SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10

[Danish Pilot]

Hmm... apparently the cause should have been found, according to danish news (not the HCL...(HCL is Danish version of NTSB))

It was the hyd-actuator again, except it should have failed in another way, locking itself, so that not even gravity extension was possible.

The news are now that Bombardier, Canadian CAA are meeting with European Airsafety agency together with Danish CAA, HCL and SAS.

Sounds like "te and biscuits" and one Airworthniess on the line......

[brain fade]

maxrpm

Have to agree with you on the landing issue. Why is it such a hardship tho'? I watched a friend of mine land one in benign conditions (from the jumpseat) and he was working jolly hard- and the touchdown was still ****!

The power too is impressive, but the RJ's especially the 145, eat it alive performance wise! We used to overtake the dash's at about 100 knots. It looked like they were coming the other way!

Plus, you don't mention it but, pax prefer jets. They'll pay more and more of them travel.

Still, I think it's a good tp. But TP's can only do so much and in the Q methinks they've taken it a bit too far. X-25 anyone?

[too_low_gear]

not correct that all incidents relates to SAS

There were also one very similar - you could say that is was a different type since it was the left side MLG that collapsed.

BTW - it was very funny to watch the boss from Bombardier make a public excuse in a very traditinol Japanese way - it would certainly look good if the Bombardier made the same apperance in the european media.

But the list is long with incidents involving MLG on the Dash-8 - not all is on the list from aviation-safety.net - among those missing are the one in Germany with nosegear failure.

02-FEB-1986DHC-8C-GPYDAir Dale0Sault Ste. M... A214-FEB-1988DHC-8C-GANFAir Nova0St. John's, NF I215-APR-1988DHC-8N819PHHorizon Air0Seattle/Taco...A121-NOV-1990DHC-8HS-SKIBangkok Airways38near Koh Samui Ai...A106-JAN-1993DHC-8D-BEATLufthansa Cityline4Paris-Charle...A108-NOV-1993DHC-8 Zhejiang Airlines0Taipei H222-OCT-1994DHC-8 LATN? H209-JUN-1995DHC-8ZK-NEYAnsett New Zealand4near Palmerston N...A117-MAY-1996DHC-8VH-JSINational Jet Systems0near Broome, WA A209-FEB-1999DHC-8 ?0Kinmen-Shang... H223-NOV-1999DHC-8 Zhejiang Airlines0Xiamen Airpo... H208-SEP-2000DHC-8 AIRES Colombia0San Vicente ... H214-JUN-2001DHC-8LN-WISWiderøes Flyveselskap0Båtsfjord Ai... A120-FEB-2002DHC-8HK-3951XAIRES Colombia0Hobo H207-DEC-2002DHC-8B-3567Changan Airlines0Xian-Xianyan... A108-JAN-2003DHC-8N409QXHorizon Air0near Medford, OR A206-FEB-2005DHC-86V-AHLAir Sénégal International0Tambacounda ...A201-MAY-2005DHC-8LN-WIKWiderøes Flyveselskap0Hammerfest A... A212-SEP-2005DHC-8HK-4030XAIRES Colombia0Bogotá-Eldor... H212-AUG-2007DHC-8HL5256Jeju Air0Busan-Gimhae... A209-SEP-2007DHC-8LN-RDKSAS0Aalborg Airp... A212-SEP-2007DHC-8LN-RDSSAS0Vilnius Airp... A227-OCT-2007DHC-8LN-RDISAS0København-Ka... A2

[Maude Charlee]

Maxrpm,

Have to say, I totally agree with you on the good and bad points of the Q400 - probably one of the best put together summaries of the a/c qualities I've read.


BF,

Read the post again - the point about pax preferring jets is there. As for the Barbie jet cruising past at 100kts+ - cobblers! Cruise TAS for the Q400 is 360kts (or M 0.6). Your tiddly little Barbie Jet isn't anything like 100kts faster my friend. Don't overcompensate for your relative lack of size.

[W.R.A.I.T.H]

I saw the aftermath of the incident on saturday late evening while departing to SXF from 22R, but in the darkness not much could be seen apart from flashing lights of emergency vehicles etc.. an unusual sight though.

Browsing through the thread I feel I need to defend SAS a little bit on this issue - their general experience with the Q400 here up north has been bad from the outset, the type has been plagued with problems with just about all and anything for all the seven years, it received a lot of bad press and is very unpopular with the public as a result. The relationship between SAS and Bombardier has been under strain all the time with the latter coming across as uncooperative and dismissive and at this point SAS simply have had it up to their eyeballs. I also note that the a/c in question falls into the infamous 2nd delivery batch both previously involved aircraft belonged to. When the first airframes (LN-RDA to LN-RDH) were delivered, Bombardier had to come back and fix a lot of toothing problems, remedies to some of which were immediately applied to the line. The second batch (ending with LN-RDS, not sure about that though) had been flying in the meantime and as such collected most cycles, becoming ones of the most flown airframes of the type and now the tip of the floe starts to show. Salty environment - quite possibly, but flawed maintenance as some would seem to insinuate, given SAS' excellent safety record on all types they operated and maintained in the last 40 years, that would make up for a very serious accusation, at least in my book. I wonder if someone from within SAS would expand on my points...

gotta go

[WHBM]

Many of the fleet have been in service with SAS for more than 8 years. They cannot therefore really be considered to be under warranty any more, so unless there is a clause in the contract which states Bombardier would take them back after all this time this appears to be a substantial financial loss for someone else.

Nobody is going to buy them because if they encountered another serious incident in service the press would have a field day. So presumably all their financial value will be lost.

A number of them appear to belong to leasing companies rather than SAS, although aircraft do get sold backwards and forwards between companies as time progresses to gain maximum tax advantage. Who is in the firing line for the financial hit ?

[boynefly]

Why is the Q400 so difficult to "grease" on to the runway? I've been flying as a passenger on them for several months now and in all that time have never had a decent landing!

[THEICEMAN]

The power too is impressive, but the RJ's especially the 145, eat it alive performance wise! We used to overtake the dash's at about 100 knots. It looked like they were coming the other way!

But the 145 has a high CASM.....the 135 is even worse. Sure you will go faster, but you will barely make a buck at 90$per/B.

That's where the Q400 is needed.

Most of the skippers here I have spoken to, have not run into many problems. But keep in mind, they are flying the later versions.

[PaperTiger]

But the list is long with incidents involving MLG on the Dash-8

Go back and read the reports in your list. See how many actually involved the main gear and/or were Q400s (which is what we are discussing).

[BRE]

from the preliminary accident report:
"Prior to landing the right hand engine was intentionally stopped and the propeller was feathered. "

What if the left engine failed? Wouldn't it be safer to just feather the right prop?

[dazdaz]

I'm not a pilot nor a a/c engineer. My logical train of thought in the design of the Q400 (10,000kg MTOW/MLW from the Q300) why did they not just 'beef up' the Q300 landing gear for the 400?

I'm ready to be hung drawn and quarterd.

Daz

[vulcanite]

That's exactly what they did do with the gear. The problem is that now you have a very stiff-legged and long undercarriage with relatively little oleo movement , and certainly not the luxury of trailing arm. The end result is that it's a bit like jumping off a shed roof and landing without bending your knees. The problem is that the a/c has a landing mass of 28+ tons, and all that energy has to go somewhere. maybe it's a case of the type of gear just not coping with a near 10 ton increase in mass. As plenty of others have attested, it's a lottery to get a smooth landing, and a miracle to get two on the trot.

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Question: Why didn't the pilots of the other Q400 incidents feather their #2 props as well? Seems to me that could have prevented the injuries that resulted from the prop fragment intrusion into the cabin.

- astra

[The Bartender]

Go back and read the reports in your list.

Agreed... You can't blaim the Q400 MLG when pilots slam DH1's into the ground to the point where the MLG breaks, at it's weakest point, as designed to save the wing...

The Q400 does not have the same MLG as the smaller models, so comparing all MLG-failures on DH8 makes no sense at all...

[Cyclone733]

AdAstraPerAspera,

The first SAS Dash with the MLG failure didn't feather or shut down the engine on the affected side. The second (and now third) shutdown/feathered the engine on the affected side, it is now a talking point in the event of gear issues. The way a composite prop disintergrates is different from older metal blades which tend to deform instead of shatter on impact with the ground. There are situations where a precautionary engine shutdown may not be felt to be the best idea eg Severe icing conditions/turbulence or just low passenger numbers where people can be moved into areas clear of the prop arcs.

[ManaAdaSystem]

So SAS changed all the actuators after the first two accidents, and then one of the new actuators failed?

How are you supposed to guard yourself against something like that, and what are the odds of something like this happening to the same operator?

This new gear problem was an even better reason to ground the fleet, IMHO, and I'm sure glad I don't fly old Q400's.

[JEP]

Just an O-ring

New preliminary report is out.
Nothing fancy - just an o-ring, that should not be there.

http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...2030102007.pdf

[threemiles]

"Not related to the other two incidents."

[Mercenary Pilot]

So the next question in my mind: "Did LN-RDI receive a new actuator after the first 2 accidents and was this when the 'foreign' O-ring was introduced?"

[JEP]

According to the SAS pressrelease 24 SEP 2007 ... all actuator piston and rod ends on SAS Q400 has been changed after the first 2 incidents.