SAS Q400 gear collaps CPH 27/10
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have NO intention of restarting the "accident/incident" discussion here.
But it DID occur to me that so far we are talking about "accidents" only because of the definition of "substantial damage to the airframes".
With SAS ending Q400 operations, we can hope that at least we will not see another "accident" because of that other definition..... "fatalities".....
But it DID occur to me that so far we are talking about "accidents" only because of the definition of "substantial damage to the airframes".
With SAS ending Q400 operations, we can hope that at least we will not see another "accident" because of that other definition..... "fatalities".....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bergen, Norway
Age: 69
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PT6Driver, am not familiar with that story, sorry. But here`s what they say about the matter at hand: http://www.easa.europa.eu/home/index.html
Rgds,
Rgds,
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theiceman,
You clearly blame SAS for these accidents, you also seem to know everything there is to know about them so may I ask you, why only the right main gear has been u/s?
Are the junior mechanics doing a good job on the left main gear only?
You clearly blame SAS for these accidents, you also seem to know everything there is to know about them so may I ask you, why only the right main gear has been u/s?
Are the junior mechanics doing a good job on the left main gear only?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morten Harkett, Dorset
Age: 100
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me...haven't there been issues with the landing gear sticking on Flybe Q400's..?
If so, this indicates the problem is not due to something SAS is doing but a potential design issue witn the Q400 itself.
Thoughts please?
If so, this indicates the problem is not due to something SAS is doing but a potential design issue witn the Q400 itself.
Thoughts please?
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Ok. Just a thought. Do SAS and other Q400 operators carry out single engine taxi? If so, which engine is it "standard" to taxi on and is there a remote chance that the twisting moment applied to the gear by such practice could result in operational problems? Just a thought.
A4
A4
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morten Harkett, Dorset
Age: 100
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a very valid point, A4.
Also, combustion fumes are very acidic. Does anyone know if there's an exhaust near the wheel housing?
It's possible that exhaust fumes, normally dispersed during flight, are causing the metalwork to corrode during taxiing.
Also, combustion fumes are very acidic. Does anyone know if there's an exhaust near the wheel housing?
It's possible that exhaust fumes, normally dispersed during flight, are causing the metalwork to corrode during taxiing.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's about the only sensible thing you have said so far.
Perhaps that's what you should do, instead of the ranting with an agenda you have delivered so far.
Perhaps that's what you should do, instead of the ranting with an agenda you have delivered so far.
I'm just giving a counter arguments & reasoning....another side of the story.
I blame both sides.....I am no Bombardier fan since I do believe that the company needs new direction! They have been too slow on the Cseries & have been getting their ass kicked royally by Embraer..
But the Q400 is not a piece of ****! At the 90$+ a barrel, the aircraft is a valuable asset.
Did SAS make the right decision....yes! It's not a question of liability at all but imagine.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me...haven't there been issues with the landing gear sticking on Flybe Q400's..?
If so, this indicates the problem is not due to something SAS is doing but a potential design issue witn the Q400 itself.
If so, this indicates the problem is not due to something SAS is doing but a potential design issue witn the Q400 itself.
Unless I missed something, weren't all Q400s inspected and (hopefully
) rectified after the first two accidents ? So how did SAS then manage to drop another one ?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
barrymung:
Flybe MLG issues? No.
A4:
Saab 2000, ATR yes single engine taxying. Q400, SAS, Wideroe, Flybe both engines taxy in my experience. Could be a requirement from the engine owners, don't know.
barrymung:
Exhaust on a Dash is above and behind the wing, not near any other components.
Flybe MLG issues? No.
A4:
Saab 2000, ATR yes single engine taxying. Q400, SAS, Wideroe, Flybe both engines taxy in my experience. Could be a requirement from the engine owners, don't know.
barrymung:
Exhaust on a Dash is above and behind the wing, not near any other components.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DHC-8-400 has been dogged by tech problems since launch, many of which have been swept under the carpet, many operators have had to work with Bombardier to troubleshoot issues.
There IS a blatant problem with the Q400 landing gear, that's not to say the aircraft is inherently dangerous but should be grounded and/or under a close inspection schedule until a proper explanation can be found. Whether its being caused by an SAS maintenance issue, an operational factor or a design flaw we will have to wait and see.
With a fleet of 27 aircraft available for scrutiny and EASA, national aviation authorities and Bombardier engineers all wanting to find the causes, I'm sure it wont be long until some answers are published.
There IS a blatant problem with the Q400 landing gear, that's not to say the aircraft is inherently dangerous but should be grounded and/or under a close inspection schedule until a proper explanation can be found. Whether its being caused by an SAS maintenance issue, an operational factor or a design flaw we will have to wait and see.
With a fleet of 27 aircraft available for scrutiny and EASA, national aviation authorities and Bombardier engineers all wanting to find the causes, I'm sure it wont be long until some answers are published.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS's biggest mistake was to be the launch customer for this type of aircraft. They should have waited until all the bugs had been sorted out before placing orders. Bombardier is not Boeing, (which held SAS's hands throughout the 737 phase-in). SAS did not have the know-how, nor the support to deal with a brand new Q400. It was a stupid mistake on SAS's part to be a launch customer where support is 5 or 6 time zones away. Hopefully a North American carrier can pick these machines up. A few belly landings isnt enough to scare the general public here from getting rid of them...
I wish SAS all the best of luck though. They certainly need it.
I wish SAS all the best of luck though. They certainly need it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THEICEMAN
But then the ATR landing gear works without either jamming, failing to extend, or breaking...
Funny old thing about building aircraft to be light (ie efficient) and cheap. They don't tend to last very long.
Flybe must be nervous.
believe me when I say that ATR is not half the A/C that the Q400 is!
Funny old thing about building aircraft to be light (ie efficient) and cheap. They don't tend to last very long.
Flybe must be nervous.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4
Although single-engine taxi is obviously possible, (with the other engine running but in a feathered condition) Bombardier does not approve the procedure as it does not provide sufficient electrical redundancy. The props need to be out of the feathered position for their associated AC gens to be online.
Any Flybe 400 pilot will tell you that the gear on their aircraft has certainly had some rough treatment over the last 5 years, but no such problems have arisen.
Although single-engine taxi is obviously possible, (with the other engine running but in a feathered condition) Bombardier does not approve the procedure as it does not provide sufficient electrical redundancy. The props need to be out of the feathered position for their associated AC gens to be online.
Any Flybe 400 pilot will tell you that the gear on their aircraft has certainly had some rough treatment over the last 5 years, but no such problems have arisen.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe it's not a corrosion thing but rather wear. Back in the late Eighties the DH Dash 8-100 series had a heap of main gear gear collapses.
In July 1995 a Dash 8-100 operated by Ansett NZ had a CFIT, but what was behind the crash was that the crew were distracted by failure of main gear to deploy from the well.
Turns out the RH uplock latch was worn beyond tolerance and the type was intolerant of wear.
In July 1995 a Dash 8-100 operated by Ansett NZ had a CFIT, but what was behind the crash was that the crew were distracted by failure of main gear to deploy from the well.
Turns out the RH uplock latch was worn beyond tolerance and the type was intolerant of wear.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But then the ATR landing gear works without either jamming, failing to extend, or breaking...
Funny old thing about building aircraft to be light (ie efficient) and cheap. They don't tend to last very long.
Flybe must be nervous.
Funny old thing about building aircraft to be light (ie efficient) and cheap. They don't tend to last very long.
Flybe must be nervous.
But if we were to use the same logic, would it apply for the 787? Or even a modern aircraft like the A330?
Sk501... I agree with you 100%! Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, etc....there is always a problem with the first few aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: .
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preliminary report
Preliminary report
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...eport%20UK.pdf
Seems to be a new problem (not the same) with the actuator. We know that SAS changed all actuators to brand new.
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...eport%20UK.pdf
Seems to be a new problem (not the same) with the actuator. We know that SAS changed all actuators to brand new.
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iceman, you can defend the q400 till the cows come home but this aircraft has had a litany of snags together with gear collapses. Pax feel whats going to happen next....sas now have withdrawn the aircraft from service.
For an airline to do that and suffer millions of euro losses basically states they have no more confidence in the aircraft in other words it's not worthy of airline operations.
From the prelim report, well done to the crew...a fab job
For an airline to do that and suffer millions of euro losses basically states they have no more confidence in the aircraft in other words it's not worthy of airline operations.
From the prelim report, well done to the crew...a fab job
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Austria
Age: 62
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7 Years ago the DH8Q400 was introduced in our Company. Since then I have logged about 3000h on the plane. Just an hour ago I landed one with hours and more cycles then all of the SAS planes involved.
My ratings of the DH8Q400
Negatives:
Landing! Even after 3000 or so landings it needs full concentration to achieve a smooth landing at the marker (flaps 15 or 35 don’t matter). And me and most of my colleges needed two years to reach that point. During that time there was a lot of taxing from the runway when your copilot (well CRM trained) pretended not to have noticed that slam dunk you tried to sneak in as a landing.
Turbulence! For a plane with that high wing load she is too nervous in turbulence.
First Years! Every new Plane has problems in the beginning but in the case of the DH8Q400 it took Bombardier a very long time to straiten them out. Until then we had a hard time explaining to passengers why we were leaving the RWY a second time (Central Computer being paranoid about another problem again)
Technical Care! The plane needs a lot of care by experienced staff to keep reliability high.
Positives:
Power! Max TOW, single engine, 1000feet rate. You always feel that there is power when you need it.
Cockpit! Real comfortable situation awareness. WX, Terrain, Approach other Traffic all in one picture. A real help during those no precision, bad WX, no radar, weak ATC approaches which are a main duty of the turboprop fleets.
Crosswind Performance! Like most high wing Props. Absolutely no stress in any crosswind situation.
Approach! The ability to land with cruising RPM even with Flaps 35 takes away a lot of noise in the final approach.
Reliability! Now after all those years of bug hunting the plane has very good completion rate and dispatch reliability. Still it needs a lot of tending and care from technical department.
After all I like the plane. It is the first turboprop able to keep up with the speeds and climb rates of standard jets thus it takes away the uneasy feeling to be in everybody’s way at the bigger HUBS.
Passengers prefer it to other Props - not to Jets so - because of its speed and reasonable quiete Cabin.
It is hard to commend on the resent landing gear problems at SAS. After the first two events my company grounded all planes and inspected the culprit actuator. We were in the air again after a short time and maintenance told us that they had found no dangerous corrosion even on the planes that were older and had more cycles than the involved SAS AC.
Now after the latest accident they tell us that because of that inspection of all gears 3 weeks ago they absolutely trust the reliability of all the gears in the fleet.
Makes sense to me and as I have confidence in the abilities of our maintenance I positively expect to see 3 green in the future.
My ratings of the DH8Q400
Negatives:
Landing! Even after 3000 or so landings it needs full concentration to achieve a smooth landing at the marker (flaps 15 or 35 don’t matter). And me and most of my colleges needed two years to reach that point. During that time there was a lot of taxing from the runway when your copilot (well CRM trained) pretended not to have noticed that slam dunk you tried to sneak in as a landing.
Turbulence! For a plane with that high wing load she is too nervous in turbulence.
First Years! Every new Plane has problems in the beginning but in the case of the DH8Q400 it took Bombardier a very long time to straiten them out. Until then we had a hard time explaining to passengers why we were leaving the RWY a second time (Central Computer being paranoid about another problem again)
Technical Care! The plane needs a lot of care by experienced staff to keep reliability high.
Positives:
Power! Max TOW, single engine, 1000feet rate. You always feel that there is power when you need it.
Cockpit! Real comfortable situation awareness. WX, Terrain, Approach other Traffic all in one picture. A real help during those no precision, bad WX, no radar, weak ATC approaches which are a main duty of the turboprop fleets.
Crosswind Performance! Like most high wing Props. Absolutely no stress in any crosswind situation.
Approach! The ability to land with cruising RPM even with Flaps 35 takes away a lot of noise in the final approach.
Reliability! Now after all those years of bug hunting the plane has very good completion rate and dispatch reliability. Still it needs a lot of tending and care from technical department.
After all I like the plane. It is the first turboprop able to keep up with the speeds and climb rates of standard jets thus it takes away the uneasy feeling to be in everybody’s way at the bigger HUBS.
Passengers prefer it to other Props - not to Jets so - because of its speed and reasonable quiete Cabin.
It is hard to commend on the resent landing gear problems at SAS. After the first two events my company grounded all planes and inspected the culprit actuator. We were in the air again after a short time and maintenance told us that they had found no dangerous corrosion even on the planes that were older and had more cycles than the involved SAS AC.
Now after the latest accident they tell us that because of that inspection of all gears 3 weeks ago they absolutely trust the reliability of all the gears in the fleet.
Makes sense to me and as I have confidence in the abilities of our maintenance I positively expect to see 3 green in the future.