.
Just because BBD admits that they need to re-design a faulty filter, does not conclude anything!
We await three final reports.....two will give an answer to one problem & one will give an answer to the last problem.

Hypothetically speaking......if the corrosion problem never existed, would the third accident have ever happened?

Miraculix

28th Jan 2008, 19:39

Just because BBD admits that they need to re-design a faulty filter, does not conclude anything!

Why fix something thats perfectly good and working as it is supposed to do? and even before the final report!

jimbo canuck

28th Jan 2008, 19:44

Aircraft C-FNEC (msn 4183) was re-registered LN-WDE and left YYZ on January 16 for Calgary, not sure why it went there, but not a delivery flight.
Jimbo

barrymung

28th Jan 2008, 20:11

"Since when? During an investigation, they first try to determine if it's a design flaw. If it's not, then they examine maintanence."

Because REPEATED failures in maintenance indicate that either the documentation isn't clear or the item in question is designed in such a way that it's easy to get the maintenance wrong!

Either way, it's ultimately a design issue...properly designed systems/documentation make it virtually impossible to make mistakes with maintenance..

The only alternative way I can see that it wouldn't be a design issue is if maintenance crew blatantly disregarded maintenance documentation...

barrymung

28th Jan 2008, 20:17

"It is also from my understanding, that many lubricants contain critic acid. Nevertheless, the final report is not out yet."

Would the maintenance document(s) contain instruction on what types of lubricant to use and which to avoid?

flaps2billion

28th Jan 2008, 21:29

Either way, it's ultimately a design issue...properly designed systems/documentation make it virtually impossible to make mistakes with maintenance..

The only alternative way I can see that it wouldn't be a design issue is if maintenance crew blatantly disregarded maintenance documentation...Then how come SAS is the only one who is having this problem? Horizon has had the Q400 about 8 years...no corrosion....why?

There is something that SAS tech was doing , that no other company was doing? Hopefully the investigation will show that!

"It is also from my understanding, that many lubricants contain critic acid. Nevertheless, the final report is not out yet."

Would the maintenance document(s) contain instruction on what types of lubricant to use and which to avoid?Well geeez.....should it not be common sense, that the maintenance guys should be using an aviation grade lube instead of a corrosive one.
Given that was the case.....

You know, the tech manual; can only fit so much information. What else would like them to put in it????
Warning: Do not spread peanut butter all over the gear as it may be hazardous!:ugh:

The Bartender

28th Jan 2008, 23:31

Well geeez.....should it not be common sense, that the maintenance guys should be using an aviation grade lube instead of a corrosive one.

Well, if the Maintenance Manual states when, where, and what lubricant to use, it should be an open and shut case, right?:)

Ladusvala

29th Jan 2008, 06:50

Flaps2billion, a headline like this: "SAS has been flying dangerous airplanes for years" is negative for SAS even if the article states that SAS had no way of knowing of the problems. People will only remember the headline.

Practically all other articles written about this has been negative for SAS so don´t worry, The media has been trying to kill SAS for the last decade and will continue to do so.

Since I know how SLV and their swedish and norwegian "cousins" have treated SAS in the past, I would actually be surprised if they had any nationalist sentiments.

hawkeye red

29th Jan 2008, 11:46

Ladusvala,
SLV and its scandinavian "cousins" have been investigating grave misconduct by SAS, with respect to operational procedures, training, maintenance and reporting, all of which has been allowed to continue for too long.

I have the feeling that you are employeed by SAS, hence your protective reaction towards the subject. It pleases me to see that, finally, SLV and other responsible agencies adresses a problem which has been a concern in the business for decades.

SAS is not, and have never ever been a gift to aviation, as it's employees still seem to believe.

hawkeye red

29th Jan 2008, 11:53

Ladusvala,

SLV and it's Scandinavian "cousins" have been investigating grave misconduct by SAS which has been going on for decades. These include operational procedures, training, maintenance, and fault reporting.

I think you may be employeed by SAS, hence your reaction to the subject.

I'm satisfied that, finally after so many years, responsible agencies like SLV are adressing these matters.

Time to realize that SAS was never, and will never be any particular gift to aviation - I understand that suddenly waking up to the real and cruel world may sometimes be difficult......

Ladusvala

29th Jan 2008, 13:23

Hawkeye red, you obviously have a huge chip on your shoulders.

I´m flying for SAS and if you bother to read my posts on this thread, you will see that while I hope that SAS is not to blame, I still want to know the truth.

"Grave misconduct for decades"... I wonder how you can justify that statement?

Since SAS was split up into smaller companies, somehow an inspection of the A340 was missed. I don´t remember but it might have been something else also, anyway I feel ashamed because of that. How the h**l can management make such a misstake?!

There was also a recommedation concerning training after the Q400 incident in... Kalmar, I believe (prop wasn´t feathered). Training which I received when I began flying for SAS, a decade ago.

Is that what you are referring to? Must be much more?

Concerning operational procedures and fault reporting I beg your pardon, but please feel free to enlighten me.

Ladusvala

29th Jan 2008, 13:33

hawkeye red, you say:
"Time to realize that SAS was never, and will never be any particular gift to aviation - I understand that suddenly waking up to the real and cruel world may sometimes be difficult."

I was about to remind you of the first polar flights but that was a long time ago so never mind.

"gift to aviation"... is that what you think that I believe? That comment actually says more about you than anyone else. Wonder what SAS did to you...?

flite101

29th Jan 2008, 14:07

perhaps its rather a combination of factors i.e. the number of flights undertaken by SAS on these Q400s, the extreme weather conditions they almost exclusively operate in, and perhaps not enough scheduled maintenance times?

:bored:

hawkeye red

29th Jan 2008, 15:54

Ladusvala,

SAS did nothing to me. I was offered to start with them many moons ago, when I was still a hopeful officers candidate, but fortunately I chose another major international carrier.

Grave misconduct....how about not maintaining the MD80's according to standards, just to name one.....

And then of course the mishaps with the Q400, which seem only to happen with SAS....

And then all the Q400 pilots, most of whom did not fit into the profile of the "real" SAS and consequently failed the entrance test. A large number of those now fly as first officers on your MD80's.....as fully integrated employees of the airline......

Yes SAS is great.....

Ladusvala

29th Jan 2008, 17:09

hawkeye red, I don´t believe you when you say you was offered a job with SAS. The reason for that is your comment about those who flew the Q400. Are they not qualified you mean?
Once again your comments says a whole lot about you.

Concerning the MD80, I honestly don´t know what you are referring to, I´ve only been in SAS for 10 years. I´m sure you can give some truthful details without exaggerations.

If you bother to do a search on Pprune you will find one or two things about Q400 incidents not related to SAS.

Tell you what, the thing I certainly dislike about working for SAS is those who, for some reason, loves to hate SAS. Not to mention some colleagues in other airlines who, without knowing me, think that I look down on pilots in other companies.

krujje

29th Jan 2008, 17:40

flaps2billion:

Apologies for the lateness in this reply...

??? Im not talking about speculation...I am talking about absolute statements prior to final report...

Which comes across as pretty much the same thing to uninformed readers. We should at least be able to agree on that. Many people believe everything they read. Even experts who recognize fabrications and factual errors in articles dealing with their expertise have a tendancy to believe much more of what they read outside of their expertise.

Was the article headline similar to this, "Air Canada has been flying dangerous airplanes for years when the aircraft rolled 60* for no apparent reason."

No it wasn't. My reference was to an article which lent credence to the suggestion that wake turbulence from a stealth bomber caused the upset. I cannot find the article at the moment, unfortunately.

Regardless...

The headline to which you were referring was irresponsible. However, I disagree that North American or Canadian media are any more or less reponsible/irresponsible/biased than European media.

In order to close my end of the discussion, I refer you to the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_erroneous_newspaper_headlines

Regards

hawkeye red

30th Jan 2008, 12:29

Ladusvala,

I passed the entrance test with SAS in the spring of 1982 - I shall be happy to show you the documentation.

As for the Q400 pilots, don't you think it's a little compromising that pilots who were rejected at the entrance test with SAS were offered positions with Eurolink and SAS Commuter. With the merger of Commuter into SAS they are now suddenly "real" SAS pilots - only they are paid 20% less base salary, approximately 17% less pension, and work 5/3 as compared to 5/4 as the "real" SAS pilots. What does that say about the working climate ?

As for the maintenance of the MD80 all reports are available through all Scandinavian CAA's - or you can read the media from about 6 months ago, which both document that SAS failed to maintain their MD80's in accordance with company regulations.

I wonder how you have missed that....

AEUENG

30th Jan 2008, 13:40

We love a good bun fight!! :}

Over to you Ladusvala!!

Ladusvala

30th Jan 2008, 13:49

Wonder why it is so important for you that everybody believes that you have passed the selection for SAS, when you think it´s such a bad company? It doesn´t add up.

Sorry, I have searched Aftonbladet, Expressen and the swedish CAA and can´t find anything about the MD80. Lots about the Q400 though.
Naturally I thought you meant something much older since you claim SAS has been so lousy for decades.

There´s two payscales in SAS, one for mainline and one for the RC-segment (Regional Commuter). You can bid between the segments but Commuter pilots hired before 1997 can still not count seniority from before that year. Hopefully it will be changed.

SAS and SAS Commuter selections has always been quite similar and from 1998 (1997) they were the same, i.e. you applied, took the tests and were placed in one of the companies. After 4 years you had the right to bid for the other company.
Why this obsession about SAS selections?

merlinxx

30th Jan 2008, 14:04

You two need to get face-to-face, may be over a jar or three, and sort this out. Slagging each other off (plus said company) in public ain't good for all of us in the business. Gentlemen, state facts that can be proven, otherwise please just go get "fall over sh*t faced" together, and agree to disagree.

Thanks, Grumpy old b'stard who's been around too long for sh*t to stick!!

Ladusvala

30th Jan 2008, 15:44

Thanks, I think I will take that advise.

Best regards
Ladusvala

Finn47

31st Jan 2008, 13:27

If I understand this news item correctly, EASA now regards the defective filter in question as a "design flaw":

http://standby.dk/news/14751

talent

31st Jan 2008, 15:56

Actually EASA has just now reconfirmed its faith in the airworthiness of the Q400. Just spotted this on an EASA bulletin:

EASA meeting with Transport Canada Civil Aviation and National Aviation Authorities of Denmark, Sweden and Norway

EASA, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) and the three Scandinavian Authorities of Denmark, Sweden and Norway met yesterday in Cologne to discuss the situation in Scandinavia of the DHC-8-400 airplane after the three accidents related to the Main Landing Gear of this aircraft in September and October 2007.

The exchange of views was cooperative, useful and productive. It was agreed that good communication lines between all authorities involved have to be considered as being essential for dealing with safety matters. Existing systems for reporting of service difficulties and the exchange of available safety data between competent Authorities in Canada and in Europe will be jointly reviewed aiming to confirm its effectiveness.

EASA and TCCA confirmed the airworthiness of the DHC-8-400 airplane.

Miraculix

6th Feb 2008, 14:06

Bear with me, as I speculate a bit.

Why only SAS many people ask, myself included and I’ve been looking for just that difference between SAS Q400 operations and other operators. Only one thing has been different physically and that is the optional 282 psi high pressure tires that SAS used. Maybe these tires have been putting a higher stress on the landing gear than the normal pressure tires. (SAS flew with the normal tires in the end)

SAS also had 2 tailstrikes when phasing in the Q400 as the plane was flown as a Fokker 50: chop the power at 50 feet and flare all the way to touchdown, anyone who has flown the Q400 knows what result of that is.

I don’t know how other operators fly the aircraft, but because of the tailstrikes in SAS, the aircraft was mostly flown power on all the way until touchdown, landing with flaps 15 and a speed right in the middle between the 2 bugs. Perhaps others pilots can enlighten us on what landing technique they use?

And in spite of all the difficulties I think the Q400 is a good aircraft, Bombardier should just put some more energy into supporting and refining. If Bombardier puts in the effort, they will not have a good aircraft, but an absolute winner.

We can start a little list with small stuff that should be made better on the Q400.

I’ll suggest something that should be easy for Bombardier to improve:

Setting of speedbugs: Pilots and copilots bugs should all be settable from either side and when V1 has been set Vr bug should appear from the V1 speed and so on, it's tiresome to set all the bugs from 0!

Cutoff

6th Feb 2008, 14:57

Agreed on the speedbugs, absolute pain, seems trivial but when you have up to 6 sectors a day, with short turnarounds it all helps.

Also get the speedtape damped when established on final, it is way too sensitive.

Incr Ref also needs looking at as it applies to the boots in reality not the props, but it goes on with the props!

krujje

6th Feb 2008, 16:56

Only one thing has been different physically and that is the optional 282 psi high pressure tires that SAS used. Maybe these tires have been putting a higher stress on the landing gear than the normal pressure tires.

I'm not sure this would have had any noticeable effect. My understanding is that the retract actuator does not carry landing load.

Alpine Flyer

6th Feb 2008, 23:06

Absolute 100% right on the speedbugs. It's quite some time that I flew the -400 and we were just changing to the new style EFIS when I left, but setting all the speeds from 0 just doesn't make sense. It's not only a matter of convenience but also of logic and safety. It shouldn't even be possible to set Vr below V1 and starting at 80 or 100kts for V1 would be enough.

I did not talk to DHC guys in person but I recall from talks with those of us who did that at least the test pilots did not care much about the "new style" EFIS (done only because SAS insisted on it we were told) and especially the speed bugs. Hearsay only, but when our technical pilot complained to a test pilot about the tedious speed bug setting he was told something like "ah, we just set them once a day and then leave them there"......

We landed power on but AFAIK flaps 35 landings (instead of 15) are now used more often as they may be done with reduced prop RPM as well (which was initially limited to flaps 15 landings).

It's a pity that DHC didn't really take advantage of the cockpit technology available for the -400. Decent synoptic pages, an updated warning system and maybe even "dark cockpit" overhead panel would have made the 400 a much nicer plane.

maxrpm

7th Feb 2008, 06:29

It's a pity that DHC didn't really take advantage of the cockpit technology available for the -400. Decent synoptic pages, an updated warning system and maybe even "dark cockpit" overhead panel would have made the 400 a much nicer plane

You are certainly right, but we and Horizon are to blame not Bombardier. We insisted on as much communality between the DH8/300 and the DH8/400 cockpit as possible.

Our position during the definition of the DH8/400 ist understandable. In these times it was not clear that the authorities would allow CCQ (Cross Crew Qualification) between DH8/300 and DH8/400 and so we wanted the cockpit design of the DH/400 to stay close to the DH8/300

Operators like SAS with no mixed DH8 fleet naturally demanded a more sophisticated cockpit design.

Eliason

11th Feb 2008, 16:51

How about a new thread somewhere:
Wishlist for the Dash-8-500 (or Dash 8-X):

I'll continue those mentioned above (speedbugs). I want:

- A sidewindow you can open

- Automatic rudder trim (having to make trim-changes every time you cange power is annoying... :ugh: )

- A "quiet" cockpit on the ground! They did it with the -300, why has the -400 got to make all those dings and triple dings every time a door is opened or any warning or caution lights come on during and after engine-shut down? Shouldn't be to difficult a logic: WOW and engine off: no sound :suspect:

- a push to center heading bug (and include those self-aligning, self-identifying VOR/ILS option which is used on the CRJ as well!)

- a properly working air conditioning system. How come you can have about 40° difference in the ducts on the -300 and only about 20° on the 400? It can get really freezing up front with a full load in the back :(

- A bigger airplane HASN'T GOT to feel bigger - make the handflying easy!

Otherwise I love the Dash :) - Great airplane, reliable. Flies just like a big Cessna :p

maxrpm

12th Feb 2008, 09:19

Heating for Wing and Stabilizer Deice instead of Deicer Boots (would get rid of the high speed penalties on approach in icing conditions)

Max TO weight raised to be able to take 30% more fuel with full load.

Great plane

punkalouver

19th Feb 2008, 20:05

Wideroe pressing for new Q400s to replace grounded fleet
By David Kaminski-Morrow

Wideroe will not reinstate the Bombardier Q400s grounded by parent SAS Group last October but is pressing to replace the fleet with newer examples of the type.
The Norwegian regional carrier had four Q400s at the time of the grounding and has since added a brand new Q400 which, like the others, is parked. Some 30% of Wideroe's fleet has been put out of action.

Wideroe insists that the airline will no longer fly any of the Q400s affected by the original grounding, but says the carrier is trying to convince the SAS Group board to take new Q400s instead.

"We would like to keep operating the Q400. It's a fantastic aircraft for Wideroe," says the airline. "What we want is new Q400s. To fulfil our needs now, we need five aircraft."

Wideroe still has five Q400s on option. The carrier plans to sell or lease its current fleet - the four aircraft caught up in the October grounding are about six years old.

Although SAS Group has stated that it will address long-term replacement of the Q400 by the second half of this year, Wideroe says: "We have signals now that a decision is very close to hand."

Wideroe has been leasing Fokker 50 turboprops from Dutch company Denim Air and a Fokker 100 jet from France's Blue Line to cope with the shortfall in capacity created by the grounding.

F_Hercules

22nd Feb 2008, 05:23

Found this article about a Qantas Dash with gearproblems a few days ago.

http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3764317&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

Anyone with info if it was a Q400?

yarwun

22nd Feb 2008, 19:15

yes,it was a q400.qantas flight qf2360.brisbane to rockhampton.i stepped off plane at gladstone.

thetruthwins

25th Feb 2008, 03:56

Jeju Air, South Korean airline operating 5 of Q400s had totalled one of the fleet due to main gear collapse last year.

helmat

25th Feb 2008, 09:28

today an austrian dash8 Q400 made an emergency landing in vienna, it seems there were problems with the landing gear
the aircraft landed safely and according to the media passengers were evacuated via the emergency chutes (well done by the press, chutes for a dash 8 :})

source (only german) http://www.orf.at/080225-22182/index.html

W.R.A.I.T.H

10th Mar 2008, 07:53

Swedish TV just reported, SAS won 1bn SEK (100 MEUR) in damages from Bombardier and Goodrich (not reported whether in court or settled). Simulatenneously an order for 27 new CRJ900 to replace the Q400s was signed, for 65 bn SEK, and further 24 options.

Link, Swedish (http://www.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=1080966&lid=puff_1080965&lpos=rubrik)

Krister Lindblad

10th Mar 2008, 08:04

SAS Group press release in English: http://se.yhp.waymaker.net/sasgroup/release.asp?id=161672

Finn47

10th Mar 2008, 08:33

1 billion Swedish crowns is actually 106 million euro, if I´m not mistaken.

The news in English here:

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=830186

PanamaJack

10th Mar 2008, 09:08

Yep, 1bn Swedish Kronor is correct, but doesnt that equal 100 000 000 EUR? (Approx) :8

PPL_DK

10th Mar 2008, 09:29

From http://www.sasgroup.net/SASGroup/default.asp

2008-03-10 http://se.yhp.waymaker.net/sasgroup/images/spacer.gifhttp://se.yhp.waymaker.net/sasgroup/images/spacer.gif
SAS receives compensation and order new aircraft for fleet replacement

SAS has agreed a settlement with Bombardier and Goodrich regarding the incidents involving the Dash aircraft in the autumn of 2007. The details of the agreement are confidential but SAS Group confirms the total financial compensation is slightly more than SEK 1 billion in the form of a cash payment and credits for future firm and optional aircraft orders. As part of the agreement, the Board of Directors of SAS AB has approved an order for 27 aircraft, with an option for a further 24 aircraft.

The new aircraft to be delivered by Bombardier will be jet aircraft of the type CRJ900 NextGen and turboprop aircraft of the type Q400 NextGen and they will replace the earlier operated Q400-fleet and other aircraft within the SAS Group. Scandinavian Airlines and Estonian Air will use the CRJ900 NextGen, and Wideroe and airBaltic will use the Q400 NextGen. Deliveries of the aircraft will be made successively in the next few years, commencing in the autumn of 2008 until 2011.

"We are very satisfied with the settlement with Bombardier, a leading manufacturer of regional aircraft. The firm order for 27 aircraft will bring a rejuvenated premium product to our customers. The CRJ900 and Q400 NextGen aircraft are well-suited to our operations in Northern Europe, where our customers expect comfortable and environmentally friendly travel," says SAS President and CEO Mats Jansson. Aircraft Firm order List price Options No. of Range Cruise speed
type firm order passengers
CRJ900 13 474 MUSD 17 up to 90 3070km 882 km/h
NextGen
Q400 14 356 MUSD 7 68-78 2404km 667 km/h
NextGen

See also www.sasgroup.net for images and more facts about the aircraft. Invitation to press conference

You are cordially invited to a press conference that will take place today at SAS Head Office, Frösundavik Stockholm at 12 noon, CET. Mats Jansson, President and CEO and John Dueholm, Deputy President and COO will participate and present the settlement with Bombardier.

Time: Monday, March 10th, at 12.00.
Place: SAS Head Office Frösundavik , Stockholm.

A live web cast of the press conference will also be available on the Internet at www.sasgroup.net SAS Group Corporate Communications

Tordan

10th Mar 2008, 10:57

Yep. That´s about correct. Just under 10 SEK for one €.

Mad (Flt) Scientist

10th Mar 2008, 11:04

This press release says it's 13 CRJ900s and 14 Q400s. It also says the settlement terms are "confidential" - obviously not very so if the numbers are being reported per the link above....

Bombardier Sells 27 Jets And Turboprops To Sas And Its Affiliates

Toronto, March 10, 2008

Bombardier Aerospace announced today that SAS Scandinavian Airlines and three of its affiliate airlines have signed firm orders for 27 regional jets and turboprops and have taken options on an additional 24 aircraft. Estonian Air of Tallinn, Estonia and SAS have placed firm orders for 13 Bombardier CRJ900 NextGen regional jets and have taken options on an additional 17, while Widerøe’s Flyveselskap A/S of Bodø, Norway and airBaltic of Riga, Latvia have ordered 14 Q400 NextGen high-speed turboprop airliners and have taken options on seven more.

The value of the combined firm orders based on CRJ900 NextGen and Q400 NextGen list prices is approximately $883 million U.S. The value of the orders could increase to approximately $1.75 billion U.S. if all options are exercised.

“The firm order for 27 aircraft will bring a rejuvenated premium product to our customers,” said Mats Jansson, President and CEO, SAS Group. “The CRJ900 and Q400 NextGen aircraft are well-suited to our operations in Northern Europe, where our customers expect comfortable and environmentally friendly travel."

“We are proud to extend our long-standing partnership with SAS and its partner airlines,” said Steven Ridolfi, President, Bombardier Regional Aircraft. “This order is not only a milestone in terms of size and value, but is a testament to the strength of our relationship. SAS has been a Bombardier customer for eight years, Widerøe for 50 years, and now we welcome airBaltic and Estonian Air to our family. We are also very pleased that SAS and its affiliates have chosen our NextGen family, both turboprops and jets, to augment their fleets.”

Olev Schults, Chairman, Supervisory Board, Estonian Air and Mr. Jansson said their airlines require aircraft with less capacity than their mainline jets. “The CRJ900 NextGen jet offers the best combination of performance, operating economics and passenger comfort,” they said.

Per Arne Watle, President and Chief Executive Officer of Widerøe and Bertolt Flick, President and Chief Executive Officer of airBaltic said the features of the Q400 NextGen airliner made the aircraft a very attractive addition to their fleets. “The performance, comfort and superb operating economics make the Q400 NextGen turboprop a highly effective product,” they said.

“airBaltic will start substituting its current Fokker 50 fleet with Q400 NextGen aircraft in 2009 thus increasing the capacity and efficiency of the airline’s regional operations,” added Mr. Flick.

The transactions announced today increase firm orders for CRJ900/CRJ900 NextGen airliners to 242 aircraft, with 145 delivered at January 31, 2008. Q400/Q400 NextGen aircraft firm orders now stand at 296 aircraft, with 190 delivered as of January 31, 2008.

With regard to the Q400 landing gear incidents in 2007 Bombardier, SAS and Goodrich, the manufacturer of the landing gear, have come to a mutually satisfactory agreement – the terms of which are confidential.

Finn47

10th Mar 2008, 11:44

The PR lingo never ceases to amaze me. Call it "Q400 NextGen" and presto, all of a sudden it´s "well suited to operations in the Nordic countries" again :}
However, I notice the new Q400 aircraft are not going to fly under the mainline SAS brand. That would have been too much to ask in my opinion.

powerstall

10th Mar 2008, 11:54

I agree, just another PR lingo.."Q400 NextGen"... gives a nice ring to it... but it still has to prove itself worthy and much, much, more better than the current Q400... less the main landing gear problems or it's back to the drawing board..."again".. :}

WHBM

10th Mar 2008, 12:05

Having a look at the Bombardier website to see how different a "Q400 NextGen" is from a "Q400 MainGearCollapser", it appears the only difference noted is a redesign of the cabin interior panels.

W.R.A.I.T.H

10th Mar 2008, 12:38

That's all because of Wideroe, they were extremely unhappy to have their precious Dashes taken away, never having had an incident themselves. Their route network, typically the far up north places such as Longyearbyen with short runways and marginal weather, requires exactly such aircraft type and if they were to be forced onto the CRJ, they might just as well have to pack their business altogether.

Still methinks, with fuel prices hiking as they are, SAS are going to lose out on this 'conversion' in the long run.

M609

10th Mar 2008, 12:55

Longyearbyen

???? Since when does WIF fly to Longyear?

And:

The majority (if not all) of the Q400 destinations in Norway were airfields which has daily 737 services with other airlines!

Finn47

10th Mar 2008, 13:25

The Accident Investigation Board of Denmark investigators haven´t finished their work yet, and have only published preliminary reports on the two accidents, but when they do, you will find the reports here:

http://www.hcl.dk/sw593.asp

W.R.A.I.T.H

10th Mar 2008, 13:48

Longyearbyen ???? Since when does WIF fly to Longyear?

And:

The majority (if not all) of the Q400 destinations in Norway were airfields which has daily 737 services with other airlines!

Sorry, that was meant to be Hammerfest. True about the smaller places being served with the smaller DH8's, but again what WF base their ops on is having a reasonably uniform fleet perfectly suited to serve virtually any Norwegian airport, hence the competitive edge. Mixing in the CRJs would give them hard times no doubt about it.

powerstall

10th Mar 2008, 14:07

...in regards to the rising fuel cost aspect.... would it be better flying equipment that runs a little bit more fuel... rather than having an accident waiting to happen which could endanger lives and hundreds of legal cases which could in-turn bury the airline in bankruptcy? and add to that a few of our lads losing their jobs?

just my two cents...:ok:

W.R.A.I.T.H

10th Mar 2008, 15:10

Oh so true, the ubiquitous cost of safety.

Then again, to imply that the Q400 is inherently unsafe is a little early and while i'm drawing pure speculations here, I still think the particular salty moist environment at CPH and corrosion of actuator bolts will get a mention in the report. Let us not get into that again. The history of Q400 at WF had been spotless nevermind the rough nature they operated in. And let's not forget that the cited reason for SAS dropping the dashes was the lack of confidence in the type among customers, caused by the load of bad publicity the type received from the day they turned up at Kastrup. Nothing safety related. I bet there was a lot of pondering in the higher SAS circles whether the PR could be bent in any way so as to have the Q4s back and not lose face in public. They definitely get my star for policy integrity though I'm going to miss the dash.

rotornut

10th Mar 2008, 15:15

Good news - they kissed and made up... and bought some more airplanes:

Bombardier Sells 27 Jets And Turboprops To SAS And Its Affiliates

Toronto, March 10, 2008

Firm orders are for 13 CRJ900 NextGen regional jets and 14 Q400 NextGen turboprops
Contract includes options for an additional 24 aircraft

Claims related to Q400 incidents settled in mutually satisfactory agreement
Bombardier Aerospace announced today that SAS Scandinavian Airlines and three of its affiliate airlines have signed firm orders for 27 regional jets and turboprops and have taken options on an additional 24 aircraft. Estonian Air of Tallinn, Estonia and SAS have placed firm orders for 13 Bombardier CRJ900 NextGen regional jets and have taken options on an additional 17, while Widerøe’s Flyveselskap A/S of Bodø, Norway and airBaltic of Riga, Latvia have ordered 14 Q400 NextGen high-speed turboprop airliners and have taken options on seven more.

The value of the combined firm orders based on CRJ900 NextGen and Q400 NextGen list prices is approximately $883 million U.S. The value of the orders could increase to approximately $1.75 billion U.S. if all options are exercised.

“The firm order for 27 aircraft will bring a rejuvenated premium product to our customers,” said Mats Jansson, President and CEO, SAS Group. “The CRJ900 and Q400 NextGen aircraft are well-suited to our operations in Northern Europe, where our customers expect comfortable and environmentally friendly travel."

“We are proud to extend our long-standing partnership with SAS and its partner airlines,” said Steven Ridolfi, President, Bombardier Regional Aircraft. “This order is not only a milestone in terms of size and value, but is a testament to the strength of our relationship. SAS has been a Bombardier customer for eight years, Widerøe for 50 years, and now we welcome airBaltic and Estonian Air to our family. We are also very pleased that SAS and its affiliates have chosen our NextGen family, both turboprops and jets, to augment their fleets.”

Olev Schults, Chairman, Supervisory Board, Estonian Air and Mr. Jansson said their airlines require aircraft with less capacity than their mainline jets. “The CRJ900 NextGen jet offers the best combination of performance, operating economics and passenger comfort,” they said.

Per Arne Watle, President and Chief Executive Officer of Widerøe and Bertolt Flick, President and Chief Executive Officer of airBaltic said the features of the Q400 NextGen airliner made the aircraft a very attractive addition to their fleets. “The performance, comfort and superb operating economics make the Q400 NextGen turboprop a highly effective product,” they said.

“airBaltic will start substituting its current Fokker 50 fleet with Q400 NextGen aircraft in 2009 thus increasing the capacity and efficiency of the airline’s regional operations,” added Mr. Flick.

The transactions announced today increase firm orders for CRJ900/CRJ900 NextGen airliners to 242 aircraft, with 145 delivered at January 31, 2008. Q400/Q400 NextGen aircraft firm orders now stand at 296 aircraft, with 190 delivered as of January 31, 2008.

With regard to the Q400 landing gear incidents in 2007 Bombardier, SAS and Goodrich, the manufacturer of the landing gear, have come to a mutually satisfactory agreement – the terms of which are confidential.

CRJ NextGen Aircraft
Bombardier’s CRJ NextGen aircraft were launched in 2007 and are achieving improved economics compared to earlier CRJ Series aircraft. These improvements come from fuel burn savings of up to four per cent and direct maintenance cost reductions achieved through lower airframe maintenance requirements. Maintenance schedule intervals have been increased, and tasks have been harmonized to reduce aircraft down time and labour over the life of the aircraft.
With their reduced fuel burn, the CRJ NextGen aircraft are responding to today’s environmental challenges by offering further reduction to green house gas emissions compared to their nearest competitors.

CRJ NextGen aircraft interiors include improvements designed with the overall passenger experience in mind. The passenger windows have been enlarged and the overhead bins have been modified to accommodate larger roller bags as well as optimized to store more bags. The addition of LED lighting has brightened the cabin environment while highlighting the improved aesthetics achieved with the new ceiling panel design and dished window sidewalls.

Q400 NextGen Aircraft
The new Q400 NextGen turboprop airliner is the next step in the continuing evolution of the Q400 aircraft. Revised in the same spirit as the CRJ NextGen aircraft family, the Q400 NextGen aircraft remains one of the most technologically advanced turboprop aircraft. As with the CRJ NextGen aircraft family, the overall cabin environment of the Q400 NextGen aircraft will be enhanced with the introduction of LED lighting, new ceiling panels, dished window sidewalls and larger overhead bins. Combining these features with the Active Noise and Vibration Suppression (ANVS) system will give the Q400 NextGen passenger an even more pleasant cabin experience.
Operating costs of the Q400 NextGen airliner, already among the lowest of any regional aircraft, will be made even lower by increasing the scheduled maintenance intervals and further optimizing maintenance tasks. The Q400 NextGen airliner Aircraft Operating Manual (AOM) will be updated to reflect flight test experience which has shown that the fuel burn under certain operating conditions is lower than predicted.

Like Bombardier's other regional aircraft products, Q400 NextGen aircraft external noise is well below the maximum permitted by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 16 Ch. 4, and U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 36 Stage 4. Q400 NextGen aircraft also produce very low carbon dioxide and other gaseous emissions.

pineridge

10th Mar 2008, 16:14

To W.R.A.I.T.H. :

" Sorry, that was meant to be Hammerfest. "
I am sure that the 400 could land in Hammerfest but you would need to drive it out on a flat-bed truck, after finding all the pieces.(Hammerfest ENHF-RW 05/23 799 metres )
Widerøe have two departments; the short runway division, operating DHC-8 100`s, and the regional division,operating DHC 300`s and 400`s. Destinations such as Aberdeen, Newcastle, Copenhagen, Torp, Trondheim, Bergen and Stavanger are jet capable airports and are served by the 400 type. A CRJ or something similar would suit the regional operation nicely, although Widerøe`s routes in Norway are a little thin for jet ecomomics.

threemiles

10th Mar 2008, 16:34

Still methinks, with fuel prices hiking as they are, SAS are going to lose out on this 'conversion' in the long run.

More than true for most of the SAS routes that were flown before the Q400 vanished (in the menatime flown by 146, CRJ100, 737-600, Md87 etc.). Too short for a CRJ900. To few pax loads.

flaps2billion

11th Mar 2008, 00:26

Great news! I guess both sides have settled the issue.

I strongly believe that Bombardier adopted the , "let the customer win, or the customer is always right, " concept.
Their ultimate goal was the prevent the SAS group from going with the competitors (ATR, Embraer). At least now, the Scandinavian regional market willstill be predominantly BBD.

I agree, just another PR lingo.."Q400 NextGen"... gives a nice ring to it... but it still has to prove itself worthy and much, much, more better than the current Q400... less the main landing gear problems or it's back to the drawing board..."again"..

Or maybe they know how to fix/maintain them properly?????

Will see what the investigation concludes?

F_Hercules

11th Mar 2008, 07:10

I strongly believe that Bombardier adopted the , "let the customer win, or the customer is always right, " concept.

Will see what the investigation concludes?

W.R.A.I.T.H

11th Mar 2008, 07:45

pineridge,

I admit I lack the in depth knowledge of WFs network and organisation and used Hammerfest as an example of a nasty airport, having a hazy recollection of a DH8 prang there some years back. But that's besides the point, which is along the lines of:

Widerøe`s routes in Norway are a little thin for jet ecomomics.

MarkD

11th Mar 2008, 13:41

I guess SAS are taking the CRJs and the affiliates the Q400s under their own colours with a wee "flying for SAS" logo?

Ladusvala

12th Mar 2008, 17:46

I strongly believe that Bombardier wouldn´t have payed any compensation if SAS was at fault. Bombardier would have done just fine without this order.

Still waiting for the final reports...

part69

13th Mar 2008, 09:05

Any one know what's going on with the Grounded Q400s?

Torquelink

13th Mar 2008, 11:07

Some of them are going here (courtesy of Commercial Aviation Online):

The Austrian Airlines Group has emerged as one of the customers acquiring the SAS’ Bombardier Dash8Q-400 fleet. The Group is acquiring four aircraft of the type that will be delivered during the course of the summer.

“These are aircraft that were delivered in 2001 and 2002 and have also been in use at SAS without any problem,” says the Group.

Before the Dash8Q-400 fleet is phased in, they will be subjected to a detailed technical “phase-in” check and converted to the Austrian standard with maintenance costs totalling €1.5 million per aircraft. This also includes extensive modification and maintenance work on the landing gear, replacing components and work in the passenger cabin.

In return the Austrian Airlines Group will be releasing three CRJ-200LRs and disposing of two 1995/96-vintage Dash8-300s from the Austrian arrows fleet.

CAO is aware of more SAS and Wideroe Bombardier Dash 8Q-400s subject to letter of intention. One transaction will see the four 2002-vintage Wideroe aircraft and two SAS aircraft moving to Asia.

According to sources, the SAS and Wideroe Q-400s are being acquired between $11 million and $12.5 million each, with an average price of $11.5 million.

old,not bold

13th Mar 2008, 11:13

Same story, very slightly different angle

http://www.abtn.co.uk/SAS_Group_orders_Q400s

flaps2billion

19th Mar 2008, 02:50

I strongly believe that Bombardier wouldn´t have payed any compensation if SAS was at fault.

Not true at all......this is not a, who is right or wrong issue. BBD's primary concern was to prevent SAS from going with Embraer or ATR. Sometimes you just have to let the customer win so you can continue to do business with them. It's all about the art of reciprocity.

bombardier would have done just fine without this order.

Absolute status is not the issue here. In the long run, relative gains versus Embraer or ATR, are important to the company.
It would have been a huge blow to BBD if SAS would have order E-jets or ATR72s......

Ladusvala

19th Mar 2008, 07:21

I disagree.

I don´t think SAS´s order for 27 aircraft is so crucially important to Bombardier that they agree to pay 1 billion SEK, to secure an order worth 6,5 billion SEK.

Torquelink

19th Mar 2008, 09:09

For a customer of the size and status of SAS and for the size of order placed, any manufacturer - Airbus, Boeing, Embraer or Bombardier - would offer discounts from list of 20 - 30%. If SAS want, for PR reasons, to dress up the usual discount as "compensation" Bombardier wouldn't have a problem with it.

Finn47

19th Mar 2008, 09:24

This recent article points out what´s supposedly new on the Q400 NextGen:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/17/222237/bombardier-q400-nextgen-off-the-blocks-following-sas.html

"Upgraded aircraft operating manual to reduce fuel burn" caught my attention. Exactly how is fuel burn reduced by changing something in the operating manual? Telling the pilots to throttle back? Genius at work here :8

His dudeness

19th Mar 2008, 09:42

Sure thing, called "long range cruise" :) :)

speedrestriction

19th Mar 2008, 09:54

Exactly how is fuel burn reduced by changing something in the operating manual?

Do away with the heavy ring binding, use smaller fonts and print it on tissue paper:eek:

In fact the aircraft has outperformed the original performance figures and I believe the new manuals will reflect this.

sr

flaps2billion

19th Mar 2008, 15:01

What does BBD gain from claiming that they were not at fault? Let me see???? "Ahhaa told you so", & risk pissing off the customer to the point that they go with Embraer??:ugh:

So far there is no real indication that BBD is liable for all three accidents. Why would they try and settle the issue fast, when the investigation is not pointing the finger towards them so far?
Answer, to save the customer, even if it means giving them a big discount!

It's the art of Business & reciprocity. You never know, SAS just might buy more CRJ 900s or even C-Series?

If SAS would have gone with Embraer, then BBD would have truly lost in the end.

I really don't like BBD management, but I think they did a great job on this one!

Ladusvala

19th Mar 2008, 21:05

So Torquelink, Bombardier doesn´t have a problem with the negative PR that this compensation creates for them? Doesn´t negative PR have a negative effect on future sales to new potential customers?

Flaps2billion, repeating yourself doesn´t make it true.

Torquelink

20th Mar 2008, 16:14

Ladusvala, when the operator concerned orders another 27 aircraft, anyone who's likely to be buying similar aircraft will, without a shadow of a doubt, recognise that this is not "compensation" - just a reasonable discount in order to secure the new deal. So, while I'm sure Bombardier would rather have done without any of the hassle following the SAS grounding, they'll be very pleased to have picked up an order for 27 aircraft safe in the knowledge that anyone in the business will recongise that the "compensation" description is just agreed PR flannel for use by SAS.

Ladusvala

20th Mar 2008, 20:08

What you are saying, Torquelink, is that SAS would have gotten the same price if there hade not been any crash landings at all? I.e. the normal discount on an 7.5 billion SEK order is 1 billion SEK.

The next customer who wants to make an equal order now knows that they will at least get the same discount as SAS and that they can start negociating the price down from 6.5 billion SEK?

Torquelink

25th Mar 2008, 09:28

Ladusvala, as I mentioned earlier, 20 - 30% discounts on new orders are the norm - sometimes as high as 50%. According to the SAS News Release the total list price of the 27 aircraft on firm order is $830,000,000. The SEK 1bn fine is equivalent to approxiately $167,000,000 - or 20.12% of the firm order list prices. When all credits are taken into consideration I would expect that the total discount is greater than this. The grounding has had no significant effect on the pricing / discounts of the order.

pineridge

25th Mar 2008, 16:00

Torquelink said.....

"The SEK 1bn fine"

I don`t think that SAS has the authority to "fine" anybody, least of all Bombardier. The SEK 1bn is compensation negotiated between the two parties for Bombardier`s mistake of selling SAS an aircraft that SAS mechanics couldn`t maintain properly.
In reality, the compensation is the whole or part of the normal discount which would be negotiated during a deal of this magnitude, as others on this thread have explained.
The main point is that everyone appears to be happy. Fantastic!

twochai

25th Mar 2008, 21:09

Agreed. Now can we move on? Fantastic...

Ladusvala

25th Mar 2008, 21:19

Pineridge is another guy who thinks he knows something before the final reports. No need to investigate.

Can´t we just wait till the reports come out!

flaps2billion

25th Mar 2008, 23:50

compensation negotiated between the two parties for Bombardier`s mistake of selling SAS an aircraft that SAS mechanics couldn`t maintain properly.

Of course! If that wasn't the case, they would have gone with Embraer.
It's not a question of pride, but both sides won!

Issue settled.....life goes on!

pineridge

26th Mar 2008, 10:04

to Ladusvala....

"Can´t we just wait till the reports come out!"

We might have to wait for a long time; I have just read that SAS have found some fatigue cracks in the wing bolts of one of their DHC-8`s. According to the news report (in Norwegian, sorry) they are checking the whole fleet, on the advice or direction of the Canadian and U.S. (?) authorities.

Ancient Mariner

26th Mar 2008, 10:15

pineridge,
for your amusement and others enlightenment:
"At least a at the airplanes as became put on the bare ground owned according to Canadian and American luftfartsmyndigheter saw earnest blemish that the blade be able have fell of today air , draw up politiken.dk. The metal in hylsemutterne as attach the blade at flyskroget owned danger crack down and flaws , any SAS stayed unacquainted with as the airplanes became put on the bare ground. – We have inspect 17 at our Dash 8 airplane and found crack down in resign four hylsemuttere at a at the airplanes , say kommunikasjonsdirektør Claus Sonberg in SAS. Six airplane am yet no matter gransket , amid them they three as sea-damaged. Neither at they danger the airplanes avail further in passasjertrafikk , accentuates SAS. SAS became acquainted with vingeproblemene at Dash 8 in an warning at Canadian luftfartsmyndigheter in February. IN the caution stepped facts forward that dates back to no matter named the airline connection with ordinarily maintenance owned found crack down with the significant hylsemutterne as attach the blade at flyskroget. The cause stayed metalltretthet. Both Canadian and American luftfartsmyndigheter was imposing the airline to as soon as analyzed all airplane at this breed. Else able facts imply that the blade crash down at , am heating facts in the caution at American FAA. It is the dim about Widerøe has analyzed her Dash 8- airplane and about it is the found"

I wish to thank Inter Tran for the translation. :eek:
Per

pineridge

26th Mar 2008, 10:51

To Ancient Mariner......

"for your amusement and others enlightenment:"

Thank-you, Per, I was certainly amused but I am not sure that others will be enlightened.

Ladusvala

26th Mar 2008, 11:28

Flaps2billion and Pineridge,
I´m sure you guys can tell me who´s at fault regarding the wing bolts, without waiting for the final report...

pineridge

26th Mar 2008, 12:45

To Ludavala.......

"I´m sure you guys can tell me who´s at fault regarding the wing bolts, without waiting for the final report..."

The Devil did it.

flaps2billion

26th Mar 2008, 12:52

I´m sure you guys can tell me who´s at fault regarding the wing bolts, without waiting for the final report...

The aviation fairy!

Finn47

29th May 2008, 12:33

The March 2007 nose gear incident in Japan has been investigated, and turns out some Bombardier mechanics forgot to install a bolt while repairing the ANA Q400 in question. Happens sometimes, I guess.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=4812b44a-25af-4375-b068-75332ac790e1

pineridge

22nd Feb 2009, 09:31

The Danish newspaper, Berlingske Tidene, has reported that it has received information about the incident on the 27th October 2007 at Copenhagen Airport where a DHC-8 400 aircraft belonging to SAS had a main gear collapse on landing.
The subsequent investigation by the Danish authorities (SLV) placed responsibility for the gear failure at the door of the manufacturer, Bombardier, who have not accepted the blame. The investigation found a rubber O-ring, foreign to the system, in the gear.
The head of the SLV office in Copenhagen, Peter Udsen, apparently wrote several times to his superiors that in his opinion the cause of the incident was that the SAS mechanics had used an unapproved procedure when changing two valves in the gear system.
Apparently, SLV`s technical director, Per Veingberg, replied to Udsen that they were not interested in his personal opinion in the matter and thereafter kept the correspondence with Udsen secret. Udsen has since left the SLV`s employ.
The contribution of the SAS mechanics to the incident was not included in the accident report because, according to Veingberg, SAS does everything by the book.
The accident inspector responsible, Kurt Færch Madsen, denies that the mechanics at SAS can have made a mistake but thinks that the rules regarding changing the valves were perhaps unclear.
SAS`s communications director says that they have followed all the rules exactly.
The final report is expected this Summer, ass-covering operations have already begun.

.

Rainboe

22nd Feb 2009, 09:39

3 identical gear failures, one type, one airline only. There are bigger operators of the Q400 without any gear failures. Conclusion...........?

Bigmouth

22nd Feb 2009, 09:46

The final report is expected this Summer
Terrific!
That leaves us with about 3 months to speculate, guess, rant, slag, bitch, moan and bs about what "really" happened, all based on what yet another journo claims happened behind closed doors somewhere, including a "he said/he said" and hopefully a conspiracy or two.

Good Grief.

Max noise

22nd Feb 2009, 10:05

While the media can stuff up a story, they can also be right on something very significant. For example, the media that eventually brought down the Queenland Government through the (IIRC) Wood Royal Commission on police corruption.

F_Hercules

22nd Feb 2009, 13:21

Rainboe

It´s not 3 identical gear failures. The final report for the first one is released. See http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000433%20Final%20report%20LN-RDK.pdf

Read it and see factors leading to the accident and safety recommendations. Conclusion.....?

Still waitning for the final report on the third.

Rainboe

22nd Feb 2009, 13:27

Flybe is the world's biggest Q400 operator. No gear failures. No Canadian failures, so local conditions are not a factor. What inference should you make? Maybe production line changes for a particular series? Maybe local maintenance practices?

F_Hercules

22nd Feb 2009, 13:43

Rainboe, I still recommend you to read the report.
It´s not production line changes, local conditions or local maintenance practices behind the FIRST incident. It was a problem with the design of the acuator and rod end.

PA28Viking

22nd Feb 2009, 21:15

SAS was the launch customer, and struggled for a long time with the first deliveries. The two first accidents were due to a design fault admitted by Bombardier.

This third accident was different. The so called new and withheld information was already included in the preliminary accident report from November 2007.
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000449%20LN-RDI%20Preliminary%20Report%20UK_03112007.pdf

Prior to the accident the SAS mechanics used a component from a spare part pre-assembled for the nose gear, on the main gear. This may have contributed to the failure in the hydraulic system, which was initially caused by a loose O-ring traveling in the system.

The Danish authorities mentioned (SLV) is the Danish CAA. They are not responsible for the accident investigations in Denmark, and therefore it makes little sense to question what information they excluded or will exclude from their report.

The question now is whether the procedure used by the SAS was an allowed procedure or not. The representative from the Danish Accident Investigation Board stated that there is no evidence of sloppiness within SAS, but that the guidelines may have been unclear. If he was referring to SAS or Bombardier guidelines is not clear.