Flybe Incident at Amsterdam
In the absence of one, a free-turbine engine will typically allow the prop to windmill in a stiff breeze.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the last second of LookingForAJobs video, the collapsed gear is shown. It is remarkable that the rear gear doors appear open; they only open during extension and retraction and, in case of extension, close some seconds after the leg has been locked down. This door should definitely be closed in this flight phase. It is not linked to the landing gear struts in any way (unlike the forward doors that stay open when the gear is extended) but has its own hydraulic cylinder and its movement is sequenced by the PSEU (Proximity Switch Electronic Unit). So why this door is open in this situation is not really clear to me.
The gear in the same video looks to be in an intermediate position between uplock and downlock, i. e. failed in the direction of normal retraction. The correct function of the downlock will therefore likely be of relevance in the investigation.
I suspect that when it first touched down the gear smashed through the doors at the point you can hear the props hitting the ground. The prop then raises off the ground again shortly after, the gear probably dropped again dragging the doors open with it until it finally settled onto the nacelle.
The bit that amazes me is that the damaged propellers don't seem to have pinged off like I would have expected, they seem to have stayed remarkably attached despite being dragged along the runway.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Denmark
Age: 56
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF here - but that does look eerily similar to the landing gear bolt failures from back when. The first of which happened on my home turf of AAL/EKYT.
When landing at AAL the pilot had the seats around the wings evacuated due to the risk of fragments from the propellers tearing through the fuselage. Same procedure here?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_8...gear_incidents
When landing at AAL the pilot had the seats around the wings evacuated due to the risk of fragments from the propellers tearing through the fuselage. Same procedure here?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_8...gear_incidents
Bear in mind that the tip speed of the Dash 8's prop is in the region of 500 mph and so the force on the blade tip from contact with the runway is largely in a tangential direction - the runway will likely have come off worse than the prop.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like an unplanned event so no pax repositioned.
First SAS event I don't believe they repositioned pax and had some injuries when the prop went through the fuselage. Second event they were beter prepared.
First SAS event I don't believe they repositioned pax and had some injuries when the prop went through the fuselage. Second event they were beter prepared.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Front Left
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Flare?
THIS IS NOT BEING JUDGEMENTAL - purely observational.
If you play the approach over and over the path to runway is constant - NOT body angle which does alter but FPA/trajectory....watch the path of the wheel on the failed gear - the ROD does not appear to alter towards touchdown....so possible firm landing on single gear.
I know the DASH gear has a bit of history and always looks a bit gangly and fragile to me....plus with the Dash got to watch the tail clearance......
I feel for anyone flying today...tough day in the office....but good that all got out ok.
Again - this is OBSERVATIONAL not critical.
If you play the approach over and over the path to runway is constant - NOT body angle which does alter but FPA/trajectory....watch the path of the wheel on the failed gear - the ROD does not appear to alter towards touchdown....so possible firm landing on single gear.
I know the DASH gear has a bit of history and always looks a bit gangly and fragile to me....plus with the Dash got to watch the tail clearance......
I feel for anyone flying today...tough day in the office....but good that all got out ok.
Again - this is OBSERVATIONAL not critical.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EHAM
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The landing is not even that hard. What does seem odd is that after decrabbing and the associated strong right aileron input at 10 seconds a more moderate right aileron persists all the way until touchdown.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: The MEL page
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thoughts with the flight crew, aircraft incidents are an unpleasant business.
What do we reckon about the finance, is this economically salvageable? It might not look too bad but there's a fair few hours of borescope inspection required for that fuselage and wing root now. New engine and undercarriage.
What do we reckon about the finance, is this economically salvageable? It might not look too bad but there's a fair few hours of borescope inspection required for that fuselage and wing root now. New engine and undercarriage.
In the Aalborg incident, passengers in three rows on the side adjacent to the suspect MLG were re-seated elsewhere. There were not enough spare seats to move all the passengers seated on the opposite side, and it was one of those who was injured, though fortunately not seriously, by a liberated blade.
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 23rd Feb 2017 at 20:06. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thoughts with the flight crew, aircraft incidents are an unpleasant business.
What do we reckon about the finance, is this economically salvageable? It might not look too bad but there's a fair few hours of borescope inspection required for that fuselage and wing root now. New engine and undercarriage.
What do we reckon about the finance, is this economically salvageable? It might not look too bad but there's a fair few hours of borescope inspection required for that fuselage and wing root now. New engine and undercarriage.
Since Aalborg, the abnormal procedure for landing with a main gear leg not down and locked explicitly allows (but not requires) a precautionary shutdown of the engine on the affected side. Of course, if it is not known beforehand that the leg would fold, this does not help at all.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I recall, there were a significant number of landing gear problems & collapses with the Q400 in years gone by. As there hadn't been any for a little while now, I assumed the problem had been fixed. It seems that may not be the case.
At SAS, they found some abnormalities within the system, such as stray gaskets sitting in actuators that should not have been in the entire system at all or corroded parts.
For example on the Aalborg incident, the cylinder that was to dampen the extension of the left main gear did not work to this effect, so the leg just slammed out and broke the downlock in the process. It then just dangled outside of the nacelle and would obviously not take any load during landing. IIRC, this was known and reacted to by the crews before touch down.
This was followed up by ADs mandating fleet wide gear inspections depending on hours and legs flown, and as far as I know, the problems SAS suffered from have never reared their head again. And for what itīs worth, I have flown the DH8 for a while now and never had nor heard of an issue with the landing gear in my company...
I would suggest that simply pointing to an inherent weakness of the DH8s landing gear as a possible cause for this incident would be too easy and inappropriate.
For example on the Aalborg incident, the cylinder that was to dampen the extension of the left main gear did not work to this effect, so the leg just slammed out and broke the downlock in the process. It then just dangled outside of the nacelle and would obviously not take any load during landing. IIRC, this was known and reacted to by the crews before touch down.
This was followed up by ADs mandating fleet wide gear inspections depending on hours and legs flown, and as far as I know, the problems SAS suffered from have never reared their head again. And for what itīs worth, I have flown the DH8 for a while now and never had nor heard of an issue with the landing gear in my company...
I would suggest that simply pointing to an inherent weakness of the DH8s landing gear as a possible cause for this incident would be too easy and inappropriate.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David, thanks for the correction.
Tu 114, I thought the 2 SAS incidents were down to the treads of an eye bolt being so corroded that linkage seperated. The U/C in freefall did indeed destroy the locks.
Tu 114, I thought the 2 SAS incidents were down to the treads of an eye bolt being so corroded that linkage seperated. The U/C in freefall did indeed destroy the locks.
