Major problems with FLYBE Q400s

[pitotheat]

Heard from various sources that Flybe suffered huge problems with their Q400s falling over. One apparently is stranded at Lyon with a complete hydraulic failure, another at Birmingham and a third in Edinburgh. By my reckoning that is 3/4 of the fleet. I wonder how reliable the 17 new ones will be. I would have thought that reliability is a key quality for low costs and having flown 300s in my past that is not what Bombardier produce.

Anyone from the company know anything about yesterdays events?

[repulo]

SAS had same kind of problems with the -400. Caused Bombardier and SAS a lot of headache

[Raw Data]

ONE aircraft had a single hydraulic pump failure which resulted in a divert to Lyon (A flybe engineering base). Problem recurred later in Edinburgh (same aircraft). So I'm afraid "what you heard" is a load of old tosh.

Nice try though... :rolleyes:

And SAS did not have the same problems with their Q400s, they had different problems with earlier aircraft...

I mean, I don't particularly like it either, but let's try and keep the facts vaguely straight, shall we...

[Smokie]

RD,
It wasn't that long ago you were extolling the virtues of Q400.
My, how times have a changed ! :D

[flyingbe.com]

Please check your facts RD.

[Raw Data]

Well I got my facts from the guy who fixed it. Where did you get yours from?

Of course, if you know different, by all means inform us... :rolleyes: Best we get the truth if my source is incorrect.

[flyingbe.com]

check with bhx engineers who will confirm certain details I do not wish to discuss on this PUBLIC forum, I thought the censorship police would have removed this thread by now.

[MaxProp]

In Flybe service the Q400 has done not a lot worse than the original Dash 8--i.e. a difficult first year but a steady improvement as experience by all concerned was gained. The flybe ac were always to a later standard than the SAS deliveries, and many tweaks have been initiated by the flybe team--after all flybe is the Bombardier service centre for the aircraft in europe.
This weeks events were due to 3 unrelated problems--tiresome but not any particular impediment to have the aircraft up to a proper Dash 8 reliability figure by the end ot the year which is the stated aim.

[bakedbean]

Raw Data are you really serious.......I just hope everytime you post on here you chuckle afterwards. :ok: :ok:

[Raw Data]

Oh, I chuckle all the time, and I take very little on PPRuNe seriously... ;)

I mean, if you took it all seriously (especially some of our more earnest brethren), you would be almost certain to suffer from ongoing psychotic episodes. Who needs that?

No, keep a light hand on the reins and laugh at every opportunity. Works for me. :cool:

[JAR]

:O That's why most people have left this site

[perseus]

I've ad a few of them "psychotic episodes" meself, but I'm pleased to report that, after keeping a tight old on them reins, I'm now in a .....stable..... condition!

[Raw Data]

Ha! Surely a matter of opinion... ;)

Anyway, did a bit of checking whilst in BHX today and it appears my original story was correct. I'd like to tell you all about it, but in order not to offend an over-anxious Dash driver, I won't. Not sure why it shoud be so secret, but there you go...

The point is... all aircraft break. Some do it catastrophically (ie most Boeings), some have niggling problems (ie the 146). All require a lengthy period after introduction for the engineers to get to grips with them and build an expertise base. The same goes for the pilots, who are responsible for many problems as they too build knowledge ("finger trouble"). It is the same for every airline when it introduces a new type. I can still remember the painful introduction of the ATP and J41. 'Orrible it was.

Introducing a new aircraft is a gamble. With the tiny profit margin available (typically 1%), a troublesome entry into service can hit any airline hard. If the Q400 matures quickly, it will make flybe a whole pile of money. If it doesn't... well... the pile won't be quite so big!

Which brings us back to the original post, which was a sensationalist, ill-informed and puerile fishing expedition.

[Flight Level Zero]

Good point RD:ok:

The issue at BE appears to be related to low morale rather than ongoing technical problems with the aircraft. Certainly, the crews seem more interested in feeding their faces or having a fag than ensuring the aircraft departs on time. Unfortunately, once the aircraft is running late then making a previous engagement or a positioning flight become more important than operating the last sectors.

[foundation digger]

The Q400 is probably not that bad an aircraft.

But as it is a relatively new design it will be complicated.

And it has props and pax dont like that.

The only country where it may prove its self comercially is the USA
and the regional operators there are all buying small jets.

Sales of all aircraft are not great at the moment but this machine
is not flexible enough to survive.

Same as RD mentions ATP and J41 which are no more and headaches to the manufacturer.

I hope things go well for the people at BE but I think the Q400 was not a great decision.

They were also a launch custiomer for the trojan horse RJ-X which was also not a great decision.

Manufacturing aircraft like this is a liability for the future as unsubsidised BAe discovered a long time ago.

[pitotheat]

RD

It would appear that you did not research your facts very thoroughly whilst at BHX.

The problems were as follows:

One aircraft diverts to Lyons with the loss of No.1 hydraulics fluid due to the stby hyd pump breaking up in flight.

One aircraft with a loss of primary pitot instruments due to, YET AGAIN, the introduction of moisture in the plumbing freezing at altitude. BTW the standby ASI also apparently wound down to zero. The same aircraft on the same trip suffered an uncommanded MLG door opening in flight.

Various niggly problems on the third aircraft causing delays.

In the case of the first 2 problems these are not niggly little defects.

Given the aircraft have been in service with SAS for nearly 3 years and with flybe 18 months the initial "teething" problems you alude to should all be sorted. These are serious technical problems suggesting the aircraft are not up to the job or that maintenance and crew procedures are not sorted. Either way with the introduction of more 400s it can only further highlight these weaknesses. If flybe ever hope to compete against the other low costs it has to have the right kit. The 400 is not the right kit.

Come on you flybe people(except RD) tell me I am wrong.

[Raw Data]

Oh pur-leeese.... :rolleyes:

Serious? Grow up. Structural failures are serious, the loss of a hydraulic pump (more correctly, a Secondary Power Unit according to my guy) is not. That's why aircraft have redundant systems, is it not...???

Serious is the top of the fuselage departing the rest of the aircraft, or reversers deploying in flight, or engines departing the airframe.

Regarding the instrument failure, I wasn't commenting on that, but in any case I find it hard to believe the standby ASI "wound down to zero"- if it froze, it would remain at whatever it had been reading when it got too cold. Happy to be corrected if any Q400 bods know different, of course.

[perseus]

"Some do it catastrophically (ie most Boeings)," by eck lad yer don't arf come out with some Tommy Rot.
Yon fella who goes on about crews stuffing their faces wants to try staying on is feet fer six sectors pampering to the passengers every whim, and then try to get some scoff down, and smoke a woodbine or two. If yer did yer might find yer didn't ave time to eat that chip on yer shoulder.

[virginblue]

Well, Tyrolean has had (and still has) its fair share of trouble with their -400s as well. Reliability was so poor that they were forced to bring in a Fokker 70 to take over the vital SZG - FRA route again from the -400s and passengers were up in arms when Tyrolean announced to replace the ERJ145 with a -400 on the Altenrhein - Vienna route. I remember some very bitter comments by top brass Tyrolean management which very pretty embarrassing for Bombardier......

[Raw Data]

perseus

You might be vaguely amusing with the dodgy Northwestern dialect, but you don't seem to have much of a grasp on aviation history.

So... just from memory:

737: Aloha Airlines catastrophic fuselage failure, some rudder hardovers resulting in total losses, some losses of engines (ie engines departed the airframe, and not because the engine had seized, either).

747: UAL catastrophic cargo door failure resulting in several deaths, factory-repaired rear bulkhead that subsequently failed with the loss of all aboard, also several incidents of flap sections departing the airframe.

757/767: Lauda Air in-flight thrust reverser deployment, leading to loss of aircraft and all aboard.

777: Nothing (yet) as far as I know.

There are also plenty of catastrophic failures on the 707 and 727 fleets, not to mention the 720- but I can't recall them off the top of my head.

Perhaps I should have said "most types of Boeings", but I thought most folk would be intelligent enough to understand what I was saying.

Anyway... the failure of a pump hardly ranks along with the failures mentioned above, does it? In fact the faults found on the Q400 pale into insignificance when seen alongside the failures/teething troubles/gremlins of types we revere as being the epitome of fine aircraft design... I'd rather be in a Q400 with a hydraulic failure than that EMB 145 that broke in half on landing, or a DC10 with no flight controls... etc etc etc

[Whispering Giant]

Leyland Brothers : [2] The rear bulkhead repair was carried out by Japan Airlines engineers in Japan, not at the Boeing factory. Whilst Boeing did design and approve a repair scheme, the repair that was embodied by the Japan Airlines engineers was not in accordance with the approved design. The design called for a single doubler plate which straddled the horizontal joint, but what was embodied included two separate doubler plates, one either side of the horizontal joint.

just a minor correction to your post - but the repair may have been carried out by the JAL engineer's - but i think you will find that if you had researched a little more thoroughly you will have found out that the repair WAS in fact inspected by a Senior Boeing engineer who was based in Japan before this a/c was released for service becuase of the nature of the repair to a pressurised bulkhead.

[perseus]

Raw Data.

"777: Nothing (yet) as far as I know."

By eck lad thats uncanny. Check out todays Daily Mail, they've only gone an lost a panel off a 777. You must be "psychotic" or something.
You're reet lad I don't know a lot about aviation history, footy is more my thing. Some of the more longer serving Jea folks will still ave it in their caps. (They know what I mean)
There's nowt "dodgy" about a northern accent either, which is more than I can say fer an Aussie one.
Anyway I can't stay on ere all neet prattling on. I've got to go an fly me Boeing. Don't yer just hate neet fleets. I only ope I survive cos according to you it's not looking good.
Now where did I put that book on aviation istory?

All t'best.

[PaperTiger]

Japan Airlines B747-100-SR (JA-8119) that crashed on 12 August 1985 then you are mistaken on two points of fact :

[1] The crash did not result in “the loss of all aboard”.

True. 4 out of 524 survived.

[2] The rear bulkhead repair was carried out by Japan Airlines engineers in Japan, not at the Boeing factory. Whilst Boeing did design and approve a repair scheme, the repair that was embodied by the Japan Airlines engineers was not in accordance with the approved design.

A team of Boeing engineers was present during the repair. They may not have carried out every single piece of repair, but Boeing admitted responsibility to the US Supreme Court, viz:Based on admissions made by Boeing in a pretrial conference, the trial court entered a judgment dated July 24, 1987.
The court found that Boeing admitted the following:

a. In 1978 Boeing repaired the aft pressure bulkhead
of the accident airplane in Japan;

b. Boeing performed a portion of the bulkhead repair
incorrectly;

c. The incorrect repair performed by Boeing was a
proximate cause of the crash of the accident airplane
on August 12, 1985; and

d. Boeing is liable to plaintiffs for compensatory
damages resulting from the crash.

http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/115wn2d/115wn2d0123.htm

[Raw Data]

the leyland brothers

Well I see you haven't changed your stripes then... :rolleyes:

As others have noted, the repair was supervised/inspected/signed off by Boeing engineers, which is why Boeing accepted liability. It doesn't have to be done in Seattle to be a "Boeing repair". The repair was, in every sense that matters, a Boeing repair.

I hereby correct my body count- "only" 520 died. I'm surprised you think the distinction relevant the argument. I did say it was all from memory, not out of a book, now, didn't I?


But to compare three years of service history from something less than 60 Dash 8 400s with the many decades of service from more than 15,000 Boeings would seem a bit like comparing apples with oranges.

Talk about me shooting from the hip! If you bothered to read the posts, you will see that I was doing no such thing as compare the two sets of fleets- there is no meaningful comparison. I was making the point regarding "serious" failures, and then responding to some dissent from the ranks.

Perseus

By eck lad you don't arf speak some drivel...

Losing a panel (not a door as previously reported) is hardly a serious failure, now, is it?

I agree, Aussie accents can be a bit dodgy, glad I'm not an Aussie! :} (apologies to all Aussies, make it up to you at the next Bledisloe Cup)

You stick to your footy, now, there's a good chap...
:rolleyes:

[snodgrass]

For goodness sake, how long are people going to go on pushing this line "passengers don't like props".
IT'S PILOT'S THAT DON'T LIKE PROPS, NOT PASSENGERS.

We keep on harping about it because we don't want our Companies to buy turboprops. A recent Which survey on pax preferences put type and size of a/c at about 17/20.

You only have to look at the NCL FlyBe Dash-8 now reguarly carrying more passengers to Belfast than the Easy 737 !

[Raw Data]

And I don't understand your need to be so mind-numbingly pedantic... but it was ever thus.

For everybody else, "the leyland brothers" has, for a long time, been conducting this sort of sniping for some perceived slight when she worked for my current employer. I can't remember what it was, and in any case this is not the place for it to be resurrected. As we seem to have drifted far from the topic (something to do with turboprops, I think), I'll gracefully retire from the fray. Have fun!

[perseus]

We will now you ave "gracefully retired" from t'fray lad. Shame yer take criticism so badly, it's a character fault you know. So is purporting to be an expert on all things relating to aviation history. Yer grasp of t'Boeing is way of the mark. Lighten up lad.

[fokker]

:}

...and anyway, imagining a kiwi doing anything gracefully stretches credulity beyond breaking point.

;)

[perseus]

I don't know lad, Ive heard they're quite good with sheep.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Not quite true I'm afraid. I've had the (dis)pleasure of paxing on SAS' Q400 a number of times, and every time the bus pulls up the aircraft, a large majority of the SLFs will collectively sigh. Especially the FQTV's sitting on the front rows.

It's nosier, vibrates more, is cramped and slower than a real (ie. 737 size) jet. And it's not as if the airlines are offering a discount on these types is it, even if I could be argued that the product is "inferior" compared to a "real" jet. But we all know that's not the way airline economics work.

By the way, SAS had to pull the Q400 off their most important domestic route in DK due to passenger uproar. That was some time ago, don't know what the deal is now.

You tell me mate: You're at the airport and there's two aircraft available to carry you to your destination. One is a Q400, the other is a 737. The price is the same, but the 737 will get there a bit earlier. Which one would you take?

I'm not a pilot, but I certainly prefer a jet over a prop job any day of the week ....

[MaxProp]

No argument if your comparing like with like.I think SAS early problems were unique and now over.
How many 737s do you see at LCY, BHD, SOU, GCI or even JER.The aircraft has a graet cabability at an amazing price--and most passengers find the cabin light and airy because of the 2x2 and decent seat pitch.
The aircraft has a great future--but it will not replace 737s on 2 hr sectors between major cities.

[pitotheat]

That is the problem flybe are not using the 400 on niche routes where performance limitations restrict the use of jet airctaft. They are using the things on 2+ hour sectors from one major airport to another where jets could easily operate providing the PAX with higher altitude (as long as it is not a 146), higher speed (as long as it is not a 146) and less noisy (as long as it is not a 146) environment. Meanwhile the PAX is paying the same fare as with the low costs (easy/Ryanair).

Good deal not.

Go on then RD deny that you 146 dinosaur.

:O :O :O

[excrab]

Pitot heat,

The only scheduled route which Flybe currently operate the Q400 on with anything like the sector times you mention is SOU - BGY. The last time I did it, the chock to chock time was 2hrs 10mins each way, so airborne almost certainly less than 2 hours. Hardly as excessive as you make out.

Regarding the 737 v Q400 argument, the point is not that the airfields are performance limiting, but the routes produce a smaller number of passengers. To obtain the same seat cost per mile as you get with 70 pax on a Q400 you have to find 140 pax on a 737 - 800. Thus Flybe is providing a service at a cost which would not be economical for Ryaneasyjetair between those two airfields.

The other option is for pax living near Southampton to spend 2 hrs plus in the traffic on the M3/M25, pay a fortune in car parking and fight their way through the overcrowded nightmare of the Gatwick terminal to save perhaps 10 - 20 minutes airborne time.

Is that in the best interest of the passengers - I would suggest not.

[freightdoggy dog]

Can someone who operates the tampon, confirm if the pax cabin has no drop down oxy masks? And is this why it has a operating alt limit imposed by the c.a.a? If this is true, then you can see why pax would choose a 737 if it was on the same route.
Hey Leyland bros, what about a rub down with the oils for an old knackered loadie!!! :eek:

[pitotheat]

excrab

until recently (and likely for the winter schedule)

BHX-TLS-BHX, BHX-BGY-BHX

charters now

NEW-SLZ-NEW, BRS-SLZ-BRS, EMA-VRN-EMS

Fine until wx, ATC, routing knocks you down from 240/250 to levels where drift down performance and MSA start to meet.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

I belive the Q400 is only certified to FL270, and that oxy masks are only required above FL250. Sacrificing 2000ft seems like a fair deal to me, given the savings of NOT having pax oxy masks fittted.

SAS Q400s are not fitted with pax oxy masks.

Someone more in the know may be able to elaborate further.

[MaxProp]

The 270 option is no longer available even as a retrofit because no customer specified it.
The ac is therefore restricted to 250 in those autjorities which operate to JAROPs

[excrab]

Pitotheat,

What is the relevance of the charters in your apparent argument that the Q400 is inferior as a low cost a/c to a 737. Yes, the EMA-VRN and NCL-SZG have airborne times of approximately 2hrs 30mins, but they are operated on behalf of a charter company, and if that company feels that the route is viable on the Q400 it is nothing to do with Flybe, they simply provide the service requested by the charterer.

Of the schedules you mention (and if you check my post you will note that I referred to current routes), only the BHX-BGY-BHX had airborne times of over 2 hours, and despite the proliferation of low cost airlines operating into BGY from the UK (not to mention BA on BHX-MXP) there was never any lack of passengers when the Q400 was on the route. So maybe, as has been suggested before on these forums it is not the majority of passengers who are against turbo-props, but the pilots.

Regarding drift down, MSA etc, only on the BGY and VRN routes could that be a problem, as operating North of the Alps/Pyrenees on the other routes the highest terrain is only about 5000' over the Massif Centrale (sorry if that's spelt wrongly). However you were surely aware of that. As for the weather, storm tops over the Alps/Pyrenees often reach above 40,000 feet, so any aircraft descending into, or climbing out of, airfields in Northern Italy may find problems with weather.

If any non pilots are reading this and should somehow get the impression from your post that the operation is unsafe (surely that wasn't your intention), I believe that at least one CAA flight ops inspector is current on the a/c, flies it several days a month and is well aware of the operation of the Q400 over the Alps and would presumably have objected if the CAA thought it was a problem.

[Sheep Guts]

The Q400 costs more than an RJ now so it wont be long before they are noy worth it. They seem to long for my liking. Here where I work Dash 8 -100S are having a problem staying serviceable. Infact so much so the Dash6S I fly bail them out of trouble many times. Yet the company in its wisdom has decided to get rid of the Otters and persist with there Dashs which are very old some have build dates in 1978 :(.

I have been told by certain C&t Captains that they are very suseptable to electrical problems as are the new Q400S have they sorted this out yet.

A mate of mine was instructing in China, at an Airline that has Q400s and 2 apprentice mechanics decided to do a full power ground run infront of a hanger. You guessed what happened next. It jumped the chocks :(.One of the guys was seriously injured and a brand new Airplane Totalled.

Anyway Im just envious really I d give my left one to get a Type Rating

Regards
Sheep

[Sobelena]

Please forgive me Sheep Guts , it's terribly rude of me but it's just that I find it bad enough that anoraks can't get it right, and I would just expect better from an aviation professional:

It's HANGAR wot we put planes in and a HANGER wot we hang our rags on.

Yes, I know, but I just needed to get it off my chest having read 'hanger' for the 10th time this week. ;)

[pitotheat]

excrab

IMHO in the event of an engine failure/fire en route the flight deck have enough on their minds dealing with the drills without then thinking of drift down levels at or below MSA. Equally in the event of rapid decompression the need to reduce altitude to a point where most pax would not require oxy whilst dealing with the emergency and thinking of terrain is another unwanted problem for the pilots.

As to routing the point I was making was that in order to reduce the risk of driftdown into MSA the flight planned route would take you over the track with the shortest distance to clear the high ground. Now if ATC wanted you to route differently or if wx was on the optimum flight planned route then the flight deck would have to take the risk of exposing themselves and the aircraft to greater risk to comply with ATC or to avoid wx.

That is why I argue that the aircraft is starting to be operated on routes it was not envisaged being used on.

[PaperTiger]

Talk to Horizon Air, they operate -400s over both the Rockies and Cascade ranges, and have been doing so for about 2 years.

Or to any of the Western Canada operators of other Dash-8 models which have been flying the high country (and in regular iffy weather) for at least a decade.

[MaxProp]

Pitot Heat---I'm not arguing with the gerneral drift of your argument,but drift down really isnt a problem providng the aircraft is at normal height---for the sake of a figure, above 210. the distances involved are enormous and easily make the Zurich-Milan bit no problem fron this point of view. The depressurisation case however needs more thought.

[Sheep Guts]

Soblena,
Youve taken the time to correct I commend you:ok:

However wot as you described is spelt "what"............:hmm:

Now I have heaps of typos in my previous, but hey you understood yeah?

Take Care my friend and read some more pages of that Oxdforn Pocket Dictionary.


Adios Senior Soblena

Regards Guts:*

[spagiola]

Sheep guts,

I'm curious as to how your Dash 8s can have "build dates in 1978" when the type didn't make it's first flight until June 29, 1983.

[Sobelena]

Oh dear Guts , I was really only trying to correct you tongue-in-cheek, hence the ironic use of "wot". Ah, typos, the greatest excuse for poor spelling :hmm: Sssh, by the way, your reading isn't much better - it's Sobelena! And who told you I was Spanish and male???