Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10

Old 8th Nov 2007, 18:26
  #261 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Now this is settling down, how have SAS replaced 27 aircraft ? Their schedules still show the Q400 on many operations. Some seay that MD80s have been drafted in but obviously SAS didn't have 27 MD80s, and their crews, or anything like that number, standing by doing nothing at point of withdrawl.
WHBM is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2007, 00:54
  #262 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They have drafted in several aircraft from other Scandinavian carriers (and, according to a SAS guy, only Scandinavian carriers at this point) to address the shortfall. Apparently quite a few routes have been dropped as well.

Quite spooky to see all the Q400s still parked where they were left before the grounding - although they seem to be slowly migrating to the maintenance area.
remoak is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2007, 12:04
  #263 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EASA, Canadian Authorities To Discuss Q400 Woes
Investigation Points To Maintenance As Cause Of One Gear Incident
Officials with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will meet
Wednesday with their counterparts from Transport Canada, to discuss a recent spate of incidents involving Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 regional turboprops flying for Scandinavian Airlines (SAS).

EASA called for the emergency meeting last week, reports the International Herald Tribune, following the announcement by SAS it would stop flying all its Q400s. As ANN reported, three SAS Q400s suffered nearly-identical failures of their right main landing gear assemblies in less than two months, resulting in emergency landings.

Separate investigations by the Danish government determined the first two incidents -- in Aalborg, Denmark on September 9, followed by another failure in Vilnius, Lithuania three days later -- were caused by a corroded bolt in each plane's landing gear assembly. However, a third incident on October 22 may have been caused by a loose rubber O-ring, which jammed and kept the gear leg from extending.

Furthermore, according to the preliminary report by the Danish Accident
Investigation Board, a portion of the right maingear was replaced six days
before that accident -- using parts intended for the nose gear. The parts
were "reconfigured by maintenance personnel" for use by SAS on the main gear, according to the report.

If those findings hold up in the final report, it would give credibility to
those who have said the problem lies not with the aircraft, but with SAS
maintenance... a position held by the plane's manufacturer, Bombardier.
In a statement this week, Bombardier said the Danish report "clearly
supports" its position, that "the Q400 is a safe and reliable aircraft." A
SAS spokeswoman declined to comment on the preliminary report's findings, saying only the airline "doing everything to help" authorities determine the cause of the problem.

Authorities in Denmark, Sweden and Norway supported the decision by SAS to permanently ground its 27-plane Q400 fleet... a position contrary to EASA's, which had upheld the aircraft's airworthiness certification.
Resolving that "non-harmonized situation," in the words of an EASA
spokeswoman, is one of the goals of Wednesday's meeting.
www.bombardier.com, www.flysas.com, www.easa.int
Tailspin Tommy is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2007, 16:26
  #264 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nothing new, really.

Bombardier still claims themselves "not responsible" well before any final conclusions have been drawn. They must be scared stiff, since they take such an agressive stand.

And everyone seems to accept, that there are loose parts flowing around in the hydraulic system in the first place.

A lot of firefighting going on. And its very unpretty, as long as the final report isn't published.
Severe CAVOK is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2007, 18:15
  #265 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can somebody comment on the actual design of the hydraulic valve part where the fault occurred? I mean, if a pinhead-size O-ring fragment can block this small orifice and thereby prevent both normal LG extension and the emergency extension method? I can understand that putting a filter in each and every hydraulic line is not practical. But if this hydraulic valve part had two small orifices instead of one, maybe the landing gear would still have functioned even if one was blocked?
snowfalcon2 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2007, 13:37
  #266 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sweden
Age: 61
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
being a SLF and only IPR PPL in the past I guess I should stay off, but maybe a frequent SAS SLF perspective could add something?

In the beginning I was a bit hesitant to go on routes with the Q400 due to bad regularity mainly. Then there where incidents also influencing. When the Kalmar incident was reported last spring I made the conclusion that I do not trust the Q400, at least with SAS. According to the incident report, the overspeed of the engine initiating the event was a frequent problem being reported as a minor problem. SAS did not recognize the pattern as they only monitored problems being reported with higher severity. this combined with jet pilots being transferred to turboprop and not being trained properly on flight idle for turboprops created a very dangerous situation. I then (without professional expertize) for myself decided that the frequency of "minor" faults in the Q400 is dangerous, and I should stay away from the aircraft.

Then the first two landing gear accidents came this autumn, the first one was again considered as a stand alone event by SAS for two more days before it showed up again. From outside it seems that SAS again missed the opportunity to analyse what has happened before deciding to continue to fly. After the second incident this autumn I thought SAS would make the same conclusion as I did, it does not work. After the third incident the conclusion came- ironically it might be a SAS maintenance issue this time. It seems that the aircraft had an issue with the landing gear some days before, this was taken care of and the plane was again declared ok- but it wasn't.

Sorry for this lengthy and non professional reflection on how I experinence the situation.

From my perspective it is a combination of issues with the Q400 and SAS flying commuters that is the problem. I would expect that after this turbulence, other companies in Scandinavia like Cimber air and Skyways will take care of the thinner routes and SAS has to exit this segment.
fermented herring is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2007, 21:48
  #267 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
May I just point out that from around 1990, SAS has had a fleet of Fokker 50´s that has been replaced by the Q400 and there´s now only 5 F50´s left.

The Fokker 50 is a turboprop and has been flown by many pilots coming from SAS´s jet fleet. The F50 operations has a very good reputation for safety and reliability.

The Kalmar incident was preceeded by a few flights with the same malfunction and on these earlier flights there were no control problems. Bombardier has now changed the Q400 "emergency" checklist so there won´t be an incident next time it happends.

Things are selldom clear cut, even if we like them to be. However; I can understand that passengers don´t trust the Q400 and that´s the reason SAS has grounded it´s Q400´s.
Ladusvala is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2007, 22:37
  #268 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: With RollerGirl
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I just can't understand this, 2 problems occur then changes are made. All aircraft back in service, I wonder if there was any change in the loads pre and post?

One further 'unrelated' problem occurs and within 2 days SAS have decided all their pax have lost confidence in the D8-400.

Where is this rubbish coming from:

1. How do SAS decide pax have lost confidence in D8-400 in 48 hrs?

2. Who are SAS to make bold statements about their own countrymen and women?

Tell you what if I needed to fly a D8-400 to get back to my girlfriend after 5 days of work I would have the confidence to fly.

3. Or maybe load figures have fallen BUT is that because their countrymen and women have lost confidence in the airline?

wonder if anyone has the answers.

Rollerboy is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2007, 22:51
  #269 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

you should see the local newspapers.

When the main frontpage news in ALL newspapers is a crash-landed Q400 and the story repeats three times in a period of five weeks, it's a wise option to cut your losses and start over.
snowfalcon2 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2007, 23:01
  #270 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: With RollerGirl
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I see your point, but does that mean the media have made the decision to create a loss of confidence in the D8-400. Interested to know if they are still following the story or just the initial accidents?

Rollerboy is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2007, 23:19
  #271 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think there is one answer to your question.

Having followed the news it has become clear to me that the type has had an extraordinary amount of problems over the years. Somewhere I read that it has caused more than 50% of the rescue standby alarms at CPH even though it represents only 10% of the operations (or thereabouts). So far the consequences have been limited to decreased passenger confidence in the type, but following these accidents the company had to act resolutely to avoid further badwill. That's how I see it anyway.
snowfalcon2 is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2007, 01:53
  #272 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any reason to believe the Q400 is causing more 'rescue standby alarms at CPH' due to the types' tendency to fly short routes, thereby making CPH the nearest and most suitable (engineer cover, flight time etc) aerodrome as opposed to Airbus/Boeing aircraft which are more likely to have a closer alternate enroute?
Cyclone733 is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2007, 15:53
  #273 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 65
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Landing a Q400

Here's the secret folks...fly the aircraft at the AFM approach speed...add no buffers for crosswind or gust conditions...this is a turboprop with 'blown lift' and not a jet. Crosswind certification in 30+ kt winds conducted at Vref...not at Vref + half the crosswind component and as will all DH products, bleed the speed off from 50 ft down and flare at the bottom end.
deHavillandUser is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 12:40
  #274 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any truth in the story that flybe have dispatched a team of engineers to assess the SAS Q400 fleet in general - possibly about to put an offer in for the lot?

I know flybe already do a lot of maintenance work on the SAS Dash 8 fleet.

Just curious...
tristar500 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 14:47
  #275 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: devonshire
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
None whatsoever!!
embraernotworthy is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2007, 09:27
  #276 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Austria
Age: 62
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Result of the EASA Meeting

The European Aviation Safety Agency today (07/11/2007) invited officials of the airworthiness authorities of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Canada as well as representatives of
the plane manufacturer Bombardier and component manufacturer Goodrich to an airworthiness review meeting for the Bombardier Dash 8-400 aircraft at the Agency’s
headquarters in Cologne.
All participants concluded that the incident of an SAS Dash 8-400 on 27 October at Copenhagen was not due to a design error and that the airworthiness of the aircraft is
maintained. The Agency understands that the Scandinavian airworthiness authorities will reissue the Certificates of Airworthiness relevant to this aircraft type in the coming days.
The meeting also confirmed that the incidents with SAS aircraft on 9 September and 12 September were not related to the incident on 27 October. The Agency has already
addressed these previous incidents with the remedial actions prescribed in its Airworthiness Directives issued on 13 September and 16 October.
The Agency’s Executive Director Patrick Goudou welcomed the good spirit of co-operation of all participants as “a good example of European and transatlantic co-operation in
the area of aviation safety”.
maxrpm is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2007, 13:11
  #277 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
So that settles it then and my post will be the last one in this thread
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2007, 19:13
  #278 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Okay, thanks

I'm just curious: what settles what??
Severe CAVOK is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2007, 15:54
  #279 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Right here
Age: 57
Posts: 79
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It aint over!

Press send me a PM
Originally Posted by xxxxxxx
Hi Miraculix,
I was just looking at your posts on the Q400 landing gear failing. I'm doing some research on the aircraft at the moment for a possible BBC documentary.
You mentioned pilots aren't happy with the plane's performance - do you know any pilots who fly or flew the plane?
I'd love to speak to one of these pilots - off the record if necessary - to help with my research. I know there are other pilots who don't really have a problem with the plane.
Anyway, if you can help put me in touch with anyone, I'm on [email protected] or 00 44 xxxx xxxxxx.
I hope to hear from you.
Best wishes,
My answer:
Hi Joe
I think you will have a great deal of problems finding a pilot who will talk to anyone from the media. This is due to the fact that:
1 The press sensationalize.
2 The press often makes mistakes in their reporting and twist the words.
3 In aviation we try and solve problems, the media places blame, thereby often hindering progress in aviation safety.
Good luck in finding a person who want's to talk to you.
Miraculix is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2007, 07:57
  #280 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Austria
Age: 62
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From Flight International

SAS Q400 accident probe points to maintenance error
By David Kaminski-Morrow

Danish investigators are indicating that a maintenance error led to the landing-gear actuator blockage which led a Scandinavian Airlines Bombardier Q400 to conduct a gear-up landing at Copenhagen last month.

It follows their discovery that an O-ring from a newly-replaced door valve caused the blockage of a restrictor valve in the actuator assembly. The blockage prevented the right-hand landing-gear deploying.

The subsequent gear-up landing was the third suffered by a Scandinavian Airlines Q400 since early September and the carrier opted to remove the entire fleet permanently from service.

But while the underlying reasons for the first two accidents, which resulted from actuator corrosion, have yet to be determined, Danish investigation agency HCL is suggesting that a maintenance error contributed to the third.

The finding lends support to claims from manufacturer Bombardier that there is no inherent problem with the aircraft.

HCL says that in-depth analysis of the Q400’s hydraulic system shows that the O-ring “could not have travelled” from the solenoid valve to the actuator because certain components, such as the mechanical sequence valve, would prevent passage.

But it points out that the right main landing-gear’s solenoid valve was replaced on 16 October and the mechanical sequence valve was replaced on 22 October – just five days before the Copenhagen accident.

Scandinavian Airlines replaced a number of landing-gear components on its entire fleet after the first two gear-up events, at Aalborg and Vilnius, on 9 and 12 September.

HCL says that, during replacement of the mechanical sequence valve, the rogue O-ring could have “unknowingly been transferred…by maintenance personnel” from one side of the valve to the other.

If this was the case, it says, the O-ring would have been able to travel through the hydraulic lines towards the landing-gear actuator. HCL states that the investigation is continuing and the organisation has yet to reach final conclusions
maxrpm is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.