SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: .
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theiceman,
I recommend you and your source to read the preliminary report from Accident Investigation Board Denmark
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...d%20header.pdf
"Examination of the internal threads of the retraction/extension actuator piston revealed the presence of corrosion, which led to separation of the rod end from the piston. The separation contributed to the landing gear collapse. "
Why do you think Bombardier released the following after the investigations:
"Update On Inspection Procedures On Bombardier Q400 Main Landing Gear
Toronto, September 14, 2007
The document issued to Q400 aircraft operators includes highly detailed procedures on how to inspect, repair the retract actuator if necessary, or replace it, as follows:
I recommend you and your source to read the preliminary report from Accident Investigation Board Denmark
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...d%20header.pdf
"Examination of the internal threads of the retraction/extension actuator piston revealed the presence of corrosion, which led to separation of the rod end from the piston. The separation contributed to the landing gear collapse. "
Why do you think Bombardier released the following after the investigations:
"Update On Inspection Procedures On Bombardier Q400 Main Landing Gear
Toronto, September 14, 2007
- Detailed inspection procedures sent to operators
The document issued to Q400 aircraft operators includes highly detailed procedures on how to inspect, repair the retract actuator if necessary, or replace it, as follows:
- Disassemble the retract actuator and visually determine if any corrosion exists;
- If corrosion is found, options are available to operators to allow them to return the aircraft to revenue service. These range from removal of light corrosion and repairs of the affected unit, to the replacement of the retract actuator. All procedures require a thorough application of corrosion-inhibiting compound.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike the alloy props of old D8s the carbon fibre prop disintegrates causing lots of damage
Landing gear failure does happen - be it failure to extend or collapse on landing - and for the Q400 disintegration of the carbon fibre prop will happen and the resultant injuries may be fatal. (Well done SAS crews for moving pax/shutting down the engine).
One wonders on what basis certification was given for the use of these props. Perhaps in the light of recent events the seating of pax in the propeller affected area should be banned.....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS was totally new to the Dash and Bombardier/deHavilland when they introduced the Q400. While they asked for and got a lot of improvements over the original flight deck design, they also asked for other modifications/changes (AFAIK using 115V as the "standard" GPU) which added to the teething problems.
Other operators with previous Dash 8 experience had their problems as well but not all of the problems SAS encountered. There is a kind of "a regional aircraft operated by a mainline" theory for some of the problems SAS had.
Initial problems at Tyrolean included spurious warning messages from the FADEC, problems with the rear stair (which was poorly designed), the newly designed rear doors (proximity switches, outer and inner handle out of sync) as well as false cargo compartment fire/smoke warnings. AFAIR there were also some gear proximity switch issues during the first years resulting in precautionary but eventless "prepared emergency" landings.
Other operators with previous Dash 8 experience had their problems as well but not all of the problems SAS encountered. There is a kind of "a regional aircraft operated by a mainline" theory for some of the problems SAS had.
Initial problems at Tyrolean included spurious warning messages from the FADEC, problems with the rear stair (which was poorly designed), the newly designed rear doors (proximity switches, outer and inner handle out of sync) as well as false cargo compartment fire/smoke warnings. AFAIR there were also some gear proximity switch issues during the first years resulting in precautionary but eventless "prepared emergency" landings.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS Returns Q400 Fleet to Bombardier
Sorry, only got a link to a Danish news site:
http://epn.dk/handel_service/transpo...cle1146813.ece
In essence, SAS have told Bombardier to take the entire fleet of 27 Q400 back. Sell them on or lease them to someone else, they don't give a flying **** - they've had it with the Q400s.
SAS has previously asked for a DKK 500 Million (approx EUR 67M) compensation following the 2 main-gear failures and the subsequent grounding of the Q400 fleet. They are now talking about adding an addtional 3-figured sum (in DKK Million) in compensation.
SAS admits this is not a rational decision, but one based solely on restoring the image of the company with its customers. SAS is willing to accept a very large financial penalty in order to achive their aim of restoring confidence amongst the flying public.
Bombardier, on the other hand, are telling everyone to stay calm and continue flying the Q400, stating the neither they nor Transport Canada has found any systematic faults with the aeroplane.
SAS are on the market to lease in capacity to cover the loss of the Q400s.
EDIT:
To add that this decision was made following the 3rd accident with the Q400; an emergency landing in CPH where the RH MLG failed to deploy. Link to video here:
http://ekstrabladet.tv/nyheder/indla...icle352581.ece
http://epn.dk/handel_service/transpo...cle1146813.ece
In essence, SAS have told Bombardier to take the entire fleet of 27 Q400 back. Sell them on or lease them to someone else, they don't give a flying **** - they've had it with the Q400s.
SAS has previously asked for a DKK 500 Million (approx EUR 67M) compensation following the 2 main-gear failures and the subsequent grounding of the Q400 fleet. They are now talking about adding an addtional 3-figured sum (in DKK Million) in compensation.
SAS admits this is not a rational decision, but one based solely on restoring the image of the company with its customers. SAS is willing to accept a very large financial penalty in order to achive their aim of restoring confidence amongst the flying public.
Bombardier, on the other hand, are telling everyone to stay calm and continue flying the Q400, stating the neither they nor Transport Canada has found any systematic faults with the aeroplane.
SAS are on the market to lease in capacity to cover the loss of the Q400s.
EDIT:
To add that this decision was made following the 3rd accident with the Q400; an emergency landing in CPH where the RH MLG failed to deploy. Link to video here:
http://ekstrabladet.tv/nyheder/indla...icle352581.ece
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: House
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Landing gear failure does happen - be it failure to extend or collapse on landing - and for the Q400 disintegration of the carbon fibre prop will happen and the resultant injuries may be fatal. (Well done SAS crews for moving pax/shutting down the engine)." HAC
(still haven't figuered out this quoting thing)
The Dash has a reinforced area around the fuselage at the point where the props are. This is for noise control as well as safety. Interesting to hear that parts of the prop still managed to penetrate.
We have recently changed to being a Flap 15 operator as standard (with runways over 2k length) although it is not mandatory. The Flap 15 setting is generally for pax comfort as the 35 setting gives quite a vibration due to the drag of landing flap. To be honest most of the airports we land at i wouldn't want to try landing Flap 15 as it gives you little room for error but places like CDG, LGW where you've got runway that circumnavigates the globe (as far as the dash is concerned) it's fine.
The dash is also notoriously difficult to get a gentle landing out of, flap 15 is much easier to get a greaser but still no method in it. Flap 35s are a lottery, you can do everything right and it will still punish you with spinal injury. .. and yes, i'm fully aware that people will critise and mock my ability to land but if you ask any q400 jockey they will say the same. You have to wonder if all the heavy landings don't help!!
(still haven't figuered out this quoting thing)
The Dash has a reinforced area around the fuselage at the point where the props are. This is for noise control as well as safety. Interesting to hear that parts of the prop still managed to penetrate.
We have recently changed to being a Flap 15 operator as standard (with runways over 2k length) although it is not mandatory. The Flap 15 setting is generally for pax comfort as the 35 setting gives quite a vibration due to the drag of landing flap. To be honest most of the airports we land at i wouldn't want to try landing Flap 15 as it gives you little room for error but places like CDG, LGW where you've got runway that circumnavigates the globe (as far as the dash is concerned) it's fine.
The dash is also notoriously difficult to get a gentle landing out of, flap 15 is much easier to get a greaser but still no method in it. Flap 35s are a lottery, you can do everything right and it will still punish you with spinal injury. .. and yes, i'm fully aware that people will critise and mock my ability to land but if you ask any q400 jockey they will say the same. You have to wonder if all the heavy landings don't help!!
Last edited by Captain_Trim; 29th Oct 2007 at 10:10.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understood the reinforcement panel in the fuselage to be primarily for hull skin protection from ice being thrown off the prop roots... Despite this I have seen ice dents in the fuselage aft of the protection zone.
I do remember someone talking about the internals of these panels being replaced with titanium as a mod in about 2004/5 - if that's the case perhaps protection from the prop blades was being considered.
I do remember someone talking about the internals of these panels being replaced with titanium as a mod in about 2004/5 - if that's the case perhaps protection from the prop blades was being considered.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: House
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point, To be honest not sure what could protect a hull from a CF blade spinning at 1020 rpm. BB arn't going to put lead in the fuselage.
Can only be a limited amount of protection without compromising on weight and perf.
Shutting down the engine and moving pax is probably the best thing. At least it slows the prop and reduces the amount of energy. Here's hoping the probs end here.
Can only be a limited amount of protection without compromising on weight and perf.
Shutting down the engine and moving pax is probably the best thing. At least it slows the prop and reduces the amount of energy. Here's hoping the probs end here.
So, with 27 a/c grounded and to be returned, I'm thinking:
How many daily flight cancellations is this going to equate to?
How long will it take to find replacement a/c?
What will be the cost of sub-chartering suitable a/c from other operators to maintain what were their Q400 routes?
How many daily flight cancellations is this going to equate to?
How long will it take to find replacement a/c?
What will be the cost of sub-chartering suitable a/c from other operators to maintain what were their Q400 routes?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: House
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this earlier and should answer a few of your questions.
http://www.flysas.com/en/Media-cente...ases/?vst=true
http://www.flysas.com/en/Media-cente...ases/?vst=true
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS itself estimates 300-400 million SEK, approx. 47-63 million US$ "for the rest of the year"
http://www.sasgroup.net
share is down from 114 to 108 (approx. as well
)
http://www.sasgroup.net
share is down from 114 to 108 (approx. as well
)
SAS was totally new to the Dash and Bombardier/deHavilland when they introduced the Q400.... Other operators with previous Dash 8 experience had their problems as well but not all of the problems SAS encountered. There is a kind of "a regional aircraft operated by a mainline" theory for some of the problems SAS had.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Moss
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS will for a short time lease in other airlines to fly these Q400-routes. SAS is immediately looking for temp spare a/c to replace the Q400. Q400 pilots will ASAP start training into these a/c. SAS will now look at several manufacturers to finally order a replacement for the Q400. Bombardier is one of the options. SAS is negotiating a deal with Bombardier. They had a meeting last week...
Theiceman, you need to study the ATR more! They are the clear winner in the turboprop market. Look at the sales numbers! The reason is light weight (composit fuselage, no APU), large cargo hold, wide cabin, modern airbuslike cockpit, updated engines and good support. Ok the avionic suite is now outdatet, but check out the new ATR 600!
Theiceman, you need to study the ATR more! They are the clear winner in the turboprop market. Look at the sales numbers! The reason is light weight (composit fuselage, no APU), large cargo hold, wide cabin, modern airbuslike cockpit, updated engines and good support. Ok the avionic suite is now outdatet, but check out the new ATR 600!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTO,
Just what do you mean by "abnormal landing gear configuration"?
The newest B737´s in SAS´s fleet has been ordered as standard aircraft to save money. Unfortunately they don´t have the HUD system of the other NG´s.
Just what do you mean by "abnormal landing gear configuration"?
The newest B737´s in SAS´s fleet has been ordered as standard aircraft to save money. Unfortunately they don´t have the HUD system of the other NG´s.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who else found corrossion on the gears? Please tell me!
No I can name source...conflict of interest.
Bombardier released those procedures to see if other carriers are finding corrossion.
So far, Horizon (which operates always next to the pacific) has found no corrossion. ANA is all good, except for that maint. issue last march.
I'm sure SAS tech is good. But they did not do a good job on the Q400. Ask yourselfs.....why SAS three times in a row? (with the exception of Augsburg air T.b.a)
That's not normal!
The ATRs are good airplanes. But not like the Q400....
ASK Quantas & the many other carriers who will order it!
Think about this.......once they X-SAS Q400s start flying with somebody else, will see how many problems will arise? If this is in fact a Maint. issue, will see what kind of reputation SAS will have in the end!
I do believe that Bombardier & Goodrich is also to blame.....but you guys cannot deny that SAS must share a big part of the blame! Once o.k, twice wow, three times c'mon!
What are those junior AMEs doing!
You guys talk about stable Q400 rep......well thank SAS for that! Bombardier should of refused them as clients if they would have known!
No I can name source...conflict of interest.
Bombardier released those procedures to see if other carriers are finding corrossion.
So far, Horizon (which operates always next to the pacific) has found no corrossion. ANA is all good, except for that maint. issue last march.
I'm sure SAS tech is good. But they did not do a good job on the Q400. Ask yourselfs.....why SAS three times in a row? (with the exception of Augsburg air T.b.a)
RTO: According to a mechanic friend of mine SAS have a history of changing aircraft specs to ridiculous ones,
The ATRs are good airplanes. But not like the Q400....
ASK Quantas & the many other carriers who will order it!
Think about this.......once they X-SAS Q400s start flying with somebody else, will see how many problems will arise? If this is in fact a Maint. issue, will see what kind of reputation SAS will have in the end!
I do believe that Bombardier & Goodrich is also to blame.....but you guys cannot deny that SAS must share a big part of the blame! Once o.k, twice wow, three times c'mon!
What are those junior AMEs doing!
You guys talk about stable Q400 rep......well thank SAS for that! Bombardier should of refused them as clients if they would have known!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh ya! Not to mention that the Augsburg incident was a front gear failure.....so far only SAS has had a problem with the right gear!
Seriously stop crapping the airplane!
Let's see what the full investigation uncovers..
Seriously stop crapping the airplane!
Let's see what the full investigation uncovers..
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by THEICEMAN
Let's see what the full investigation uncovers..
Perhaps that's what you should do, instead of the ranting with an agenda you have delivered so far.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bergen, Norway
Age: 69
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just watched the boss of the Norwegian CAA (NCAA) state that no Q400`s should be flying in Europe until the full cause of this accident have been found. He went on to say that the NCAA will raise the issue with EASA.
Rgds,
Rgds,
