SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Europe
Age: 49
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alexmcfire: Why do you think Wideroe also will dump their 100/300? Why should they? 100/300 is a totally different aircraft, other type of landing gear system ++++.... And there is no option for the short runways we are operating from.
As far as I know, another two in Japan involving All Nippon (2004 and 2006).
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder what will happen with their frames.. museums? restaurants? scrap metal? Sell them to Africa/South America?
Why should they? 100/300 is a totally different aircraft
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't think it's totally out of the question that they may get rid of all DHC-8 airframes
Bold line the SAS board is taking
Is this just an excuse to cut back due to a slow down in the economy as opposed to a real risk? Sounds a bit like clever PR as opposed to a sensible reaction to a series of (possibly unrelated) issues with the Dash's MLG
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mrs HAC is not a good flyer, which is a problem as we live on an island and regularly travel to London. She lost a lot of sleep worrying about flying on FlyBe's Q400s after the September accidents. Her alternative is another Dash8, a -200, to London City which she admits she cannot do on her own. (The arrival is somewhat abrupt!) She travels at least once a month sometimes solo down, but I have to go down later and accompany her back.
I know from talking about this with colleagues and friends her fear of flying is not unique, and the action by SAS to dump their aircraft will have an impact on these people.
And no way will I ever sit in a row by the propellers....
I know from talking about this with colleagues and friends her fear of flying is not unique, and the action by SAS to dump their aircraft will have an impact on these people.
And no way will I ever sit in a row by the propellers....
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bombardier's latest press release
Bombardier Statement Regarding The Sas Decision On Its Q400 Aircraft Fleet
Toronto, October 28, 2007
Bombardier is disappointed with the SAS decision to permanently discontinue flight operations with the Bombardier Q400 aircraft given that the landing incident is still under investigation by Danish authorities.
While SAS chose to ground its Q400 turboprop fleet following the incident on October 27, 2007, Bombardiers assessment of this situation, in consultation with Transport Canada, did not identify a systemic landing gear issue. Based on this we advised all Q400 aircraft operators that they should continue with normal Q400 aircraft flight operations. Further, Bombardier and the landing gear manufacturer, Goodrich, have completed a full review of the Q400 turboprop landing gear system and results have confirmed its safe design and operational integrity.
Bombardier stands behind the Q400 aircraft. Since entering revenue service in February 2000, the Q400 turboprop has proven itself to be a safe and reliable aircraft with over 150 Q400 aircraft in operation among 22 operators around the world. To date, the fleet of Q400 aircraft has logged over one million flying hours and 1.2 million take-off and landing cycles.
Toronto, October 28, 2007
Bombardier is disappointed with the SAS decision to permanently discontinue flight operations with the Bombardier Q400 aircraft given that the landing incident is still under investigation by Danish authorities.
While SAS chose to ground its Q400 turboprop fleet following the incident on October 27, 2007, Bombardiers assessment of this situation, in consultation with Transport Canada, did not identify a systemic landing gear issue. Based on this we advised all Q400 aircraft operators that they should continue with normal Q400 aircraft flight operations. Further, Bombardier and the landing gear manufacturer, Goodrich, have completed a full review of the Q400 turboprop landing gear system and results have confirmed its safe design and operational integrity.
Bombardier stands behind the Q400 aircraft. Since entering revenue service in February 2000, the Q400 turboprop has proven itself to be a safe and reliable aircraft with over 150 Q400 aircraft in operation among 22 operators around the world. To date, the fleet of Q400 aircraft has logged over one million flying hours and 1.2 million take-off and landing cycles.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further, Bombardier and the landing gear manufacturer, Goodrich, have completed a full review of the Q400 turboprop landing gear system and results have confirmed its safe design and operational integrity
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To date, the fleet of Q400 aircraft has logged over one million flying hours and 1.2 million take-off and landing cycles
Note they keep quiet about how many accidents and hull losses though!
Note they keep quiet about how many accidents and hull losses though!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good positive stuff!
Only one million hours?
And something between four and seven "incidents" (the media are still waiting for the fireball).
What happened to "ten to the minus six"? I don't even dare to mention "ten to the minus nine".
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: .
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyclone733
I donīt think itīs an "excuse" to cut back due to a slow down in the economy. In SAS the Q4 stands for a big deal of departures in and to/from scandinavia. I heard a figure of 20-30% of all SAS traffic from Copenhagen. I think this decision is based on many years with problems and that it should be very hard to convince pax to fly Q4.
I donīt think itīs an "excuse" to cut back due to a slow down in the economy. In SAS the Q4 stands for a big deal of departures in and to/from scandinavia. I heard a figure of 20-30% of all SAS traffic from Copenhagen. I think this decision is based on many years with problems and that it should be very hard to convince pax to fly Q4.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safe to fly SAS?
I have been a pilot in SAS for the last 10 years, one of them on the Q400.
I have had more technical problems in that year, than in the others put together. (DC9, MD80)
I have also previously worked with some other European airlines( none major), and would argue that safety awerness and technical standard in SAS is very good, apart from the standard on the Q400.
Do anyone really beleive that SAS has particulary bad technicians on the Q400?, none of SAS`s fleet of B737, A319,320,321,330,340, MD80, and F50 have any grave tech. problems, why only the Q400??
SAS have had continous problems with these AC since they were delivered, and I agree on the decision to get rid of them.
At the same time I am concerned that SAS will use the recent events to introduce AC, from daughter companys on the Q400 route network, therby creating a pilot surplus in the main carrier.
I don`t think anyone has good reason to be worried about flying SAS, at least not now, after this AC is not with the company anymore.
I have had more technical problems in that year, than in the others put together. (DC9, MD80)
I have also previously worked with some other European airlines( none major), and would argue that safety awerness and technical standard in SAS is very good, apart from the standard on the Q400.
Do anyone really beleive that SAS has particulary bad technicians on the Q400?, none of SAS`s fleet of B737, A319,320,321,330,340, MD80, and F50 have any grave tech. problems, why only the Q400??
SAS have had continous problems with these AC since they were delivered, and I agree on the decision to get rid of them.
At the same time I am concerned that SAS will use the recent events to introduce AC, from daughter companys on the Q400 route network, therby creating a pilot surplus in the main carrier.
I don`t think anyone has good reason to be worried about flying SAS, at least not now, after this AC is not with the company anymore.
I fly on the Q400 regularly for work reasons and will continue to do so. (Not sure I would fly with SAS)
Is there a logic behind that statement?
Is there a logic behind that statement?
As for logic, SAE, Quantas, Flybaboo and other operators seem to have had no serious problems with their fleet, so given a choice I think I'd rather fly with them for the time being thanks (although not sure how useful Quantas are going to be commuting around Europe)