SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10

[mini]

Forget the Q400, the first time I was scheduled to pax on a Dash 8, I did a bit of sniffing and it emerged that they had a history of gear failure.

This was quite a while ago.

Somethings not quite right.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Age is one issue, but hrs and cycles would be more interesting to look at.

How someting like this could happen after the operator, aircraft manufacturer, landing gear manufacturer and various regulating agencis have inspected the Q400 and given a thumbs up for its return to service, is beyond me.

It shall be very interesting to see what they will do now? A lot of Canadians working overtime the next few weeks, thats for sure.

[Waveman]

Do SAS tend to land Flap 15 rather than the slower/lower energy Flap 35 that most others seem to use?

[ManaAdaSystem]

It's just you, bb.
3 very professionally handled emergency landings without loss of lives. Accidents by definition, but crash is not on my tongue.
Very well done, SAS guys!

[False Capture]

Well done to the SAS pilots.

Dash 8-400 fleet grounded - at least you guys can enjoy some well earned time off.

[RAFAT]

Waveman - as far as I'm aware Flybe is the only 400 operator that recommends flap 35 landings as the standard, and this is due to the larger proportion of shorter runways on the their network.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It is very concerning when you have 3 similar incidents in the same company. There must be something that has caused the difference. I can't imagine that FlyBE work their a/c any less hard than SAS. Could it have something to do wit the conditions that SAS operate them in.

I can't imagine they get any easy time in the winter. Pure speculation of course.

I hope they find a cure pretty sharpish, or it could be big trouble for Bombardier.

[embraernotworthy]

Guys, is it just the SAS fleet that are grounded or does it include others like before please??? cheers

[ManaAdaSystem]

The right main gear failed to extend. I got this link from a friend in Scandiland;

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel...1193520178.jpg

Picture taken from the aircraft.

[embraernotworthy]

much different fault than before then!!

[andy_smith89uk]

Is it just me who finds it slightly odd that the last two SAS Q400 incidents have been captured on video camera? Not CCTV, but really quite good quality footage?

And no, I'm certainly not trying to start a conspiracy theory or anything like that, am just curious about it!

[Clarence Oveur]

This is probably spells the end of the Q400 with SAS. I don't see how they could possibly restore public confidence in this aircraft, after this accident. Even if it turns out that the last accident have no connection to the first two.

I predict no more Q400 flights for SAS and a massive payout for Bombardier.

[Jando]

Is it just me who finds it slightly odd that the last two SAS Q400 incidents have been captured on video camera?

Nothing odd here, in both cases the crew knew that the gear was unsafe and advised ATC and probably the company, burned some fuel and got the fire services standing by. Plenty of time to dispatch a camera team.

[FlyTCI]

Video footage

Andy

Not really suspicous at all actually. According to news articles they were circling for about two hours before deciding to "take the plunge" and land.. Lots of time for people who monitor frequencies or are planespotting to get their cameras ready.

Maybe it's time for SAS to book some spots in the CRJ sim now, if they dare to go with Bombardier again that is.
/FlyTCI

[Bearcat]

how could you, bear say this great aviation machine is a piece of sh@t? well as a commercial airliner it is not holding upto the standards of other craft...yes it has'nt fallen out of the sky but the gear issue imo is bloody unacceptable to the extent the guys in sas dont need sim checks as there are doing all the drama on the line. I make no apology, this aircraft is scrappers material. The fare paying punter will sh#t themselves everytime the gear goes down hoping success....thats not on.

[ChristiaanJ]

That's three now?
No casualties, no fire.
Just as well they grounded them.
Next time the wing may touch down just a bit harder, and the media will get the fireball they were hoping for.

[M609]

Norwegian CAA stated to NRK (TV) that it "...will be a long time..." before the Q400 is allowed into the air again.

I remember the early days of Q400 i SAS service. It was a bit of a turkey then too, with spurious fire indications with associated diversions. And snags on the ground. At Ängelhom we ran out of ramp space once in 02 due to broken Q400s.
(Yes, yes..... tiny ramp )

[Busbert]

There is a certain runway deicer in use in some of the airports that SAS serves that EATS landing gear and carbon brakes, and has certainly caused problems on the bigger aircraft in the fleet.

This runway deicer is not that widely used elsewhere

I wonder if this is a factor?

[lomapaseo]

Norwegian CAA stated to NRK (TV) that it "...will be a long time..." before the Q400 is allowed into the air again

Wrong kind of wording, possibly a translation problem or slip of the tongue if coming from a regulator rather than a politician.

Preamble: This is a continued airworthiness issue and is allowed for in the design and original certification of the aircraft so as long as it is not in violation of its original certificate basis (wear, useage, maintenance, operation, environment etc.) then the issue is expected to be addressed under the continued airworthiness part of the regulations (identify and fix it).

If it was misidentified or an inadequate fix, then the regulator needs to hold somebody's feet to the fire long enough to get it fixed. The time frame is up to both the operator and the certificate holder, the regulator might ask for more data, but they just can't ignore data and sit on their hands as a form of punishment.

So in short, even if the manufacturer or the operator screwed up, it's up to them to set the time frame for recovery. If the regulator tries to go beyond this they might as well pull the certificate of either one or both for all products they operate or design.

[Haven't a clue]

Bombardier Press Release

Bombardier Q400 Scandinavian Flight Sk2867 Incident

Toronto, October 27, 2007

Bombardier confirms that a Bombardier Q400 aircraft S/N 4024 registration number LN-RDI operating as flight SK2867 from Bergen to Copenhagen, was involved in an incident at Copenhagen Airport at 16:55 local time on October 27, 2007. There were no reported injuries to the 40 passengers and 4 crew members on board.

According to preliminary information, the incident involved the main right hand landing gear, which failed to fully extend for landing. There appears to be no relationship between this incident and previous SAS Q400 main landing gear incidents. While SAS has decided to ground their Q400 fleet until further notice, Bombardier has advised all Q400 operators via an All Operator Message (AOM) of this incident but is not recommending changes to their normal on-going Q400 flight operations.

Bombardier is cooperating fully with SAS and the investigating aviation authorities and has dispatched a product safety and technical team to the site to fully support and assist in the investigation. Until such time as the authorities release any information or findings, Bombardier cannot comment further or speculate on the potential cause of this incident.

For the operators no immediate impact then.