Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10

Old 30th Oct 2007, 20:28
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Knowing the material supply status I wonder were all those 54 actuators and 54 rod ends came from, anyhow.
threemiles is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2007, 20:33
  #162 (permalink)  
JEP
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does anyone in here know if the actuator is one component coming from a manufacuter (like the magnetos in a cessna), or is it taken apart and serviced during maintenance checks.

Last edited by JEP; 30th Oct 2007 at 20:48.
JEP is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2007, 20:34
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A different hotel to the one crewing told me...
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Remoak - ATRs may not break, but enough of them have fallen out of the sky to make me never want to get on one....

Theiceman - have seen enough Q400 and Emb 145 plogs for the same route on the same day to have to disagree about the inability to make bucks, the burns are remarkably similar. Having scrutinised our washing machine labels, eco performance is not too disimilar, the dash wins on a full load, but on a leg with 40 odd pax think the Barbie has the edge, in terms of time, burn and environmental impact.

That said, the Q400 is a dashed effective machine for the routes it flies and hopefully, these issues will soon be resolved and pax faith restored.

All aircraft have problems and usually, given time are resolved. At least these weren't fatal, which is more than you can say for some commercial types still in service (ATRs ice problems and 737s rudder hardover issues to name but two)
oapilot is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2007, 22:16
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: House
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Alt Sel

Know that this really isn't related to the accident but with so many Q400 guys reading this would be interesting to get views. What is your view of the Dash's AFCS with regards to 'Alt Sel' and it's Function/Selection. No problem, User error or design flaw?
Captain_Trim is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2007, 22:30
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
oapilot

Remoak - ATRs may not break, but enough of them have fallen out of the sky to make me never want to get on one....[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SIMONW%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG]
Well as far as I can tell, there have only been four fatal ATR42/72 accidents. Of those, one was thought to be a suicide. I guess, therefore, that you will also be unwilling to board any Boeing, any Airbus, any McDonnell Douglas or any Lockheed aircraft - all of which, if memory serves, have had many more fatal accidents than the ATR.

Not that I'm an ATR fan... perish the thought. Noisy and vibey, like all turboprops tend to be...
remoak is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2007, 23:07
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well as far as I can tell, there have only been four fatal ATR42/72 accidents.
ATR42 11 hull losses, 108 fatalities; ATR72 8 hull losses, 90 fatalities.

Dash-8 6 hull losses, 46 fatalities. All fatalities due CFIT.

Really hard, this research business .
PaperTiger is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2007, 23:17
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The problem is that the a/c has a landing mass of 28+ tons.....
Actually, 28 tons is the structural maximum (unless you want to split hairs over 9kgs ). Might be why the gear keeps collapsing if somebody thinks otherwise.
Maude Charlee is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 00:00
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
have seen enough Q400 and Emb 145 plogs for the same route on the same day to have to disagree about the inability to make bucks, the burns are remarkably similar. Having scrutinised our washing machine labels, eco performance is not too disimilar, the dash wins on a full load, but on a leg with 40 odd pax think the Barbie has the edge, in terms of time, burn and environmental impact.
No way.....CASM (cost per availabel seat mile) on the Emb-145 is way higher. That's why many operators do not want them anymore. The EMb135 is probably the worst in the industry.

Are you telling me that a Jet has similar economics as a turbo prop.....
THEICEMAN is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 00:06
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
In connection with the first incident in Aalborg, the captain in a press interview stated "he believed with 90% certainty the fault was an indication fault only". Evidently his experience of the "christmas tree" reputation of the Q400 (i.e. lots of more or less unfounded alarm indications) led him to believe the landing gear was most probably okay. Despite this he ordered passengers away from the rows adjacent to the propeller, in the event probably saving them from more serious injuries.

As regards the second incident in Vilnius, details are more scarce but I seem to recall the RH prop was actually feathered in that landing.
snowfalcon2 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 01:42
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 79
Posts: 807
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crisis management

SAS management’s decision to rid themselves of the Q400 could well become a future textbook reference in crisis management. If so, it should be a riveting read.

They would obviously be looking at risking very big money whichever way they went. Loss of passenger confidence on the one hand (which could contaminate other business), loss of revenue, expensive lawsuits, massive staff disruption on the other. The immediate need for an unequivocal decision without all the facts to hand and knowing that when one of those facts does surface it could turn your “right decision at the time” on its head.

Time will tell whether SAS did the right thing; I suspect they did and I do look forward to the story when it's all eventually pieced together. Bombardier are facing a similar crisis and I wonder how they're handling it. The "disappointed" press release doesn't quite cut it.
broadreach is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 05:47
  #171 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 73
Posts: 2,265
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
Paper Tiger,

ATR42 11 hull losses, 108 fatalities; ATR72 8 hull losses, 90 fatalities.

Dash-8 6 hull losses, 46 fatalities. All fatalities due CFIT.

Really hard, this research business .
Actually it's 17 & 8 hull losses.

4 of the hull losses were due to suicides, at least 2 due to ground/storm damage, 1 was an ATR factory test flight and (too many) due to landing incidents.

Not wanting to reopen the Roselawn accident debate, with the exception of the TOTAL Linhas Aéreas accident the cause of which I believe is still not fully understood, the remainder were human error.

(As were I believe all the Dash-8 accidents).

Last edited by ZFT; 31st Oct 2007 at 09:10. Reason: spelling
ZFT is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 08:46
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Preliminary report

Preliminary report:
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...2030102007.pdf
Ladusvala is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 11:14
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm afraid SAS clearly have far too much faith in the media if they think that by ridding themselves of the Dash fleet, they rid themselves of all associated bad publicity. Only the most naive of fools would believe that should SAS have any more incidents/accidents on ANY fleet, that it will be seen as something totally different and unconnected to the Dash incidents.

An aeroplane is an aeroplane to your average person in the street, and any airline that has numerous incidents with any type is in big, big trouble. In my opinion, the damage is already done.
Maude Charlee is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 13:33
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Moss
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ATR accident at Roslawn; lot of human error + the a/c was in holding in severe iceing conditions. The ATR, Q400 and other transport category a/c are certified to fly in iceing with a dropplet size of 50 microns. That day it was later proven a droplet size of over 200 microns. It led to lots of ice behind the boot. The ATR received the same scrutiny as the Q400 is receiving now, and today as a result, no a/c has been tested in iceing as much as the ATR. What surprise me is that fellow pilots fall in to the trap of believing in media or newspapers, instead of waiting for the final report. So to all of you who have not payed attention in class; the ATR is safe in ice!! SAS has also publicly stated that the Q400 is safe. SAS is rightly more worried about the Q400 public image. I believe the Q400 will recover from this, and remain the fastest option on the tp transport marked. (SAAB is dead!)
empati is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 13:38
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes ICEMAN!

The Embraer IS what you hint at. A jet aircraft with turboprop costs- which is why they have sold over 1000 of them!

I don't have enough interest to research the statistics, but as far as i know the Barbie has yet to kill its first passenger. Or indeed suffer its first hull loss - if correct, a remarkable achievement considering the number flying.

ERJ-145 TAS is 445+ against 360 for the -8, so despite what someone else put, its a great deal faster.

It'sa also much quieter inside, has none of the vibration most (inc -8) TPs suffer from, uses about the same amount of fuel per hour and has a vastly superior dispatch record. Actually better than 99%.

I think the Q is a dud. Had Flybe not ordered it, a natural death would have occurred.
brain fade is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 13:50
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by brain fade
The Embraer IS what you hint at. A jet aircraft with turboprop costs- which is why they have sold over 1000 of them!
The main reason the Embraer can cost (very broadly) the same as the Q400 is because it is half the size, especially the Emb-135. So while your costs can be comparable you cannot get the same revenue.

Start speaking seat-mile costs and things change. Of course, if the seats are unsold because you are operating at 40% load factors things change again. So I prefer actual passenger-mile costs.

Incidentally the Emb-135/145 is now effectively out of production, just like the basic 50-seat Canadair RJ has been stopped as well, only a few business jet variants continue to be produced. Embraer have moved on to bigger things and there is an increasing pile of stored 50-seat RJs building up (including quite a number never delivered), generally more Canadairs than Embraers - which may well interest SAS.
WHBM is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 14:03
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It has always seemed to me that without the marketing led North American bubble - all those sweet cost plus deals handed out to Regionals in the 90s (but we gotta have jets people like jets). The 50 seat RJ (and especially the 35 & 44 seat scope-mobiles) would have had a very limited appeal almost niche in fact. That bubble has now burst as fuel and other costs bit and the franchises are much tougher deals

Just look around...CRJ200...gone 145 on it's way out production wise.

The tide has turned no doubt about it...Again a few years ago most of the airfields in SW France had a few ATRs stashed by the company hopefully a bit out of sight. There were a bunch behind some old farm buildings at Toulouse where the 380 sheds are now as well. Today they are all on lease everyone of em.

For example I passed through Houston a couple of weeks back...if you'd a looked at that ramp (term B) four years ago it would have been Jungle Jets as far as the eye could see (plus round the other side), sure there were still a fair number around today but also an awful lot of S340s (also in CO Exp/Connection colours) I believe they also have 1900s, ATRs and DH8-300s on franchise too at other hubs - what's more there were a signifiacant number of 145/135s parked in these aren't going anywhere for awhile manner between the Fed Ex and Express Jet hangars.

End of the day its the beanies that call the tune and the beanies like T/p costs.
Ace Rimmer is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 14:04
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,546
Received 23 Likes on 12 Posts
So an O-ring got put into an invisible location -- worse, quality control did not catch it.

It looks like there was a rush put on to turn out 54 MLG assemblies, perhaps a bunch of overtime -- and one came out misassembled.

I'm guessing that SAS mechanics would not be inside this part during installation, but can't say for sure.
Next question: After changing over major MLG components, would you not put the a/c on jacks and cycle the gear?

How many flights did the accident a/c accomplish after the MLG changeover?
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 14:22
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Alt Sel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Know that this really isn't related to the accident but with so many Q400 guys reading this would be interesting to get views. What is your view of the Dash's AFCS with regards to 'Alt Sel' and it's Function/Selection. No problem, User error or design flaw?



Above is from Captain Trim in post 166.


Well, when I transitioned onto the machine I was appalled at the logic. There is no auto-arm of the alt sel function. As a matter of fact, you can deselect alt sel if you hit the button again or if you want to change vertical mode once the capture phase has initiated. Unbelieveable!!
I came from the MD80 which is no great flight guidance wonder, but at least it stays in alt capture once initiated and it has auto-arm of the alt sel function. The way it should be.
Ramrise is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2007, 15:13
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SAS management’s decision to rid themselves of the Q400 could well become a future textbook reference in crisis management. If so, it should be a riveting read

Not so sure broadreach - unless you want a chapter on flip-flopping. SAS are already backtracking in Scandanavian media. Their Deputy CEO was in a Norwegian newspaper yesterday saying that SAS is trying to get out of all agreements in respect of the current Q400 fleet, but would like to lease new ones, which they believe have developed from "first generation" units.
Drink Up Thee Cider is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.