Q400 Bombardier loses wheel on landing
Join Date: May 2009
Location: W of MANS VOR (Canada)
Age: 67
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remoak said:
"Everybody saw the issues that SAS had and kept well away"
I agree, just not in the way you may have meant.
A year and a half later, about half the ex-SAS fleet of Q400s is still looking for buyers. One European operator was going to pick some up but, after looking them over, decided to order new ones from Bombardier instead.
In the meantime, of all airliners and business jets produced by Bombardier, the Q400 line is the only one accellerating its production rate, and this at the height of the "Great Recession".
What does this tell you?
Airlines the world over are ordering new Q400s, but avoiding the ex-SAS birds like the Swine Flu.
If, as I suspect, you were a customer of SAS Commuter, then I can't blame you for your sentiments. There was some bad karma going on over there. However, that still doesn't excuse your baseless and unfounded statements. If you're going to trash talk, at least back it up with some facts.
Stubs400
"Everybody saw the issues that SAS had and kept well away"
I agree, just not in the way you may have meant.
A year and a half later, about half the ex-SAS fleet of Q400s is still looking for buyers. One European operator was going to pick some up but, after looking them over, decided to order new ones from Bombardier instead.
In the meantime, of all airliners and business jets produced by Bombardier, the Q400 line is the only one accellerating its production rate, and this at the height of the "Great Recession".
What does this tell you?
Airlines the world over are ordering new Q400s, but avoiding the ex-SAS birds like the Swine Flu.
If, as I suspect, you were a customer of SAS Commuter, then I can't blame you for your sentiments. There was some bad karma going on over there. However, that still doesn't excuse your baseless and unfounded statements. If you're going to trash talk, at least back it up with some facts.
Stubs400
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stubs400
You know why? Because it is dirt cheap. Being cheap doesn't necessarily equate with being good... they are cheap for a reason. And the acceleration of production reflects orders made before the "Great Recession" (which, by the way, is more of a "Great Myth").
Hardly. Well, I suppose if you include such blue chip customers as Ethiopian, Mozambique airline and Croatian Airlines... those airlines are always up for a bargain.
Having seen the engineering reports following the introduction of this wonderful machine to a certain European operator, I am confident that my statements are neither baseless nor unfounded.
You obviously fly it and want to be loyal, so feel free to talk it up. It's still a POS.
In the meantime, of all airliners and business jets produced by Bombardier, the Q400 line is the only one accellerating its production rate, and this at the height of the "Great Recession".
Airlines the world over are ordering new Q400s
excuse your baseless and unfounded statements
You obviously fly it and want to be loyal, so feel free to talk it up. It's still a POS.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike the majority of nice big shiny jets, the average Q400 has to undertake 8-10 lanings per day. Often into regional airfields with shorter runways and certainly in my part of the world into storms, strong cross winds and driving rain (actually the wet bit makes for smoother landings so no coplaints there).
Do yourself a favour, stop looking jealously across the tarmac at the 'nice big shiny jet', go down to B & Q, buy some filler and fill in that rather large chip that you have on your shoulder.
Most of us have done our time flying the 'non shiny' stuff around whilst working our way up the ladder. Enjoy it whilst it lasts.
Last edited by bullet190; 18th May 2009 at 07:14.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Being cheap doesn't necessarily equate with being good
I assume that you have extensive experience on the Q400 and that you haven't just read the engineering reports. I have read engineering reports on the 737 and could easily conclude that it is rubbish. But, because I have never flown it I can say with certainty that I would be wrong.
Tool.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind You.....
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOING7117,
Do you live under a rock? seems like your sense of orientation is confined to the comforts of wherever hole you're living from... What makes you sure that the Q400 had only 2 incidents regarding the main wheels.. i strongly suggest you back read and read other forums, topics and for the least part please do your research.
One more thing, Here's a link.... ( about Q400's and SAS)
SAS says to stop using Dash 8 Q400 after accidents | Reuters
Do you live under a rock? seems like your sense of orientation is confined to the comforts of wherever hole you're living from... What makes you sure that the Q400 had only 2 incidents regarding the main wheels.. i strongly suggest you back read and read other forums, topics and for the least part please do your research.
One more thing, Here's a link.... ( about Q400's and SAS)
SAS says to stop using Dash 8 Q400 after accidents | Reuters
Join Date: May 2009
Location: W of MANS VOR (Canada)
Age: 67
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it's true that there were in fact 3 gear faults with SAS's Q400s.
However, only the first 2 were due to corroded threads in the retraction actuator piston.
With them, the rod end tore out of the piston. The gear fully extended, but collapsed after touchdown.
Of course, SAS senior management made lots of noise and did a lot of finger pointing.
When the third wouldn't extend it's gear and landed rather ungracefully, said management convened that same weekend and declared termination of all Q400 ops.
The accusatory din was deafening, until it came to light that a nose gear sequence valve was improperly modified for use in the main gear. An o-ring migrated into the wrong place, blocking an orifice, and hydraulically locking the gear most of the way up when they tried to extend for landing.
The Danish authorities have made this public.
The world wide fleet was inspected and IIRC only one non-SAS retraction actuator was corroded enough to disallow further flight.
So, what made SAS Commuter's Q400s so susceptible? Environment?
Wideroe and flybe operate in the same or similar conditions.
I would speculate that there was some combination of de-icing, washing, weather, etc, that conspired against them.
At any rate, the alloy steel pistons have been replaced with a new stainless alloy, which puts this issue to bed.
Stubs400
However, only the first 2 were due to corroded threads in the retraction actuator piston.
With them, the rod end tore out of the piston. The gear fully extended, but collapsed after touchdown.
Of course, SAS senior management made lots of noise and did a lot of finger pointing.
When the third wouldn't extend it's gear and landed rather ungracefully, said management convened that same weekend and declared termination of all Q400 ops.
The accusatory din was deafening, until it came to light that a nose gear sequence valve was improperly modified for use in the main gear. An o-ring migrated into the wrong place, blocking an orifice, and hydraulically locking the gear most of the way up when they tried to extend for landing.
The Danish authorities have made this public.
The world wide fleet was inspected and IIRC only one non-SAS retraction actuator was corroded enough to disallow further flight.
So, what made SAS Commuter's Q400s so susceptible? Environment?
Wideroe and flybe operate in the same or similar conditions.
I would speculate that there was some combination of de-icing, washing, weather, etc, that conspired against them.
At any rate, the alloy steel pistons have been replaced with a new stainless alloy, which puts this issue to bed.
Stubs400
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on the dark side of the moon!
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak,
I've never read such an amount of t*sh in such a short period of time.
Q400 are more expensive than ATRs, but of course a lot cheaper than Jets...how surprising is that?
Q400 are increasingly popular beacause they generate shed loads of money to keep bean counters happy...unlike shiny jets...(yes...polish is really expensive nowadays
)
I've never read such an amount of t*sh in such a short period of time.
Q400 are more expensive than ATRs, but of course a lot cheaper than Jets...how surprising is that?
Q400 are increasingly popular beacause they generate shed loads of money to keep bean counters happy...unlike shiny jets...(yes...polish is really expensive nowadays
)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ask crewing
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bullet190
What a pathetic post. At what point does Dash&Thump say anything about looking longingly at a big shiny jet? How does his/her statement about landing gear cycles imply a wish to be just like you?? I think someone has a chip on their shoulder.....
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stubs400
You may be a Canadian and a Q400 pilot, but bottom line is that many travelers don´t trust that A/C anymore,,i am one of them, and i would never even consider fly it again.
Q400 almost ended the SAS history
Ps hehe Read this link Ds
http://petermartin.*************/200...of-qantas.html
You may be a Canadian and a Q400 pilot, but bottom line is that many travelers don´t trust that A/C anymore,,i am one of them, and i would never even consider fly it again.
Q400 almost ended the SAS history
Ps hehe Read this link Ds
http://petermartin.*************/200...of-qantas.html
Last edited by eliptic; 17th May 2009 at 16:21.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is embarrassing (sp?)
With the exception of one or two posts, this is like a petty playground argument. "You're aeroplane is crap"
"No, my aeroplane isn't crap!"
Get a grip and grow up!
"professional" pilots rumour network? I think not!
With the exception of one or two posts, this is like a petty playground argument. "You're aeroplane is crap"
"No, my aeroplane isn't crap!"
Get a grip and grow up!
"professional" pilots rumour network? I think not!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: W of MANS VOR (Canada)
Age: 67
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dash&Thump said the Q400 is "only hampered by it's need to maintain commonality with the older versions".
I couldn't agree with you more!
With what the Global Express, Learjet 85, and CSeries are sporting, the Q400 looks like a Cold War relic - especially the overhead console and the caution/warning panel.
Oh, for a true EICAS and remote circuit breakers...
Stubs400
I couldn't agree with you more!
With what the Global Express, Learjet 85, and CSeries are sporting, the Q400 looks like a Cold War relic - especially the overhead console and the caution/warning panel.
Oh, for a true EICAS and remote circuit breakers...
Stubs400
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chesty Morgan
Necessarily - no. But 99% of the time, the cheap solution is usually lacking in one department or another.
Are you telling me that I need to go and drive a Trabant for several years in order to conclude that it is an abysmal motor vehicle?
Stubs400
Not to let the facts get in the way of a good story, but in 2007 alone, eight Q400s had landing gear failures while landing: four in Denmark, one in Germany, one in Japan, one in Lithuania and one in South Korea. In ONE year.
5 Rings
Have you been reading the brochures? There is no such thing as a list price for these aircraft. Deals are done and the final purchase price varies widely across buyers. So, for example, at the time that flybe placed it's first big order, the plant producing the Q400 was about to be closed. Bombardier offered the aircraft at what was probably less than cost, just to keep the plant open and assure jobs for it's employees (the loss being presumably less than what it would have had to have paid out to it's staff for severance). No wonder flybe made money with them.
Having said that, they knew they were buying trouble... I seem to recall that, in order to get the first aircraft delivered on time, they had to agree to send them back to Bombardier as soon as possible for "re-manufacturing"... this was a three month job that included, amongst other things, strengthening the fuselage structure along the top of the fuselage from the cockpit windows back to the wing root, as the original structure wasn't nearly strong enough. Flybe elected to delay delivery and have the work done during production. Like I said... under-engineered from the start. Bombardier were following John Thorpe's maxim, that you start out with a structure only just strong enough to keep the rain out, and beef it up as necessary...
There were many other dramas during the first couple of years, suffice it to say that all the 146 standby crews were permanently employed flying up and down the country standing in for tech Q400s.
Nor does it necessarily equate with being bad (excuse the poor grammar).
Are you telling me that I need to go and drive a Trabant for several years in order to conclude that it is an abysmal motor vehicle?
Stubs400
Not to let the facts get in the way of a good story, but in 2007 alone, eight Q400s had landing gear failures while landing: four in Denmark, one in Germany, one in Japan, one in Lithuania and one in South Korea. In ONE year.
5 Rings
Q400 are more expensive than ATRs
Having said that, they knew they were buying trouble... I seem to recall that, in order to get the first aircraft delivered on time, they had to agree to send them back to Bombardier as soon as possible for "re-manufacturing"... this was a three month job that included, amongst other things, strengthening the fuselage structure along the top of the fuselage from the cockpit windows back to the wing root, as the original structure wasn't nearly strong enough. Flybe elected to delay delivery and have the work done during production. Like I said... under-engineered from the start. Bombardier were following John Thorpe's maxim, that you start out with a structure only just strong enough to keep the rain out, and beef it up as necessary...
There were many other dramas during the first couple of years, suffice it to say that all the 146 standby crews were permanently employed flying up and down the country standing in for tech Q400s.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: W of MANS VOR (Canada)
Age: 67
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak, how dare I let facts get in the way of a good story?!
But, for the sake of other PPRuNer's edification, let's have at her:
2007/03/13
MSN 4106 Air Nippon @ Kochi, Japan
Landed with NLG retracted.
Bolt not installed, allowing bushing to migrate, blocking gear door toggle link movement.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Maintenance error.
2007/08/12
MSN 4141 Jeju Air @ Busan, S. Korea
Departed runway after landing and entered drainage ditch.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Concrete Culvert
2007/09/09
MSN 4025 SAS Commuter @ Aalborg, Denmark
Right MLG collapsed after touchdown.
Rod end separated from Retraction Actuator Piston.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Corrosion
2007/09/11
MSN 4035 SAS Commuter @ Vilnius, Lithuania
Right MLG collapsed after touchdown.
Rod end separated from Retraction Actuator Piston.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Corrosion
2007/09/21
MSN 4028 Augsburg Airways @ Munich, Germany
Landed with NLG retracted.
NLG Door Spring broke, and a piece jumped up and jammed in gear uplock mechanism, preventing extension.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: One in a Million Fluke
2007/10/27
MSN 4025 SAS Commuter @ Copenhagen, Denmark
Landed with Right MLG not extended.
NLG Sequence Valve reconfigured for MLG, allowing errant o-ring to block orifice.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Maintenance error.
Non-events:
2007/04/15
Copenhagen, Denmark
Return to field after takeoff.
NLG steering not indicating centered, disallowing gear retraction.
Cause of Landing Gear Issue: Sensor Failure
2007/07/06
Copenhagen, Denmark
Return to field after takeoff.
Inboard LH tire shredded on takeoff.
Cause of Landing Gear Issue: Cheap Retread
Next, you'll be telling me a Caution Light constitutes "Landing Gear Failure"?
Sure, 2007 was an unfortunate year for the Q400's landing gear, but please, keep it in perspective.
Of all the above, only one issue merited extraordinary concern for its non-insular manifestation (Retraction Actuator Piston Corrosion).
Yet, the problem concentrated on principally one operator.
Please enlighten me:
- How does maintenance error make the Q400 a "POS"?
- How does a pilot driving a Q400 like "Grave Digger" into a concrete drainage ditch make it a "POS"?
- How does a "One in a Million Fluke" occurence make the Q400 a "POS"?
- How does a single proximity sensor failure make the Q400 a "POS"?
- How does a purchasing department buying a cheap retread tire make the Q400 a "POS"?
Come on. To compare the Q400 to a Trabant is about as sleazy as it gets.
The only hope the Trabant had was the production quotas dictated by the latest 5 year plan. As soon as market forces took hold, it slid into oblivion.
The only threat faced by the Q400 was the "Regional Jet Love Affair" which drove fine aircraft like the B1900, EMB120 and Saab 2000 into extinction. The ATR and Dash 8 survived not just because they're good airplanes, but management of both companies had the wherewithall to stick it out through the turboprop crisis of the early 2000's.
Unlike the Trabant, market forces have favoured the Q400, with the production backlog steadily growing year after year to the point at which, at the beginning of 2009, it has a backlog of 114 aircraft - the highest in it's history.
In all honesty, would Toyota become the largest motor vehicle producer in the world if it was "abysmal"?
Please, remoak, refute me with your "facts".
Stubs400
But, for the sake of other PPRuNer's edification, let's have at her:
2007/03/13
MSN 4106 Air Nippon @ Kochi, Japan
Landed with NLG retracted.
Bolt not installed, allowing bushing to migrate, blocking gear door toggle link movement.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Maintenance error.
2007/08/12
MSN 4141 Jeju Air @ Busan, S. Korea
Departed runway after landing and entered drainage ditch.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Concrete Culvert
2007/09/09
MSN 4025 SAS Commuter @ Aalborg, Denmark
Right MLG collapsed after touchdown.
Rod end separated from Retraction Actuator Piston.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Corrosion
2007/09/11
MSN 4035 SAS Commuter @ Vilnius, Lithuania
Right MLG collapsed after touchdown.
Rod end separated from Retraction Actuator Piston.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Corrosion
2007/09/21
MSN 4028 Augsburg Airways @ Munich, Germany
Landed with NLG retracted.
NLG Door Spring broke, and a piece jumped up and jammed in gear uplock mechanism, preventing extension.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: One in a Million Fluke
2007/10/27
MSN 4025 SAS Commuter @ Copenhagen, Denmark
Landed with Right MLG not extended.
NLG Sequence Valve reconfigured for MLG, allowing errant o-ring to block orifice.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Maintenance error.
Non-events:
2007/04/15
Copenhagen, Denmark
Return to field after takeoff.
NLG steering not indicating centered, disallowing gear retraction.
Cause of Landing Gear Issue: Sensor Failure
2007/07/06
Copenhagen, Denmark
Return to field after takeoff.
Inboard LH tire shredded on takeoff.
Cause of Landing Gear Issue: Cheap Retread
Next, you'll be telling me a Caution Light constitutes "Landing Gear Failure"?
Sure, 2007 was an unfortunate year for the Q400's landing gear, but please, keep it in perspective.
Of all the above, only one issue merited extraordinary concern for its non-insular manifestation (Retraction Actuator Piston Corrosion).
Yet, the problem concentrated on principally one operator.
Please enlighten me:
- How does maintenance error make the Q400 a "POS"?
- How does a pilot driving a Q400 like "Grave Digger" into a concrete drainage ditch make it a "POS"?
- How does a "One in a Million Fluke" occurence make the Q400 a "POS"?
- How does a single proximity sensor failure make the Q400 a "POS"?
- How does a purchasing department buying a cheap retread tire make the Q400 a "POS"?
Come on. To compare the Q400 to a Trabant is about as sleazy as it gets.
The only hope the Trabant had was the production quotas dictated by the latest 5 year plan. As soon as market forces took hold, it slid into oblivion.
The only threat faced by the Q400 was the "Regional Jet Love Affair" which drove fine aircraft like the B1900, EMB120 and Saab 2000 into extinction. The ATR and Dash 8 survived not just because they're good airplanes, but management of both companies had the wherewithall to stick it out through the turboprop crisis of the early 2000's.
Unlike the Trabant, market forces have favoured the Q400, with the production backlog steadily growing year after year to the point at which, at the beginning of 2009, it has a backlog of 114 aircraft - the highest in it's history.
In all honesty, would Toyota become the largest motor vehicle producer in the world if it was "abysmal"?
Please, remoak, refute me with your "facts".
Stubs400
Gender Faculty Specialist
suffice it to say that all the 146 standby crews
So suffice to say that I was not permanently standing in for tech Q400's. I may have covered the odd flight that should have been on a Q400 but that's about it. Show me one aeroplane that didn't have small niggles when it was first introduced to an airline. And a lot of the problem was inexperience from both engineering and operating crew.
Necessarily - no. But 99% of the time
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stubs400
Well it's pretty pointless arguing with a zealot, so I won't bother except to point out the following:
The question you should be asking is why it slewed off the runway in the first place, with a reported wind at the time that was well below crosswind limits.
Firstly, such a simple part should never break if it has been designed and made properly in the first place. Secondly, one has to wonder why the spring wasn't sheathed.
There was only one sensor...?? Not a lot of design redundancy there then.
The last two are examples of poor engineering, the first is inconclusive as to the cause - at the time, it was reported that it was the failure of the gear that caused the aircraft to depart the runway. Whatever the case, neither of us are ever likely to see the report.
Funny, then, that Bombardier responded by recommending the grounding of the entire fleet. I guess they weren't keeping it in "perspective".
No, they did it by making very average motor vehicles that were CHEAP. The quality was never particularly high, but price drove their success.
Chesty Morgan
Ah, but I do. I was one of those 146 pilots too, we know each other. I also had access to some of the relevant information regarding use of standby crews (see if you can work out why).
Yes, I do. That is why some airlines fly, for example, CRJs and not Embraers. Not everyone has cost as their bottom line. Middle Eastern airlines are often a prime example of this.
Well it's pretty pointless arguing with a zealot, so I won't bother except to point out the following:
2007/08/12
MSN 4141 Jeju Air @ Busan, S. Korea
Departed runway after landing and entered drainage ditch.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Concrete Culvert
MSN 4141 Jeju Air @ Busan, S. Korea
Departed runway after landing and entered drainage ditch.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: Concrete Culvert
2007/09/21
MSN 4028 Augsburg Airways @ Munich, Germany
Landed with NLG retracted.
NLG Door Spring broke, and a piece jumped up and jammed in gear uplock mechanism, preventing extension.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: One in a Million Fluke
MSN 4028 Augsburg Airways @ Munich, Germany
Landed with NLG retracted.
NLG Door Spring broke, and a piece jumped up and jammed in gear uplock mechanism, preventing extension.
Cause of Landing Gear Failure: One in a Million Fluke
2007/04/15
Copenhagen, Denmark
Return to field after takeoff.
NLG steering not indicating centered, disallowing gear retraction.
Cause of Landing Gear Issue: Sensor Failure
Copenhagen, Denmark
Return to field after takeoff.
NLG steering not indicating centered, disallowing gear retraction.
Cause of Landing Gear Issue: Sensor Failure
The last two are examples of poor engineering, the first is inconclusive as to the cause - at the time, it was reported that it was the failure of the gear that caused the aircraft to depart the runway. Whatever the case, neither of us are ever likely to see the report.
Sure, 2007 was an unfortunate year for the Q400's landing gear, but please, keep it in perspective.
Of all the above, only one issue merited extraordinary concern for its non-insular manifestation (Retraction Actuator Piston Corrosion).
Yet, the problem concentrated on principally one operator.
Of all the above, only one issue merited extraordinary concern for its non-insular manifestation (Retraction Actuator Piston Corrosion).
Yet, the problem concentrated on principally one operator.
In all honesty, would Toyota become the largest motor vehicle producer in the world if it was "abysmal"?
Chesty Morgan
Wouldn't it be nice to know who you're talking to sometimes? I was one of the 146 pilots when the Q400 was first delivered to Flybe.
Do you really think that any aeroplane flying around today wasn't made by the lowest bidder?
Gender Faculty Specialist
I'm not really bothered who you are. You seem to have an unfounded personal agenda against the Q400.
In fact Bombardier recommended grounding Q400's with over 10,000 landings for inspection. Not permanently. Pretty good perspective. Lets stick to the facts.
The Q400 is not a piece of sh*t otherwise it wouldn't be in service with so many operators and in such numbers as it is.
Funny, then, that Bombardier responded by recommending the grounding of the entire fleet. I guess they weren't keeping it in "perspective".
The Q400 is not a piece of sh*t otherwise it wouldn't be in service with so many operators and in such numbers as it is.
Well it's pretty pointless arguing with a zealot
why it slewed off the runway in the first place
There was only one sensor...??
Bombardier responded by recommending the grounding of the entire fleet
Originally Posted by remoak
all the 146 standby crews were permanently employed flying up and down the country standing in for tech Q400s.
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
I was one of the 146 pilots when the Q400 was first delivered to Flybe. So suffice to say that I was not permanently standing in for tech Q400's
Not everyone has cost as their bottom line. Middle Eastern airlines are often a prime example of this.
Thank you remoak for labeling Croatia airlines as a blue chip company. Gave me quite a laugh.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remove them!
If they have the same problem, and are having a hard time fixing the problem, why dont they just remove. You are starting to consider if Bombadier are more intrested in money then safety.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on the dark side of the moon!
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak,
t*sh, still t*sh and nothing but t*sh...
I happen to be an ex employee with a very successful aircraft manufacturer...so I'm no new kind on the block with regards to price list vs deal landed, as well as Entry Into Service troubles...
I also happen to be current on the Q400, thank you very much.
What about all the design flaws uncovered on the 73 along its long career...what about the missing rivets on the tail skin, faulty rudder servo controls...The number of ADs issued by Bombardier on the Q400 is nowhere near BCA score on the 73.
t*sh, still t*sh and nothing but t*sh...
I happen to be an ex employee with a very successful aircraft manufacturer...so I'm no new kind on the block with regards to price list vs deal landed, as well as Entry Into Service troubles...
I also happen to be current on the Q400, thank you very much.
What about all the design flaws uncovered on the 73 along its long career...what about the missing rivets on the tail skin, faulty rudder servo controls...The number of ADs issued by Bombardier on the Q400 is nowhere near BCA score on the 73.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chesty Morgan
Wonderful logic. Anything that people buy is therefore wonderful. Hmmm.... let me think about that....
And there are only just over 200 of the things in service. Big deal.
Now where did I use the word "permanently"?
Clandestino
Exactly what I am doing. The cause is not known, so saying that the gear failed because the pilot decided to drive it into a concrete culvert is somewhat premature.
Yeah until an engine fails and you have to go around...
Lack of redundancy exists for only one reason: cost. Few people consider it sensible for such a small and lightweight component.
Or maybe someone didn't have access to the relevant data.
That isn't the point. The point is that where cost is not the over-riding concern, people rarely choose the cheapest option. Cheap is cheap for a reason.
Going back to flybe for a minute, under the previous administration, they chose a small number of Q300s, Q400s and CRJs to replace the F27 fleet. This was far from the cheapest option (which would have been ATRs and Jungle Jets), but it was felt by the then CEO that quality was at least as important as anything else. Unfortunately, the company was in trouble, and when the current CEO took over it was very close to the edge. His only option was to try and trade out of the hole they were in, with the blessing of the investor/trustee group from the Islands, and the only way it was ever going to work was if they could acquire a fleet of very cheap aircraft. At the time, Bombardier were about to close the Q400 line for lack of any orders because nobody wanted what was a troublesome aircraft. After the issues at SAS and Augsberg, it was a pariah. Flybe had serious concerns about reliability and quality, but it was their only choice so they went ahead with their fingers crossed - the price was so good, for reasons mentioned earlier, that it was the obvious course of action. it turned out to be a complete disaster from day 1, often with three or four tech at the same time. Some of it was familiarity issues, but remember that the type wasn't new to service, it had already been flying for a year or two so all of those bugs should have been ironed out.
So what flybe did was not only to save the type from oblivion, but to give it (undeserved) credibility. That is why others have ordered it.
The first world operators see it as a cash cow, the Third World airlines buy it because it is all they can afford.
Anyway, you guys love it and you are quite entitled to do so. I still think that it is an under-engineered, badly designed POS, designed to the same principles that led to the demise of the British aircraft industry (ie use as little metal as possible and spend as little on development and testing as you can get away with). Neither of us is ever going to convince the other, so we might as well just leave it at that before some moderator gets annoyed and starts wielding the big stick. I'll leave you to your Q400 love-fest.
The Q400 is not a piece of sh*t otherwise it wouldn't be in service with so many operators and in such numbers as it is.
And there are only just over 200 of the things in service. Big deal.
In fact Bombardier recommended grounding Q400's with over 10,000 landings for inspection. Not permanently.
Clandestino
Wait for the report!
returning with extended landing gear is quite a non-event anyway.
Lack of redundancy exists for only one reason: cost. Few people consider it sensible for such a small and lightweight component.
Either there are actually two airlines operating under Flybe trademark or someone was exaggerating.
Sadly, somewhat deficient local crude oil reserves have hampered European airlines in following the ME airlines' footsteps
Going back to flybe for a minute, under the previous administration, they chose a small number of Q300s, Q400s and CRJs to replace the F27 fleet. This was far from the cheapest option (which would have been ATRs and Jungle Jets), but it was felt by the then CEO that quality was at least as important as anything else. Unfortunately, the company was in trouble, and when the current CEO took over it was very close to the edge. His only option was to try and trade out of the hole they were in, with the blessing of the investor/trustee group from the Islands, and the only way it was ever going to work was if they could acquire a fleet of very cheap aircraft. At the time, Bombardier were about to close the Q400 line for lack of any orders because nobody wanted what was a troublesome aircraft. After the issues at SAS and Augsberg, it was a pariah. Flybe had serious concerns about reliability and quality, but it was their only choice so they went ahead with their fingers crossed - the price was so good, for reasons mentioned earlier, that it was the obvious course of action. it turned out to be a complete disaster from day 1, often with three or four tech at the same time. Some of it was familiarity issues, but remember that the type wasn't new to service, it had already been flying for a year or two so all of those bugs should have been ironed out.
So what flybe did was not only to save the type from oblivion, but to give it (undeserved) credibility. That is why others have ordered it.
The first world operators see it as a cash cow, the Third World airlines buy it because it is all they can afford.
Anyway, you guys love it and you are quite entitled to do so. I still think that it is an under-engineered, badly designed POS, designed to the same principles that led to the demise of the British aircraft industry (ie use as little metal as possible and spend as little on development and testing as you can get away with). Neither of us is ever going to convince the other, so we might as well just leave it at that before some moderator gets annoyed and starts wielding the big stick. I'll leave you to your Q400 love-fest.