SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10

[Miraculix]

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=188833

Flyprodusenten Bombardier skifter ut et filter i understellet til alle Dash 8 Q400-fly fordi filteret kan kollapse.
Feilen på filteret skal ha vært medvirkende til at et Dash 8 Q400 havarerte på Kastrup flyplass 27. oktober, og flyprodusenten Bombardier innrømmer nå at det også tidligere har vært problemer med filtre av samme type.
Den canadiske flyprodusenten har fram til nå vist til en foreløpig rapport fra den danske havarikommisjonen som sier at en SAS-mekaniker brukte en gummipakning til understellet som var ment for nesehjulopphenget. Den lille gummiringen blokkerte en hydraulisk arm, slik at høyre landingshjul ikke kunne slås ut.
Men nå erkjenner Bombardier at det var en svakhet i understellets hydraulikk.
- De har erkjent at det er et problem med filteret som kollapset og fikk o-ringen til å komme ut i systemet. Det har kollapset ved tidligere anledninger. Derfor har Bombardier nå gjort det kjent at de skal produsere et nytt og sterkere filter, sier det danske luftfartsverkets informasjonssjef Thorbjörn Ancker til nyhetsbyrået Ritzau.
Dette øker sannsynligheten for at den danske havarikommisjonen i sin sluttrapport kommer til å peke ut Bombardier som ansvarlig for havariet på Kastrup.

In essence:
Bombardier is changing all filters on all Dash 8-400's as the current hydraulic filters are to weak and prone to collaps. Bombardier admits that there has been problems with the filters collapsing on prievious occations.

[flaps2billion]

Bombardier is changing all filters on all Dash 8-400's as the current hydraulic filters are to weak and prone to collaps. Bombardier admits that there has been problems with the filters collapsing on prievious occations.

& that's the cause? Highly doubt it......I hink it's a desperate attempt to evene the score!

The last Q400 gear failure at SAS was due to a screw up by someone, not the aircraft or it's systems. Please see link below for details:
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...2030102007.pdf

[Severe CAVOK]

I hink it's a desperate attempt to evene the score!

So you think it's a game? And if I read you correct, you think Bombardier has the lead for the time being?

[Miraculix]

flaps2billion

From the link you provided:

The continuing investigation will focus on the source of the O-Ring.

Will a collapsed filter let an O-ring through?

[The Bartender]

The last Q400 gear failure at SAS was due to a screw up by someone, not the aircraft or it's systems.

You seem to miss a important point here...
The Danish accident investigation board concluded, in their third Preliminary Report, that the O-ring was introduced into the hydraulic system by the failure of the filter. As the O-ring is installed next to the filter, this would seem like a flaw in the design.

You're pointing to the second Preliminary Report, wich does not include these findings...

Surely, the O-ring got some help on the way when the old unions, including the O-ring, were transfered from the old MSV to the oposite end of the new MSV, and the accident would probably not have happened had this not been done, but fact is that the O-ring should not have been there in the first place...

So yes, someone did screw up when the O-ring was transferred past the MSV, but the manufacturer screwed up at the design-level, and THAT is what introduced the O-ring in the first place..

[flaps2billion]

Fine, agreed & it's a good point, although not conclusive...

But now I ask you, why only SAS? The other Q400s have same filters?
Horizon has received Q400s along the same time as SAS.....

The filter is vey minor desig flaw. Other aircraft, like 737, had major design defects...It's rare to find a perfect airplane!
Does a small filter problem justify SAS having to get rid of the fleet & get compensation? Highly doubt it!

Correct if I am wrong, but the first two accidents were due to corrosion on certain bolts.

Would the weak filter justify compensation & liability???

you think Bombardier has the lead for the time being?

Of course they do. Findings of the investigation so far, show that maintanence has put parts, that were intended for the front gear, on the right & left.

I am not accusing SAS tech, I will wait for final reports! SAS tech is most probaly very good, but things canhappen even to the best!

[Miraculix]

flaps2billion

You want to make it a game, here is how I see the "game" so far:

The first crash was due to corrosion and the inspections required by Bomardier not good enough, no chance for SAS to find the fault.
Bombadier behind by 1.

Bombardier tells SAS this is an isolated "incident" and they should keep flying!
Bombadier behind by 2.

Number 2 airplane crashes:
Bombardier behind by 3.

The judge is still out on the final crash, the the score so far:
SAS 3 Bombardier 0.

But now I ask you, why only SAS?

That could be a million things, but most probably enviroment. Scandinavia has a very humid climate, mix that with slush and ice for a good part of the year and you have wear and tear not seen many places in the world.

[Hudson Bay]

ANA Dash 8 in Japan lands without gear down. Reported by UK BBC.

Is this SAS's fault aswell?

In all my flying life I have never known an aircraft to have as many gear up landings as this naf Dash 8. Ground the world wide fleet before somebody dies.

[flaps2billion]

Everybody relax & calm.....

Miraculx:

The first crash was due to corrosion and the inspections required by Bomardier not good enough, no chance for SAS to find the fault.

Reports that corrossion was partly due to maint. using a Non aviation grade corrosive lubricant...
No chance to find fault? Are you joking me!?!?!? What else did they not do?
(upon inspecting the gears) "hey look rusty bolts...what do we do now? Ahh just leave it"
BBD 1 SAS 0

Bombardier tells SAS this is an isolated "incident" and they should keep flying!

Of course it was. But during the inspections, somebody put something in that right gear, that was not suppossed to be there. How is it a design error?
Tie....BBD1 SAS 0

Number 2 airplane crashes

Re-red 1
BBD2 SAS 0

SAS placing parts that were intended for the front gear, on the right & left.
BBD3 SAS0

Incidents like these only happening at SAS??????

That could be a million things, but most probably enviroment. Scandinavia has a very humid climate, mix that with slush and ice for a good part of the year and you have wear and tear not seen many places in the world.

Oh c'mon! Horizon operates on the weast coast & still has no problems. Very humide there also!
Slush & Ice! Hello...the aircraft is made in Canada! We tested them & operate them in the snow/slush/ice/etc....

How many more euro agencies have to assure you people that the Q400 is safe?? Or did the media in your home countries already decide that for you?? They already made their decision long before any report ever came out!

ANA Dash 8 in Japan lands without gear down
In all my flying life I have never known an aircraft to have as many gear up landings as this naf Dash 8. Ground the world wide fleet before somebody dies.

Short memory? & the 737 should of been grounded when it's rudder deflects in the opposite direction forcing two (almost three) airplanes into the ground killing hundreds of people???? Are they not still flying???

ANA was because some idiot forgot to place a bolt in the front gear. Not a design flaw.....mistakes like that happen all the time. It's a human factor.

[Severe CAVOK]

flaps2billion:

I'm afraid it's a complete waste of time discussing these items with you, because either:

1. you haven't read the preliminary reports from the Danish AIB at all, or

2. you have completely missed the essentials of these written statements, which is incredible, since they are in your native language, or

3. you are winding things up.

I'm not sure, which option is more likely, but I'm quite sure, that it makes NO sense to wait for the final report before discussing with you again, cause option 1, 2 or 3 will almost certainly apply then again.

And, by the way, you have also completely missed the seven years of agony, SAS has experienced with the Q400, leading to the "No more"-decision after the 3 accidents in 1 month. But whats the point... you know everything there is to know about this, and therefore you will now state the truth in your next reply.

Educate us.

[Ladusvala]

flaps2billion, you are frustrating me!

Were the bolts rusty on the outside, have you seen them?

Please give us the link to the report about non aviation grade corrosive lubricant.

After the first gear failure, what was put there that didn´t belong there?

After so many gear up landings by SAS aircraft, is it any wonder why passengers has lost confidence in the Q400? That´s the reason SAS don´t want it any more - the passengers don´t want it.

What´s your connection to the Q400?

[flaps2billion]

Look, I am waiting for the final report. My responses are just based on the fact that most of you have already decided on the issue.

Yes I agree with SAS management, that they had to dump the fleet. it was a business decision not a safety one. People just don't know better & can be easily persuaded by the media.

But the media and politicians of your country have already decided on this issue long before any report. Is it not true that Danish politicians have requested that the Q400 should be banned in europe?

What get's to me, is that none of you are willing to mention or accept the slight possibility, that it could be a maintenence problem? Why....could you at least consider it?
This should not be a national issue, it should be about finding the truth!

after the 3 accidents in 1 month

of course it's bizarre....what I find even more bizarre is, why only SAS? Please give me a logical answer, no rhetoric! Why only SAS?

After the first gear failure, what was put there that didn´t belong there?

Laduslav your lost....
First two accidents were similar. The third one was different....please read link below!
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...2030102007.pdf

[punkalouver]

Might as well just wait for the final report as neither side is going to agree with the other and both are angling the facts in favour of their own biases. I hope that Bombardier comes out on top because of my bias but the truth is more important.
So lets wait and spend our energy fighting over something much more important......Hans Island. It belongs to Canada and we will never let the Danes take it from us.

http://www.rickbroadhead.com/hans.htm

[Ladusvala]

flaps2billion, you say that I´m lost but my question was about your statement that, after the first gear collapse, something was put there that didn´t belong there.
Please re-read your own posts!

QUOTE
The first crash was due to corrosion and the inspections required by Bomardier not good enough, no chance for SAS to find the fault.
Reports that corrossion was partly due to maint. using a Non aviation grade corrosive lubricant...
No chance to find fault? Are you joking me!?!?!? What else did they not do?
(upon inspecting the gears) "hey look rusty bolts...what do we do now? Ahh just leave it"
BBD 1 SAS 0

Quote:
Bombardier tells SAS this is an isolated "incident" and they should keep flying!
Of course it was. But during the inspections, somebody put something in that right gear, that was not suppossed to be there. How is it a design error?
Tie....BBD1 SAS 0

Quote:
Number 2 airplane crashes
END OF QUOTE
I ask again, what was put there after the first gear collapse?

[Ladusvala]

flaps2 billion, you write something that is correct but you don´t tell the whole story.

QUOTE
SAS placing parts that were intended for the front gear, on the right & left.
END OF QUOTE

Isn´t it true that this part is intended for both the nose gear and main gear, provided you change the fittings?



Bombardier is smart enough to use interchangeable parts where possible, it reduces the cost of the aircraft.

[fermented herring]

I am surprised to see that there is an expectation to have a winner and a loser in this "game". As SLF I consider myself part of a bet that I didn't want to be in, and cannot see anything than two losers- maybe it can be discussed to what level the two are losers (in addition to SLFs).

[Ladusvala]

flaps2billion:

Please give us the link to the report about non aviation grade corrosive lubricant, you claim was used.

The reason I want to read that particular report is that I want to know the truth. Surely you also want the truth to be known, so why don´t share the report with me as I can´t find it. Please!


Why only SAS, you ask...
Well, until you post the report you claim to have read, I believe that it is due to SAS having the oldest aircraft with the most cycles.
Remember that if it was a design flaw, it will not break after exactly the same number of hours or cycles on every aircraft. That means that there is an element of coincidence also, just as it was with the collapse being on the right side only. (Isn´t that strange, the SAS mechanics can only maintain the left main gear, not the right?)

[flaps2billion]

QUOTE
SAS placing parts that were intended for the front gear, on the right & left.
END OF QUOTE

Isn´t it true that this part is intended for both the nose gear and main gear, provided you change the fittings?
Bombardier is smart enough to use interchangeable parts where possible, it reduces the cost of the aircraft.

You never use interchanged parts between the front & main gears.....two different systems!

I have to go back to the link, but in the prelim. report, it mentions that parts between the front & left/right were mixed.....

Concerning the lubricants...let's just say I heard through the grapevine & it would be a conflict of interest to name the source...but time will tell.

(Isn´t that strange, the SAS mechanics can only maintain the left main gear, not the right?)

That I have to admit, is a good point. But the investigation will tell...

fermented herring:
That is what it has become. SAS wants compensation & BBD doesn't believe this scenerio merits one.

The question is now, given the scenarios, does SAS deserve one? will see......

[maxrpm]

Isn´t that strange, the SAS mechanics can only maintain the left main gear, not the right?)
That I have to admit, is a good point. But the investigation will tell.
The guys from maintence told us that the layout of the hydraulic system puts more strain on the right acctuator thus enhancing the danger of something breaking on the right side when there is corrision.

[Kiwiconehead]

The Bombardier info we saw pointed out SAS not using Mastinox (yellow gorilla snot stuff) when assembling the rod end as specified but a graphite grease instead - not up to the job and allowed water/salt etc into the threads and corroded internally.

The only sign would be the loosening of the jam nut as the rod end started pulling out (hence the AD inspection requirement).