Dash 8 Mff

[saosilvestre]

Does anyone flies the q200 and q400 as a common aircraft (MFF)? If yes with or without rules? Thanks and a Merry Christmas

[AltFlaps]

FlyBE flew 200, 300 & 400 at the same time a couple of years back, but I believe they only fly the 400 now ... they were definitely operated as a common type ...

[excrab]

Only restriction at Flybe was that after converting to the Q400 pilots had to do 100 hours on it before they could be rostered to fly the 200/300 and the 400 in the same duty.

I did it quite often and it was no big deal, except that after getting out of the 400 into a 300 you were constantly checking whether you had left the gear or flaps down because the climb performance was so appalling in comparison:)

[klipper11]

QX did not, now they only have 400's

[ShirleyNot]

I flew the 200/300 and Q400 at flybe and it really was no drama. I remember the initial Q400s had its EFIS PFD set up in the old style with on-screen dials instead of speed tapes for commonality. As said previousy the performance was a constant reminder that you were Q400ing, and of course a complete glass cockpit! Its actually a bit more difficult with the airbus 319/320/321 where you have to constantly remind yourself which one youre in!

[Pontius's Copilot]

Dash 8 200/300 and Q400 are a single (common) type rating under JAR, at least ('DHC 8'). JAR-OPS requires alternating recurrent checks on each variant of the type. No problem flying both variants, as long as you're paying attention!

If it were not for the manufacturer's desire to common-type the Q400 with the 200/300, it would have been a fantansic aeroplane ... all the very irritating little quirks and systems oddities would not exist. The DHC 9 would have been an absolutely superb aircraft in all respects - technical, operational, environmental and economic. But, they wouldn't have sold any! At the time it came to market, 50-70 seat regional jets were the future, and the market was percieved to be turboprop operators moving up to 70 seaters.

[annaconda]

Our airline looks as if they will introduce common crewing on 200/300/400.
Just wondering if there are any problems swapping between types at short notice. My oufit is notorious for quick change decisions and I can envisage say a 400 going u/s and they will transfer the crew to a 300 with the usual comment " are you ready to board yet? "

The 200/300 is a cat B aircraft and the 400 a cat C aircraft. Practically for our outfit this at present means different plateau heights, different circling areas, different minimums, different operating characteristics reference bleeds on/bleeds off takeoffs, different flap settings for takeoffs, different takeoff power settings, standing starts at max weight vs always rolling starts, fadec vs non-fadec. How do others handle the multitude of differences when fatiqued/tired?

Does your airline try to standardize all these differences, say common plateau hts, all takeoffs bleeds off, same flap settings for takeoffs etc to minimize stuff ups? I can see major problems with common crewing if it is not managed and introduced properly. We've already had problems with some F/Os transitioning from 200/300 to 400 and reverting to classic procedures on hurried takeoffs and turning the bleed air valves off for takeoff, with the subsequent non-pressurization of the 400 on climb. (caveat: no offence intended to F/Os or the Capts involved, just goes to show that flying these different types are a problem when tired.)

I feel that the managers have seen B737 crews fly the 400/NG combo, but correct me no doubt, these aircraft would have same plateau hts, same circling areas, same minimums, roughly same fuel requirements. We will be flying totally different aircraft under the same endorsement DHC8.

Thanks for your replies, if we have to do common crewing I'd like to know what we are really up against.

[saosilvestre]

The airline I'm flying didn't received the airplanes, they just bought them (2 q200 and 4 q400). Actually no one knows exactly the best way to operate them. Same fleet? Or different Fleets? With or without filters?

Arround the world a great number of airlines fly them as different fleets.

Regards

[saosilvestre]

presently I think only tyrolean flies the Q300 and the Q400 at the same time.

Can anyone confirm if it is true?

[saosilvestre]

Only rumors that Qlink want's to introduce the MFF on Qseries.

[harrowing]

annaconda
Very well put.
I feel my username would be too close to the truth if it were to happen!
The Qlink captain thread in D&G has some similar comments.
Cheers

[annaconda]

Last time I was in KSEA Horizon operate 200s and 400s. Are there any Horizon guys willing to post regarding common crewing if you do that?

[pianinho]

Hi,

Horizon operates them as two independent fleets, as well as QantasLinks (mentioned above).

Rgds

[Tu.114]

At Tyrolean, the DH8-300 and -400 are operated as a common fleet and on a common rating. As mentioned before by other posters, the simulator prof checks alternate between both subtypes, and you are required to fly a defined number of monthly legs on each variant to remain current.

When joining the fleet, you start on one subtype only and get the differences training approximately half a year later. This of course results in several crew members being rated only on one type, causing challenges for scheduling. Would be some surprise to find a plane for the return leg from a nightstop you are not rated to fly... But scheduling does a very good job on this; I have never heard of this happening.

The procedures are streamlined nearly completely, but there are still several things that one needs to remind himself of when switching subtypes. The maximum power setting on the -400 is 100% torque for 5 minutes, while the -300 has 105% for 10 minutes for example and starting the engines of the -300 the way it is done on the -400 would likely mean an instant hot start. There are some other items in that category, but you get an idea.

Pontius´s copi is absolutely right with his comments. The common type rating has led to some artificial "dumbing down" of the -400; there are heaps of things the computer could easily do to take workload from you that were not found desirable towards that end.

In the end of the day, operation of the -300 and -400 on the same rating has its challenges, but it has proven feasible.

Tu.114

[pianinho]

Tu 114,

You're post reveals you are well within this subject, which makes you a valuable "informer" in this thread.

1-Are you able to point out all airlines that are aplying the Dash 8 MFF (including the 400 and any other series)?

2- Are you also able to list all conditions (restrictions, limitations) that are aplied at Tyrollean regarding the operation of both series by the same pilots? Like: Minimum TT in one type, rest period between switching types, etc.

3- Although you consider this kind of operation feasible, wouldn't you find it safer if both aircraft were flown as two independent fleets? Especially in places where conditions can be harder than normal, i.e. short runways (eventually wet), strong crosswinds with associated turbulance...

Thanks for your help!

[annaconda]

I have heard that Qantaslink have decided to keep the fleets separate. Common sense has prevailed thnk goodness

[saosilvestre]

Hey Pianinho

Good to see in PPRune. Good question above to tyrolean. I'm looking forward for a reply on it.

Regards

[Viper-NL]

Are you also able to list all conditions (restrictions, limitations) that are aplied at Tyrollean regarding the operation of both series by the same pilots? Like: Minimum TT in one type, rest period between switching types, etc.I flew the Q300 and Q400 at Tyrolean (Austrian arrows) and there was one restriction to fly both aircraft.
Most ppl started on the Q300 and after 8 months (400/500 hrs) you did your transition to the Q400. Some started on the Q400 and after 500 hrs they did the transition to the Q300, wich is harder (used to glass cockpit, higher speeds, ect.)

Rest period between types? hahaha
NO. You can fly both types in one duty.
Mostly you start on one type and you do a flight on the other and stop. Sometimes you fly the 300 then the 400 and the last leg on the 300 again. No problem what so ever.

The aircraft are different but I never had a problem with flying both of them, nor did 90% of the colleagues. Good SOP's and training is realy important, but that is something wich is realy good at Tyrolean.
I wish I was still flying there, its a good company!

on the other question:
3- Although you consider this kind of operation feasible, wouldn't you find it safer if both aircraft were flown as two independent fleets? Especially in places where conditions can be harder than normal, i.e. short runways (eventually wet), strong crosswinds with associated turbulance...

we flew both types into Innsbruck, Bolzano, and other special cat C airfields.
You should be aware of the type you are flying when you go there.
But because you fly both types realy often, it's no problem.
Again good training and SOP's are realy important!

The only problem you can encounter flying both types is good SOP's!

I hope you have a good answer to your questions.
Kind regards.

[pianinho]

Hello,

Thanks for your reply!

I must say that Tyrollean is the first airline I encountered that aplies no limitations/restrictions to the Dash 8 MFF... Among the very few other airlines operating the 400 and any of the other series, they all aply limitations. The good SOPs, you mentioned, are indeed very important, but, in my opinion, is not enough.

I've flown both to Bolzano and Innsbruck on business jets before and, although I consider both airports to be out of the ordinary, I don't find them in the same category as the airports we operate at. I find them easier. Although, I do respect the extra consideration for icing conditions/contaminated runways and climb performance at those two airports you mentioned.

We will be flying to one 800m runway with the 200 and to two 1300m runways with the 400. In these (often wet) non-instrument runways, poor visibility, strong crosswinds and medium to severe turbulence is a constant!

Nevertheless, I aprecciate your help. Thank you!