Dash 8 gear problems ( Merged)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> DR.dk (Danish Radio) reports citing a passenger from the flight that 3 rows
> in the vicinity of the propellers were vacated in preparation for the
> emergency landing.
If that wasn't in the check list well done that crew.
Personally sitting next to any engine give me the willies. I know it shouldn't but then I'm not the sort who volunteers for the knife throwing act at the circus. Again well done crew.
> in the vicinity of the propellers were vacated in preparation for the
> emergency landing.
If that wasn't in the check list well done that crew.
Personally sitting next to any engine give me the willies. I know it shouldn't but then I'm not the sort who volunteers for the knife throwing act at the circus. Again well done crew.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 42
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi there
Would another reason for not shutting the #2 down have something to do with all the extra drag of the gear down, perhaps not being able to retract, and therefore, in the case of a go around, this having a severe effect on single engine climb performance?
Cheers
Ant
Would another reason for not shutting the #2 down have something to do with all the extra drag of the gear down, perhaps not being able to retract, and therefore, in the case of a go around, this having a severe effect on single engine climb performance?
Cheers
Ant
Last edited by antic81; 10th Sep 2007 at 10:03. Reason: my terrible spelling!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: @ some hotel far away from everything
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Danish "mountainous terrain" shouldn`t pose a problem regarding single engine missed approach climb gradient
.
From my interpretation of the "facts presented", the gear was not locked. Cockpit indication would be 2 green, and 1 either orange or red, or maybe even flickering green
. An uncertainty in any case, but you know something is not right. Well done by the crew for giving ATC an early notice and deciding to burn fuel to reduce landing weight (not as much pressure on the gear upon touchdown) and as we know; lower landing weight means lower Vref
. Even better was the decision of the crew/cabin crew to move passengers away from the props. Also, a good landing as seen on the clip. Too bad about the collapse though 
. From my interpretation of the "facts presented", the gear was not locked. Cockpit indication would be 2 green, and 1 either orange or red, or maybe even flickering green
. An uncertainty in any case, but you know something is not right. Well done by the crew for giving ATC an early notice and deciding to burn fuel to reduce landing weight (not as much pressure on the gear upon touchdown) and as we know; lower landing weight means lower Vref. Even better was the decision of the crew/cabin crew to move passengers away from the props. Also, a good landing as seen on the clip. Too bad about the collapse though
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Age: 35
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aero junkie: on what facts do you base that comment on?
Oct 2000
SAS grounds all planes of type Dash8/Q400 after a long series of instrumental problems.
SAS Q400s are out of service pending inspection of pitot/static system after an aircraft landed at Copenhagen with no speed or height information.
Jan 01
SAS Commuter and Bombardier work together to fix on going Dash Q400 problems.
Feb 01
Scandinavian carrier SAS Commuter is to ground all of its Canadian built turbo prop planes beacause of recurring inflight technical problems.
Jan 02
All Q400 grounded due to a crack found in main landing gear. This is after multiple problems with the fleet, including many unsafe gears, uplocked gear, hydraulic leaks and losses of quantity in one system, many faults related to vibration, parts of structure fallen off in flight, excessive wear on hoses, uplock hooks.
Sas examines 21 dash 8 Q400 planes for possible bolt defects.
Jan 03
An SAS (SK) Dash 8 Q400 had to make an emergency landing in Stavanger.
SAS Commuter had to ground its Dash8 Q400 fleet after several instances of false smoke warnings from the cargo hold resulting in multiple emergency landings.
Sep 07
Many SAS flights cancelled due to technical faults.
Sep 07
SAS Dash 8 Q400 makes emergency landing in Denmark due to landing gear failure.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Age: 52
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Official statement from SAS here:
http://www.sas.se/sv/Misc/Ovriga_sid...9---/?vst=true
Seems like they knew the gear was dodgy before landing. Looking at the video it seems like it just wasn't locked down and collapsed after rolling for a second or two?
http://www.sas.se/sv/Misc/Ovriga_sid...9---/?vst=true
Seems like they knew the gear was dodgy before landing. Looking at the video it seems like it just wasn't locked down and collapsed after rolling for a second or two?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faulty sensor?
Further reporting from Politiken.dk in Danish:
Apparently the Captain has been involved in dialogue on the web declaring that he believed a faulty sensor was to blame and was 90% certain the landing gear would hold.
The questioning was whether a landing on water was considered. The captain is quoted as stating that that was not considered.
Apparently the Captain has been involved in dialogue on the web declaring that he believed a faulty sensor was to blame and was 90% certain the landing gear would hold.
The questioning was whether a landing on water was considered. The captain is quoted as stating that that was not considered.
Last edited by teleport; 10th Sep 2007 at 12:49. Reason: spelling
Any confirmation that a prop actually penetrated the fuselage and in what axial plane?
I'm not aware of how you can put an axial force large enough to break off a prop and still have it tangentialy have enough energy to penetrate the fuselage. Seems like we have visited this before in the New Zealand B1900 thread
I'm not aware of how you can put an axial force large enough to break off a prop and still have it tangentialy have enough energy to penetrate the fuselage. Seems like we have visited this before in the New Zealand B1900 thread
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Antigua, W.I.
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See link below for further info. Seems that the prop debris did penetrate the fusalage, slightly injuring one pax.
http://www.dr.dk/NETTV/Update/2007/09/09/09180004.htm
http://www.dr.dk/NETTV/Update/2007/09/09/09180004.htm
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The questioning was whether a landing on water was considered. The captain is quoted as stating that that was not considered.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gooneyone See link below for further info. Seems that the prop debris did penetrate the fusalage, slightly injuring one pax.
For a good video and interview with an English speaking passenger reporting on propeller debris penetrating the cabin click on the following (in Danish) on the DR UPDATE video website:
Propel-ramt passager fortæller
10.09.2007 17:18
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: denmark
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q400 - have serious problems with the gear
See the story about Q-400 gear problems. Posted in the spring 2007 by a pilot with 3000 hrs on the Q400 for Scandinavian Airlines.
We have had an endless number of problems with the gear; I myself have had two occasions of the gear cycling itself multiple times, with the handle in the up and lock positions - Aparently caused by proximity sensors, as has been the case for many of my colleagues.
Looks kind of exiting with all the red, green and amber lights coming and going all the time, not to mention the actual feeling of doors and gear moving.
Fortunately, in my case, it never happend at 280 KIAS....I doubt the doors would remain attached.
In one case there was a problem with the actual uphook, very nearly causing one maingear to not extend....Crew extended it after trying alternate extension for about one hour and on a hot phoneline to Bombardier.
A few cases of trouble in the company too with nosegear extension - Don't remember the cause.
We still hear of problems on a regular basis with the prox sensors.
There has been, and contiue to be, problems with just about any system on this A/C....More interesting, we have had more than a few prop overspeeds in the last year - This results in shutting the engine down (in the case where you are able to regain some control with the propspeed) which is obviously not always a desirable thing to do in the Scandinavian winthers !
Very, very interesting aircraft indeed, and we are way beyond the "infant illness" period ....
We have had an endless number of problems with the gear; I myself have had two occasions of the gear cycling itself multiple times, with the handle in the up and lock positions - Aparently caused by proximity sensors, as has been the case for many of my colleagues.
Looks kind of exiting with all the red, green and amber lights coming and going all the time, not to mention the actual feeling of doors and gear moving.
Fortunately, in my case, it never happend at 280 KIAS....I doubt the doors would remain attached.
In one case there was a problem with the actual uphook, very nearly causing one maingear to not extend....Crew extended it after trying alternate extension for about one hour and on a hot phoneline to Bombardier.
A few cases of trouble in the company too with nosegear extension - Don't remember the cause.
We still hear of problems on a regular basis with the prox sensors.
There has been, and contiue to be, problems with just about any system on this A/C....More interesting, we have had more than a few prop overspeeds in the last year - This results in shutting the engine down (in the case where you are able to regain some control with the propspeed) which is obviously not always a desirable thing to do in the Scandinavian winthers !
Very, very interesting aircraft indeed, and we are way beyond the "infant illness" period ....
Last edited by angustias; 10th Sep 2007 at 19:37.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Morgantown, WV
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original thread is here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=268902
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=268902
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The English-speaking pax in the video mentioned in #32 says he hopes they can get the plane fixed by Saturday, when he has to fly out! 
There is another video on that site showing the aircraft being towed away. Registration appears to be LN-RDA - seen briefly at very end of clip. SAS-flytype: Højre hjul er knækket før
There is another video on that site showing the aircraft being towed away. Registration appears to be LN-RDA - seen briefly at very end of clip. SAS-flytype: Højre hjul er knækket før
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread drift:
I checked out the second video of the second post - you see the right gear collapse, I think the aircraft apparently shifts over onto the grass. I can't make out any flames nonetheless the firetruck rolls up and blows its foam at the a/c.
I'd just like to get some opinions here for me to think over, and of course it's difficult without being there and knowing the exact circumstances.
However, given what I've described above - would you be thinking evacuation? It looks like a quiet airfield (may of course be mistaken) - how would you view an evacuation if the above had happened at say Heathrow or another busy airfield?
From here it's not clear to me one way or another - I'd assume given the nature of what happened that there's not been time to get onto 121.6, even if there hasn't been a fire indication - which I'd imagine likely - from the front they'd be unlikely to be able to tell what's going on in the back either way. Then again, the worst has probably happened - do you want people jumping out of a crooked aircraft? Busy airfield, lots of trucks - how about the chances of roadkill?
I've been thinking about this question recently - ie a soft crash - and would welcome some opinions.
Cheers
I checked out the second video of the second post - you see the right gear collapse, I think the aircraft apparently shifts over onto the grass. I can't make out any flames nonetheless the firetruck rolls up and blows its foam at the a/c.
I'd just like to get some opinions here for me to think over, and of course it's difficult without being there and knowing the exact circumstances.
However, given what I've described above - would you be thinking evacuation? It looks like a quiet airfield (may of course be mistaken) - how would you view an evacuation if the above had happened at say Heathrow or another busy airfield?
From here it's not clear to me one way or another - I'd assume given the nature of what happened that there's not been time to get onto 121.6, even if there hasn't been a fire indication - which I'd imagine likely - from the front they'd be unlikely to be able to tell what's going on in the back either way. Then again, the worst has probably happened - do you want people jumping out of a crooked aircraft? Busy airfield, lots of trucks - how about the chances of roadkill?
I've been thinking about this question recently - ie a soft crash - and would welcome some opinions.
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the actual damage to the A/C does not appear to be "beyond repair" a landing with a prop disintegrating ("exploding" is a bit steep), a wingtip touching the ground and the A/C turning 90 degrees into the grass must feel quite disconcerting from the flightdeck, even if you anticipate it (at least it always does on the Sim).
There appear to be flames in the right engine area after touchdown although they're gone by the time the fire truck arrives.
With damage like that I'd rather think "evacuate" than keep everyone on board with a risk of fire. There is no way to assess the whole situation from the flight deck and getting pax out seems to be the safer option to me.
---
While pilots are instructed to shut up after any mishap and usually do so, it is interesting to read how there's always someone willing to make unwarranted statements, in this case the chief of the Airport's fire department. Unless I make wrong conclusions from the Danish reports, he comments on how a foam carpet would have reduced the risk of fire on touchdown (although we have been taught for years that foam carpets are not such a good idea) and that it was seconds/millimeters from a full-blown catastrophe (how very reassuring to pax).
---
AFAIK the landing gear on the Q400 is similar in design and operation to the one on the Q300 but much beefier. Interestingly the Dash 8-100 had problems with "gear bumping" (i.e. gear falling onto the gear doors without apparent reason) later attributed to proximity switch problems in it's infancy (i.e. the mid-eighties). These were later resolved.
The Q400 seems to have had more than it's fair share of "infant illness". One sometimes has the impression that Bombardier was too eager to re-invent the wheel. Otherwise it is hard to understand that such basic things as gear, doors, rear airstair malfunctioned quite a lot. (I can't compare however. Reportedly early Airbuses weren't without fault either.) Systems-wise the Q400 is quite different from the Q300 and more of a new A/C. (While pilots only need 3 days plus some SIM for the transition as everything is designed to look/work similar to the Q300, mechanics need a couple of weeks as everything is differnt under the hood.)
There appear to be flames in the right engine area after touchdown although they're gone by the time the fire truck arrives.
With damage like that I'd rather think "evacuate" than keep everyone on board with a risk of fire. There is no way to assess the whole situation from the flight deck and getting pax out seems to be the safer option to me.
---
While pilots are instructed to shut up after any mishap and usually do so, it is interesting to read how there's always someone willing to make unwarranted statements, in this case the chief of the Airport's fire department. Unless I make wrong conclusions from the Danish reports, he comments on how a foam carpet would have reduced the risk of fire on touchdown (although we have been taught for years that foam carpets are not such a good idea) and that it was seconds/millimeters from a full-blown catastrophe (how very reassuring to pax).
---
AFAIK the landing gear on the Q400 is similar in design and operation to the one on the Q300 but much beefier. Interestingly the Dash 8-100 had problems with "gear bumping" (i.e. gear falling onto the gear doors without apparent reason) later attributed to proximity switch problems in it's infancy (i.e. the mid-eighties). These were later resolved.
The Q400 seems to have had more than it's fair share of "infant illness". One sometimes has the impression that Bombardier was too eager to re-invent the wheel. Otherwise it is hard to understand that such basic things as gear, doors, rear airstair malfunctioned quite a lot. (I can't compare however. Reportedly early Airbuses weren't without fault either.) Systems-wise the Q400 is quite different from the Q300 and more of a new A/C. (While pilots only need 3 days plus some SIM for the transition as everything is designed to look/work similar to the Q300, mechanics need a couple of weeks as everything is differnt under the hood.)