Dash 8 gear problems ( Merged)
 

http://politiken.dk/indland/article377278.ece
reports a Scandinavian Airlines De Havilland Q400 made an emergency landing at AAL EKYT.
Fortunately all passengers safely disembarked before the plane caught fire!!!

Subsequently: half an hour later it was reported that the fire was extinguished. And that the landing gear on one side was involved.

Link to danish newssite with link to video.
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/...0.html?forside

Link to video:
http://www.dr.dk/NETTV/Update/2007/09/09/09180004.htm

I certainly do not understand the language... looks like the right main gear was simply not locked down. Was there a known problem while on approach? If not, why were these guys filming the landing? CFR got there real quickly, but they did not seem to be standing by as one would expect if there was a known problem.

Looking at the video, it seems that the r. gear collapsed as soon as it contacted the runway.
Fire service response was fantastic, but were they on standby? If so, had the crew reported / were aware of a problem?

If they weren't on standby then its a huge coincidence that a fire truck can just be seen in the video clip roaring down the runway behind the Q400 ... I think that answers the question about whether this was a planning emergency!

The problem was known.
According to the news a helikopter (S61 or EH101 based at EKYT) was scrambled to visually inspect the right landing gear.
The Q400 stayed in the air to give fire and rescue time and to burn fuel.
It is said, the plane landed with 900 kgs fuel, and passengers were removed from the seats adjacent to the prop.
It is also said, debris from the prop penetrated the fuselage.

You don't have a firetruck chasing an aircraft down the runway that quickly unless they were already standing by for an indicated unsafe gear fault, I reckon.

And the chances that there was a video and photographer at the airport to capture that landing, and not seem totally surprised when the aircraft slid off the runway makes me think that advance notice was given.

Just watched the video again ... and even without the confirmatory info given above, right at the start of the video you can just make out that the main landing gear downs are still open. This is not status normal for the Q400 ... looks like emergency checklist consulted and normal landing gear hydraulics inhibited (whether as a precaution or whether they gear had to be lowered by the alternate method we can't tell yet).

Non-pilot here.

Any reason why they didn't shut down the starboard engine before landing? :confused:

Was thinking the same - certainly would have made sense if parts of the prop penetrated the fuselage upon hitting the tarmac.

Maybe weather conditions dictated it to be difficult??

Another non-pilot (well, only a few hours under instruction) - maybe engine not shut down in case go-around required?

With consideration to my recent Twin Otter flight (with West Coast) I'd love to know if the fuselage on a prop is meant to withstand such impacts?

Anyone hurt? Plane a write off?

Routed Copenhagen – Aalborg
Scandinavian Airlines regrets to confirm that one of its aircraft, a Dash 8-400 (Q400) with flight number SK1209 from Copenhagen to Aalborg was involved in an accident at Aalborg Airport, at 16:10 hrs local time today.
Prior to the accident problems with the aircrafts main landing gear was identified and the pilots prepared a controlled emergency landing. After landing the right main gear collapsed.
There where 69 passengers and 4 crew onboard and we can confirm that 5 passengers have been lightly injured during evacuation.
A team of specially-trained SAS personnel is at Aalborg Airport to provide assistance.
SK1209 is a code-share* flight with Spanair flight number JK9101, BMI flight number BD3923 and Lufthansa flight number LH6002.
The Danish Accident Investigation Board will investigate the accident. Scandinavian Airlines continues its operations as scheduled.

SAS criticised by Danish CAA
 

Politiken carries a story today citing strong criticism by the Danish CAA (SLF) about borderline maintenance standards.
The article states that between 2003 and 2006 SAS flew between 6,000-10,000 "illegal flights".
In Danish : http://politiken.dk/indland/article377415.ece

I'm a jet pilot (A320) so I'm not that familiar with turbo-prop procedures but you never shut down an engine unless you really really have to. If you shut down one engine you loose about 60-70% of your aircraft power.

And as a pilot you can not predict what's going to happen so you follow your checklists and procedures as they are written and nothing more. It's not up to you to start experimenting and preparing for any "perhaps". You follow the procedures and thats it...

Regarding the power for go-around, the aircraft can fly with 1 engine and it can make a go-around with 1 engine but with a reduced rate of climb but it is approved and certified for it.

Regarding the parts penetrating the fuselage. Most turbo-prop aircrafts has a strengthened structure abeam to the propeller, but this is mostly to defend the structure from ice being thrown of the propellers.

From my point of view (having seen the movie) I thought the pilots made a very good decision to burn off as much fuel as possible and regarding the landing it was a good landing...

If the landing gear is going to collapse it's not much you can do about it... not with an aircraft that has such long landing gear legs anyway. I'd prefer an aircraft with the landing gear attached to the main body, it would create less of a yawing moment incase of a collapse, but this is of course pure speculation...

/Tim

After several hundreds of emergency landings with the SAS Q400's, it was only a matter of time :ugh:

DR.dk (Danish Radio) reports citing a passenger from the flight that 3 rows in the vicinity of the propellers were vacated in preparation for the emergency landing.
And that bits of propeller did actually penetrate the fuselage entering the cabin.

aero junkie: on what facts do you base that comment on?

aero junkie is most probably a Q400 driver, and as such would treat every landing like a "controlled crash".;)