Dash 8 gear problems ( Merged)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe Dash 8 gear problem at EDI 23/6
It couldn't have been a major fault as the a/c was back in service by late afternoon.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final report on the first collaps in Aalborg EKYT is out
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crazyaviator
The Q400 is assembled in Toronto, so no French influence I'm afraid.
If you go back to the early days of the Q400 with SAS, they had a number of teething problems. Funnily enough, the other operators, particularly Tyroloean (long term de Havilland customer) didn't have nearlyy as much difficulty, but then SAS Commuter (as it was then) had a highly unionised maintenance labour force that saw the aircraft as too close to the SAS main fleet for comfort. Their antipathy to the aircraft had a lot to do with the situation.
If you go back to the early days of the Q400 with SAS, they had a number of teething problems. Funnily enough, the other operators, particularly Tyroloean (long term de Havilland customer) didn't have nearlyy as much difficulty, but then SAS Commuter (as it was then) had a highly unionised maintenance labour force that saw the aircraft as too close to the SAS main fleet for comfort. Their antipathy to the aircraft had a lot to do with the situation.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse my language, horsebadorties but what a load of horse****!
Are you actually accusing the maintenance personnel of sabotaging the Q400?!
SAS was the launch customer of this new aircraft, maybe that has something to do with it? The next customer would surely have benefited from the experiences of SAS and they would also have gotten aircraft with the fixes that Bombardier made.
Read the report and see what it says!
Are you actually accusing the maintenance personnel of sabotaging the Q400?!
SAS was the launch customer of this new aircraft, maybe that has something to do with it? The next customer would surely have benefited from the experiences of SAS and they would also have gotten aircraft with the fixes that Bombardier made.
Read the report and see what it says!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladusvala
The first SAS Q400s were early models to a lower mod standard, but the attitude of the maintenance guys at CPH was as I said..
The first problem was smoke alarms being triggered by mobile phones - SAS passengers stowed their bags in the forward baggage hold with phone switched on, incoming calls caused EMI and set the alarm off. Solution was to fit CRJ alarms. Not related to CPH.
Second problem was cracked engine oil pipes causing fumes in the cabin air - an inheritance from the Fokker 50, as the engine was a derivative. Aircraft were AOG at CPH, but no efforts made to get them back online: "AOG? End of my shift, sorry!"
The union saw the aircraft as a threat because of the number of seats, and felt it would be put into SAS mainline.
The first problem was smoke alarms being triggered by mobile phones - SAS passengers stowed their bags in the forward baggage hold with phone switched on, incoming calls caused EMI and set the alarm off. Solution was to fit CRJ alarms. Not related to CPH.
Second problem was cracked engine oil pipes causing fumes in the cabin air - an inheritance from the Fokker 50, as the engine was a derivative. Aircraft were AOG at CPH, but no efforts made to get them back online: "AOG? End of my shift, sorry!"
The union saw the aircraft as a threat because of the number of seats, and felt it would be put into SAS mainline.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horsebadorties,
Aha, so the first SAS Q400īs was of a lower mod standard, funny you didnīt mention this in your previous post where you accused the maintenance personnel of being the reason for all the problems.
False Warnings was an everyday occurrence for pilots flying the Q400. Do you really mean that the cause for this was that mechanics actually went home after the end of their shift?
I donīt understand the connection, you claim, between number of seats and the mechanics union, maybe you can enlighten me?
Aha, so the first SAS Q400īs was of a lower mod standard, funny you didnīt mention this in your previous post where you accused the maintenance personnel of being the reason for all the problems.
False Warnings was an everyday occurrence for pilots flying the Q400. Do you really mean that the cause for this was that mechanics actually went home after the end of their shift?
I donīt understand the connection, you claim, between number of seats and the mechanics union, maybe you can enlighten me?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS Commuter was in danger of being absorbed into mainline. The Q400 seat size made that likely. In fact, it disappeared in the end. I didn't suggest sabotage, just an unhelpful attitude that didn't take commercial considerations of the airline into account. I think the result of that is pretty clear today.
"The INTRODUCER"
146/RJ
Excrab says:
255 in active service in fact. 150 x RJ, 105 x 146. Give or take.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence
Only 387 146/RJs were ever built and only 150 odd are left flying,
Source: Air Transport Intelligence
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horsebadorties
You wrote:
"If you go back to the early days of the Q400 with SAS, they had a number of teething problems."
and:
"Their antipathy to the aircraft had a lot to do with the situation."
How can this mean anything else than that the alledged attitude of the maintenance personnel, to a large extent, was the cause of the myriad of false warnings and other problems with the early Q400īs?
I certainly donīt agree. The problems continued for years and the maintenance personnel are not off duty for such a long period.
You wrote:
"If you go back to the early days of the Q400 with SAS, they had a number of teething problems."
and:
"Their antipathy to the aircraft had a lot to do with the situation."
How can this mean anything else than that the alledged attitude of the maintenance personnel, to a large extent, was the cause of the myriad of false warnings and other problems with the early Q400īs?
I certainly donīt agree. The problems continued for years and the maintenance personnel are not off duty for such a long period.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
horsebadorties
What a load of cr*p. The Q400's that SAS got were cr*p too. Corrosion in a place that was not supposed to be inspected,was the reason for the first accident in Aalborg.
What do you mean by 'an unhelpful attidude' ??
Had nothing to do with maintenance people being afraid of being absorbed into mainline. That's one of the most stupid statements I've seen on Pprune. Great mechanics at SAS Commuter, that had their work cut out for them with this shi**y piece of airplane. Are you from Bombardier?
What a load of cr*p. The Q400's that SAS got were cr*p too. Corrosion in a place that was not supposed to be inspected,was the reason for the first accident in Aalborg.
I didn't suggest sabotage, just an unhelpful attitude that didn't take commercial considerations of the airline into account. I think the result of that is pretty clear today.
Had nothing to do with maintenance people being afraid of being absorbed into mainline. That's one of the most stupid statements I've seen on Pprune. Great mechanics at SAS Commuter, that had their work cut out for them with this shi**y piece of airplane. Are you from Bombardier?
Moderator
Me thinks crazyaviator might be better thinking more before saying stupid thing!!
Moderator
Gee crazyaviator, is your apology for the remark which preceeds the apology, or the remark which follows it? Letting alone for the moment the highly inappropriate generalization about aircraft maintenance in Quebec, I think that if there is a maintenance failing associated with the SAS Q400 landing gear failure, it was probably a failing which occurred outside both Quebec and Canada. The Q400 is Toronto designed and built, but I don't believe that one was maintained in Canada. The landing gear is a well designed arrangement proven one hundreds of aircraft world wide. I don't see what Quebec has to do with this, or why the people of Quebec deserve this poor treatment from you.
Just in case there is a misunderstanding crazyaviator, the "Q" in Q400 does not stand for Quebec, it stands for quiet.
Perhaps reflection on that last term would be worthwhile....
Just in case there is a misunderstanding crazyaviator, the "Q" in Q400 does not stand for Quebec, it stands for quiet.
Perhaps reflection on that last term would be worthwhile....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the final report, the reason for the gear collapse was that the different metals used where the corrosion occured, actually increased the rate of corrosion. SAS maintenance was found to be without fault.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Looking over the Andes
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accident in SKBQ
What was the final word on the accident last August in SKBQ?
A DHC8-300, of AIRES (ARE), lost both tires of the right main gear at touch down!!!!
Let us know please!!
AA
A DHC8-300, of AIRES (ARE), lost both tires of the right main gear at touch down!!!!
Let us know please!!
AA
