Major problems with FLYBE Q400s
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major problems with FLYBE Q400s
Heard from various sources that Flybe suffered huge problems with their Q400s falling over. One apparently is stranded at Lyon with a complete hydraulic failure, another at Birmingham and a third in Edinburgh. By my reckoning that is 3/4 of the fleet. I wonder how reliable the 17 new ones will be. I would have thought that reliability is a key quality for low costs and having flown 300s in my past that is not what Bombardier produce.
Anyone from the company know anything about yesterdays events?
Anyone from the company know anything about yesterdays events?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ONE aircraft had a single hydraulic pump failure which resulted in a divert to Lyon (A flybe engineering base). Problem recurred later in Edinburgh (same aircraft). So I'm afraid "what you heard" is a load of old tosh.
Nice try though...
And SAS did not have the same problems with their Q400s, they had different problems with earlier aircraft...
I mean, I don't particularly like it either, but let's try and keep the facts vaguely straight, shall we...
Nice try though...
And SAS did not have the same problems with their Q400s, they had different problems with earlier aircraft...
I mean, I don't particularly like it either, but let's try and keep the facts vaguely straight, shall we...
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I got my facts from the guy who fixed it. Where did you get yours from?
Of course, if you know different, by all means inform us... Best we get the truth if my source is incorrect.
Of course, if you know different, by all means inform us...
Best we get the truth if my source is incorrect.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the Real World
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
check with bhx engineers who will confirm certain details I do not wish to discuss on this PUBLIC forum, I thought the censorship police would have removed this thread by now.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EXETER,UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Flybe service the Q400 has done not a lot worse than the original Dash 8--i.e. a difficult first year but a steady improvement as experience by all concerned was gained. The flybe ac were always to a later standard than the SAS deliveries, and many tweaks have been initiated by the flybe team--after all flybe is the Bombardier service centre for the aircraft in europe.
This weeks events were due to 3 unrelated problems--tiresome but not any particular impediment to have the aircraft up to a proper Dash 8 reliability figure by the end ot the year which is the stated aim.
This weeks events were due to 3 unrelated problems--tiresome but not any particular impediment to have the aircraft up to a proper Dash 8 reliability figure by the end ot the year which is the stated aim.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I chuckle all the time, and I take very little on PPRuNe seriously... 
I mean, if you took it all seriously (especially some of our more earnest brethren), you would be almost certain to suffer from ongoing psychotic episodes. Who needs that?
No, keep a light hand on the reins and laugh at every opportunity. Works for me.
I mean, if you took it all seriously (especially some of our more earnest brethren), you would be almost certain to suffer from ongoing psychotic episodes. Who needs that?
No, keep a light hand on the reins and laugh at every opportunity. Works for me.
That's why most people have left this site
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha! Surely a matter of opinion...
Anyway, did a bit of checking whilst in BHX today and it appears my original story was correct. I'd like to tell you all about it, but in order not to offend an over-anxious Dash driver, I won't. Not sure why it shoud be so secret, but there you go...
The point is... all aircraft break. Some do it catastrophically (ie most Boeings), some have niggling problems (ie the 146). All require a lengthy period after introduction for the engineers to get to grips with them and build an expertise base. The same goes for the pilots, who are responsible for many problems as they too build knowledge ("finger trouble"). It is the same for every airline when it introduces a new type. I can still remember the painful introduction of the ATP and J41. 'Orrible it was.
Introducing a new aircraft is a gamble. With the tiny profit margin available (typically 1%), a troublesome entry into service can hit any airline hard. If the Q400 matures quickly, it will make flybe a whole pile of money. If it doesn't... well... the pile won't be quite so big!
Which brings us back to the original post, which was a sensationalist, ill-informed and puerile fishing expedition.
Anyway, did a bit of checking whilst in BHX today and it appears my original story was correct. I'd like to tell you all about it, but in order not to offend an over-anxious Dash driver, I won't. Not sure why it shoud be so secret, but there you go...
The point is... all aircraft break. Some do it catastrophically (ie most Boeings), some have niggling problems (ie the 146). All require a lengthy period after introduction for the engineers to get to grips with them and build an expertise base. The same goes for the pilots, who are responsible for many problems as they too build knowledge ("finger trouble"). It is the same for every airline when it introduces a new type. I can still remember the painful introduction of the ATP and J41. 'Orrible it was.
Introducing a new aircraft is a gamble. With the tiny profit margin available (typically 1%), a troublesome entry into service can hit any airline hard. If the Q400 matures quickly, it will make flybe a whole pile of money. If it doesn't... well... the pile won't be quite so big!
Which brings us back to the original post, which was a sensationalist, ill-informed and puerile fishing expedition.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Channel Islands
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point RD
The issue at BE appears to be related to low morale rather than ongoing technical problems with the aircraft. Certainly, the crews seem more interested in feeding their faces or having a fag than ensuring the aircraft departs on time. Unfortunately, once the aircraft is running late then making a previous engagement or a positioning flight become more important than operating the last sectors.
The issue at BE appears to be related to low morale rather than ongoing technical problems with the aircraft. Certainly, the crews seem more interested in feeding their faces or having a fag than ensuring the aircraft departs on time. Unfortunately, once the aircraft is running late then making a previous engagement or a positioning flight become more important than operating the last sectors.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: north
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Q400 is probably not that bad an aircraft.
But as it is a relatively new design it will be complicated.
And it has props and pax dont like that.
The only country where it may prove its self comercially is the USA
and the regional operators there are all buying small jets.
Sales of all aircraft are not great at the moment but this machine
is not flexible enough to survive.
Same as RD mentions ATP and J41 which are no more and headaches to the manufacturer.
I hope things go well for the people at BE but I think the Q400 was not a great decision.
They were also a launch custiomer for the trojan horse RJ-X which was also not a great decision.
Manufacturing aircraft like this is a liability for the future as unsubsidised BAe discovered a long time ago.
But as it is a relatively new design it will be complicated.
And it has props and pax dont like that.
The only country where it may prove its self comercially is the USA
and the regional operators there are all buying small jets.
Sales of all aircraft are not great at the moment but this machine
is not flexible enough to survive.
Same as RD mentions ATP and J41 which are no more and headaches to the manufacturer.
I hope things go well for the people at BE but I think the Q400 was not a great decision.
They were also a launch custiomer for the trojan horse RJ-X which was also not a great decision.
Manufacturing aircraft like this is a liability for the future as unsubsidised BAe discovered a long time ago.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RD
It would appear that you did not research your facts very thoroughly whilst at BHX.
The problems were as follows:
One aircraft diverts to Lyons with the loss of No.1 hydraulics fluid due to the stby hyd pump breaking up in flight.
One aircraft with a loss of primary pitot instruments due to, YET AGAIN, the introduction of moisture in the plumbing freezing at altitude. BTW the standby ASI also apparently wound down to zero. The same aircraft on the same trip suffered an uncommanded MLG door opening in flight.
Various niggly problems on the third aircraft causing delays.
In the case of the first 2 problems these are not niggly little defects.
Given the aircraft have been in service with SAS for nearly 3 years and with flybe 18 months the initial "teething" problems you alude to should all be sorted. These are serious technical problems suggesting the aircraft are not up to the job or that maintenance and crew procedures are not sorted. Either way with the introduction of more 400s it can only further highlight these weaknesses. If flybe ever hope to compete against the other low costs it has to have the right kit. The 400 is not the right kit.
Come on you flybe people(except RD) tell me I am wrong.
It would appear that you did not research your facts very thoroughly whilst at BHX.
The problems were as follows:
One aircraft diverts to Lyons with the loss of No.1 hydraulics fluid due to the stby hyd pump breaking up in flight.
One aircraft with a loss of primary pitot instruments due to, YET AGAIN, the introduction of moisture in the plumbing freezing at altitude. BTW the standby ASI also apparently wound down to zero. The same aircraft on the same trip suffered an uncommanded MLG door opening in flight.
Various niggly problems on the third aircraft causing delays.
In the case of the first 2 problems these are not niggly little defects.
Given the aircraft have been in service with SAS for nearly 3 years and with flybe 18 months the initial "teething" problems you alude to should all be sorted. These are serious technical problems suggesting the aircraft are not up to the job or that maintenance and crew procedures are not sorted. Either way with the introduction of more 400s it can only further highlight these weaknesses. If flybe ever hope to compete against the other low costs it has to have the right kit. The 400 is not the right kit.
Come on you flybe people(except RD) tell me I am wrong.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh pur-leeese....
Serious? Grow up. Structural failures are serious, the loss of a hydraulic pump (more correctly, a Secondary Power Unit according to my guy) is not. That's why aircraft have redundant systems, is it not...???
Serious is the top of the fuselage departing the rest of the aircraft, or reversers deploying in flight, or engines departing the airframe.
Regarding the instrument failure, I wasn't commenting on that, but in any case I find it hard to believe the standby ASI "wound down to zero"- if it froze, it would remain at whatever it had been reading when it got too cold. Happy to be corrected if any Q400 bods know different, of course.
Serious? Grow up. Structural failures are serious, the loss of a hydraulic pump (more correctly, a Secondary Power Unit according to my guy) is not. That's why aircraft have redundant systems, is it not...???
Serious is the top of the fuselage departing the rest of the aircraft, or reversers deploying in flight, or engines departing the airframe.
Regarding the instrument failure, I wasn't commenting on that, but in any case I find it hard to believe the standby ASI "wound down to zero"- if it froze, it would remain at whatever it had been reading when it got too cold. Happy to be corrected if any Q400 bods know different, of course.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Some do it catastrophically (ie most Boeings)," by eck lad yer don't arf come out with some Tommy Rot.
Yon fella who goes on about crews stuffing their faces wants to try staying on is feet fer six sectors pampering to the passengers every whim, and then try to get some scoff down, and smoke a woodbine or two. If yer did yer might find yer didn't ave time to eat that chip on yer shoulder.
Yon fella who goes on about crews stuffing their faces wants to try staying on is feet fer six sectors pampering to the passengers every whim, and then try to get some scoff down, and smoke a woodbine or two. If yer did yer might find yer didn't ave time to eat that chip on yer shoulder.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Tyrolean has had (and still has) its fair share of trouble with their -400s as well. Reliability was so poor that they were forced to bring in a Fokker 70 to take over the vital SZG - FRA route again from the -400s and passengers were up in arms when Tyrolean announced to replace the ERJ145 with a -400 on the Altenrhein - Vienna route. I remember some very bitter comments by top brass Tyrolean management which very pretty embarrassing for Bombardier......
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perseus
You might be vaguely amusing with the dodgy Northwestern dialect, but you don't seem to have much of a grasp on aviation history.
So... just from memory:
737: Aloha Airlines catastrophic fuselage failure, some rudder hardovers resulting in total losses, some losses of engines (ie engines departed the airframe, and not because the engine had seized, either).
747: UAL catastrophic cargo door failure resulting in several deaths, factory-repaired rear bulkhead that subsequently failed with the loss of all aboard, also several incidents of flap sections departing the airframe.
757/767: Lauda Air in-flight thrust reverser deployment, leading to loss of aircraft and all aboard.
777: Nothing (yet) as far as I know.
There are also plenty of catastrophic failures on the 707 and 727 fleets, not to mention the 720- but I can't recall them off the top of my head.
Perhaps I should have said "most types of Boeings", but I thought most folk would be intelligent enough to understand what I was saying.
Anyway... the failure of a pump hardly ranks along with the failures mentioned above, does it? In fact the faults found on the Q400 pale into insignificance when seen alongside the failures/teething troubles/gremlins of types we revere as being the epitome of fine aircraft design... I'd rather be in a Q400 with a hydraulic failure than that EMB 145 that broke in half on landing, or a DC10 with no flight controls... etc etc etc
You might be vaguely amusing with the dodgy Northwestern dialect, but you don't seem to have much of a grasp on aviation history.
So... just from memory:
737: Aloha Airlines catastrophic fuselage failure, some rudder hardovers resulting in total losses, some losses of engines (ie engines departed the airframe, and not because the engine had seized, either).
747: UAL catastrophic cargo door failure resulting in several deaths, factory-repaired rear bulkhead that subsequently failed with the loss of all aboard, also several incidents of flap sections departing the airframe.
757/767: Lauda Air in-flight thrust reverser deployment, leading to loss of aircraft and all aboard.
777: Nothing (yet) as far as I know.
There are also plenty of catastrophic failures on the 707 and 727 fleets, not to mention the 720- but I can't recall them off the top of my head.
Perhaps I should have said "most types of Boeings", but I thought most folk would be intelligent enough to understand what I was saying.
Anyway... the failure of a pump hardly ranks along with the failures mentioned above, does it? In fact the faults found on the Q400 pale into insignificance when seen alongside the failures/teething troubles/gremlins of types we revere as being the epitome of fine aircraft design... I'd rather be in a Q400 with a hydraulic failure than that EMB 145 that broke in half on landing, or a DC10 with no flight controls... etc etc etc
Last edited by Raw Data; 28th Jun 2003 at 04:22.