DHC-8-4 in landing accident @ CYEG
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CYYC
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They blew a tire on departure from CYYC on a flight to CYQU. The winds were not favourable in CYYC for a return so the decision was made to divert to CYEG. On landing the right main gear collapsed and the aircraft veered off the runway. At first glance it doesn't appear to be related to previous landing gear issues the Q400 has had in the past.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the first SAS incident the props went through the aircraft, injuring pax on the left hand side. The crew of the second incident learned from this and shut down the engine prior to landing, there were no injuries from prop blades.
The question is why didn't the crew shut down the right hand engine?
One blown tyre should not cause gear collapse, a dash q 400 has landed safely when one wheel parted company from the aircraft.
Therefore if the blown tyre story is correct then it must have caused quite substantial damage when it blew. Did the crew get the chance to inspect the damage before making an approach?
The question is why didn't the crew shut down the right hand engine?
One blown tyre should not cause gear collapse, a dash q 400 has landed safely when one wheel parted company from the aircraft.
Therefore if the blown tyre story is correct then it must have caused quite substantial damage when it blew. Did the crew get the chance to inspect the damage before making an approach?
Some guidance from the Q400 FDEM regarding a single main gear landing.
"If the Flight Crew elect to land with one main gear unsafe, they must assume and prepare for the gear to collapse on landing.
In this situation and in addition to the AFM procedures given in Paragraph 3.16, the following is offered for consideration:
� Reduce landing weight through fuel burn.
� Passengers to be moved from seats in the plane of the propellers and re-seated elsewhere in the cabin. Priority to be given to passengers seated on the side with the indicated unsafe main landing gear
� Crosswind (if any) would be advantageous from the side with the un-affected main landing gear
� Land with flap 35 degrees
� Fly the appropriate Vref for the landing weight
� Giving due regard to the specific approach to be flown, flight conditions, and possible missed approach; prior to commencing the final approach, feather and secure the engine on the side with the indicated unsafe main landing gear.
� On touchdown, maintain maximum wing down lateral control on the side with the unaffected main landing gear
� Should the indicated unsafe main landing gear collapse, in an effort to reduce the aircraft turning moment in the direction of the failed main landing gear, apply maximum braking and reverse thrust as required on the side with the main landing gear down and locked
� Feather and secure the operative engine
� Be prepared to action an engine fire"
"If the Flight Crew elect to land with one main gear unsafe, they must assume and prepare for the gear to collapse on landing.
In this situation and in addition to the AFM procedures given in Paragraph 3.16, the following is offered for consideration:
� Reduce landing weight through fuel burn.
� Passengers to be moved from seats in the plane of the propellers and re-seated elsewhere in the cabin. Priority to be given to passengers seated on the side with the indicated unsafe main landing gear
� Crosswind (if any) would be advantageous from the side with the un-affected main landing gear
� Land with flap 35 degrees
� Fly the appropriate Vref for the landing weight
� Giving due regard to the specific approach to be flown, flight conditions, and possible missed approach; prior to commencing the final approach, feather and secure the engine on the side with the indicated unsafe main landing gear.
� On touchdown, maintain maximum wing down lateral control on the side with the unaffected main landing gear
� Should the indicated unsafe main landing gear collapse, in an effort to reduce the aircraft turning moment in the direction of the failed main landing gear, apply maximum braking and reverse thrust as required on the side with the main landing gear down and locked
� Feather and secure the operative engine
� Be prepared to action an engine fire"
Drain Bamaged
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Somewhere down the line
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was actually reading about the SAS incidents before this thread got posted... gotta love these "coincidences".
Anyway the pic with the blade penetrating the cabin doesn't look reassuring at all. I'm probably going to sit away from the propeller next time I fly the Q400 as pax.
Anyway the pic with the blade penetrating the cabin doesn't look reassuring at all. I'm probably going to sit away from the propeller next time I fly the Q400 as pax.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q400 future
Given the multiple incidences of gear failure and the possibility of a prop blade entering the cabin isn’t it up to the FEDs to ground the fleet until the engineering is rectified? Should Q400 pilots start polishing up their resumes?
Should we not rather wait for the official investigation report before jumping to such far reaching conclusions?
The landing gear incidents at SAS were traced back to corrosion and on occasion O-rings that were in a place and in a hydraulic system where they had no business were found as well. So upon extension, the gear leg just fell out of its bays and hit and broke some stops vital for downlocking. It then just dangled outside unable to take any load. The problem has been solved and since then, no more such accidents have been noted.
For now, it seems that the accident discussed in this thread involved leaving the paved surface before the right leg failed to bear the load placed upon it. There is no word out that the crew did not achieve a full 3 green downlock indication before the approach. So I am not surprised that they did not follow the procedure posted above by Noclue - also in my company, there would have been no reason to do this.
Furthermore, I would not be surprised if the "failed" leg was the one still equipped with two wheels. When braking after landing, there would have been one wheel braking on one side and two of them on the other side; consequently there would have been some imbalance causing a yaw to the good side.
The landing gear incidents at SAS were traced back to corrosion and on occasion O-rings that were in a place and in a hydraulic system where they had no business were found as well. So upon extension, the gear leg just fell out of its bays and hit and broke some stops vital for downlocking. It then just dangled outside unable to take any load. The problem has been solved and since then, no more such accidents have been noted.
For now, it seems that the accident discussed in this thread involved leaving the paved surface before the right leg failed to bear the load placed upon it. There is no word out that the crew did not achieve a full 3 green downlock indication before the approach. So I am not surprised that they did not follow the procedure posted above by Noclue - also in my company, there would have been no reason to do this.
Furthermore, I would not be surprised if the "failed" leg was the one still equipped with two wheels. When braking after landing, there would have been one wheel braking on one side and two of them on the other side; consequently there would have been some imbalance causing a yaw to the good side.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should we not rather wait for the official investigation report before jumping to such far reaching conclusions?
Are there any design criteria regarding the protection of passengers in this area?
I don't find myself around prop aircraft very often, but with six main landing gear failures (for whatever reason) that I know of on the Dash, finding a seat away from the prop area seems like a good idea.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A picture of a prop blade penetrating the fuselage (again) indicates a "minor" weakness in the design, IMHO.
Are there any design criteria regarding the protection of passengers in this area?
Are there any design criteria regarding the protection of passengers in this area?
Didnt Bombardier built another fuselage "ring" around the hull in the area of the propeller axis to prevent things like this ?
Well, somebody might get to get back to the drawing board again.
Same for the blades which shouldnt break apart like wooden sticks when they came into ground contact. Frightening, as they supposedly operate below their max RPM setting at the time.
I definetaly will avoid any seat in the "smashing area" on my next Dash trip.
Prop Damage
Guys,
This is not a design flaw but a know potential issue with propeller strikes. I educate all my co-poilots to this potential danger in prop aircraft.
Many years ago a good friend of mine, who is a pilot, was a passenger in a similar aircraft type, in Canada by coincidence, and the crew taxied onto the mud and tried to power out. As my friend felt the aircraft sink he evacuated the rows of passengers by the engines just in time as when the last fellow passenger was clear a propeller blade came through the fuselage and right through the seats they were sitting in. He was expecting the incident as soon as he felt the crew try to power out of the mud.
This potential problem has been known about since the aircraft were invented and should be taught in type rating and recurrent training.
I once had a main u/c red for landing so feathered both engines as I came over the threshold. Worked a treat, no asymmetric to deal with. Came to a stop nicely in the middle of the runway.
The only thing that will catch you out is the unexpected, plan for as many problems as you can when on the ground and then there will be very few unexpected things to catch you out.
Prior Planning and Preparation Prevents a Poor Performance.
This is not a design flaw but a know potential issue with propeller strikes. I educate all my co-poilots to this potential danger in prop aircraft.
Many years ago a good friend of mine, who is a pilot, was a passenger in a similar aircraft type, in Canada by coincidence, and the crew taxied onto the mud and tried to power out. As my friend felt the aircraft sink he evacuated the rows of passengers by the engines just in time as when the last fellow passenger was clear a propeller blade came through the fuselage and right through the seats they were sitting in. He was expecting the incident as soon as he felt the crew try to power out of the mud.
This potential problem has been known about since the aircraft were invented and should be taught in type rating and recurrent training.
I once had a main u/c red for landing so feathered both engines as I came over the threshold. Worked a treat, no asymmetric to deal with. Came to a stop nicely in the middle of the runway.
The only thing that will catch you out is the unexpected, plan for as many problems as you can when on the ground and then there will be very few unexpected things to catch you out.
Prior Planning and Preparation Prevents a Poor Performance.
Didn't Bombardier built another fuselage "ring" around the hull in the area of the propeller axis to prevent things like this ?
No amount of structure will prevent a liberated blade from penetrating a fuselage if it's headed in that direction.