SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are they stored by SAS and Wideroe ? Notes elsewhere say they have gone from their initial parking points. Have they returned to North America ?
...and Wideroes fifth Q400 is in Canada, ready for delivery...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morten Harkett, Dorset
Age: 100
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when would a faulty filter constitute as a major design flaw?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it means that a relatively large percentage of landings are controlled crashes due to undercarriage not deploying correctly, because of a design aspect??
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morten Harkett, Dorset
Age: 100
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold on a minute! I was merely answering the OP's question.
One of the crashes was caused by a defective filter but a relatively LARGE NUMBER of other planes have been found to be suffereing the same problem.
In due course, how many of these other defective planes would have suffered the same fate as the first one? I'd wager the chances were fairly high.
I'd say that constitutes a major design flaw, wouldn't you? If the landing gear had been designed differently then it is very likely landing gear would be near 100% reliable...
Also, it is not clear whether the two planes with corroded bolts had deficient filters or not. It is also not clear whether the faulty filters could contribute to the corrosion or otherwise aggravate the problem.
What is clear is that the landing gear needs investigating and potentially re-designing. It seems that maintenance/inspection procedures should be tightened up too, and documentation re-writing.
One of the crashes was caused by a defective filter but a relatively LARGE NUMBER of other planes have been found to be suffereing the same problem.
In due course, how many of these other defective planes would have suffered the same fate as the first one? I'd wager the chances were fairly high.
I'd say that constitutes a major design flaw, wouldn't you? If the landing gear had been designed differently then it is very likely landing gear would be near 100% reliable...
Also, it is not clear whether the two planes with corroded bolts had deficient filters or not. It is also not clear whether the faulty filters could contribute to the corrosion or otherwise aggravate the problem.
What is clear is that the landing gear needs investigating and potentially re-designing. It seems that maintenance/inspection procedures should be tightened up too, and documentation re-writing.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold on a minute! I was merely answering the OP's question.
In due course, how many of these other defective planes would have suffered the same fate as the first one? I'd wager the chances were fairly high.
I'd say that constitutes a major design flaw, wouldn't you?
If the landing gear had been designed differently then it is very likely landing gear would be near 100% reliable...
Also, it is not clear whether the two planes with corroded bolts had deficient filters or not.
What is clear is that the landing gear needs investigating and potentially re-designing
Speculation.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flaps2billion:
It appears you live in Montreal, so you've obviously heard of the "Journal de Montreal"... their recent coverage on the Air Canada in-flight upset has been almost pure speculation.
Maybe you don't consider the "Journal de Montreal" to be a Canadian publication?
Please, show me one Canadian report which makes definate claims prior to a final report?
Maybe you don't consider the "Journal de Montreal" to be a Canadian publication?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BRU
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ve taken the trouble to read through the Luftfartvaesenet 's reports on the last accident, in English and Danish, as well as the the article in BT, the latter being a good example of SAS PR efforts and Bombardier bashing it would seem to me.
The prelimanary, but updated reports state clearly that a MLG component (MSV) was replaced by a nosewheel MSV that had been 'worked' by maintanance services. In order to fit this modified part into the MLG, fttings from the original MSV were used, those possibly 'hiding' an O-ring that later on caused the accident.
(Ref http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...K_03112007.pdf page 2)
Can a manufacturer be accused of design flaws if a company doesn t use the right parts and follows its own procedures during maintanance operations?
Looking forward to the final report.
Fly safely.
The prelimanary, but updated reports state clearly that a MLG component (MSV) was replaced by a nosewheel MSV that had been 'worked' by maintanance services. In order to fit this modified part into the MLG, fttings from the original MSV were used, those possibly 'hiding' an O-ring that later on caused the accident.
(Ref http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...K_03112007.pdf page 2)
Can a manufacturer be accused of design flaws if a company doesn t use the right parts and follows its own procedures during maintanance operations?
Looking forward to the final report.
Fly safely.
Last edited by borghha; 26th Jan 2008 at 14:30. Reason: Adding reference doc SLV
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Age: 56
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by borghha
The prelimanary, but updated reports state clearly that a MLG component (MSV) was replaced by a nosewheel MSV that had been 'worked' by maintanance services. In order to fit this modified part into the MLG, fttings from the original MSV were used, those possibly 'hiding' an O-ring that later on caused the accident.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can a manufacturer be accused of design flaws if a company doesn t use the right parts and follows its own procedures during maintanance operations?
That is a BBD approved procedure, discribed in the AMM.
It appears you live in Montreal, so you've obviously heard of the "Journal de Montreal"... their recent coverage on the Air Canada in-flight upset has been almost pure speculation.
Was the article headline similar to this, "Air Canada has been flying dangerous airplanes for years when the aircraft rolled 60* for no apparent reason."
so, it is not clear whether the two planes with corroded bolts had deficient filters or not
Why is SAS the only company that had a corrossion problem? Horizon operates on the west coast & have been flying their q400s for a while, with no corrossion.
It seems that the article was written by a political writer. Judging by the way he wrote the propaganda piece, he knows very little about aviation. The writer makes a big deal about a little thing without looking at all the facts. The writer talks as if the faulty filter caused all three accidents! Did he at least mention that a NOn avaition grade/ corrosive lube was used on the gears??
It seems that the media is trying to convince the people that SAS is not at fault. The investigation is still not finished! We don't if the faulty filter is the cause. Its goodrich who makes the gears....not BBD.
Making a big deal out of the little things in order to convince the people is wrong!
& making statements, "SAS has been flying dangerous airplanes," is shameful!
The thing the pisses me off is, that an average person can pick up the paper, read the article & say, "wow! those airplanes are dangerous."
If the investigation favours BBD....will the media & politcians take the time to apologize to the BBD company???
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
Its goodrich who makes the gears....not BBD.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quote Flaps2billion:
"Did he at least mention that a NOn avaition grade/ corrosive lube was used on the gears??"
Thatīs speculation. Iīm still waiting to see any document saying this, I have also asked you guys to post it on Pprune.
Isnīt it right that BBD is now changin the design of the filters?
Why are they doing that if nothings wrong with them?
Does it matter if itīs a Goodrich or BBD approved procedure when itīs approved in the AMM?!
Headlines like "SAS has been flying dangerous airplanes" doesnīt help SASīs image so I donīt think that they wanted the article printed.
"Did he at least mention that a NOn avaition grade/ corrosive lube was used on the gears??"
Thatīs speculation. Iīm still waiting to see any document saying this, I have also asked you guys to post it on Pprune.
Isnīt it right that BBD is now changin the design of the filters?
Why are they doing that if nothings wrong with them?
Does it matter if itīs a Goodrich or BBD approved procedure when itīs approved in the AMM?!
Headlines like "SAS has been flying dangerous airplanes" doesnīt help SASīs image so I donīt think that they wanted the article printed.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: norway
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS Q400 gear collapse....
I have heard that Wideroe have agreed with Bombardier to return their existing complement of 400`s to Bombardier and shall take delivery of new generation 400`s (five machines) in March.
How do you like them apples!
How do you like them apples!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morten Harkett, Dorset
Age: 100
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyingbug,
I'm an Engineer by trade and when you see a number of catastrophic failures you check things out pretty carefully!
When you subsequently see problems with additional items out in the field alarm bells start to ring as it's apparent there is some kind of problem!
You can't seriously be telling me that this is all coincidence, surely??
Even if the fault is down to maintenance being carried out correctly (or incorrect assembly), it's still a design issue! Either your documentation is inadequate or the thing you designed is inherently difficult to maintain. Either way the designer is ultimately at fault.
I'm an Engineer by trade and when you see a number of catastrophic failures you check things out pretty carefully!
When you subsequently see problems with additional items out in the field alarm bells start to ring as it's apparent there is some kind of problem!
You can't seriously be telling me that this is all coincidence, surely??
Even if the fault is down to maintenance being carried out correctly (or incorrect assembly), it's still a design issue! Either your documentation is inadequate or the thing you designed is inherently difficult to maintain. Either way the designer is ultimately at fault.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negative, they are not
My friend, who is a test pilot for BBD, told me that they will be receiving new Q400s.
I tried to look it up on google & found this picture:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...AINST%20('+
Concerning the corrossive lube......that's the talk around BBD. Note that others have given the info on this thread...if you look back. So it's not just me.
Judging by the way the media in your country has been telling the story, do you think they want to make this public?
All I have to say is, wait for the final report on the first two accidents.
The EASA strongly believes that the problem lies between maint. & fault design. Now that they have discovered the problem, they
I have one question though.
What is it not an SSV valve on the right main gear that was replaced on Oct. 16th, that triggered the rogue o-ring to migrate in the hydralics lines?
what is your profession, and whom do you work for?