low pass, why not? Can anyone inside see the nose gear?

Someday, if I'm lucky, I can be an armchair warrior and second guess my fellow pilots.

As I recall, the Q400 problems were with gear collapses after landing, rather than failure to extend. Root cause may or may not be the same.

The Q400 gear problem was that the threads stripped off one of the componants allowing the gear to fall down without any braking action. Several key parts were broken when this happened. The gear then hung down without any mechanism to ensure it stayed down and no means of raising it either.

When the first incident happened the RH engine (RH gear problem) was still running. When the props struck the ground one or two blades went straight through the fusalage injuring pax on the LH side.
On the second incident they shut the effected side engine and there were no injuries or fusalage penetration.

No idea if the design is in any way similar to a 100 series. They obviously had the ability to raise the gear for the landing.
I believe the revised procedures default to lower gear with alternate gear procedure and take it from there.

Most FDs in the US have a standard callout for an airplane in distress, which can be pretty impressive. They roll without giving a rat's ass about the aircraft type; for most of them, excluding the ARFF, it's not important. What type of response would you prefer if it were your aircraft?

Yes, understood all that, so that's why I asked why didn't it work on this occasion :)

That's interesting to know. I was on a Dash-8 some years ago where the crew couldn't get the gear to stay up and we had to return to the airport; I guess we were lucky that it did lock down that time.

MG23
The system is quite clever in that if it detects a fault it does not allow the gear to be raised. (the gear remains locked down) (fail - safe). Without knowing the full circumstances of your situation this is most likely what happened.
The SAS events were attributed (I believe) to maintenance procedures which caused the threads on an eye bolt to rust and fail.

This case could have been caused by any number of things including mechanical obstructions.

Good result though in that all safe.

A proportionate one - and one which wouldn't endanger evacuating passengers with masses of redundant vehicles rushing in from all sides.

low fly by
 

The question is how does a low fly past change how you would land the aircraft?

If the tower says "it all looks ok to me" do you then assume your gear will not collapse? I think not, you have an unsafe gear indication so surely your landing will be the same regardless of what the tower tells you?

I've only flown 2 types but both of those have 2 independent gear detection systems, if both tell you it's not locked, then there's a pretty good chance it will collapse.

All a low fly past is going to do is lead you into a false sense of security, better to just assume it's going to collapse, land the aircraft accordingly and breath a sigh of relief if it doesn't collapse.

Incidentally on my types the manuals do not suggest doing a gear up landing in the case of an unsafe indication. I can"t speak for the Dash 8.

RAFAT a local carrier had an F-27 that undershot a gravel strip out in the boondocks and broke the right main gear scissors. They went around and the gear retracted but the right main wouldn't enter the well because the wheels had turned 90 degrees. They came back here and bellied it in with the gear retracted. The airplane remained upright so they jacked it up, changed the right outer cylinder, slapped some duct tape on the belly and ferried it to Montreal for repairs. There was less damage to that particular aircraft than there was to another one of theirs where the gear retracted at the gate. The nose wheel had been chocked and the parking brake was on, it did a number on the front pressure bulkhead. I've got a lot of time on the F-27 and there would be no question in my mind about whether to belly it in or not if only one main came down.

500N I can't believe anyone would think that 727 vid was for real! :D:D

pigboat - thanks for the reply, it was a similar F27 incident to the one you speak of that stirred the thought in my mind many years ago. Of course each situation must be considered in its own right, but I've generally held the view that, as in this case with the baby DHC8, it's best to retract the gear and belly-land rather than on a single MLG.

RAFAT the only instance I can remember where minimal damage occurred while landing with only one main was with a Gulfstream 159. The aircraft belonged to the State of New York and they had the Governor onboard, landing in Albany. The banana beams supporting the left wheel uplock had cracked and would not allow the uplock to release. I seem to remember seeing a video of the landing, made by the CFR services, and it was a textbook operation. The crew feathered the left prop and managed to hold the left wing off until the airplane was down to a trot, and as the wing tip touched down they selected ground fine on the good engine. They stopped on the centerline hash marks, I seem to recall.

Sometimes you pilot chappies can be very funny!

A perfect gear up landing, lots of safety personnel around, all pax and crew safe. A brilliant ending to an awkward situation.

And yet some still go on to question things.

Let's just be thankful that everyone did their job well and everyone walked away from this. Well done to all concerned! :ok: