Major problems with FLYBE Q400s
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Down a Tin mine......
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leyland Brothers : [2] The rear bulkhead repair was carried out by Japan Airlines engineers in Japan, not at the Boeing factory. Whilst Boeing did design and approve a repair scheme, the repair that was embodied by the Japan Airlines engineers was not in accordance with the approved design. The design called for a single doubler plate which straddled the horizontal joint, but what was embodied included two separate doubler plates, one either side of the horizontal joint.
just a minor correction to your post - but the repair may have been carried out by the JAL engineer's - but i think you will find that if you had researched a little more thoroughly you will have found out that the repair WAS in fact inspected by a Senior Boeing engineer who was based in Japan before this a/c was released for service becuase of the nature of the repair to a pressurised bulkhead.
just a minor correction to your post - but the repair may have been carried out by the JAL engineer's - but i think you will find that if you had researched a little more thoroughly you will have found out that the repair WAS in fact inspected by a Senior Boeing engineer who was based in Japan before this a/c was released for service becuase of the nature of the repair to a pressurised bulkhead.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raw Data.
"777: Nothing (yet) as far as I know."
By eck lad thats uncanny. Check out todays Daily Mail, they've only gone an lost a panel off a 777. You must be "psychotic" or something.
You're reet lad I don't know a lot about aviation history, footy is more my thing. Some of the more longer serving Jea folks will still ave it in their caps. (They know what I mean)
There's nowt "dodgy" about a northern accent either, which is more than I can say fer an Aussie one.
Anyway I can't stay on ere all neet prattling on. I've got to go an fly me Boeing. Don't yer just hate neet fleets. I only ope I survive cos according to you it's not looking good.
Now where did I put that book on aviation istory?
All t'best.
"777: Nothing (yet) as far as I know."
By eck lad thats uncanny. Check out todays Daily Mail, they've only gone an lost a panel off a 777. You must be "psychotic" or something.
You're reet lad I don't know a lot about aviation history, footy is more my thing. Some of the more longer serving Jea folks will still ave it in their caps. (They know what I mean)
There's nowt "dodgy" about a northern accent either, which is more than I can say fer an Aussie one.
Anyway I can't stay on ere all neet prattling on. I've got to go an fly me Boeing. Don't yer just hate neet fleets. I only ope I survive cos according to you it's not looking good.
Now where did I put that book on aviation istory?
All t'best.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Japan Airlines B747-100-SR (JA-8119) that crashed on 12 August 1985 then you are mistaken on two points of fact :
[1] The crash did not result in “the loss of all aboard”.
True. 4 out of 524 survived.
[2] The rear bulkhead repair was carried out by Japan Airlines engineers in Japan, not at the Boeing factory. Whilst Boeing did design and approve a repair scheme, the repair that was embodied by the Japan Airlines engineers was not in accordance with the approved design.
A team of Boeing engineers was present during the repair. They may not have carried out every single piece of repair, but Boeing admitted responsibility to the US Supreme Court, viz:
http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/suprem...15wn2d0123.htm
[1] The crash did not result in “the loss of all aboard”.
True. 4 out of 524 survived.
[2] The rear bulkhead repair was carried out by Japan Airlines engineers in Japan, not at the Boeing factory. Whilst Boeing did design and approve a repair scheme, the repair that was embodied by the Japan Airlines engineers was not in accordance with the approved design.
A team of Boeing engineers was present during the repair. They may not have carried out every single piece of repair, but Boeing admitted responsibility to the US Supreme Court, viz:
Based on admissions made by Boeing in a pretrial conference, the trial court entered a judgment dated July 24, 1987.
The court found that Boeing admitted the following:
a. In 1978 Boeing repaired the aft pressure bulkhead
of the accident airplane in Japan;
b. Boeing performed a portion of the bulkhead repair
incorrectly;
c. The incorrect repair performed by Boeing was a
proximate cause of the crash of the accident airplane
on August 12, 1985; and
d. Boeing is liable to plaintiffs for compensatory
damages resulting from the crash.
The court found that Boeing admitted the following:
a. In 1978 Boeing repaired the aft pressure bulkhead
of the accident airplane in Japan;
b. Boeing performed a portion of the bulkhead repair
incorrectly;
c. The incorrect repair performed by Boeing was a
proximate cause of the crash of the accident airplane
on August 12, 1985; and
d. Boeing is liable to plaintiffs for compensatory
damages resulting from the crash.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the leyland brothers
Well I see you haven't changed your stripes then...
As others have noted, the repair was supervised/inspected/signed off by Boeing engineers, which is why Boeing accepted liability. It doesn't have to be done in Seattle to be a "Boeing repair". The repair was, in every sense that matters, a Boeing repair.
I hereby correct my body count- "only" 520 died. I'm surprised you think the distinction relevant the argument. I did say it was all from memory, not out of a book, now, didn't I?
Talk about me shooting from the hip! If you bothered to read the posts, you will see that I was doing no such thing as compare the two sets of fleets- there is no meaningful comparison. I was making the point regarding "serious" failures, and then responding to some dissent from the ranks.
Perseus
By eck lad you don't arf speak some drivel...
Losing a panel (not a door as previously reported) is hardly a serious failure, now, is it?
I agree, Aussie accents can be a bit dodgy, glad I'm not an Aussie!
(apologies to all Aussies, make it up to you at the next Bledisloe Cup)
You stick to your footy, now, there's a good chap...
Well I see you haven't changed your stripes then...
As others have noted, the repair was supervised/inspected/signed off by Boeing engineers, which is why Boeing accepted liability. It doesn't have to be done in Seattle to be a "Boeing repair". The repair was, in every sense that matters, a Boeing repair.
I hereby correct my body count- "only" 520 died. I'm surprised you think the distinction relevant the argument. I did say it was all from memory, not out of a book, now, didn't I?
But to compare three years of service history from something less than 60 Dash 8 400s with the many decades of service from more than 15,000 Boeings would seem a bit like comparing apples with oranges.
Perseus
By eck lad you don't arf speak some drivel...
Losing a panel (not a door as previously reported) is hardly a serious failure, now, is it?
I agree, Aussie accents can be a bit dodgy, glad I'm not an Aussie!
(apologies to all Aussies, make it up to you at the next Bledisloe Cup)You stick to your footy, now, there's a good chap...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: gatwick
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For goodness sake, how long are people going to go on pushing this line "passengers don't like props".
IT'S PILOT'S THAT DON'T LIKE PROPS, NOT PASSENGERS.
We keep on harping about it because we don't want our Companies to buy turboprops. A recent Which survey on pax preferences put type and size of a/c at about 17/20.
You only have to look at the NCL FlyBe Dash-8 now reguarly carrying more passengers to Belfast than the Easy 737 !
IT'S PILOT'S THAT DON'T LIKE PROPS, NOT PASSENGERS.
We keep on harping about it because we don't want our Companies to buy turboprops. A recent Which survey on pax preferences put type and size of a/c at about 17/20.
You only have to look at the NCL FlyBe Dash-8 now reguarly carrying more passengers to Belfast than the Easy 737 !
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I don't understand your need to be so mind-numbingly pedantic... but it was ever thus.
For everybody else, "the leyland brothers" has, for a long time, been conducting this sort of sniping for some perceived slight when she worked for my current employer. I can't remember what it was, and in any case this is not the place for it to be resurrected. As we seem to have drifted far from the topic (something to do with turboprops, I think), I'll gracefully retire from the fray. Have fun!
For everybody else, "the leyland brothers" has, for a long time, been conducting this sort of sniping for some perceived slight when she worked for my current employer. I can't remember what it was, and in any case this is not the place for it to be resurrected. As we seem to have drifted far from the topic (something to do with turboprops, I think), I'll gracefully retire from the fray. Have fun!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will now you ave "gracefully retired" from t'fray lad. Shame yer take criticism so badly, it's a character fault you know. So is purporting to be an expert on all things relating to aviation history. Yer grasp of t'Boeing is way of the mark. Lighten up lad.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snodgrass
Not quite true I'm afraid. I've had the (dis)pleasure of paxing on SAS' Q400 a number of times, and every time the bus pulls up the aircraft, a large majority of the SLFs will collectively sigh. Especially the FQTV's sitting on the front rows.
It's nosier, vibrates more, is cramped and slower than a real (ie. 737 size) jet. And it's not as if the airlines are offering a discount on these types is it, even if I could be argued that the product is "inferior" compared to a "real" jet. But we all know that's not the way airline economics work.
By the way, SAS had to pull the Q400 off their most important domestic route in DK due to passenger uproar. That was some time ago, don't know what the deal is now.
You tell me mate: You're at the airport and there's two aircraft available to carry you to your destination. One is a Q400, the other is a 737. The price is the same, but the 737 will get there a bit earlier. Which one would you take?
I'm not a pilot, but I certainly prefer a jet over a prop job any day of the week ....
It's nosier, vibrates more, is cramped and slower than a real (ie. 737 size) jet. And it's not as if the airlines are offering a discount on these types is it, even if I could be argued that the product is "inferior" compared to a "real" jet. But we all know that's not the way airline economics work.
By the way, SAS had to pull the Q400 off their most important domestic route in DK due to passenger uproar. That was some time ago, don't know what the deal is now.
You tell me mate: You're at the airport and there's two aircraft available to carry you to your destination. One is a Q400, the other is a 737. The price is the same, but the 737 will get there a bit earlier. Which one would you take?
I'm not a pilot, but I certainly prefer a jet over a prop job any day of the week ....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EXETER,UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No argument if your comparing like with like.I think SAS early problems were unique and now over.
How many 737s do you see at LCY, BHD, SOU, GCI or even JER.The aircraft has a graet cabability at an amazing price--and most passengers find the cabin light and airy because of the 2x2 and decent seat pitch.
The aircraft has a great future--but it will not replace 737s on 2 hr sectors between major cities.
How many 737s do you see at LCY, BHD, SOU, GCI or even JER.The aircraft has a graet cabability at an amazing price--and most passengers find the cabin light and airy because of the 2x2 and decent seat pitch.
The aircraft has a great future--but it will not replace 737s on 2 hr sectors between major cities.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the problem flybe are not using the 400 on niche routes where performance limitations restrict the use of jet airctaft. They are using the things on 2+ hour sectors from one major airport to another where jets could easily operate providing the PAX with higher altitude (as long as it is not a 146), higher speed (as long as it is not a 146) and less noisy (as long as it is not a 146) environment. Meanwhile the PAX is paying the same fare as with the low costs (easy/Ryanair).
Good deal not.
Go on then RD deny that you 146 dinosaur.
Good deal not.
Go on then RD deny that you 146 dinosaur.
Pitot heat,
The only scheduled route which Flybe currently operate the Q400 on with anything like the sector times you mention is SOU - BGY. The last time I did it, the chock to chock time was 2hrs 10mins each way, so airborne almost certainly less than 2 hours. Hardly as excessive as you make out.
Regarding the 737 v Q400 argument, the point is not that the airfields are performance limiting, but the routes produce a smaller number of passengers. To obtain the same seat cost per mile as you get with 70 pax on a Q400 you have to find 140 pax on a 737 - 800. Thus Flybe is providing a service at a cost which would not be economical for Ryaneasyjetair between those two airfields.
The other option is for pax living near Southampton to spend 2 hrs plus in the traffic on the M3/M25, pay a fortune in car parking and fight their way through the overcrowded nightmare of the Gatwick terminal to save perhaps 10 - 20 minutes airborne time.
Is that in the best interest of the passengers - I would suggest not.
The only scheduled route which Flybe currently operate the Q400 on with anything like the sector times you mention is SOU - BGY. The last time I did it, the chock to chock time was 2hrs 10mins each way, so airborne almost certainly less than 2 hours. Hardly as excessive as you make out.
Regarding the 737 v Q400 argument, the point is not that the airfields are performance limiting, but the routes produce a smaller number of passengers. To obtain the same seat cost per mile as you get with 70 pax on a Q400 you have to find 140 pax on a 737 - 800. Thus Flybe is providing a service at a cost which would not be economical for Ryaneasyjetair between those two airfields.
The other option is for pax living near Southampton to spend 2 hrs plus in the traffic on the M3/M25, pay a fortune in car parking and fight their way through the overcrowded nightmare of the Gatwick terminal to save perhaps 10 - 20 minutes airborne time.
Is that in the best interest of the passengers - I would suggest not.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Fratton End
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone who operates the tampon, confirm if the pax cabin has no drop down oxy masks? And is this why it has a operating alt limit imposed by the c.a.a? If this is true, then you can see why pax would choose a 737 if it was on the same route.
Hey Leyland bros, what about a rub down with the oils for an old knackered loadie!!!
Hey Leyland bros, what about a rub down with the oils for an old knackered loadie!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excrab
until recently (and likely for the winter schedule)
BHX-TLS-BHX, BHX-BGY-BHX
charters now
NEW-SLZ-NEW, BRS-SLZ-BRS, EMA-VRN-EMS
Fine until wx, ATC, routing knocks you down from 240/250 to levels where drift down performance and MSA start to meet.
until recently (and likely for the winter schedule)
BHX-TLS-BHX, BHX-BGY-BHX
charters now
NEW-SLZ-NEW, BRS-SLZ-BRS, EMA-VRN-EMS
Fine until wx, ATC, routing knocks you down from 240/250 to levels where drift down performance and MSA start to meet.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freightdoggy
I belive the Q400 is only certified to FL270, and that oxy masks are only required above FL250. Sacrificing 2000ft seems like a fair deal to me, given the savings of NOT having pax oxy masks fittted.
SAS Q400s are not fitted with pax oxy masks.
Someone more in the know may be able to elaborate further.
SAS Q400s are not fitted with pax oxy masks.
Someone more in the know may be able to elaborate further.
Pitotheat,
What is the relevance of the charters in your apparent argument that the Q400 is inferior as a low cost a/c to a 737. Yes, the EMA-VRN and NCL-SZG have airborne times of approximately 2hrs 30mins, but they are operated on behalf of a charter company, and if that company feels that the route is viable on the Q400 it is nothing to do with Flybe, they simply provide the service requested by the charterer.
Of the schedules you mention (and if you check my post you will note that I referred to current routes), only the BHX-BGY-BHX had airborne times of over 2 hours, and despite the proliferation of low cost airlines operating into BGY from the UK (not to mention BA on BHX-MXP) there was never any lack of passengers when the Q400 was on the route. So maybe, as has been suggested before on these forums it is not the majority of passengers who are against turbo-props, but the pilots.
Regarding drift down, MSA etc, only on the BGY and VRN routes could that be a problem, as operating North of the Alps/Pyrenees on the other routes the highest terrain is only about 5000' over the Massif Centrale (sorry if that's spelt wrongly). However you were surely aware of that. As for the weather, storm tops over the Alps/Pyrenees often reach above 40,000 feet, so any aircraft descending into, or climbing out of, airfields in Northern Italy may find problems with weather.
If any non pilots are reading this and should somehow get the impression from your post that the operation is unsafe (surely that wasn't your intention), I believe that at least one CAA flight ops inspector is current on the a/c, flies it several days a month and is well aware of the operation of the Q400 over the Alps and would presumably have objected if the CAA thought it was a problem.
What is the relevance of the charters in your apparent argument that the Q400 is inferior as a low cost a/c to a 737. Yes, the EMA-VRN and NCL-SZG have airborne times of approximately 2hrs 30mins, but they are operated on behalf of a charter company, and if that company feels that the route is viable on the Q400 it is nothing to do with Flybe, they simply provide the service requested by the charterer.
Of the schedules you mention (and if you check my post you will note that I referred to current routes), only the BHX-BGY-BHX had airborne times of over 2 hours, and despite the proliferation of low cost airlines operating into BGY from the UK (not to mention BA on BHX-MXP) there was never any lack of passengers when the Q400 was on the route. So maybe, as has been suggested before on these forums it is not the majority of passengers who are against turbo-props, but the pilots.
Regarding drift down, MSA etc, only on the BGY and VRN routes could that be a problem, as operating North of the Alps/Pyrenees on the other routes the highest terrain is only about 5000' over the Massif Centrale (sorry if that's spelt wrongly). However you were surely aware of that. As for the weather, storm tops over the Alps/Pyrenees often reach above 40,000 feet, so any aircraft descending into, or climbing out of, airfields in Northern Italy may find problems with weather.
If any non pilots are reading this and should somehow get the impression from your post that the operation is unsafe (surely that wasn't your intention), I believe that at least one CAA flight ops inspector is current on the a/c, flies it several days a month and is well aware of the operation of the Q400 over the Alps and would presumably have objected if the CAA thought it was a problem.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Q400 costs more than an RJ now so it wont be long before they are noy worth it. They seem to long for my liking. Here where I work Dash 8 -100S are having a problem staying serviceable. Infact so much so the Dash6S I fly bail them out of trouble many times. Yet the company in its wisdom has decided to get rid of the Otters and persist with there Dashs which are very old some have build dates in 1978 
.
I have been told by certain C&t Captains that they are very suseptable to electrical problems as are the new Q400S have they sorted this out yet.
A mate of mine was instructing in China, at an Airline that has Q400s and 2 apprentice mechanics decided to do a full power ground run infront of a hangar. You guessed what happened next. It jumped the chocks.One of the guys was seriously injured and a brand new Airplane Totalled.
Anyway Im just envious really I d give my left one to get a Type Rating
Regards
Sheep
.I have been told by certain C&t Captains that they are very suseptable to electrical problems as are the new Q400S have they sorted this out yet.
A mate of mine was instructing in China, at an Airline that has Q400s and 2 apprentice mechanics decided to do a full power ground run infront of a hangar. You guessed what happened next. It jumped the chocks
.One of the guys was seriously injured and a brand new Airplane Totalled.Anyway Im just envious really I d give my left one to get a Type Rating
Regards
Sheep
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please forgive me Sheep Guts , it's terribly rude of me but it's just that I find it bad enough that anoraks can't get it right, and I would just expect better from an aviation professional:
It's HANGAR wot we put planes in and a hangar wot we hang our rags on.
Yes, I know, but I just needed to get it off my chest having read 'hanger' for the 10th time this week.
It's HANGAR wot we put planes in and a hangar wot we hang our rags on.
Yes, I know, but I just needed to get it off my chest having read 'hanger' for the 10th time this week.