Flybe Incident at Amsterdam

[chaps1954]

Believe an incident at Amsterdam with Flybe Dash 8, looks as undercarriage
collapsed wind related ?

[sleeper]

Aircraft from Flybe off runway at schiphol airport, Amsterdam.

Vliegtuig naast baan Schiphol door storm|Binnenland| Telegraaf.nl (http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/27679565/__Vliegtuig_naast_baan_Schiphol_door_storm__.html)

[reverserunlocked]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/16903395_1728794143804802_106988639391406560_o.png?oh=cdf778 90768118306264f47700a5c540&oe=5927C52A

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5XPFKPXUAASVPL.jpg:large

[737 Speedbrakes]

ASN Aircraft accident de Havilland Canada DHC-8-402Q Dash 8 G-JECP Amsterdam-Schiphol International Airport (AMS) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20170223-0)

[sleeper]

https://twitter.com/matty_lorenzo/status/834797852161429506/photo/1

[reverserunlocked]

fCOWcZi11BA

[chaps1954]

Not a pleasant day for flying or even going out to be honest, wind can be a b*******d and
catch you out.

[Super VC-10]

Quite a day for Flybe, This and the engine shutdown and return to Glasgow (thread about that seems to have disappeared).

Glasgow to Birmingham flight makes emergency landing | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4252558/Glasgow-Birmingham-flight-makes-emergency-landing.html)

[LookingForAJob]

Interesting video from inside the aircraft. Difficult to tell, of course, but it doesn't look that hard.

And agree with TA - the internet is amazing!

[A0283]

Stormy here at Schiphol indeed, and has been all day. Even the local ordinary weather services have been warning since tuesday that there would be a code Orange today. Farmers around the airport have spent the last two days tieing things down (to give you some local perspective).

Looks like (video shot from behind) the right wing dipped just after lining up and just before landing which caused it to touchdown on its right leg only, at first nicely on the runway. Then quickly the right hand gear collapsed as seen on the short video (shot from inside).

[Council Van]

30/G50, vicious.

I have plenty of sympathy for the crew on a day like today, at what point do you decide it's too windy when it is all head wind and not exceeding cross wind limits?

I guess all you can do is make an approach and see how it goes!

[Livesinafield]

The right leg touching down first is a correct crosswind technique! nothing non normal about that

[reverserunlocked]

ajORhA4AK6g

[PENKO]

Maybe it's the angle of the video, but I've seen worse landings...
Gear problem?

[A0283]

Appears one of the mayday pilots (dutch accent?) mentions a "broken landing gear". The other mayday by the other pilot "evacuatin .. smoke in the cabin" having an english/scots? accent.

Same impression as PENKO. Looks like a 'soft' collapse indeed. So either not locked down properly, or one of the locks or stays breaking? ... Would have to listen closely to the audio of the video shot inside.

[flight_mode]

Evacuation video here https://youtu.be/1A6Ks6QyJ0Q

[Porrohman]

The port propeller continues to rotate for a long time, even after the emergency vehicles arrive. Is this just the strength of the wind overcoming the propeller brake or is it indicative of another issue?

[Mr Angry from Purley]

My eyesight's not great but didn't see many punters dragging bags behind them either.

[SLF3]

the Daily Mail (discussing another Flybe landing) notes that four pilots pulled off impossible landings today.

You guys are better than I thought.

[Tu.114]

Porrohman,

It is normal for a DH8D to have the propellers spinning in a crosswind after the engines have been shut down. This is a major issue when boarding or disembarking passengers, as many have a tendency to wander around in the area of the propeller.

However, judging from the evacuation video provided by Flight Mode, and seeing the direction the props are spinning, I am under the distinct impression that it is the downwind leg that collapsed and in fact that was first touched down, not the upwind one.

In the last second of LookingForAJobs video, the collapsed gear is shown. It is remarkable that the rear gear doors appear open; they only open during extension and retraction and, in case of extension, close some seconds after the leg has been locked down. This door should definitely be closed in this flight phase. It is not linked to the landing gear struts in any way (unlike the forward doors that stay open when the gear is extended) but has its own hydraulic cylinder and its movement is sequenced by the PSEU (Proximity Switch Electronic Unit). The only situation I can imagine that leaves the gear door open after an extension is after the execution of the "Alternate Gear Extension" procedure. But this would have left also the door on the L/H MLG open, which is shown closed on several pictures. So why this door is open in this situation is not really clear to me.

The gear in the same video looks to be in an intermediate position between uplock and downlock, i. e. failed in the direction of normal retraction. The correct function of the downlock will therefore likely be of relevance in the investigation.

[DaveReidUK]

Is this just the strength of the wind overcoming the propeller brake or is it indicative of another issue?
The ATR has a prop brake (to allow one engine to run as a pseudo-APU, but I'm not aware of one on the Dash 8.

In the absence of one, a free-turbine engine will typically allow the prop to windmill in a stiff breeze.

[Tu.114]

DaveReidUK, you are right, there is no prop brake on the DH8D. A proper APU is installed in the tail cone, so there is no need for such a workaround.

[PENKO]

Tu.114
The wind on rwy 22 was from 240 degrees, so from the right. It's the upwind gear that touched first and collapsed.

[procede]

Gear problem?

With a Dash-8 You could almost call it a gear feature...

[vrb03kt]

In the last second of LookingForAJobs video, the collapsed gear is shown. It is remarkable that the rear gear doors appear open; they only open during extension and retraction and, in case of extension, close some seconds after the leg has been locked down. This door should definitely be closed in this flight phase. It is not linked to the landing gear struts in any way (unlike the forward doors that stay open when the gear is extended) but has its own hydraulic cylinder and its movement is sequenced by the PSEU (Proximity Switch Electronic Unit). So why this door is open in this situation is not really clear to me.

The gear in the same video looks to be in an intermediate position between uplock and downlock, i. e. failed in the direction of normal retraction. The correct function of the downlock will therefore likely be of relevance in the investigation.

I noticed that too Tu.114 but the doors don't appear to be open on the video shot from near the threshold shortly before touchdown.

I suspect that when it first touched down the gear smashed through the doors at the point you can hear the props hitting the ground. The prop then raises off the ground again shortly after, the gear probably dropped again dragging the doors open with it until it finally settled onto the nacelle.

The bit that amazes me is that the damaged propellers don't seem to have pinged off like I would have expected, they seem to have stayed remarkably attached despite being dragged along the runway.

[Backseat Dane]

SLF here - but that does look eerily similar to the landing gear bolt failures from back when. The first of which happened on my home turf of AAL/EKYT.

When landing at AAL the pilot had the seats around the wings evacuated due to the risk of fragments from the propellers tearing through the fuselage. Same procedure here?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_8_landing_gear_incidents

[DaveReidUK]

The bit that amazes me is that the damaged propellers don't seem to have pinged off like I would have expected, they seem to have stayed remarkably attached despite being dragged along the runway.

Certification authorities tend to take a dim view of props shedding blades in close proximity to passengers.

Bear in mind that the tip speed of the Dash 8's prop is in the region of 500 mph and so the force on the blade tip from contact with the runway is largely in a tangential direction - the runway will likely have come off worse than the prop. :O

[PT6Driver]

Looks like an unplanned event so no pax repositioned.
First SAS event I don't believe they repositioned pax and had some injuries when the prop went through the fuselage. Second event they were beter prepared.

[Royale]

https://youtu.be/egh4UazBaAo

[Wycombe]

didn't see many punters dragging bags behind them either

Good to see, not that they'd be very big coming off a Dash in any case!

[A4]

THIS IS NOT BEING JUDGEMENTAL - purely observational.

If you play the approach over and over the path to runway is constant - NOT body angle which does alter but FPA/trajectory....watch the path of the wheel on the failed gear - the ROD does not appear to alter towards touchdown....so possible firm landing on single gear.

I know the DASH gear has a bit of history and always looks a bit gangly and fragile to me....plus with the Dash got to watch the tail clearance......

I feel for anyone flying today...tough day in the office....but good that all got out ok.

Again - this is OBSERVATIONAL not critical.

[StuntPilot]

The landing is not even that hard. What does seem odd is that after decrabbing and the associated strong right aileron input at 10 seconds a more moderate right aileron persists all the way until touchdown.

[tech log]

Thoughts with the flight crew, aircraft incidents are an unpleasant business.

What do we reckon about the finance, is this economically salvageable? It might not look too bad but there's a fair few hours of borescope inspection required for that fuselage and wing root now. New engine and undercarriage.

[DaveReidUK]

Looks like an unplanned event so no pax repositioned.
First SAS event I don't believe they repositioned pax and had some injuries when the prop went through the fuselage. Second event they were beter prepared.

In the Aalborg incident, passengers in three rows on the side adjacent to the suspect MLG were re-seated elsewhere. There were not enough spare seats to move all the passengers seated on the opposite side, and it was one of those who was injured, though fortunately not seriously, by a liberated blade.

[Porrohman]

Thoughts with the flight crew, aircraft incidents are an unpleasant business.

What do we reckon about the finance, is this economically salvageable? It might not look too bad but there's a fair few hours of borescope inspection required for that fuselage and wing root now. New engine and undercarriage.
A number of similar incidents with the Q400 have led to the airframe being beyond economic repair.

[Tu.114]

Since Aalborg, the abnormal procedure for landing with a main gear leg not down and locked explicitly allows (but not requires) a precautionary shutdown of the engine on the affected side. Of course, if it is not known beforehand that the leg would fold, this does not help at all.

[c53204]

FlyBe certainly seem to be racking up 'incidents' in the last year or two.

[Oakape]

As I recall, there were a significant number of landing gear problems & collapses with the Q400 in years gone by. As there hadn't been any for a little while now, I assumed the problem had been fixed. It seems that may not be the case.

[Tu.114]

At SAS, they found some abnormalities within the system, such as stray gaskets sitting in actuators that should not have been in the entire system at all or corroded parts.

For example on the Aalborg incident, the cylinder that was to dampen the extension of the left main gear did not work to this effect, so the leg just slammed out and broke the downlock in the process. It then just dangled outside of the nacelle and would obviously not take any load during landing. IIRC, this was known and reacted to by the crews before touch down.

This was followed up by ADs mandating fleet wide gear inspections depending on hours and legs flown, and as far as I know, the problems SAS suffered from have never reared their head again. And for what it´s worth, I have flown the DH8 for a while now and never had nor heard of an issue with the landing gear in my company...

I would suggest that simply pointing to an inherent weakness of the DH8s landing gear as a possible cause for this incident would be too easy and inappropriate.

[PT6Driver]

David, thanks for the correction.
Tu 114, I thought the 2 SAS incidents were down to the treads of an eye bolt being so corroded that linkage seperated. The U/C in freefall did indeed destroy the locks.

[Porrohman]

David, thanks for the correction.
Tu 114, I thought the 2 SAS incidents were down to the treads of an eye bolt being so corroded that linkage seperated. The U/C in freefall did indeed destroy the locks.
There were three SAS Q400 incidents that led to them grounding the aircraft for a time. There have also been many more undercarriage incidents which are described in this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_8_landing_gear_incidents

[paperHanger]

The landing filmed by the pax looked very standard ... I've put things down harder than that without breaking anything.

[katya2607]

Well done to the Cabin Crew. I've flown with Flybe on many occasions and have always found them to be extremely professional, courteous and approachable.

[PT6Driver]

Porrohman,
There were indeed 3, but I was referring to the 2 that were the same cause. The 3rd was some months later and down to a different mechanical reason.
There have been numerous gear issues on the Dash q400 some of which have not even found their way into wiki.
Drawing parallels betwean this incident and previous ones is a fairly useless exercise as, if the cause is indeed mechanical I suspect it will be yet another new issue and it will be some time before the investigation reveals their findings.

[vrb03kt]

Certification authorities tend to take a dim view of props shedding blades in close proximity to passengers.

Bear in mind that the tip speed of the Dash 8's prop is in the region of 500 mph and so the force on the blade tip from contact with the runway is largely in a tangential direction - the runway will likely have come off worse than the prop. :O

I've no doubt that's largely true Dave, but the Q400 has previous form in this regard:

Propeller crashes through aircraft fuselage hitting passenger in the head - Independent.ie (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/propeller-crashes-through-aircraft-fuselage-hitting-passenger-in-the-head-30733640.html)

As well as the famous (amongst dash drivers anyway...) SAS Q400 gear failure video that you mention, where the propellers shoot off. I'm glad to see it doesn't appear to have happened in this case!

I should also add, hats off to the crew for keeping the machine fairly straight and on the runway!

[Thurleigh]

Flew into Southampton from Manchester as a passenger on that very aircraft last Monday evening (20th Feb). It was a crosswind landing and we landed very hard on that right hand gear.

[crappy5]

Landing filmed from the front.

http://nos.nl/artikel/2159672-landingsgestel-vliegtuig-op-schiphol-breekt-af.html

[A4]

@TangoAlphad - not just me then - see post #33

[msjh]

Landing filmed from the front.

Landingsgestel vliegtuig op Schiphol breekt af | NOS (http://nos.nl/artikel/2159672-landingsgestel-vliegtuig-op-schiphol-breekt-af.html)
In that video, the starboard wing drops *just* before landing. I wonder if a little gust popped the port wing up a tad at that point.

[A4]

......with the wind coming from the right?

[markkal]

From the video, it looks like the wind was quite strong from the right weathercocking the nose of a/c into the wind; Also the flare was very shallow and the touchdown was borne by the left leg, difficult to judge rate of descent and if there was any drift at contact resulting in added torsion.

Not an easy situation, definitely a hard landing but the landing gear should be strong enough to handle that..

[Capn Bloggs]

Left? right?

Al Dente... Firm but not hard. Thurleigh's story sounds feasible...

[sitigeltfel]

When BBC News showed footage of the incident yesterday evening, they dubbed the Mayday call onto the video. But the soundtrack began when the aircraft was on short finals, giving the impression that the Mayday call was made while the aircraft was still in the air!

[RAT 5]

From the 'front' video it does seem that that ROD did not reduce into a flare. However, I seem to remember a u-tube video of 'scary landings' where there was a FlyBe on RW33 at BHX in what looked like worse conditions. The gear survived that one. Indeed the x-wind was so strong that day they could have landed on a very short-wide runway. :)

Is this a/c not designed for rough short field ops? That would factor in some extra strength into the u/c components. The engineering inspection will be interesting. Also, I wonder at the elevator input. There was no bounce. The gear seemed to just fold under on impact; i.e. there was no last second attempt at any flare with up elevator. More info from those experienced on type.

[ehwatezedoing]

Impressive...

It took only a few hours to get:
- A rear view landing video from outside.
- A passenger sitting landing video.
- The landing radio calls.
- Another video of the landing from outside. But front view this time.
- I am not even mentionning all the online flight tracking things.

That should put any company crisis management team on their toes!




Or everybody this day and there were expecting something bad to happen :suspect:

[Livesinafield]

Yes the wing dipped...its a perfectly normal crosswind landing technique

[The Ancient Geek]

The gear appears to have collapsed without any significant provocation.
In view of the weather I suspect that it may have been weakened by a heavy arrival earlier in the day.

[PENKO]

Indeed. Looking at the video again and again I cannot say other than: good job guys.

[pattern_is_full]

Is this a/c not designed for rough short field ops? That would factor in some extra strength into the u/c components.

Well, less so than DHC's "bush planes" up through the Dash-6/7. An intentional decision, after weak sales of the Dash-7, to emphasize operational cost and cruise performance over short/rough ops.

Not by a large margin, and I expect the original DHC8-100 was still overengineered. But one wonders how much leeway was lost in Bombardier's doubling of the landing weight in the -400s, especially if maintenance was less than perfect.

[Geriaviator]

Full marks to the crew for holding the wing during the one-wheel roll, and to cabin crew and pax for their swift and orderly evacuation. Incidents such as this make me realise just how much air travel is taken for granted even in these very difficult wx conditions.

[expurser]

It's been said allready but well done to both Flight and Cabin crew for what looks like a very professional evacuation with no injuries.

[Chronus]

Full marks to the crew for holding the wing during the one-wheel roll, and to cabin crew and pax for their swift and orderly evacuation. Incidents such as this make me realise just how much air travel is taken for granted even in these very difficult wx conditions.
Nil marks for giving it a boot full to straighten it out after decking the sbd gear.

[GearDownThreeGreen]

Does anybody know what Prop RPM Flybe normally use in heavy wind conditions? Do the always use 850 whenever not limited by the supplements, or is 1020 the preferred setting on a day like this?

[Tu.114]

GearDownThreeGreen,
in such wind conditions, I dare say that there are only very few DH8D pilots that would not select 1020 rpm for an approach.

This makes the aircraft much more responsive to power lever movements and allows for much quicker corrections of gusts. And besides that, it is formally required by our (not FlyBE) OM-B (among others) in turbulent conditions. The main downside besides a bit more cabin noise is that careful handling of the power levers in the flare is required. Even more so than with 850/min, ham-fistedly pulling them back will result in an immediate descent if already low on energy or encountering a performance-decreasing gust and may lead to a rather solid touchdown.

C195,
a typical duration for the DFDR recording is 25 flight hours. The FQAR (for flight data monitoring) records up to 320 flight hours.

[GearDownThreeGreen]

Ahh. The baby duck walk of the PLs at max RPM landings is quite extreme, yes. Our OM-B does not mandate 1020 RPM, however everybody does it in high/gusty winds anyway. I was just curious about Flybe's procedure around this, and I guess it's safe to assume they have revved up the props then...

[HidekiTojo]

It gusty conditions you might find that the props decide for themselves that 1020rpm is more appropriate.

[GearDownThreeGreen]

Haha. Indeed!

[Tu.114]

Yes, you are. For an 850rpm landing, a button is pressed that locks the RPM at that value, but the condition levers are set to max. When a certain power lever angle is exceeded thereafter, the "lock" is opened and the propellers spin up to 1020rpm. This is mostly intended for the go around case, but in very gusty conditions, it might happen inadvertently as well (as Tojo-san referred to). Also when one pushes the power levers beyond the rating detent, the propellers will be automatically set to 1020 regardless of C/L settings in order to avoid an overtorque as long as possible.

[Tu.114]

The Va increment du jour on the DH8 depends on more factors than just wind. I´ll try to keep the answer as short as possible. And of course, I refer to the book as used in my company, the OM-B of FlyBE may vary as Bombardier allows for a bit more freedom in operating its aircraft than many other manufacturers.

For a beautiful, calm/cavok day on a non-limiting runway, we are generally requested to fly Vref+10 for flaps 15 and Va+5 for flaps 35. This applies to about 90% of approaches, but certainly not to this one.

But then along come the exceptions. I will restrict myself to those that may be applicable to the situation the Flybe colleagues faced, there are some others as well.

- For wind, the recommended correction is 1/3 the steady wind OR gusts (whichever is higher), but not more than +20kts. Below 9 kts wind speed this is covered by the standard +10kts (flaps 15), but above that, the actually flown speed will be increased.

- In icing conditions (on the DH8 inflight, they are defined as OAT below +6°C AND visible moisture), the icing speeds Va-Ice apply. Those are generally the basic Va speeds plus a fixed increment of 15 (Flap 35) to 20kts (Flap 15). This speed is flown as it is and not increased for other factors any more: the risk of a nose wheel landing would become too high otherwise especially with flaps 35°. The reason for this increment is the de-icing equipment of the aircraft: the boots will not clear the leading edge completely the way a "hot wing" would, and the extra speed caters for some residual ice.

The weather (...FEW022... 8/4... -RA) at the incident time as reported on ASN would probably show icing conditions as per above definition at the stabilisation gate (1000ft AAL). So if they faced icing conditions, they likely chose Va 15 ICE with the corresponding increment of 20kts. If not, the increment derived by above formula will probably not have been far below it.

[vrb03kt]

They almost definitely would not have been flying icing Vref speeds with that METAR.

Vref additive would have been half the gust factor up to a max of vref+15. It was blowing 31G46 according to avherald so Vref plus 7.5kts.

[Di_Vosh]

Melbourne on a gusty northerly day, it's not unheard of to have 300/30 gusting 50 kts for landing on RWY 34, so pretty familiar with landing in similar conditions.

In our operations, our additive is 1/3 of the wind, or all of the gust, up to an additive of 15 knots. So I'd have had an addition of 15kts on top of Vref.

Also would have landed 1020 rpm and FL 15. Also guessing that I'd have a bit of power on, on touchdown.


Vref additive would have been half the gust factor up to a max of vref+15. It was blowing 31G46 according to avherald so Vref plus 7.5kts.

Yeah right....

You're going to fly vref + 7.5 in those conditions? IMHO, it is exactly this mentality that will result in heavy landings.

[tomdotcom]

Is the use of mobile phones in the cabin now permitted? I see quite a few videos taken from inside aircraft using mobile phones. Is it OK just to disregards piolots instructions when flying?

[Tu.114]

Bombardier is not as strict about the operation of the aircraft than other manufacturers and gives its customers many liberties in designing their own OM-B. So when I write about SOPs in my company, they need not apply to other companies at all. The general spirit is likely the same, but in details, there may well be substantial differences.

I will refrain from discussing such SOPs from now and leave that to any interested FlyBE colleague.

The DH8D is generally considered not an easy aircraft to land. Reasons for this are e. g. the large speed spectrum between plain Va and Va+20 on short final, the differences in approach pitch both due to these speed differences and different flap settings (with Va and flap 15°, a pitch of 2-3° is not untypical while flap 35° and Va-ICE may show a pitch of -3 to -4°, both in a stabilized final approach). Also the flap setting makes a world of difference: while with flap 15°, drag is rather low and an early (ish) power reduction is appropriate, flap 35° will not only result in some background buffet but also lend the aircraft a drag coefficient of a proper Amish barn. Careful handling of the power levers is required. Also the prop RPM makes some difference; speed control is much more responsive with higher RPM than with lower (compare a car at 1st speed vs. 4th). And to top it up, a pitch at touchdown of -0,5° may result in a nosewheel landing while from +5°, you are in tailstrike territory. Not much wriggle room there.

Bleeding off the speed is therefore not so much a function of the flare height but of power lever handling; the same can be said for the length of the flare, although here the height comes into play as well. Using power to break the descent works on the type as well but is sternly frowned upon by my company at least due to the unpredictable influences on landing performance.

I find that starting a flare in 30-50ft, simultaneously raising the nose and slowly reducing power as needed, thereby assuming the desired pitch for landing and adjusting the sink rate via power, works rather well on this aircraft and results in power-off touchdowns, some soft(ish), some more noticeable.

All this is of course fine and dandy in theory, but then along comes such a weather as the colleagues encountered at AMS. The most thought-out and well flown roundout and flare can quickly go south when a nasty gust shows up at the right time.

[Consol]

Excellent post Tu.114.

[triploss]

Is the use of mobile phones in the cabin now permitted? I see quite a few videos taken from inside aircraft using mobile phones. Is it OK just to disregards piolots instructions when flying?
Yes, electronic devices are permitted. Has been that way for a few years. As long as they don't do any transmission while flying.

[vrb03kt]

Only Flap 35 (full flap) landings can tend to be flat due to the low pitch attitude approach angle. This is exacerbated if too high a speed is flown over the threshold, and not enough power is taken off in the flare. I don't think nosewheel first landings are very common, but you do see a fair few flat landings with Flap 35. From reading comments above, it would appear different operators have different philosophies on flap setting on a rough day. Whilst I found Flap 15 to be more comfortable and feel more stable in high winds, Flap 15 had a much smaller margin to tailstrike so Flap 35 was almost always the choice on a rough day.

I don't think I suggested that anyone try to fly a Dash 8 at exactly Vref + 7.5kts but that is the official additive, based on one operators approved SOPs. I have absolutely no idea how flying 7 or 8 knots above Vref "is the sort of mentality that causes heavy landings". You would tend to reduce to Vref over the threshold and (again as per the manual) land at Vref -6 or -7 with power levers at idle. What I have just described is as per the book. In practice I think it's difficult to attain this theoretical landing technique. Especially on a day like that in AMS. It always ended up as a delicate balance between getting the pitch and power correct to touch down in the right place at the right speed, without making anyones teeth fall out or floating down the touchdown zone. I very rarely landed with idle power. It is an awkward machine to get on the ground, but as you say an application of power will very quickly arrest a sink rate on short final.

[Livesinafield]

Because of the tail strike issue, its recommended by Bombardier to arrest sink below 400 feet with Power lever movement only, as some one mentioned you are not going to fly VREF plus 7 on a day like that the thing is really speed unstable even on a calm day.

you learn quickly on the Q400 if you try to fly VREF plus a bit and power levers close to flight idle your either smashing the tail up or shattering pax teeth.

[Porrohman]

This flight should have originated from Dundee but the route was switched to Edinburgh in November for reasons that, AFAIK, have not been disclosed. To what extent did the approach and landing characteristics that have been described in this thread contribute to the switch to Edinburgh and to what extent was it the characteristics of Dundee's approach procedures and runway? Or was it a combination of the two? Or some other reason?

[Brigantee]

Flybe flight sparks full scale emergency response at Edinburgh Airport after front wheel issue causes landing problem - Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/flybe-flight-sparks-full-scale-9937345)

[OldLurker]

To what extent did the approach and landing characteristics that have been described in this thread contribute to the switch to Edinburgh and to what extent was it the characteristics of Dundee's approach procedures and runway?Characteristics of Dundee, Flybe said in December: "due to the topography coupled with high levels of light aircraft activity in the surrounding area, it has become clear that enhanced radar coverage is required to accommodate the operation of our large passenger aircraft." Flybe suspends Dundee-Amsterdam flights (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-38414067).
Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, that runs the airport, blamed Flybe: Airport blames Flybe as Dundee-Amsterdam flights axed (https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/airport-blames-flybe-dundee-amsterdam-flights-axed/)

Extensive discussion in the Dundee forum here on PPRuNe: www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/204666-dundee-42.html (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/204666-dundee-42.html), page 42 onwards. Porrohman, I see you were in that discussion.

Besides Dundee itself there are small airfields around, and I think there's still a university air squadron at the former RAF Leuchars, probably all contributing to the "high levels of light aircraft activity".

[Porrohman]

Thanks for your reply Old Lurker. I didn't word my comment as well as I should have. Flybe did of course give an explanation for suspending the route but their explanation was questioned by many because they should have known the limitations with radar coverage and the ILS procedure having previously operated Q400s from there during summer to Jersey.

It's been interesting reading the comments in this thread about the characteristics of the Q400 in gusty winds and icing conditions. The combination of icing conditions and sometimes having to use the 09 ILS procedure at Dundee with a tailwind component into a relatively short runway with no radar coverage must have made for a busy work environment.

Sorry for the thread creep.

[spottilludrop]

LISTEN: Scots pilot says "questions raised" over Flybe safety record after spate of technical problems - Heart Scotland News (http://www.heart.co.uk/scotland/news/local/listen-scots-pilot-says-questions-rai/#43yVhAV4cvWwUi5v.97)

[jamestkirk]

Who the :mad: is this guy. What experience.

If a random individual goes on the radio to drivel on then I suspect an axe to grind somewhere.

His airline obviously is and always has been incident free. Pity he left out which one that was.

[noflynomore]

jameskirk, your reply is both irrational and ill-considered.

His identity and experience are irrelevant. He is described as a "Scottish pilot", isn't that enough? Do you expect him to publish his name and address on the News - as if! What has "experience" to do with flagging up a seriously worrying trend? Describing him as a "random" is hardly adding anything to the debate either, nor are silly remarks about the safety of his airline or its identity. I gather you've taken a personal objection to his carefully worded warning but slagging the guy off isn't going to help anyone's argument, least of all yours.

His point is valid, two gear failures and one engine failure in a week begin to look as though all is not well - isn't that fair grounds to ask questions? We all know the Dash has had severe historical problems with the gear that bested top Scandawegian carrier(s) so this cannot be swept under the carpet. It may be just bad luck but three incidents in a week are stacking the odds a bit high for any airline, especially a rather small one like Flybe.
IMO he has made a sound point in a considered manner. It is certainly something that the company and doubtless the authority's engineering branch will be pursuing with great care in weeks to come. Does that mean they have an "axe to grind" too, or are they just doing their jobs?

[jamestkirk]

If it's as you say historical problems. Why is it necessary to go on a local radio to talk about them.

If you are going to be specific about an airline then His identity and experience is totally relevant. No one knows who or what he is. Or more importantly his experience. Again, very important before someone goes public with their opinion.

The CAA, AAIB and flight safety department can ask questions. Again it doesn't need a local radio DJ to do that.

Anyway, don't reply to this. I'm not going to respond further to your drivel either.

[llondel]

Sometimes if you ask the questions and answers appear not to be forthcoming then repeating the questions on broadcast radio might cause those answers to appear, or at least encourage other people to also look more closely and ask harder questions.

[Reversethrustset]

Or maybe Jamestkirk is correct and this clown is talking out of his arse. There are no trends but rather spates and anyone who's done a mathematics degree will know the dangers of looking for trends within random data.
Flybe have an excellent safely record and whilst it's not every day a landing gear collapses this "spate" is no different to the spates that you see in nearly every other airline

[Daysleeper]

So in a very big nutshell:

The MLG yoke was warped, probably or possibly... (the report is a bit ambivalent) but not definitely during fitting the night before. This compromising the over-centre downlock. This shouldn't have mattered as the system hydraulic pressure also holds the gear down but a prox sensor fault meant there was no hydraulic pressure. Net result being an unlocked gear leg but 3 greens presented to the crew. An amber warning may or may not have been presented in relation to the prox sensor, but even if it had been then there was no action required by the pilots. Add a bit of a crosswind et voila.