SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10

[SA227AC]

Sadly it happened again. 16:53 LT a SAS Q400 had gear collaps on right main gear at CPH.
SK2867 coming from Bergen.
3rd time with right MG collaps on Q400 in SAS in very short ime.
No fire reported. AC landed on foam, according to press right now.
No fatalities.
One RWY closed in CPH.
Edit: Video footage now of landing. R/H MG did not appear to be down at all, or possibly only partially extended. R/H prop feathered.
Politicians out now saying that Q400 must be suspended permanently. (Election going on now....)

[readywhenreaching]

pic in this danish article

http://politiken.dk/indland/article407463.ece

Can this be the same fault as before ? I thought it was rectified.

oh dear...:bored:

[Rene Pedersen]

as a result are all SAS Dash 8 Q400 grounded by the scandinavian CAA's immediately according to the danish newspaper JP http://jp.dk/indland/article1145796.ece (danish).

René

[Avman]

Scratching of head. 3 times with same operator in relatively short period of time, and despite recent inspection (and mod?). Odd to say the least.

[Jando]

SAS press release:
2007-10-27
Regarding Scandinavian Airlines flight SK 2867
Scandinavian Airlines regrets to confirm that one of its aircraft, a Dash 8- 400 with registration number LN-RDI and flight number SK 2867 from Bergen to Copenhagen was involved in an accident at Copenhagen airport , at 16.55 hrs local time today.
We can confirm that there were 38 passengers and 2 infants and 4 crew members onboard.
Prior to the accident problems with the main landing gear was reported.
All Dash 8-400 aircraft within the SAS Group will be grounded until further notice.
SAS is doing everything possible to assist all passengers.
SAS will provide further information as soon as it becomes available, see
www.flysas.com The media information center can be contacted at the following number:
+46 8 797 29 44
SAS Group Corporate Communications
http://www.sas.dk/templates/FlexiblePage.aspx?id=50152&epslanguage=EN

[FlyTCI]

One can only totally agree with Avman. Has it ever happened before that three almost identical SERIOUS incidents/accidents in such a short time plague the same carrier?
My SAS stocks keep falling and falling :ugh: I'm starting to loose my belief in this company. Something drastic needs to be done or soon I won't even be able to give them away. Most other carriers post record profits, which could have been the case of SAS as well, if it wasn't for the DASH disaster. This combined with their strikes of course.
Does anyone know if this plane was also based in CPH? Without pointing fingers one must start to wonder about what is going on in CPH.
Thank god for the solid gear of the DASH-6 I currently fart around in. Three down and welded :) .. Maybe Bombardier should consider going back to this fool proof construction.
/FlyTCI

[Capt. Inop]

Maybe Bombardier should consider go back to this fool proof construction.

Well the Q400 sure has the performance to deal with the extra drag :cool:

[Arne Blå]

At TV, it looked like the right main gear was not anywhere near down this time.

[FlyTCI]

Looking at the video posted in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, at www.aftonbladet.se, it doesn't appear as the gear was even out of the well at all. Sorry for not being able to psot the link for the video. Maybe someone else can help :\ .
Once again a good job done by the crew. Quick emergency evac to say the least.

/FlyTCI

[Mungo Man]

Video link from the above news link...

http://politiken.dk/poltv/?ExtID=2425

The landing looked pretty sweet this time. Did they shut down / reduce power on the no.2 engine on short final?

[FlyTCI]

"Did they shut down / reduce power on the no.2 engine on short final?"

It sure looks so to me..Prop at least in feather on short final..

[Bearcat]

congrats to the crew and capt. the landing was text book and the punters got out in jig time. well done. I am afraid that the Q400 is doomed....what a piece of sh"t.

[Check 6]

There are a lot of Q400s flying in the US and other countries without any gear failures. It seems that only SAS is having all of the failures.

Could the problem be in maintenance procedures and not design flaws?

[ADC2604]

Bearcat - I have to disagree with you - the Q400 is not ****

There are loads operated in the world in Europe and USA - how many have had this....3 all with SAS!?

Rather than direct all the problems to the D4 why not focus on SAS.......all airlines were required to ground a/c with more than 10000 cycles and all were/are fine so why SAS????

[Miraculix]

SAS has all the old -400's they will therefore find all the problems and honestly the -400 is a lemon. Beancounters loves it because it sips fuel. Pilots hate it because its unforgiving and just keeps comming up with new problems. Heard a pilot say that he loved the simulater checks because there he had an idea of what would happen, in the air the plane would come up with something new all the time.

Oh and this being election-time in Denmark the politicians are jumping at this one, one them has been out saying that he want's the -400's type license in europe cancelled.

[skywaytoheaven]

Well I flew it for 2 years and loved it, had a few minor snags but no more than I get flying an airbus now.

[MarkD]

Not quite fair to say SAS have all the problems - the Q400s in Japan have had incidents too. They are still selling (unidentified order of 10 this week) but Goodrich better figure out what's going on soon or Bombardier's bill from SAS for 70 million or so will be small potatoes.

[Avman]

Not quite fair to say SAS have all the problems - the Q400s in Japan have had incidents too.

To my knowledge only one, but I may be wrong.

The thing is that there are quite a few operators with fairly large Q400 fleets who don't seem to experience any major problems, only the usual sort of snags which would be experienced with any type.

[remoak]

SAS have all the early airframes - only a matter of time until other operators start having problems as well.

Lightweight and fragile...

[Eliason]

Tyrolean also operate most of the earlier -400s. :uhoh: but haven't had any of those problems with the gear so far...

Maybe it's got something to do with the cold, salty air SAS aircraft are parked in most the time ;)

[mini]

Forget the Q400, the first time I was scheduled to pax on a Dash 8, I did a bit of sniffing and it emerged that they had a history of gear failure.

This was quite a while ago.

Somethings not quite right.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Age is one issue, but hrs and cycles would be more interesting to look at.

How someting like this could happen after the operator, aircraft manufacturer, landing gear manufacturer and various regulating agencis have inspected the Q400 and given a thumbs up for its return to service, is beyond me.

It shall be very interesting to see what they will do now? A lot of Canadians working overtime the next few weeks, thats for sure.

[Waveman]

Do SAS tend to land Flap 15 rather than the slower/lower energy Flap 35 that most others seem to use?

[ManaAdaSystem]

It's just you, bb.
3 very professionally handled emergency landings without loss of lives. Accidents by definition, but crash is not on my tongue.
Very well done, SAS guys!

[False Capture]

Well done to the SAS pilots. :D

Dash 8-400 fleet grounded - at least you guys can enjoy some well earned time off.:ok:

[RAFAT]

Waveman - as far as I'm aware Flybe is the only 400 operator that recommends flap 35 landings as the standard, and this is due to the larger proportion of shorter runways on the their network.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It is very concerning when you have 3 similar incidents in the same company. There must be something that has caused the difference. I can't imagine that FlyBE work their a/c any less hard than SAS. Could it have something to do wit the conditions that SAS operate them in.

I can't imagine they get any easy time in the winter. Pure speculation of course.

I hope they find a cure pretty sharpish, or it could be big trouble for Bombardier.

[embraernotworthy]

Guys, is it just the SAS fleet that are grounded or does it include others like before please??? cheers

[ManaAdaSystem]

The right main gear failed to extend. I got this link from a friend in Scandiland;

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/5/51/516/516421/sx3c0021X2X_1193520163_1193520178.jpg

Picture taken from the aircraft.

[embraernotworthy]

much different fault than before then!!

[andy_smith89uk]

Is it just me who finds it slightly odd that the last two SAS Q400 incidents have been captured on video camera? Not CCTV, but really quite good quality footage?

And no, I'm certainly not trying to start a conspiracy theory or anything like that, am just curious about it!

[Clarence Oveur]

This is probably spells the end of the Q400 with SAS. I don't see how they could possibly restore public confidence in this aircraft, after this accident. Even if it turns out that the last accident have no connection to the first two.

I predict no more Q400 flights for SAS and a massive payout for Bombardier.

[Jando]

Is it just me who finds it slightly odd that the last two SAS Q400 incidents have been captured on video camera?
Nothing odd here, in both cases the crew knew that the gear was unsafe and advised ATC and probably the company, burned some fuel and got the fire services standing by. Plenty of time to dispatch a camera team.

[FlyTCI]

Andy

Not really suspicous at all actually. According to news articles they were circling for about two hours before deciding to "take the plunge" and land.. Lots of time for people who monitor frequencies or are planespotting to get their cameras ready.

Maybe it's time for SAS to book some spots in the CRJ sim now, if they dare to go with Bombardier again that is.
/FlyTCI

[Bearcat]

how could you, bear say this great aviation machine is a piece of sh@t? well as a commercial airliner it is not holding upto the standards of other craft...yes it has'nt fallen out of the sky but the gear issue imo is bloody unacceptable to the extent the guys in sas dont need sim checks as there are doing all the drama on the line. I make no apology, this aircraft is scrappers material. The fare paying punter will sh#t themselves everytime the gear goes down hoping success....thats not on.

[ChristiaanJ]

That's three now?
No casualties, no fire.
Just as well they grounded them.
Next time the wing may touch down just a bit harder, and the media will get the fireball they were hoping for.

[M609]

Norwegian CAA stated to NRK (TV) that it "...will be a long time..." before the Q400 is allowed into the air again.

I remember the early days of Q400 i SAS service. It was a bit of a turkey then too, with spurious fire indications with associated diversions. And snags on the ground. At Ängelhom we ran out of ramp space once in 02 due to broken Q400s.
(Yes, yes..... tiny ramp :) )

[Busbert]

There is a certain runway deicer in use in some of the airports that SAS serves that EATS landing gear and carbon brakes, and has certainly caused problems on the bigger aircraft in the fleet.

This runway deicer is not that widely used elsewhere

I wonder if this is a factor? :confused:

[lomapaseo]

Norwegian CAA stated to NRK (TV) that it "...will be a long time..." before the Q400 is allowed into the air again

Wrong kind of wording, possibly a translation problem or slip of the tongue if coming from a regulator rather than a politician.

Preamble: This is a continued airworthiness issue and is allowed for in the design and original certification of the aircraft so as long as it is not in violation of its original certificate basis (wear, useage, maintenance, operation, environment etc.) then the issue is expected to be addressed under the continued airworthiness part of the regulations (identify and fix it).

If it was misidentified or an inadequate fix, then the regulator needs to hold somebody's feet to the fire long enough to get it fixed. The time frame is up to both the operator and the certificate holder, the regulator might ask for more data, but they just can't ignore data and sit on their hands as a form of punishment.

So in short, even if the manufacturer or the operator screwed up, it's up to them to set the time frame for recovery. If the regulator tries to go beyond this they might as well pull the certificate of either one or both for all products they operate or design.

[Haven't a clue]

Bombardier Q400 Scandinavian Flight Sk2867 Incident

Toronto, October 27, 2007

Bombardier confirms that a Bombardier Q400 aircraft S/N 4024 registration number LN-RDI operating as flight SK2867 from Bergen to Copenhagen, was involved in an incident at Copenhagen Airport at 16:55 local time on October 27, 2007. There were no reported injuries to the 40 passengers and 4 crew members on board.

According to preliminary information, the incident involved the main right hand landing gear, which failed to fully extend for landing. There appears to be no relationship between this incident and previous SAS Q400 main landing gear incidents. While SAS has decided to ground their Q400 fleet until further notice, Bombardier has advised all Q400 operators via an All Operator Message (AOM) of this incident but is not recommending changes to their normal on-going Q400 flight operations.

Bombardier is cooperating fully with SAS and the investigating aviation authorities and has dispatched a product safety and technical team to the site to fully support and assist in the investigation. Until such time as the authorities release any information or findings, Bombardier cannot comment further or speculate on the potential cause of this incident.

For the operators no immediate impact then.

[eu01]

For the operators no immediate impact then.
Unless PAX elsewhere decide to vote with their feet... :hmm:

[Arne Blå]

"There appears to be no relationship between this incident and previous SAS Q400 main landing gear incidents"

If you groud the fleet for weeks, and concentrate 100% on the landing gear, and now this..

Something is seriously wrong, if they have no clue what it is, then how fix it?

A completely new gear, designed from scratch?

[Say again s l o w l y]

That would take at least a year or maybe 2. I can't see that really being an option at the moment.

What a head ache they must be having in the SAS and Bombardier boardrooms.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Well, for sure the Bombardier guys are trying to downplay this issue. With 22 recent orders for the Q400, I'm not surprised.

This is not an incident, it's an accident.

[soldier of fortune]

is cold weather a problem or as mentioned before the de-icing gear

[Maude Charlee]

Waveman - as far as I'm aware Flybe is the only 400 operator that recommends flap 35 landings as the standard, and this is due to the larger proportion of shorter runways on the their network.

I think you'll find that it's more to do with a historical incident from the early days of the operation involving a tail strike at flap 15.

Well handled evacuation though from this incident. Would be intrigued to know if they used both sets of doors on the LHS. Not easy to tell from the video, but the rear left exit seemed to be slightly lower to the ground than on a 'normal' landing.

[Mercenary Pilot]

Is it just me who finds it slightly odd that the last two SAS Q400 incidents have been captured on video camera?

They haven't all been caught on camera as far as I know, only 1st and 3rd unless somebody has some footage of the accident in Lithuania?

[PPL_DK]

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

2007-10-28 http://se.yhp.waymaker.net/sasgroup/images/spacer.gifSAS removes Dash 8 Q400 from service permanently

http://se.yhp.waymaker.net/sasgroup/images/spacer.gif
Following the recent period of events involving aircraft of the Dash 8 Q400 type, SAS's management, following an unscheduled meeting of the Board of Directors held today, has decided to immediately discontinue the use of this type of aircraft.

"Confidence in the Q400 has diminished considerably and our customers are becoming increasingly doubtful about flying in this type of aircraft. Accordingly, with the Board of Directors' approval, I have decided to immediately remove Dash 8 Q400 aircraft from service," says Mats Jansson, President and Chief Executive Officer of SAS.

In January 2000, SAS was the first customer to use the Dash 8 Q400 in its traffic operations. The aircraft have accounted for approximately 5 percent of the Group's passengers. The aim is to replace traffic based on the Q400 by reallocating current aircraft in the SAS Group's fleet and by means of leasing.

"The Dash 8 Q400 has given rise to repeated quality-related problems and we can now conclude that the aircraft does not match our passengers' requirements concerning punctuality and regularity. SAS's flight operations have always enjoyed an excellent reputation and there is a risk that use of the Dash 8 Q400 could eventually damage the SAS brand," says John Dueholm, Deputy CEO of SAS.

Due to the decision, SAS's traffic services will be affected by flight cancellations in the period immediately ahead. The customers concerned will be given an opportunity to either rebook or have their tickets refunded. For detailed information about traffic services, reference is made to the airlines' various websites (www.sas.se (http://www.sas.se) www.sas.dk (http://www.sas.dk) www.wideroe.no (http://www.wideroe.no))
SAS Group Corporate Communication

[Guttn]

SAS have decided today to cease all Q400 operations forever. :eek:

That deciscion could not have been an easy one, but I think, at least for SAS as a product, it was a very wise one. :D

[brownwings]

Few weeks ago there was one similar accident with Lufthansa subsdiary. Their landing gear collapsed.
Also Flybe has had problems with landing gear. I work behind a radar screen and have witnessed when Flybe Dash 8's fly a sector landing gear down. No accidents yet.

[Cyclone733]

Also Flybe has had problems with landing gear. I work behind a radar screen and have witnessed when Flybe Dash 8's fly a sector landing gear down. No accidents yet.
Flybe have had no recent issues with the gear not extending. Some of the fleet were flown to major engineering bases with the gear locked down (pins in) for precautionary checks in accordance with Bombardiers recommendations.
Hopefully there won't be too many jobs lost at SAS with this announcement

[DK_FCI]

What is going to happen now is anyones guess - I just hope my colleagues in SC dont loose their jobs over this farce - they have really done a great job in these 3 accidents:D, and they do not deserve to become the victims of all this.

[alexmcfire]

Add Wideröe, who got 4 of them. The airline is owned by SAS, I wonder if
that airline keep their other 25 Dashes or dump them on the market quietly?
All the airplanes are going back to Bombardier along the lawyers and sueing notes....:rolleyes:

[Maxbert]

I've just fired off a quick Email to Luxair (my local Flag-carrier, who made a great fuss about these 'planes which they have just purchased...)-

But seriously, just to get this in perspective:

How many of these machines are in service?
With how many airlines?
Since when?
How many landing "incidents" have occurred, and since when?

All answers "roughly" of course, but just to get an idea- Are we talking 10 'planes and 6 landing problems, or 1000 'planes over 3 years, with X-thousand cycles?

Cheers,
Maxbert

[uncle_maxwell]

Regarding feathering the right prop - is that standard procedure on the Dash-8 if same side main gear does not extend?

[Very_Low_and_Fast]

"Landing Gear Issues
On 12 September 2007, Bombardier recommended all Q400s with over 10,000 landings to be grounded for inspection of their landing gear after two non-fatal accidents within 3 days involving the landing gear of a Q400 series aircraft. Both aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines, who were an early operator of the type.[6] This affects about 60 aircraft in total, out of a total of 140 Q400s in service. Totally seven Q400s have had landing gear failures while landing during 2007: four in Denmark, one in Germany, one in Japan, one in Lithuania and one in South Korea.
Following the latest incident at Copenhagen Airport, October 27th, Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS)'s executive board decided to cease operation of the Q-400 model, fearing for customers' safety".

[Maxbert]

Many thanks! :ok:

[ManaAdaSystem]

In 2007...

As far as I know, another two in Japan involving All Nippon (2004 and 2006).

[J-Class]

Quite a dramatic decision - SAS were clearly very worried about their brand.

I can't think of another instance when a single airline voluntarily took a type out of service on safety grounds without having experienced a fatal accident first. Can anyone?

This is a nightmare for Bombardier - especially as the fault will probably be traced to one of their subcontractors...

[Arado]

alexmcfire:
Perhaps we could fill the a/c with the lawyers, and get rid of them all at once?

[Broomstick Flier]

Wonder what will happen with their frames.. museums? restaurants? scrap metal? Sell them to Africa/South America?

Indeed a major blow for Bombardier

BF

[BestGlide]

Alexmcfire: Why do you think Wideroe also will dump their 100/300? Why should they? 100/300 is a totally different aircraft, other type of landing gear system ++++.... And there is no option for the short runways we are operating from.

[Cyclone733]

As far as I know, another two in Japan involving All Nippon (2004 and 2006).

IIRC the ANA incidents both relate to a separate issue with the NLG failing to deploy correctly due to incorrect assembly which seems to have been resolved

[Mercenary Pilot]

Wonder what will happen with their frames.. museums? restaurants? scrap metal? Sell them to Africa/South America?I would think inspected then reconditioned, repainted and sold/leased to N.American or European operator's.

Why should they? 100/300 is a totally different aircraftTo a passenger, a Dash-8 is a Dash-8 is a Dash-8 so I wouldn't think that it's totally out of the question to consider getting rid of all their DHC-8 airframes. I don't think that the negative publicity is anywhere near as bad outside of the Scandinavian countries as it is within.

[armchairpilot94116]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071028/turboprop_malfunctions.html?.v=4

[kingmonroe]

I bet bmi regional are glad SAS dont own shares in the group anymore. What's the penalty for pulling out of a signed order these days???

[M609]

I wouldn't think it's totally out of the question that they may get rid of all DHC-8 airframes

Since there is no real alternative to the Dash for WIF on the regional STOL airports in Norway, they will not sell them. When other airlines tried to use Do-228s, the passengers complained about comfort and safety. (I agree, flying the D0-228 in (not above...) typical arctic weather was not fun)

Bold line the SAS board is taking :hmm:

[Cyclone733]

Is this just an excuse to cut back due to a slow down in the economy as opposed to a real risk? Sounds a bit like clever PR as opposed to a sensible reaction to a series of (possibly unrelated) issues with the Dash's MLG

[Haven't a clue]

Mrs HAC is not a good flyer, which is a problem as we live on an island and regularly travel to London. She lost a lot of sleep worrying about flying on FlyBe's Q400s after the September accidents. Her alternative is another Dash8, a -200, to London City which she admits she cannot do on her own. (The arrival is somewhat abrupt!) She travels at least once a month sometimes solo down, but I have to go down later and accompany her back.

I know from talking about this with colleagues and friends her fear of flying is not unique, and the action by SAS to dump their aircraft will have an impact on these people.

And no way will I ever sit in a row by the propellers....

[Haven't a clue]

Bombardier Statement Regarding The Sas Decision On Its Q400 Aircraft Fleet

Toronto, October 28, 2007

Bombardier is disappointed with the SAS decision to permanently discontinue flight operations with the Bombardier Q400 aircraft given that the landing incident is still under investigation by Danish authorities.

While SAS chose to ground its Q400 turboprop fleet following the incident on October 27, 2007, Bombardier’s assessment of this situation, in consultation with Transport Canada, did not identify a systemic landing gear issue. Based on this we advised all Q400 aircraft operators that they should continue with normal Q400 aircraft flight operations. Further, Bombardier and the landing gear manufacturer, Goodrich, have completed a full review of the Q400 turboprop landing gear system and results have confirmed its safe design and operational integrity.

Bombardier stands behind the Q400 aircraft. Since entering revenue service in February 2000, the Q400 turboprop has proven itself to be a safe and reliable aircraft with over 150 Q400 aircraft in operation among 22 operators around the world. To date, the fleet of Q400 aircraft has logged over one million flying hours and 1.2 million take-off and landing cycles.

Good positive stuff!

[Mercenary Pilot]

Further, Bombardier and the landing gear manufacturer, Goodrich, have completed a full review of the Q400 turboprop landing gear system and results have confirmed its safe design and operational integrity

Recent events would seem to contradict that!

[Super VC-10]

To date, the fleet of Q400 aircraft has logged over one million flying hours and 1.2 million take-off and landing cycles

Note they keep quiet about how many accidents and hull losses though! :=

[Cyclone733]

I fly on the Q400 regularly for work reasons and will continue to do so. (Not sure I would fly with SAS)

[ChristiaanJ]

Good positive stuff!
Yeah, right.
Only one million hours?
And something between four and seven "incidents" (the media are still waiting for the fireball).
What happened to "ten to the minus six"? I don't even dare to mention "ten to the minus nine".

[F_Hercules]

Cyclone733

I don´t think it´s an "excuse" to cut back due to a slow down in the economy. In SAS the Q4 stands for a big deal of departures in and to/from scandinavia. I heard a figure of 20-30% of all SAS traffic from Copenhagen. I think this decision is based on many years with problems and that it should be very hard to convince pax to fly Q4.

[Cyclone733]

F_Hercules,

Yep you're probably right, just wishful thinking on my part.

[G.S. Willy]

I have been a pilot in SAS for the last 10 years, one of them on the Q400.
I have had more technical problems in that year, than in the others put together. (DC9, MD80)
I have also previously worked with some other European airlines( none major), and would argue that safety awerness and technical standard in SAS is very good, apart from the standard on the Q400.

Do anyone really beleive that SAS has particulary bad technicians on the Q400?, none of SAS`s fleet of B737, A319,320,321,330,340, MD80, and F50 have any grave tech. problems, why only the Q400??

SAS have had continous problems with these AC since they were delivered, and I agree on the decision to get rid of them.
At the same time I am concerned that SAS will use the recent events to introduce AC, from daughter companys on the Q400 route network, therby creating a pilot surplus in the main carrier.

I don`t think anyone has good reason to be worried about flying SAS, at least not now, after this AC is not with the company anymore.

[DK_FCI]

I fly on the Q400 regularly for work reasons and will continue to do so. (Not sure I would fly with SAS)


Is there a logic behind that statement:confused:

[F_Hercules]

G.S. Willy

If you have been a pilot in SAS for the last 10 years, why have you been working with some other European airlines lately?

[Cyclone733]

I fly on the Q400 regularly for work reasons and will continue to do so. (Not sure I would fly with SAS)

Is there a logic behind that statement?

It seems unusual that a single airline would suffer from a similar fault 3 times in the space of a couple of months that apparently hasn't affected the rest of the worldwide fleet. Perhaps a better statement would be that I would fly in the Q400 quite happily, but would want to know why this issue was affecting a particular airlines' fleet. Is it, as has been suggested, the deicing fluids, different SOPs from other airlines, different conditions from other airlines?
As for logic, SAE, Quantas, Flybaboo and other operators seem to have had no serious problems with their fleet, so given a choice I think I'd rather fly with them for the time being thanks (although not sure how useful Quantas are going to be commuting around Europe)

[Mercenary Pilot]

It seems unusual that a single airline would suffer from a similar fault 3 times in the space of a couple of months that apparently hasn't affected the rest of the worldwide fleet

But it has affected the worldwide fleet. Tyrolean, ANA, Flybe and Horizon have all had tech problems with gear, erroneous fire warnings, in-flight engine shut-downs, software etc.

[Phoenix71]

F_Hercules If you have been a pilot in SAS for the last 10 years, why have you been working with some other European airlines lately?

You do know that it's still possible to get some leave of absence... and then try some other stuff, right?

[Cyclone733]

I was trying to focus on the MLG issues, but you are correct. The Q400 had a number of issues when it was placed into service, to my knowledge few issues remain with the aircraft. Even ANA's NLG issues were tracked down to a design flaw and an re-assembly error. With not even an initial report on the cause of this incident it seems a little quick to be getting rid of the fleet.

[F_Hercules]

Phoenix,

Are you still on leave of absence?

[Mercenary Pilot]

I believe Tyrolean had a problem with MLG caused by hairline cracks. Combined with other problems that they were having, actually suspended purchase of further aircraft until all issues had been rectified or addressed satisfactorily.

[Cyclone733]

Mercenary Pilot,

Well I wasn't aware of that. I think I'll duck out of this thread and leave it to people with knowledge of the aircraft type

[F_Hercules]

Mercenary pilot,

Do you have any info regarding "other problems" that Tyrolean are having with Q4?

[MarkD]

Wonder what will happen with their frames.. museums? restaurants? scrap metal? Sell them to Africa/South America?

Maybe the Canadian Privy Council Office (the main guy hates National Defence if Macleans is to be believed) will get them for the Canadian Forces, tell 'em "you don't *really* need a ramp do you?" and sneakily sell on the new C-130Js :eek: :uhoh:
Rip all the stuff out of the CP-140s they aren't upgrading and stuff it into the Qs. :=
BBD could make Q400MR firebombers out of them like the ones the French are using and sell them to Governator Ahnuld. :ok: :D

[Phoenix71]

F_Hercules,

No.. And I was talking in general. Established carriers still offer the possibility of trying different things.

[alexmcfire]

Alexmcfire: Why do you think Wideroe also will dump their 100/300? Why should they? 100/300 is a totally different aircraft, other type of landing gear system ++++.... And there is no option for the short runways we are operating from.
[Quote]
Yes, one Senegalese aircraft DASH8-100 I think had gear failure.
I flewn on Kato Air Do228 from Bodö to Röst and this plane is one option, I´m
sure there´s others.
Why? Depends on the publics opinion, luckily none has died in a DASH8 crash since 1994 in Nz.

[Alpine Flyer]

Swapping a Dash 8-100/300 for a Do 228 to improve safety might not be the best idea. Apart from the 228s lack of pressurization and therefore lack of ability to climb above the worst weather, it is certified to part 23 while the Dash 8s are certified to part 25 standards. Those looking for extra gear safety should maybe look at the single wheels on the Dornier as compared to twin wheels on the Dash.....

Without having flown a Do 228 I assume that the general performance of the Q100/300 is better.

It'l be very interesting to read the accident report on the last Q400 accident.

Given the "series" and the reaction of the press to the last incident SAS probably did not have much of a choice. It can't be easy for them to replace 25 A/C more or less overnight. The "5% of pax" in the press release smells like a decoy. Must be a lot more than 5% of departures.....

[Fokker28]

Waveman - as far as I'm aware Flybe is the only 400 operator that recommends flap 35 landings as the standard,

That's incorrect. Horizon uses flap 35 landings under all but CAT IIIA approaches and landings.

[RAFAT]

Thanks Fokker28.

The raison d'etre behind flap 35s at Flybe is a few scares at GCI in the early days, when the combination of a Vref of 1.3Vs (now 1.23Vs) and flap 15 caused a couple of near overruns.

Uncle maxwell - not an SOP consideration, it's just to avoid the damage that would be caused by a 'powered' prop breaking apart on contact with the runway.

Here's something for discussion - in circumstances such as this, (high wing, high gear types) how many of you would consider retracting the good leg and doing a belly-landing? and possibly on the grass adjacent the runway if sufficient length was available. Doing so would lessen the fire risk that may arise if one day one of the wings contacting the runway were to fracture.

I believe an F27 once did such a landing and was back in service just a few days later.

Just a thought.

[G.S. Willy]

Hi Hercules

In 2003 SAS laid off 360 pilots, and wanted to lay off 150 more. The pilot union offered to get 150 to take voluntary leave of absence, to prevent further layoffs. I was one of those volunteers. I get to keep my pension, insurance and seniority, while another company pays my salary.
I was called back in june last year(to fly FCQ400), I am on LOA again, flying B767, and am due to go back again in jan. 2008( at least that was the plan before this happened.;)

[THEICEMAN]

Wow the level of B.S is just incredible! G.S Willy.."technical standard in SAS is very good, apart from the standard on the Q400"
What a stupid statement!

Of course it's a problem with SAS technical. They have been using junior AMEs on the aircraft since the beginning. No wonder why it kept having problems...why just SAS? :ugh: Ask Horizon what they think about the Q400? THEY FLY IN COASTAL AREAS MOSTLY!!

Well, from a good source, I have been told that the problems at SAS...the first two where due to a substance on the gear that SAS was using. A corrosive non aviation substance. Let me say again NON AVIATION grade substance that SAS mechanic's where using. :D

The ANA incident was a maint. issue (a bolt that was not installed right/loose/missing - you tell me)

I don't want to start crap across the pound, but I have noticed that Europeans have been way too critical against N.American aircraft...believe me when I say that ATR is not half the A/C that the Q400 is! Th Q400 is the best 70-80 seat turbo prop in the world & nobody can dispute that!

Conclusion:
management made a good choice to dump the fleet since people are scared ****less! But SAS is to blame!

Maybe if they would of let somebody else take care of the airplanes, all would be fine!
Thank you SAS who have ruined the imagine of a super aircraft!

Hopefully the Danish people are told the truth about what is going on! Not the B.S their politicians are feeding them because of "Elections"

[ZFT]

I don't want to start crap across the pound, but I have noticed that Europeans have been way too critical against N.American aircraft...believe me when I say that ATR is not half the A/C that the Q400 is! Th Q400 is the best 70-80 seat turbo prop in the world & nobody can dispute that!


Why should I believe you? At your age (if profile is correct) I wonder just how much experience you have of either the Q400 or an ATR? I certainly dispute your comment.

[Miraculix]

Before people start throwing around blame, maybe one should look at facts and an interresting question could be, is/has SAS's Q400's been different than the rest of them?

To my knowledge SAS's Q400's has been flying with the optional high pressure tire for many years, as the only operator in the world, only recently switching to the standard low pressure tire. Is the high pressure tire harder on the gear?

[Loop... Hole]

Many good points ICE and welcome. The common denominator is still SAS, be it maintenance or their specific operating conditions or even just bad luck. They have taken the right action for the airline but it risks unfounded damage to the overall reputation of the Q400.

RAFMAN

I would not elect a gear up landing. Unlike the alloy props of old D8s the carbon fibre prop disintegrates causing lots of damage. Pictures from Dowty of the interior of the first SAS incident tell us that there is a high likelihood of fatality. Large carbon fragments penetrated the cabin and damaged seats. Trying to do a complete power off landing with both engines shut down and feathered does not sound advisable.

[THEICEMAN]

Why should I believe you? At your age (if profile is correct) I wonder just how much experience you have of either the Q400 or an ATR? I certainly dispute your comment.

I don't have experience flying the aircraft. But I have seen the Numbers & the Q400 has by far the best CASM.....not to mention better performance.

You don't need any flight time to answer that question!

[Ladusvala]

Theiceman, what did your good source tell you about other operators and corrosion on the same parts that were affected on the sas aircraft?

What is wrong with the statement that you classified as B.S?
Isn´t the technical standard in SAS very good, apart from the standard on the Q400?

[F_Hercules]

Theiceman,

I recommend you and your source to read the preliminary report from Accident Investigation Board Denmark

http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000433%20LN-RDK%20Preliminary%20Report%20med%20header.pdf

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


Why do you think Bombardier released the following after the investigations:

"Update On Inspection Procedures On Bombardier Q400 Main Landing Gear
Toronto, September 14, 2007


Detailed inspection procedures sent to operatorsOn September 13, 2007, Bombardier issued an All-Operators Message (AOM) providing Q400 operators with detailed inspection procedures to address Transport Canada’s airworthiness directive related to the aircraft’s recent main landing gear issue. These inspection procedures were developed by Goodrich, the landing gear manufacturer, and approved by Bombardier.
The document issued to Q400 aircraft operators includes highly detailed procedures on how to inspect, repair the retract actuator if necessary, or replace it, as follows:

Disassemble the retract actuator and visually determine if any corrosion exists;
If corrosion is found, options are available to operators to allow them to return the aircraft to revenue service. These range from removal of light corrosion and repairs of the affected unit, to the replacement of the retract actuator. All procedures require a thorough application of corrosion-inhibiting compound.Furthermore, the document provides guidance for continued inspections of the retract actuator unit."

[Haven't a clue]

Unlike the alloy props of old D8s the carbon fibre prop disintegrates causing lots of damage

Perhaps I'm missing something here. Jet engines have to undergo tests to ensure a blade failure is contained within the engine. There are instances of parts being thrown through cowlings at the fusilage, but they are few and far between.

Landing gear failure does happen - be it failure to extend or collapse on landing - and for the Q400 disintegration of the carbon fibre prop will happen and the resultant injuries may be fatal. (Well done SAS crews for moving pax/shutting down the engine).

One wonders on what basis certification was given for the use of these props. Perhaps in the light of recent events the seating of pax in the propeller affected area should be banned.....

[Alpine Flyer]

SAS was totally new to the Dash and Bombardier/deHavilland when they introduced the Q400. While they asked for and got a lot of improvements over the original flight deck design, they also asked for other modifications/changes (AFAIK using 115V as the "standard" GPU) which added to the teething problems.

Other operators with previous Dash 8 experience had their problems as well but not all of the problems SAS encountered. There is a kind of "a regional aircraft operated by a mainline" theory for some of the problems SAS had.

Initial problems at Tyrolean included spurious warning messages from the FADEC, problems with the rear stair (which was poorly designed), the newly designed rear doors (proximity switches, outer and inner handle out of sync) as well as false cargo compartment fire/smoke warnings. AFAIR there were also some gear proximity switch issues during the first years resulting in precautionary but eventless "prepared emergency" landings.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Sorry, only got a link to a Danish news site:

http://epn.dk/handel_service/transpo...cle1146813.ece

In essence, SAS have told Bombardier to take the entire fleet of 27 Q400 back. Sell them on or lease them to someone else, they don't give a flying **** - they've had it with the Q400s.

SAS has previously asked for a DKK 500 Million (approx EUR 67M) compensation following the 2 main-gear failures and the subsequent grounding of the Q400 fleet. They are now talking about adding an addtional 3-figured sum (in DKK Million) in compensation.

SAS admits this is not a rational decision, but one based solely on restoring the image of the company with its customers. SAS is willing to accept a very large financial penalty in order to achive their aim of restoring confidence amongst the flying public.

Bombardier, on the other hand, are telling everyone to stay calm and continue flying the Q400, stating the neither they nor Transport Canada has found any systematic faults with the aeroplane.

SAS are on the market to lease in capacity to cover the loss of the Q400s.

EDIT:
To add that this decision was made following the 3rd accident with the Q400; an emergency landing in CPH where the RH MLG failed to deploy. Link to video here:

http://ekstrabladet.tv/nyheder/indla...icle352581.ece

[Captain_Trim]

"Landing gear failure does happen - be it failure to extend or collapse on landing - and for the Q400 disintegration of the carbon fibre prop will happen and the resultant injuries may be fatal. (Well done SAS crews for moving pax/shutting down the engine)." HAC
(still haven't figuered out this quoting thing)

The Dash has a reinforced area around the fuselage at the point where the props are. This is for noise control as well as safety. Interesting to hear that parts of the prop still managed to penetrate.
We have recently changed to being a Flap 15 operator as standard (with runways over 2k length) although it is not mandatory. The Flap 15 setting is generally for pax comfort as the 35 setting gives quite a vibration due to the drag of landing flap. To be honest most of the airports we land at i wouldn't want to try landing Flap 15 as it gives you little room for error but places like CDG, LGW where you've got runway that circumnavigates the globe (as far as the dash is concerned) it's fine.

The dash is also notoriously difficult to get a gentle landing out of, flap 15 is much easier to get a greaser but still no method in it. Flap 35s are a lottery, you can do everything right and it will still punish you with spinal injury. .. and yes, i'm fully aware that people will critise and mock my ability to land but if you ask any q400 jockey they will say the same. You have to wonder if all the heavy landings don't help!!

[Loop... Hole]

I understood the reinforcement panel in the fuselage to be primarily for hull skin protection from ice being thrown off the prop roots... Despite this I have seen ice dents in the fuselage aft of the protection zone.

I do remember someone talking about the internals of these panels being replaced with titanium as a mod in about 2004/5 - if that's the case perhaps protection from the prop blades was being considered.

[Captain_Trim]

Fair point, To be honest not sure what could protect a hull from a CF blade spinning at 1020 rpm. BB arn't going to put lead in the fuselage.
Can only be a limited amount of protection without compromising on weight and perf.
Shutting down the engine and moving pax is probably the best thing. At least it slows the prop and reduces the amount of energy. Here's hoping the probs end here.

[Avman]

So, with 27 a/c grounded and to be returned, I'm thinking:

How many daily flight cancellations is this going to equate to?

How long will it take to find replacement a/c?

What will be the cost of sub-chartering suitable a/c from other operators to maintain what were their Q400 routes?

[Captain_Trim]

Found this earlier and should answer a few of your questions.

http://www.flysas.com/en/Media-center/Press-releases/?vst=true

[the_hawk]

SAS itself estimates 300-400 million SEK, approx. 47-63 million US$ "for the rest of the year"

http://www.sasgroup.net

share is down from 114 to 108 (approx. as well :))

[WHBM]

SAS was totally new to the Dash and Bombardier/deHavilland when they introduced the Q400.... Other operators with previous Dash 8 experience had their problems as well but not all of the problems SAS encountered. There is a kind of "a regional aircraft operated by a mainline" theory for some of the problems SAS had.
Not really. SAS bought Wideroe in 1997 who had full experience of just about every deHavilland Canada product ever made, and a fleet by then mainly Dash 8. Lots of knowledge in house.

[Ladusvala]

The same owner doesn´t automatically mean that experiences are shared. Besides, Wideroe bought their Q400´s long after SAS Commuter got them.

[empati]

SAS will for a short time lease in other airlines to fly these Q400-routes. SAS is immediately looking for temp spare a/c to replace the Q400. Q400 pilots will ASAP start training into these a/c. SAS will now look at several manufacturers to finally order a replacement for the Q400. Bombardier is one of the options. SAS is negotiating a deal with Bombardier. They had a meeting last week...

Theiceman, you need to study the ATR more! They are the clear winner in the turboprop market. Look at the sales numbers! The reason is light weight (composit fuselage, no APU), large cargo hold, wide cabin, modern airbuslike cockpit, updated engines and good support. Ok the avionic suite is now outdatet, but check out the new ATR 600!

[G.S. Willy]

The Iceman, what a cooool name:}

I will try to not bring stupid B.S. comments, or opinions to this network anymore.

Humble regards from Ground skipper Willy:D

[Ladusvala]

RTO,
Just what do you mean by "abnormal landing gear configuration"?

The newest B737´s in SAS´s fleet has been ordered as standard aircraft to save money. Unfortunately they don´t have the HUD system of the other NG´s.

[THEICEMAN]

Who else found corrossion on the gears? Please tell me!
No I can name source...conflict of interest.

Bombardier released those procedures to see if other carriers are finding corrossion.
So far, Horizon (which operates always next to the pacific) has found no corrossion. ANA is all good, except for that maint. issue last march.

I'm sure SAS tech is good. But they did not do a good job on the Q400. Ask yourselfs.....why SAS three times in a row? (with the exception of Augsburg air T.b.a)
RTO: According to a mechanic friend of mine SAS have a history of changing aircraft specs to ridiculous ones,
That's not normal!

The ATRs are good airplanes. But not like the Q400....
ASK Quantas & the many other carriers who will order it!

Think about this.......once they X-SAS Q400s start flying with somebody else, will see how many problems will arise? If this is in fact a Maint. issue, will see what kind of reputation SAS will have in the end!

I do believe that Bombardier & Goodrich is also to blame.....but you guys cannot deny that SAS must share a big part of the blame! Once o.k, twice wow, three times c'mon!
What are those junior AMEs doing!:hmm:

You guys talk about stable Q400 rep......well thank SAS for that! Bombardier should of refused them as clients if they would have known!

[THEICEMAN]

Oh ya! Not to mention that the Augsburg incident was a front gear failure.....so far only SAS has had a problem with the right gear!

Seriously stop crapping the airplane!
Let's see what the full investigation uncovers..

[Clarence Oveur]

Let's see what the full investigation uncovers..That's about the only sensible thing you have said so far.

Perhaps that's what you should do, instead of the ranting with an agenda you have delivered so far.

[ATMspecialist]

Just watched the boss of the Norwegian CAA (NCAA) state that no Q400`s should be flying in Europe until the full cause of this accident have been found. He went on to say that the NCAA will raise the issue with EASA.

Rgds,

[Vortechs Jenerator]

Iceman,

Isn't all heavy maint' on SAS Q400's c/out by Flybe @ EXE?

Surely any line maint' that "young AME's" would perform would be low in performance impact?

[ChristiaanJ]

I have NO intention of restarting the "accident/incident" discussion here.

But it DID occur to me that so far we are talking about "accidents" only because of the definition of "substantial damage to the airframes".

With SAS ending Q400 operations, we can hope that at least we will not see another "accident" because of that other definition..... "fatalities".....

[PT6Driver]

ATMspecialist
Would that be the same EASA that a UK parliamentary committee decided was not fit for purpose and an accident waiting to happen?:hmm:

[ATMspecialist]

PT6Driver, am not familiar with that story, sorry. But here`s what they say about the matter at hand: http://www.easa.europa.eu/home/index.html

Rgds,

[Ladusvala]

Theiceman,
You clearly blame SAS for these accidents, you also seem to know everything there is to know about them so may I ask you, why only the right main gear has been u/s?
Are the junior mechanics doing a good job on the left main gear only?

[JW411]

No mate; it's because most pilots have heavy left feet.

[barrymung]

Tell me...haven't there been issues with the landing gear sticking on Flybe Q400's..?

If so, this indicates the problem is not due to something SAS is doing but a potential design issue witn the Q400 itself.

Thoughts please?

[A4]

Ok. Just a thought. Do SAS and other Q400 operators carry out single engine taxi? If so, which engine is it "standard" to taxi on and is there a remote chance that the twisting moment applied to the gear by such practice could result in operational problems? Just a thought.

A4

[barrymung]

That is a very valid point, A4.

Also, combustion fumes are very acidic. Does anyone know if there's an exhaust near the wheel housing?

It's possible that exhaust fumes, normally dispersed during flight, are causing the metalwork to corrode during taxiing.

[THEICEMAN]

That's about the only sensible thing you have said so far.

Perhaps that's what you should do, instead of the ranting with an agenda you have delivered so far.

Well...it was you guys who started it! Ranting about how much of a piece of crap it is blahblahblah!:=

I'm just giving a counter arguments & reasoning....another side of the story.

I blame both sides.....I am no Bombardier fan since I do believe that the company needs new direction! They have been too slow on the Cseries & have been getting their ass kicked royally by Embraer..

But the Q400 is not a piece of ****! At the 90$+ a barrel, the aircraft is a valuable asset.

Did SAS make the right decision....yes! It's not a question of liability at all but imagine.

[PaperTiger]

Tell me...haven't there been issues with the landing gear sticking on Flybe Q400's..?

If so, this indicates the problem is not due to something SAS is doing but a potential design issue witn the Q400 itself.I'm aware of a burst ti(y)re incident with FlyBe. Hardly the airplane's fault.

Unless I missed something, weren't all Q400s inspected and (hopefully :rolleyes:) rectified after the first two accidents ? So how did SAS then manage to drop another one ?

[Loop... Hole]

barrymung:
Flybe MLG issues? No.

A4:
Saab 2000, ATR yes single engine taxying. Q400, SAS, Wideroe, Flybe both engines taxy in my experience. Could be a requirement from the engine owners, don't know.

barrymung:
Exhaust on a Dash is above and behind the wing, not near any other components.

[Mercenary Pilot]

The DHC-8-400 has been dogged by tech problems since launch, many of which have been swept under the carpet, many operators have had to work with Bombardier to troubleshoot issues.

There IS a blatant problem with the Q400 landing gear, that's not to say the aircraft is inherently dangerous but should be grounded and/or under a close inspection schedule until a proper explanation can be found. Whether its being caused by an SAS maintenance issue, an operational factor or a design flaw we will have to wait and see.

With a fleet of 27 aircraft available for scrutiny and EASA, national aviation authorities and Bombardier engineers all wanting to find the causes, I'm sure it wont be long until some answers are published.

[sk501]

SAS's biggest mistake was to be the launch customer for this type of aircraft. They should have waited until all the bugs had been sorted out before placing orders. Bombardier is not Boeing, (which held SAS's hands throughout the 737 phase-in). SAS did not have the know-how, nor the support to deal with a brand new Q400. It was a stupid mistake on SAS's part to be a launch customer where support is 5 or 6 time zones away. Hopefully a North American carrier can pick these machines up. A few belly landings isnt enough to scare the general public here from getting rid of them...
I wish SAS all the best of luck though. They certainly need it.

[remoak]

THEICEMAN

believe me when I say that ATR is not half the A/C that the Q400 is!

But then the ATR landing gear works without either jamming, failing to extend, or breaking...

Funny old thing about building aircraft to be light (ie efficient) and cheap. They don't tend to last very long.

Flybe must be nervous.

[RAFAT]

A4

Although single-engine taxi is obviously possible, (with the other engine running but in a feathered condition) Bombardier does not approve the procedure as it does not provide sufficient electrical redundancy. The props need to be out of the feathered position for their associated AC gens to be online.

Any Flybe 400 pilot will tell you that the gear on their aircraft has certainly had some rough treatment over the last 5 years, but no such problems have arisen.

[Kiwiguy]

Maybe it's not a corrosion thing but rather wear. Back in the late Eighties the DH Dash 8-100 series had a heap of main gear gear collapses.
In July 1995 a Dash 8-100 operated by Ansett NZ had a CFIT, but what was behind the crash was that the crew were distracted by failure of main gear to deploy from the well.
Turns out the RH uplock latch was worn beyond tolerance and the type was intolerant of wear.

[THEICEMAN]

But then the ATR landing gear works without either jamming, failing to extend, or breaking...

Funny old thing about building aircraft to be light (ie efficient) and cheap. They don't tend to last very long.

Flybe must be nervous.

Maybe so, maybe not? I remember a 727 NW skipper told me when I was 14 that, "when they park the A320s in the desert, they are gonna fly the crew home in one of these babies."
But if we were to use the same logic, would it apply for the 787? Or even a modern aircraft like the A330?

Sk501... I agree with you 100%! Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, etc....there is always a problem with the first few aircraft.

[F_Hercules]

Preliminary report

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

Seems to be a new problem (not the same) with the actuator. We know that SAS changed all actuators to brand new.

[Bearcat]

iceman, you can defend the q400 till the cows come home but this aircraft has had a litany of snags together with gear collapses. Pax feel whats going to happen next....sas now have withdrawn the aircraft from service.

For an airline to do that and suffer millions of euro losses basically states they have no more confidence in the aircraft in other words it's not worthy of airline operations.

From the prelim report, well done to the crew...a fab job:ok:

[maxrpm]

7 Years ago the DH8Q400 was introduced in our Company. Since then I have logged about 3000h on the plane. Just an hour ago I landed one with hours and more cycles then all of the SAS planes involved.

My ratings of the DH8Q400

Negatives:
Landing! Even after 3000 or so landings it needs full concentration to achieve a smooth landing at the marker (flaps 15 or 35 don’t matter). And me and most of my colleges needed two years to reach that point. During that time there was a lot of taxing from the runway when your copilot (well CRM trained) pretended not to have noticed that slam dunk you tried to sneak in as a landing.

Turbulence! For a plane with that high wing load she is too nervous in turbulence.

First Years! Every new Plane has problems in the beginning but in the case of the DH8Q400 it took Bombardier a very long time to straiten them out. Until then we had a hard time explaining to passengers why we were leaving the RWY a second time (Central Computer being paranoid about another problem again)

Technical Care! The plane needs a lot of care by experienced staff to keep reliability high.


Positives:

Power! Max TOW, single engine, 1000feet rate. You always feel that there is power when you need it.

Cockpit! Real comfortable situation awareness. WX, Terrain, Approach other Traffic all in one picture. A real help during those no precision, bad WX, no radar, weak ATC approaches which are a main duty of the turboprop fleets.

Crosswind Performance! Like most high wing Props. Absolutely no stress in any crosswind situation.

Approach! The ability to land with cruising RPM even with Flaps 35 takes away a lot of noise in the final approach.

Reliability! Now after all those years of bug hunting the plane has very good completion rate and dispatch reliability. Still it needs a lot of tending and care from technical department.


After all I like the plane. It is the first turboprop able to keep up with the speeds and climb rates of standard jets thus it takes away the uneasy feeling to be in everybody’s way at the bigger HUBS.
Passengers prefer it to other Props - not to Jets so - because of its speed and reasonable quiete Cabin.

It is hard to commend on the resent landing gear problems at SAS. After the first two events my company grounded all planes and inspected the culprit actuator. We were in the air again after a short time and maintenance told us that they had found no dangerous corrosion even on the planes that were older and had more cycles than the involved SAS AC.

Now after the latest accident they tell us that because of that inspection of all gears 3 weeks ago they absolutely trust the reliability of all the gears in the fleet.
Makes sense to me and as I have confidence in the abilities of our maintenance I positively expect to see 3 green in the future.

[Danish Pilot]

Hmm... apparently the cause should have been found, according to danish news (not the HCL...(HCL is Danish version of NTSB))

It was the hyd-actuator again, except it should have failed in another way, locking itself, so that not even gravity extension was possible.

The news are now that Bombardier, Canadian CAA are meeting with European Airsafety agency together with Danish CAA, HCL and SAS.

Sounds like "te and biscuits" and one Airworthniess on the line......:D

[brain fade]

maxrpm

Have to agree with you on the landing issue. Why is it such a hardship tho'? I watched a friend of mine land one in benign conditions (from the jumpseat) and he was working jolly hard- and the touchdown was still ****!

The power too is impressive, but the RJ's especially the 145, eat it alive performance wise! We used to overtake the dash's at about 100 knots. It looked like they were coming the other way!

Plus, you don't mention it but, pax prefer jets. They'll pay more and more of them travel.

Still, I think it's a good tp. But TP's can only do so much and in the Q methinks they've taken it a bit too far. X-25 anyone?

[too_low_gear]

There were also one very similar - you could say that is was a different type since it was the left side MLG :ugh: that collapsed.

BTW - it was very funny to watch the boss from Bombardier make a public excuse in a very traditinol Japanese way - it would certainly look good if the Bombardier made the same apperance in the european media.

But the list is long with incidents involving MLG on the Dash-8 - not all is on the list from aviation-safety.net - among those missing are the one in Germany with nosegear failure.

02-FEB-1986 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19860202-0)DHC-8C-GPYDAir Dale0Sault Ste. M... A214-FEB-1988 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19880214-0)DHC-8C-GANFAir Nova0St. John's, NF I215-APR-1988 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19880415-0)DHC-8N819PHHorizon Air0Seattle/Taco...http://aviation-safety.net/graphics/C.gifA121-NOV-1990 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19901121-0)DHC-8HS-SKIBangkok Airways38near Koh Samui Ai...http://aviation-safety.net/graphics/C.gifA106-JAN-1993 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930106-0)DHC-8D-BEATLufthansa Cityline4Paris-Charle...http://aviation-safety.net/graphics/C.gifA108-NOV-1993 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19931108-1)DHC-8 Zhejiang Airlines0Taipei H222-OCT-1994 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19941022-0)DHC-8 LATN? H209-JUN-1995 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19950609-0)DHC-8ZK-NEYAnsett New Zealand4near Palmerston N...http://aviation-safety.net/graphics/C.gifA117-MAY-1996 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19960517-2)DHC-8VH-JSINational Jet Systems0near Broome, WA A209-FEB-1999 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990209-0)DHC-8 ?0Kinmen-Shang... H223-NOV-1999 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19991123-0)DHC-8 Zhejiang Airlines0Xiamen Airpo... H208-SEP-2000 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000908-4)DHC-8 AIRES Colombia0San Vicente ... H214-JUN-2001 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010614-0)DHC-8LN-WISWiderøes Flyveselskap0Båtsfjord Ai... A120-FEB-2002 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020220-0)DHC-8HK-3951XAIRES Colombia0Hobo H207-DEC-2002 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20021207-0)DHC-8B-3567Changan Airlines0Xian-Xianyan... A108-JAN-2003 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20030108-2)DHC-8N409QXHorizon Air0near Medford, OR A206-FEB-2005 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20050206-0)DHC-86V-AHLAir Sénégal International0Tambacounda ...http://aviation-safety.net/graphics/C.gifA201-MAY-2005 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20050501-0)DHC-8LN-WIKWiderøes Flyveselskap0Hammerfest A... A212-SEP-2005 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20050912-0)DHC-8HK-4030XAIRES Colombia0Bogotá-Eldor... H212-AUG-2007 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20070812-0)DHC-8HL5256Jeju Air0Busan-Gimhae... A209-SEP-2007 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20070909-0)DHC-8LN-RDKSAS0Aalborg Airp... A212-SEP-2007 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20070912-0)DHC-8LN-RDSSAS0Vilnius Airp... A227-OCT-2007 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20071027-0)DHC-8LN-RDISAS0København-Ka... A2

[Maude Charlee]

Maxrpm,

Have to say, I totally agree with you on the good and bad points of the Q400 - probably one of the best put together summaries of the a/c qualities I've read. :D


BF,

Read the post again - the point about pax preferring jets is there. As for the Barbie jet cruising past at 100kts+ - cobblers! Cruise TAS for the Q400 is 360kts (or M 0.6). Your tiddly little Barbie Jet isn't anything like 100kts faster my friend. Don't overcompensate for your relative lack of size. ;)

[W.R.A.I.T.H]

I saw the aftermath of the incident on saturday late evening while departing to SXF from 22R, but in the darkness not much could be seen apart from flashing lights of emergency vehicles etc.. an unusual sight though.

Browsing through the thread I feel I need to defend SAS a little bit on this issue - their general experience with the Q400 here up north has been bad from the outset, the type has been plagued with problems with just about all and anything for all the seven years, it received a lot of bad press and is very unpopular with the public as a result. The relationship between SAS and Bombardier has been under strain all the time with the latter coming across as uncooperative and dismissive and at this point SAS simply have had it up to their eyeballs. I also note that the a/c in question falls into the infamous 2nd delivery batch both previously involved aircraft belonged to. When the first airframes (LN-RDA to LN-RDH) were delivered, Bombardier had to come back and fix a lot of toothing problems, remedies to some of which were immediately applied to the line. The second batch (ending with LN-RDS, not sure about that though) had been flying in the meantime and as such collected most cycles, becoming ones of the most flown airframes of the type and now the tip of the floe starts to show. Salty environment - quite possibly, but flawed maintenance as some would seem to insinuate, given SAS' excellent safety record on all types they operated and maintained in the last 40 years, that would make up for a very serious accusation, at least in my book. I wonder if someone from within SAS would expand on my points...

gotta go :ok:

[WHBM]

Many of the fleet have been in service with SAS for more than 8 years. They cannot therefore really be considered to be under warranty any more, so unless there is a clause in the contract which states Bombardier would take them back after all this time this appears to be a substantial financial loss for someone else.

Nobody is going to buy them because if they encountered another serious incident in service the press would have a field day. So presumably all their financial value will be lost.

A number of them appear to belong to leasing companies rather than SAS, although aircraft do get sold backwards and forwards between companies as time progresses to gain maximum tax advantage. Who is in the firing line for the financial hit ?

[boynefly]

Why is the Q400 so difficult to "grease" on to the runway? I've been flying as a passenger on them for several months now and in all that time have never had a decent landing!

[THEICEMAN]

The power too is impressive, but the RJ's especially the 145, eat it alive performance wise! We used to overtake the dash's at about 100 knots. It looked like they were coming the other way!

But the 145 has a high CASM.....the 135 is even worse. Sure you will go faster, but you will barely make a buck at 90$per/B.

That's where the Q400 is needed.

Most of the skippers here I have spoken to, have not run into many problems. But keep in mind, they are flying the later versions.

[PaperTiger]

But the list is long with incidents involving MLG on the Dash-8Go back and read the reports in your list. See how many actually involved the main gear and/or were Q400s (which is what we are discussing).

:ugh:

[BRE]

from the preliminary accident report:
"Prior to landing the right hand engine was intentionally stopped and the propeller was feathered. "

What if the left engine failed? Wouldn't it be safer to just feather the right prop?

[dazdaz]

I'm not a pilot nor a a/c engineer. My logical train of thought in the design of the Q400 (10,000kg MTOW/MLW from the Q300) why did they not just 'beef up' the Q300 landing gear for the 400?

I'm ready to be hung drawn and quarterd.

Daz

[vulcanite]

That's exactly what they did do with the gear. The problem is that now you have a very stiff-legged and long undercarriage with relatively little oleo movement , and certainly not the luxury of trailing arm. The end result is that it's a bit like jumping off a shed roof and landing without bending your knees. The problem is that the a/c has a landing mass of 28+ tons, and all that energy has to go somewhere. maybe it's a case of the type of gear just not coping with a near 10 ton increase in mass. As plenty of others have attested, it's a lottery to get a smooth landing, and a miracle to get two on the trot.

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Question: Why didn't the pilots of the other Q400 incidents feather their #2 props as well? Seems to me that could have prevented the injuries that resulted from the prop fragment intrusion into the cabin. :confused:

- astra

[The Bartender]

Go back and read the reports in your list.

Agreed... You can't blaim the Q400 MLG when pilots slam DH1's into the ground to the point where the MLG breaks, at it's weakest point, as designed to save the wing...

The Q400 does not have the same MLG as the smaller models, so comparing all MLG-failures on DH8 makes no sense at all...:rolleyes:

[Cyclone733]

AdAstraPerAspera,

The first SAS Dash with the MLG failure didn't feather or shut down the engine on the affected side. The second (and now third:() shutdown/feathered the engine on the affected side, it is now a talking point in the event of gear issues. The way a composite prop disintergrates is different from older metal blades which tend to deform instead of shatter on impact with the ground. There are situations where a precautionary engine shutdown may not be felt to be the best idea eg Severe icing conditions/turbulence or just low passenger numbers where people can be moved into areas clear of the prop arcs.

[ManaAdaSystem]

So SAS changed all the actuators after the first two accidents, and then one of the new actuators failed?

How are you supposed to guard yourself against something like that, and what are the odds of something like this happening to the same operator?

This new gear problem was an even better reason to ground the fleet, IMHO, and I'm sure glad I don't fly old Q400's.

[JEP]

New preliminary report is out.
Nothing fancy - just an o-ring, that should not be there.

http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000449%20LN-RDI%20Preliminary%20Report%20UK%2030102007.pdf

[threemiles]

"Not related to the other two incidents."

[Mercenary Pilot]

So the next question in my mind: "Did LN-RDI receive a new actuator after the first 2 accidents and was this when the 'foreign' O-ring was introduced?"

[JEP]

According to the SAS pressrelease 24 SEP 2007 ... all actuator piston and rod ends on SAS Q400 has been changed after the first 2 incidents.

[threemiles]

Knowing the material supply status I wonder were all those 54 actuators and 54 rod ends came from, anyhow.

[JEP]

Does anyone in here know if the actuator is one component coming from a manufacuter (like the magnetos in a cessna), or is it taken apart and serviced during maintenance checks.

[oapilot]

Remoak - ATRs may not break, but enough of them have fallen out of the sky to make me never want to get on one....

Theiceman - have seen enough Q400 and Emb 145 plogs for the same route on the same day to have to disagree about the inability to make bucks, the burns are remarkably similar. Having scrutinised our washing machine labels, eco performance is not too disimilar, the dash wins on a full load, but on a leg with 40 odd pax think the Barbie has the edge, in terms of time, burn and environmental impact.

That said, the Q400 is a dashed effective machine for the routes it flies and hopefully, these issues will soon be resolved and pax faith restored.

All aircraft have problems and usually, given time are resolved. At least these weren't fatal, which is more than you can say for some commercial types still in service (ATRs ice problems and 737s rudder hardover issues to name but two)

[Captain_Trim]

Know that this really isn't related to the accident but with so many Q400 guys reading this would be interesting to get views. What is your view of the Dash's AFCS with regards to 'Alt Sel' and it's Function/Selection. No problem, User error or design flaw?

[remoak]

oapilot

Remoak - ATRs may not break, but enough of them have fallen out of the sky to make me never want to get on one....file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SIMONW%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg

Well as far as I can tell, there have only been four fatal ATR42/72 accidents. Of those, one was thought to be a suicide. I guess, therefore, that you will also be unwilling to board any Boeing, any Airbus, any McDonnell Douglas or any Lockheed aircraft - all of which, if memory serves, have had many more fatal accidents than the ATR.

Not that I'm an ATR fan... perish the thought. Noisy and vibey, like all turboprops tend to be...

[PaperTiger]

Well as far as I can tell, there have only been four fatal ATR42/72 accidents.ATR42 11 hull losses, 108 fatalities; ATR72 8 hull losses, 90 fatalities.

Dash-8 6 hull losses, 46 fatalities. All fatalities due CFIT.

Really hard, this research business :rolleyes: .

[Maude Charlee]

The problem is that the a/c has a landing mass of 28+ tons.....

Actually, 28 tons is the structural maximum (unless you want to split hairs over 9kgs ;)). Might be why the gear keeps collapsing if somebody thinks otherwise. :}

[THEICEMAN]

have seen enough Q400 and Emb 145 plogs for the same route on the same day to have to disagree about the inability to make bucks, the burns are remarkably similar. Having scrutinised our washing machine labels, eco performance is not too disimilar, the dash wins on a full load, but on a leg with 40 odd pax think the Barbie has the edge, in terms of time, burn and environmental impact.

No way.....CASM (cost per availabel seat mile) on the Emb-145 is way higher. That's why many operators do not want them anymore. The EMb135 is probably the worst in the industry.

Are you telling me that a Jet has similar economics as a turbo prop.....

[snowfalcon2]

Question: Why didn't the pilots of the other Q400 incidents feather their #2 props as well? Seems to me that could have prevented the injuries that resulted from the prop fragment intrusion into the cabin.

In connection with the first incident in Aalborg, the captain in a press interview stated "he believed with 90% certainty the fault was an indication fault only". Evidently his experience of the "christmas tree" reputation of the Q400 (i.e. lots of more or less unfounded alarm indications) led him to believe the landing gear was most probably okay. Despite this he ordered passengers away from the rows adjacent to the propeller, in the event probably saving them from more serious injuries.

As regards the second incident in Vilnius, details are more scarce but I seem to recall the RH prop was actually feathered in that landing.

[broadreach]

SAS management’s decision to rid themselves of the Q400 could well become a future textbook reference in crisis management. If so, it should be a riveting read.

They would obviously be looking at risking very big money whichever way they went. Loss of passenger confidence on the one hand (which could contaminate other business), loss of revenue, expensive lawsuits, massive staff disruption on the other. The immediate need for an unequivocal decision without all the facts to hand and knowing that when one of those facts does surface it could turn your “right decision at the time” on its head.

Time will tell whether SAS did the right thing; I suspect they did and I do look forward to the story when it's all eventually pieced together. Bombardier are facing a similar crisis and I wonder how they're handling it. The "disappointed" press release doesn't quite cut it.

[ZFT]

Paper Tiger,

ATR42 11 hull losses, 108 fatalities; ATR72 8 hull losses, 90 fatalities.

Dash-8 6 hull losses, 46 fatalities. All fatalities due CFIT.

Really hard, this research business :rolleyes: .

Actually it's 17 & 8 hull losses.

4 of the hull losses were due to suicides, at least 2 due to ground/storm damage, 1 was an ATR factory test flight and (too many) due to landing incidents.

Not wanting to reopen the Roselawn accident debate, with the exception of the TOTAL Linhas Aéreas accident the cause of which I believe is still not fully understood, the remainder were human error.

(As were I believe all the Dash-8 accidents).

[Ladusvala]

Preliminary report:
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000449%20LN-RDI%20Preliminary%20Report%20UK%2030102007.pdf

[Maude Charlee]

I'm afraid SAS clearly have far too much faith in the media if they think that by ridding themselves of the Dash fleet, they rid themselves of all associated bad publicity. Only the most naive of fools would believe that should SAS have any more incidents/accidents on ANY fleet, that it will be seen as something totally different and unconnected to the Dash incidents.

An aeroplane is an aeroplane to your average person in the street, and any airline that has numerous incidents with any type is in big, big trouble. In my opinion, the damage is already done.

[empati]

ATR accident at Roslawn; lot of human error + the a/c was in holding in severe iceing conditions. The ATR, Q400 and other transport category a/c are certified to fly in iceing with a dropplet size of 50 microns. :8That day it was later proven a droplet size of over 200 microns. :uhoh:It led to lots of ice behind the boot. The ATR received the same scrutiny as the Q400 is receiving now, and today as a result, no a/c has been tested in iceing as much as the ATR. What surprise me is that fellow pilots fall in to the trap of believing in media or newspapers, instead of waiting for the final report. So to all of you who have not payed attention in class; the ATR is safe in ice!! SAS has also publicly stated that the Q400 is safe. SAS is rightly more worried about the Q400 public image. I believe the Q400 will recover from this, and remain the fastest option on the tp transport marked. :ok:(SAAB is dead!);)

[brain fade]

Yes ICEMAN!

The Embraer IS what you hint at. A jet aircraft with turboprop costs- which is why they have sold over 1000 of them!

I don't have enough interest to research the statistics, but as far as i know the Barbie has yet to kill its first passenger. Or indeed suffer its first hull loss - if correct, a remarkable achievement considering the number flying.

ERJ-145 TAS is 445+ against 360 for the -8, so despite what someone else put, its a great deal faster.

It'sa also much quieter inside, has none of the vibration most (inc -8) TPs suffer from, uses about the same amount of fuel per hour and has a vastly superior dispatch record. Actually better than 99%.

I think the Q is a dud. Had Flybe not ordered it, a natural death would have occurred.:ok:

[WHBM]

The Embraer IS what you hint at. A jet aircraft with turboprop costs- which is why they have sold over 1000 of them!
The main reason the Embraer can cost (very broadly) the same as the Q400 is because it is half the size, especially the Emb-135. So while your costs can be comparable you cannot get the same revenue.

Start speaking seat-mile costs and things change. Of course, if the seats are unsold because you are operating at 40% load factors things change again. So I prefer actual passenger-mile costs.

Incidentally the Emb-135/145 is now effectively out of production, just like the basic 50-seat Canadair RJ has been stopped as well, only a few business jet variants continue to be produced. Embraer have moved on to bigger things and there is an increasing pile of stored 50-seat RJs building up (including quite a number never delivered), generally more Canadairs than Embraers - which may well interest SAS.

[Ace Rimmer]

It has always seemed to me that without the marketing led North American bubble - all those sweet cost plus deals handed out to Regionals in the 90s (but we gotta have jets people like jets). The 50 seat RJ (and especially the 35 & 44 seat scope-mobiles) would have had a very limited appeal almost niche in fact. That bubble has now burst as fuel and other costs bit and the franchises are much tougher deals

Just look around...CRJ200...gone 145 on it's way out production wise.

The tide has turned no doubt about it...Again a few years ago most of the airfields in SW France had a few ATRs stashed by the company hopefully a bit out of sight. There were a bunch behind some old farm buildings at Toulouse where the 380 sheds are now as well. Today they are all on lease everyone of em.

For example I passed through Houston a couple of weeks back...if you'd a looked at that ramp (term B) four years ago it would have been Jungle Jets as far as the eye could see (plus round the other side), sure there were still a fair number around today but also an awful lot of S340s (also in CO Exp/Connection colours) I believe they also have 1900s, ATRs and DH8-300s on franchise too at other hubs - what's more there were a signifiacant number of 145/135s parked in these aren't going anywhere for awhile manner between the Fed Ex and Express Jet hangars.

End of the day its the beanies that call the tune and the beanies like T/p costs.

[RatherBeFlying]

So an O-ring got put into an invisible location -- worse, quality control did not catch it.

It looks like there was a rush put on to turn out 54 MLG assemblies, perhaps a bunch of overtime -- and one came out misassembled.

I'm guessing that SAS mechanics would not be inside this part during installation, but can't say for sure.
Next question: After changing over major MLG components, would you not put the a/c on jacks and cycle the gear?

How many flights did the accident a/c accomplish after the MLG changeover?

[Ramrise]

Alt Sel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Know that this really isn't related to the accident but with so many Q400 guys reading this would be interesting to get views. What is your view of the Dash's AFCS with regards to 'Alt Sel' and it's Function/Selection. No problem, User error or design flaw?



Above is from Captain Trim in post 166.


Well, when I transitioned onto the machine I was appalled at the logic. There is no auto-arm of the alt sel function. As a matter of fact, you can deselect alt sel if you hit the button again or if you want to change vertical mode once the capture phase has initiated. Unbelieveable!!
I came from the MD80 which is no great flight guidance wonder, but at least it stays in alt capture once initiated and it has auto-arm of the alt sel function. The way it should be.

[Drink Up Thee Cider]

SAS management’s decision to rid themselves of the Q400 could well become a future textbook reference in crisis management. If so, it should be a riveting read

Not so sure broadreach - unless you want a chapter on flip-flopping. SAS are already backtracking in Scandanavian media. Their Deputy CEO was in a Norwegian newspaper yesterday saying that SAS is trying to get out of all agreements in respect of the current Q400 fleet, but would like to lease new ones, which they believe have developed from "first generation" units.

[Troy_K]

RatherBeFlying

So an O-ring got put into an invisible location -- worse, quality control did not catch it.

It looks like there was a rush put on to turn out 54 MLG assemblies, perhaps a bunch of overtime -- and one came out mis-assembled.Much like SAS has rushed to blame the problems on the aircraft.

"This O-Ring did not come from the actuator and its source is unknown."

If the O-ring is not from the actuator then how did it get in there?

3 accidents in 1.5 months with the same carrier. There is a better chance statistically that this is a SAS maintenance issue rather then a systemic problem with the aircraft!

I'm curious as to how many of the other Q400's in service around the world were found to have the corrosion problems that SAS had with the earlier incidents?

[dv8]

Is it (or was it) SAS policy to deactivate the spoilers so that they do not deploy on landing?
You can see that on the 27/10 landing they did not pop up. If so how was this done By using the SPOILER PUSH OFF buttons or some other method pulling CB's for example. I presume the idea is to have 'softer' landing on to the remaining main wheel. However the down side, if the push off buttons are used then you have no in flight spoilers to aid the aileron. Not particularly nice when combining it with S/Eng and low speed & close to the ground

[maxrpm]

If I remember correctly the DH8Q400 needs a WOW Signal from both MLG´s to deploy the spoilers.

[PaperTiger]

I'm curious as to how many of the other Q400's in service around the world were found to have the corrosion problems that SAS had with the earlier incidents?ANA (Japan) found one with what they described as "mild" corrosion. AFAIK, that's it. Horizon declared all theirs to be free of problems as did flyBe (I think).

[Fokker28]

Know that this really isn't related to the accident but with so many Q400 guys reading this would be interesting to get views. What is your view of the Dash's AFCS with regards to 'Alt Sel' and it's Function/Selection. No problem, User error or design flaw?



Q400 CA, here. When I upgraded into the Q from the CRJ, and was briefed on the operation of the AFCS regarding altitude capture, I believe my comment was, "You've GOT to be sh*tting me!" The airplane has many other features that are similarly behind the times. The only possible rationale, in my view, is the maintenance of a common type rating with the previous Qs, thus making the thing easier to pitch to the beancounters (although we don't fly more than one variant per pilot at QX).

Regarding landing the Q, I think it is actually easier to make consistently nice landings than it was in the jet. We carry a bit of power, flare to no more than about 5 degrees, and voila, no sweat!

[broadreach]

DrinkUp,

Flip-flopping could make it even more riveting! Presumably, indecision was precisely the opposite of the image they wished to project.

[maxrpm]

Looks like a "float down the RWY and hit it accidentaly" technique. Not a good Idea if you have to land on 4000feet strips regulary.

[Cyclone733]

ALT SEL seems to catch quite a few people out. It's not a terrible system, just appears very different from the Boeings and Airbus systems. Young pilots with it as their first type seem to have fewer problems with it. The fact you can sometimes knock the ALT SEL out by moving the pitch wheel as it begins capturing an altitude is the biggest thing, but most operators SOPs are reducing the impact of this.

As for the common type rating, the Q400 should have been a fantastic aircraft, instead it has controls very similar to the previous models with wildly different systems behind them. The standard thing heard from 300 pilots converting onto the Q400 is "....but on the 300 it did this"

I understand it is related to beans and counting somehow, but a Dash 9 with autothrottles (it's a FADEC tubine so it's just a case of making the power levers move if you want to be fancy), 3 axis autopilot, heated leading edges instead of boots, a toilet at the back of the aircraft instead of the front (ok so on the plus side the F/O knows when the toilet needs dropping, but it still stinks), the ability to have red and white strobe lights on and perhaps a repeat of the engine torques on the Primary flying displays

[PaperTiger]

The airplane has many other features that are similarly behind the times. The only possible rationale, in my view, is the maintenance of a common type rating with the previous Qs, thus making the thing easier to pitch to the beancounters (although we don't fly more than one variant per pilot at QX).
Or... (from Air Transport Intelligence October 13, 2000)
The airline (SAS) has ordered a total of 22 aircraft to replace its Fokker 50s, but when it entered service in February this year it was four months behind schedule because of unspecified development and manufacturing difficulties encountered by Bombardier.

SAS had been deeply involved in the specification of the aircraft, demanding and getting major changes to the cockpit layout after expressing considerable unhappiness over the original design.

[barrymung]

Is it not possible that the maintenance manual is ambiguous and perhaps SAS have mis-interpreted it?

I assume that mainenance manuals are all issued in English and it's down to the particular carriers to translate it as required? Or, do manufacturers issue translated manuals?

What other Scandinavian airlines operate the Dash 8?

[Ladusvala]

In Scandinavia the understanding of english is generally very good. I do believe that all manuals are written in english.

[Captain_Trim]

It's something that we were talking about if it happened to us. Stop the spoilers coming up and deal with the slight lack of control (also on one eng). Not the best scenario but when it comes to keeping the wing up during roll out it would be worth it. The first dash to crash had it's spoilers deploy and the wing dropped very quickly. Compare it to the most recent where the pilot(:D) kept the wing up til very late and the impact didn't carry nearly as much energy. Also keeping it on the runway til the very end.

Thanks for the response to the Alt Sel question. Keep them coming :)

[Loop... Hole]

After watching the video of the first incident tried pressing spoiler push off in the sim. Quite possible that the sim doesn't actually simulate it very well but versus spoilers up it didn't make much difference. The wing can be held up effectively if it is well anticipated, rudder is also needed for this. What also made a fair bit of difference in the third incident, along with a well held wing, was the swift and prolonged use of full reverse once the wing went down which was probably the main reason it stayed on the runway for so long.

Just read from snowfalcon2:
In connection with the first incident in Aalborg, the captain in a press interview stated "he believed with 90% certainty the fault was an indication fault only". Evidently his experience of the "christmas tree" reputation of the Q400 (i.e. lots of more or less unfounded alarm indications) led him to believe the landing gear was most probably okay.
If this is the case it seems bizarre! Reports from the cabin state that the right MLG leg 'fell' from the nacelle with a loud bang (the actuator was no longer connected to it). The indication on the gear handle was 'not locked' and presumably the final check, the gear position indicator in the floor bay would have to have shown 2 out of 3 greens. That combination of events would lead most people to believe there was a 90% chance that the gear was unsafe. Far from a "christmas tree" reputation these are all sensible indications. Though hindsight is a wonderful 'skill' landing with a running engine on that side made a poor situation much worse, something which the unfortunate crews that followed did not repeat.

[Bluesteelfs]

Before knocking the aircraft or crew in any situation, you should be aware of all the facts. It is very unprofessional to try to lay blame prior to the start of the investigation.

[MarkD]

Another Q400 incident (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/10/31/bombardier-austria.html), this time prop related.

[Loop... Hole]

A non incident more like.

[Loop... Hole]

IP

This has reduced the number of inadvertant 'deselections' of ALT SEL, but it still drops out on movement of the pitch wheel in the final stages of capture. Still a bit of a gotcha, particularly at night. All the other knobs on the APFD panel are back lit EXCEPT the pitch wheel. It's easy to nudge as you reach for selections either side of it.

[Elastoboy]

Professionally interested due to being a seals/rubber guy. When SAS swapped out the MLG actuators, did they replace the whole unit or just the rod, rod end and seals kit?
Second question, where did they "find" over 50 units/actuators in such a short time frame?

[DHC6to8]

SAS is reported to have swaped out the entire rear actuator (main) on all of the aircraft. The parts were aquired from stores in England and even from machines on the production line in Downsview.... yes, even machines that were to be rolled out were canabalized to service the entire world wide fleet...
6to8

[Mercenary Pilot]

It looks to me as though there was a design fault with the actuators allowing corrosion to occur, causing a main gear failure. This seems to be what happened with the first 2 identical accidents (and grounded a few Flybe aircraft too from what I hear).

Then in haste to change all the actuators, a maintenance error has crept in somewhere and allowed an O-ring to be mis-fitted meaning total non-deployment of RH main landing gear in the 3rd accident.

Of course this is pure speculation on my behalf.

[Elastoboy]

Reviewing the pictures of the original fix over in flight global - The gimbled MLG actuator in situ and the picture of the piston end (complete with yellow goop) certainly does show that the cylinder was not replaced - nice new blue hoses used though! - If this was an "on aircraft" repair then you do open yourself to possible errors. It is always better to do an "on bench" assembly as everything can be layed out and accounted for before and after the assembly - no o-rings extra or no o-rings short after assembly.
Having worked at a landing gear manufacturer I can speak from bitter experience.
We would all love to know where the offending o-ring came from - any pictures yet of the item?

[THEICEMAN]

Looks like a "float down the RWY and hit it accidentaly" technique. Not a good Idea if you have to land on 4000feet strips regulary.


Porter airlines is based in Toronto island with a 4000ft rwy...they do it all the time...

The main reason the Embraer can cost (very broadly) the same as the Q400 is because it is half the size, especially the Emb-135. So while your costs can be comparable you cannot get the same revenue.

Not true! Where are getting your info from? Size does not mean anything!
The EMB 145 has one of the highest CASM in the industry...the 135 is the highest! It's actually worse to use the 135.....
That's why most operator where trying to get rid of them! Same with the CRJ-200...
There are a lot of ERJ-145 out there looking for a home....you can get them for real cheap...but can you make a buck off of them?? Only if you have consistent revenues & solid ticket prices!

[THEICEMAN]

FlyBe is quick to defend the Q400.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/search/di..._of_aircraft_amid_safety_fears.php (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/search/di..._of_aircraft_amid_safety_fears.php)

The latest accident was caused by an incorrectly installed o-ring that blocked an oil passage. Not related at all to previous problems. Isn't this a faulty maintenance issue and not a design fault?

I wonder what the Danish propaganda machine once they accept it?

Q400 actually good? Q400 actually the best regional turbo prop in the world?:rolleyes:

Why is everybody saying that it's hard to land? I have never flown the aircraft, but 3 different skippers told me it's easy to land? I believe a Horizon Q driver just said on this thread that it's easy?

[ManaAdaSystem]

You'll not find any current Q400 operators that will speak out against the aircraft. That would be suicide.

How many Q400's are there in Cambodia? And why do I have a feeling we are talking to a 16 year old spotter/wannabe?

[speedrestriction]

If it transpires that this was an error at manufacture/installation I can see this becoming an engineering/management HF case study in the future.

Potentially lots to be learned here.

[sk501]

Gotta love the Danes...Most of them say corruption does not exist in their country. I say, just look to your polititians. As far as I can tell, there is one scandal after the other...Tell me this does not happen at all levels of industry as well, and I have a bridge called Brooklyn to sell you...
SAS mtx is not perfect. Nor is BBD, Boeing or Airbus. So, get off your high horses. I am tired of hearing about the SAS brand and that their "Safety" is better than anyone elses, holier than thou attitude. Most airlines in the world are just as safe, if not safer than SAS.
BBD better also pull their stupid patriotic "That's my BBD plane" commercials. Makes them look kind of silly now...:ugh:

[D-OCHO]

This has reduced the number of inadvertant 'deselections' of ALT SEL, but it still drops out on movement of the pitch wheel in the final stages of capture. Still a bit of a gotcha, particularly at night. All the other knobs on the APFD panel are back lit EXCEPT the pitch wheel. It's easy to nudge as you reach for selections either side of it.

I have a very easy remedy for this problem when I am flying my Dash-8.
Don't touch the afcs panel when it is in the capturing fase.:ugh:

[DK_FCI]

Gotta love the Danes...Most of them say corruption does not exist in their country. I say, just look to your polititians. As far as I can tell, there is one scandal after the other...Tell me this does not happen at all levels of industry as well, and I have a bridge called Brooklyn to sell you...


Well I am not sure what compelled you to make such a sweeping generalization – why not try to be a bit more specific next time.

What specific danish political scandals are relevant to the Q400 accident at CPH?

Your comments promted me to google for political scandals - I dare say that I found more US scandals than DK ones.

[Fokker28]

Looks like a "float down the RWY and hit it accidentaly" technique. Not a good Idea if you have to land on 4000feet strips regulary.

I guess that reply with the lively spelling was aimed at me. Apparently, I must point out what should have been obvious to any professional pilot: We are landing ON SPEED and WELL WITHIN THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE. You see, our landing performance calculations are based on the assumption...oh, forget it. You probably won't listen, and I don't have the time to teach you. :rolleyes:

[waav8r]

Wow - Fokker28, what a legend you are! If you've actually figured out how to get consistent smooth touchdowns in the Q400 (and IN the touchdown zone at that!!), why don't you come off your high horse for a little while, and share this secret with all of us other Q400 pilots who have yet to figure this mystery out. Only if you have time -that is.........:}

[RAFAT]

Waav8r - There's no secret to it, just avoid using flap 35 all the time, unless of course runway length dictates you must.

[Rollerboy]

OK everyone back on track; we know it's hard to land and that Alt Sel is just impossible to comprehend.

Can anybody answer the questions

Are SAS really going to hand all there DHC8400 back or might they have second thoughts for various reasons?

Also if they do hand the Dash back what will happen to the pilots? Will they remain at SAS or move to other operators eg Flybe? If so that could affect future low hours recruitment.

Personally I worry for a number of reasons not least for the Dash, but the low hour guys and gals. It may have it's problems but I feel the Dash is a good type to start an aviation career.

Roller

[Fokker28]

Wow - Fokker28, what a legend you are! If you've actually figured out how to get consistent smooth touchdowns in the Q400 (and IN the touchdown zone at that!!), why don't you come off your high horse for a little while, and share this secret with all of us other Q400 pilots who have yet to figure this mystery out. Only if you have time -that is.........


Never said I was special. I was just relating my experience transitioning from the CRJ to the Q. If you try to land the thing completely power-off, you're in for a crusher. Our normal technique is what I've already described. We use flaps 35 for everything except CAT IIIA approaches with the HGS. Overall, the appearance is of a very 'flat' flare, with just a couple of degrees of nose-up pitch.

The only reason my post above had such a snarky tone was a response in kind to the genius who postulated that we just float along until any old time and then bonk it on. I'm guessing he's never flown a Q400 if he thinks that a power-on landing is optional. What do I know? I just fly the pieces of junk every day...

[PaperTiger]

Are SAS really going to hand all there DHC8400 back or might they have second thoughts for various reasons?This is far from over, but I wouldn't discount the possibilty that much of what we are hearing from SAS is PR and/or a negotiating tactic.

They say they don't rule out NEW Q400s in the future, it's just these first 25 they want something done about. 1 for 1 swap ? Remanufacture ? Buy back ? Lawsuit ? Time will tell, but personally I think it will all blow over somehow.

[DK_FCI]

The Danish AAIB issued a new preliminary report, identifying the source of the o-ring:

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

[maxrpm]

From the report:

During the replacement of the MSV, the rogue O-Ring found blocking the orifice in the restrictor valve of the accident aircraft could, hidden in a union, have unknowingly been transferred from one side of the MSV to the other side by maintenance personnel

From SAS 5 days earlier:

"Confidence in the Q400 has diminished considerably and our customers are becoming increasingly doubtful about flying in this type of aircraft. Accordingly, with the Board of Directors' approval, I have decided to immediately remove Dash 8 Q400 aircraft from service," says Mats Jansson, President and Chief Executive Officer of SAS.
"The Dash 8 Q400 has given rise to repeated quality-related problems and we can now conclude that the aircraft does not match our passengers' requirements concerning punctuality and regularity. SAS's flight operations have always enjoyed an excellent reputation and there is a risk that use of the Dash 8 Q400 could eventually damage the SAS brand," says John Dueholm, Deputy CEO of SAS.

Maybe too early?

[Troy_K]

Does this mean that SAS will be doing a mea culpa news conference?

Somehow I doubt they will be as vocal about it being their error as they were in questioning the Q400's airworthiness.

Will EASA demand an immediate meeting with SAS to discuss there apparent inability to properly maintain an aircraft they've been operating for 7 years?

[Cider30]

From the report:

During the replacement of the MSV, the rogue O-Ring found blocking the orifice in the restrictor valve of the accident aircraft could, hidden in a union, have unknowingly been transferred from one side of the MSV to the other side by maintenance personnel

From SAS 5 days earlier:

"Confidence in the Q400 has diminished considerably and our customers are becoming increasingly doubtful about flying in this type of aircraft. Accordingly, with the Board of Directors' approval, I have decided to immediately remove Dash 8 Q400 aircraft from service," says Mats Jansson, President and Chief Executive Officer of SAS.
"The Dash 8 Q400 has given rise to repeated quality-related problems and we can now conclude that the aircraft does not match our passengers' requirements concerning punctuality and regularity. SAS's flight operations have always enjoyed an excellent reputation and there is a risk that use of the Dash 8 Q400 could eventually damage the SAS brand," says John Dueholm, Deputy CEO of SAS.

Maybe too early?


Same John Dueholm is quoted in a Danish Newspaper for saying SAS customers has lost confidence in the Q400, and so SAS will stop flying them. SAS will consider replacing the Q400s with ......... (get this).......

.........Q400s :D:D:D

Since never version of the Q400 does not have the same problems as the first version SAS recieved as a launch customer. !:eek::eek::eek:

2 Questions for John dueholm then (and the rest of you)

Is a newer version of the Q400 going to restore customer confidence ?? Afterall in non-professional eye it still looks like the one that landed gear up a couple of times. :confused:

Is the newer Q400 more reliable because it is not as old... YET ??

Earlier in this thread somebody was ranting SAS and their own perception of how safe they are. Although I disagree with that post, I can see where that public opinion comes from when I hear an SAS manager suggest something like this :}

Cider30

[ManaAdaSystem]

It is my understanding that the newer Q400's have a redesigned landing gear?

As for the report, it is not conclusive. Yet. So all of you jumping to conclusions based on "could", "possible" and "unknowingly", are doing the same error as the people you are poining your fingers at.

Introducing a new Q400 would take a lot of PR, but the old one was as dead as a rotten fish after three accidents due to unsafe landing gear, at least as far as the majority of the Scandinavian pax were concerned. CPR on a rotten fish is pretty much pointless.

SAS is pretty much the same as everyone else out there. Inhouse maintenance is a thing of the past. Outsourcing is the name of the game.

Money, money, money. Or so they think.

[Kiwiguy]

They say they don't rule out NEW Q400s in the future, it's just these first 25 they want something done about. 1 for 1 swap ? Remanufacture ? Buy back ? Lawsuit ? Time will tell, but personally I think it will all blow over somehow.


Unfortunately these situations have killed off better designs than the Q400. My guess is that Bombardier is suffering big time loss of forward orders and it may well close the line. It could even kill the Q300 production line.

I wouldn't want to be holding paper in that company... thinks "Junk" bonds

[lomapaseo]

Hmm, a quick read of the prelim report on the O-ring makes me suspect that it would make William of Occam turn in his grave.

[broadreach]

Lomapaseo,
Razors could be in short supply.

[aces low]

http://www.abtn.co.uk/SAS_grounds_all_Q400s

[flyingisgr8]

aces low

Come on, catch up old boy!

[J32/41]

Does anyone know what SAS are using at the moment to cover the Q400 routes?

[Severe CAVOK]

Welcome to the thread, aces.
Better late than never. :E

[ManaAdaSystem]

I'm not a Q400 driver, but it seems to me that the overall design of the Q400 landing gear leaves something to be desired.
How is it that on three different occations something has disabled both the primary AND the alternate gear extension? This gear extends forward, into the wind, and presumably needs hydraulic pressure to extend?
Where is the redundancy when a small O-ring can cripple both systems?

[Mercenary Pilot]

How is it that on three different occations something has disabled both the primary AND the alternate gear extension? It didn't. The gear extended properly on both the 1st and 2nd accident but didn't lock down on the starboard side. On the 3rd occasion there was something there that shouldn't have been (the O-ring), causing the system to malfunction and the starboard gear failed to deploy.

The most reasonable cause at the moment looks like a badly designed actuator on early Q400 aircraft causing accident's #1 and #2. With accident #3 caused by poor maintenance procedures and/or fitting of the new actuators.

SAS should have waited on the outcome of the 3rd accident before making their decision on the Q-400 which in hindsight looks like a mistake. Flybe's response was certainly well thought out and proper.

[aces low]

Sorry chaps...only took 12 pages for me to get the drift. I'm improving

[ManaAdaSystem]

You're right MP, but a free fall design would have taken care of scenario # 3.

[embraernotworthy]

the alternate extension is free fall!!

[The Bartender]

Do any aircraft have an actual "freefall" backup? Are the hydraulic actuators disconnected from the MLG in such a design?
If not, the gear wouldn't drop if the actuator was unable to both push oil out in one end, and draw oil in on the other end...
That's what valves are for, and if valves fail or gets blocked...
Well... That's what started this thread, isn't it...?

An actual freefall design would probably prevent all three accidents, as the MLG did freefall on the first two accidents, but it didn't lock..

[embraernotworthy]

bartender--the gear in the first two incidents did basically free fall as the acuator wasnt attached and look what happened!! it went right through the centre and tried to carry on but something had to give and lock it couldnt, cause it had nothing to lock to!!!

[ATC Watcher]

Does anyone know what SAS are using at the moment to cover the Q400 routes?

I have heard they are looking for DHC-6 Twin otters , as those are the only ones that will satisfy the current "gearmania" in certain spheres....:E

[The Bartender]

bartender--the gear in the first two incidents did basically free fall as the acuator wasnt attached and look what happened!! it went right through the centre and tried to carry on but something had to give and lock it couldnt, cause it had nothing to lock to!!!

Because it wasn't designed to freefall in the first place...
My point is, that calling alternate extension for "freefall" is at best an exaggeration, as:

A) It relies on valves to let the oil vacate the actuator in one end, and let oil (or any fluid for that matter) to enter the actuator at the other end.

B) It relies on the components listed in A to provide a dampening to prevent the mechanism to tear the locks apart at the end of the cycle..

As i understand it, on the last accident, "A" failed, and on the two first accidents, "B" failed...

[DA50driver]

How long will it take for SAAB to start up the 2000 line again? This was a plane that was about 3 months late to market and got killed by the RJ from Bombardier.

Maybe the Scandianavian Airline System needs a Scandinavian airplane?

[Severe CAVOK]

MP:

With accident #3 caused by poor maintenance procedures and/or fitting of the new actuators.

Maybe, just maybe, you're jumping slightly ahead of the Danish NTSB here. They haven't finished their investigation yet regarding who caused what, and you shouldn't speculate, if you consider yourself an aviation professional.

SAS should have waited on the outcome of the 3rd accident before making their decision on the Q-400 which in hindsight looks like a mistake. Flybe's response was certainly well thought out and proper.

SAS didn't make their decision based on the safety of Q400. They haven't questioned the safety. But they care about the brand "SAS" in the eyes of the costumers, and after 7 years of more or less lousy technical reliability, followed by 3 accidents in app. 1 month, they have come to the end of the road. Where do you suggest they draw the line, if not here?

Flybe, mind you, have NOT had 7 years of lousiness followed by 3 accidents, so no wonder, their costumers have a different view on Q400 than SAS'.

It's not THAT hard to put yourself in SAS' shoes, if you try just a little bit.

[lomapaseo]

It's not THAT hard to put yourself in SAS' shoes, if you try just a little bit.
Not a problem at all but considering the latest press release below, they are indeed ill-fitting shoes
Aviation regulator clears Dash 8 of design flaw
Cologne, Germany - European Union aviation regulators said Monday they had found no evidence of a design flaw in the Dash 8 turboprop passenger aircraft. Scandinavian airline SAS Group decided last month to completely stop using its fleet of 27 Dash 8 planes, also known as the Q400 and made by Bombardier of Canada, after their landing gear collapsed three times.
But the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which has its offices in the western German city of Cologne, said there was no proof this had been caused by any error of the manufacturer.
An EASA spokesman said the decision by Denmark, Sweden and Norway to cease use of the Dash 8 had created an "unsatisfactory situation" where three nations were temporarily out of line with the rest of the 31 EASA member nations.The Scandinavian nations acted last month after an outcry in the media and among politicians over the crash landings, in which one wingtip fell onto the runway and passengers and crew were shaken but not seriously hurt.
Preliminary reports from the first two such incidents in September said the accidents were believed to have been caused by corrosion of a bolt that secures the landing gear in a hydraulic cylinder.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/136536.html

[Mercenary Pilot]

Severe CAVOK, you have mis-quoted me there, what i said was:

The most reasonable cause at the moment looks like a badly designed actuator on early Q400 aircraft causing accident's #1 and #2. With accident #3 caused by poor maintenance procedures and/or fitting of the new actuators.

If you have a look at preliminary reports you will see that the O-ring should not have been there at all.

SAS didn't make their decision based on the safety of Q400. They haven't questioned the safety.

Of course they have questioned the safety. Otherwise they wouldn't have stopped flying them. Agreed, they had to do something because of the bad publicity being generated but it was done off the back of the final accident which at the moment doesn't look like it is Bombardiers fault. If anybody has "jumped ahead" of the AIB report, it's SAS.

[snowfalcon2]

bartender--the gear in the first two incidents did basically free fall as the acuator wasnt attached and look what happened!! it went right through the centre and tried to carry on but something had to give and lock it couldnt, cause it had nothing to lock to!!!

Is it positively known that the eyebolt ripped out of its threads already at gear extension, in the first two accidents? Or is it possible that it did not happen until the actual touchdown?

Just wondering, because I haven't seen this mentioned before and initial reports seemed to indicate the gear looked to be in its normal down position.

I'm certainly no expert on the Q400 landing gear, but it would seem possible that the wind pressure may actually cause a compression force on the actuator all the way during gear extension, keeping it in one piece. Pls correct me if I'm wrong :uhoh:

[Severe CAVOK]

As I read the EASA comment, they are addressing the Scandinavian authorities, not SAS. The Scandi CAA's grounded the Q400's due to safety concerns after the 3rd accident, and no other CAA followed this, thus being "temporarily out of line with the rest of the 31 EASA member nations."

The critiscism is at authority-level, not directed at SAS, as far as I'm concerned. And EASA would have no business at all interfering with or commenting on SAS' commercial descisions.

[Severe CAVOK]

MP:
You're right, that the O-ring shouldn't be there. And I'm sure that you have read the 3rd prelim report at http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2007/510-000449%20LN-RDI%20Preliminary%20Report%20UK_03112007.pdf.
IMO you're a bit to quick to write off Bombardiers responsability. Apparently there is a history of the filterelement with the particular O-ring attached, which can collapse and migrate into the landing gear hydraulic system.
We probably agree, that thats not supposed to happen in the first place. I'm not so convinced, that Bombardier can't be blamed for anything, at this point. So I'm saying: it's too early to say, that is probably due to "poor maintenance procedures" (unless we talk about about "maintenance procedures" in its broadest way, including the manufacturer and their actions)
But the investigation will shed more light on this, I'm sure.

[Cyclone733]

Severe CAVOK : Apparently there is a history of the filterelement with the particular O-ring attached, which can
Quote:
collapse and migrate into the landing gear hydraulic system.


A review of the aircraft’s hydraulic system concluded that the rogue O-Ring could not have traveled from the SSV to its final location in the right main landing gear retraction/extension actuator restrictor valve.

From the latter half of http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...K_03112007.pdf

Not a bad read, I think it was the butler in the kitchen with a candle stick, but I'm happy to wait for the final report to find out

[gramlin]

Do you dear to land the Dash?

http://www.dr.dk/spil/dashncrash/


IMHO is the D8-400 a dead bird at least in Scandinavia, due to media. This has nothing to do with any resolution from Bombardier/operators to construction- or maintenance problems.

[Miraculix]

Had some fun with that, but even a "god" landing ends in a dash or should I say crash.
And yes the withdrawel of the dash from SAS inventory is all down to SAS having to do something. The public in scandinavia has endured the dash from the beginning and it seems 7 years of unreliability and 3 bellylandings is what it takes.
But before the rest of the world belittles scandinavians, remember they were the guinypigs from the start and don't forget all the returns, aborted takeoffs, delays and whatnot because of: A/C generator fails, cargofire warnings, door open warnings, stuck flaps, com fails, powerplant messages, gear problems, stuck deicer boot valves and the list goes on and on and on..........

Rumor says that the dash -400 caused 70% of all firebrigade callouts i Copenhagen, so they can relax now after 7 hard years.

I think the dash is about to become an ok plane and I'm shure in another 7 years time it might even be great. ;)

[DK_FCI]

Do you dear to land the Dash?

http://www.dr.dk/spil/dashncrash/


LMAO :cool:

This little game shows exactly why SAS had to ditch the dash.

[maxrpm]

The following message is being sent to all Bombardier Aerospace Regional Aircraft Q400 Operators and Bombardier Aerospace Regional Aircraft Field Service Representatives.
DISCUSSION:
As a result of the information contained in the preliminary report, attached below, Operators are advised that should a Solenoid Sequence Valve (SSV) or Mechanical Sequence Valve (MSV) be replaced, care should be taken to ensure that FOD is not collected and transferred during the replacement of serviceable unit/s.
Although highly improbable that the transfer of such FOD would have a major impact on the hydraulic system, under special circumstances the migration of such FOD could cause the landing gear system to malfunction.
Operators are encouraged to ensure that only official documentation is used when changing components, that unions and fixtures on the SSV and MSV are not swapped out with alternative components without thorough care and cleaning, and only if following approved, documented procedures.
Under normal circumstances, FOD will be captured by the existing filters and valves but unapproved procedures without care can bypass these safeguards.

[embraernotworthy]

When you get a new SSV it comes compete with all the unions, filters and o rings fitted as an assembly, so no need to swap these items over!!!!

[THEICEMAN]

I have done my reserach and apparently SAS has had some troubles within it's maintanence dep. before......

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.

But Bombardier says that the Danish evidence “clearly support” its view that the Q400 is “safe and reliable”. The manufacturer has been forced to defend the Q400 in the wake of the three closely-spaced Scandinavian Airlines accidents and the carrier’s decision to axe the type.

“We have unwavering confidence in the Q400 aircraft and we stand by our product,” says Bombardier Regional Aircraft president Steven Ridolfi.

“We are concerned about the impact negative comments might have had on Bombardier and the Q400 turboprop’s reputation and we will do all that is necessary to protect our brand and, by association, the reputation of our Q400 aircraft customers.”

[Mercenary Pilot]

Anyway, that quote comes from flight international and I think it sums up what a lot of us thought. I guess all we can really do now is wait for the official report to confirm it and hopefully have a mature discussion on the rights and wrongs of SAS, EASA, Bombardiers and every other DHC8-Q400 operators reaction to the events.

Link to article (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/06/219190/sas-q400-accident-probe-points-to-maintenance-error.html)