Q400 Undercarriage Problems Return
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Here, there, everywhere
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q400 Undercarriage Problems Return
This has previously been a well publicised issue with the type following a number of high profile incidents in Scandinavia, but after changes in maintenance and a higher level of awareness with crews and engineers it looks like this issue just will not go away....
QantasLink grounds five Q400s for main-gear checks
I wonder who the "another carrier" is, or is that simply code for 'us'?
QantasLink grounds five Q400s for main-gear checks
I wonder who the "another carrier" is, or is that simply code for 'us'?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the Transport Canada list of ADs - here - on the assumption that as state of design, any ADs on the Q series should show up there or have an equivalent to a local AD - shows the following:
The AD which was the reaction to the Scandinavian incidents was CF-2007-20R2. It was last amended in 2009, to add a terminating action as follows:
Depending on how old these aircraft are, it is possible that they are coming up on item 2 and are being modified accordingly. Also, the dates for the Australian AD are not necessarily the same as the TCCA one, so it could be even the part 1 requirement, though I'd find that unlikely.
There are a couple of other more recent ADs on the Q400 landing gear which this action could be related to, but there's nothing in the text of those ADs which suggests a link to the previous issue. There is reference to reported incidents, but no details are given (which also suggests not the same incidents, as CF-2007-20R2 is pretty explicit in referring to those, so there'd be no reason to not do so again if apprproaite.)
And while that list of ADs may look long, call up any type with a decent number of aircraft in service and you'll get a fair old list. ADs are part of doing business; frankly, I'd be very wary of an aircraft with a long service history and no or few ADs. Which is more likely: that a design was perfect at entry into service, or that continuing airworthiness is not being properly maintained? I for one am skeptical of claims to perfection.
The AD which was the reaction to the Scandinavian incidents was CF-2007-20R2. It was last amended in 2009, to add a terminating action as follows:
F. Modification of Main Landing Gear Retract Actuator: - Applicable to DHC-8 Aircraft, Models 400, 401, and 402, Serial Numbers 4001, 4003, 4004, 4006, 4008 through 4182
1. For aircraft main landing gear retract actuators (p/n 46550-7 or 46550-9 or 46550-11) that have accumulated 7,500 or more landings or more than 4 years in service since new at the effective date of this directive:
Within 500 landings or 3 months from the effective date of this directive, whichever occurs first, incorporate Bombardier Modsum 4-901603 to replace the affected retract actuator with a new design retract actuator, p/n 46550-13. Bombardier Service Bulletin (SB) 84-32-55, Revision A, dated 10 March 2008, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada provides approved instructions for incorporating Modsum 4-901603.
2. For aircraft main landing gear retract actuators (p/n 46550-7 or 46550-9 or 46550-11) that have accumulated less than 7,500 landings, and 4 years or less in service since new at the effective date of this directive:
Prior to reaching 8,000 landings or 51 months in service since new, whichever occurs first, incorporate Bombardier Modsum 4-901603 to replace the affected retract actuator with a new design retract actuator, p/n 46550-13. Bombardier SB 84-32-55, Revision A, dated 10 March 2008, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada provides approved instructions for incorporating Modsum 4-901603.
3. Incorporation of Modsum 4-901603 provides terminating action to the detailed visual inspection requirements of paragraph C of this directive.
1. For aircraft main landing gear retract actuators (p/n 46550-7 or 46550-9 or 46550-11) that have accumulated 7,500 or more landings or more than 4 years in service since new at the effective date of this directive:
Within 500 landings or 3 months from the effective date of this directive, whichever occurs first, incorporate Bombardier Modsum 4-901603 to replace the affected retract actuator with a new design retract actuator, p/n 46550-13. Bombardier Service Bulletin (SB) 84-32-55, Revision A, dated 10 March 2008, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada provides approved instructions for incorporating Modsum 4-901603.
2. For aircraft main landing gear retract actuators (p/n 46550-7 or 46550-9 or 46550-11) that have accumulated less than 7,500 landings, and 4 years or less in service since new at the effective date of this directive:
Prior to reaching 8,000 landings or 51 months in service since new, whichever occurs first, incorporate Bombardier Modsum 4-901603 to replace the affected retract actuator with a new design retract actuator, p/n 46550-13. Bombardier SB 84-32-55, Revision A, dated 10 March 2008, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada provides approved instructions for incorporating Modsum 4-901603.
3. Incorporation of Modsum 4-901603 provides terminating action to the detailed visual inspection requirements of paragraph C of this directive.
There are a couple of other more recent ADs on the Q400 landing gear which this action could be related to, but there's nothing in the text of those ADs which suggests a link to the previous issue. There is reference to reported incidents, but no details are given (which also suggests not the same incidents, as CF-2007-20R2 is pretty explicit in referring to those, so there'd be no reason to not do so again if apprproaite.)
And while that list of ADs may look long, call up any type with a decent number of aircraft in service and you'll get a fair old list. ADs are part of doing business; frankly, I'd be very wary of an aircraft with a long service history and no or few ADs. Which is more likely: that a design was perfect at entry into service, or that continuing airworthiness is not being properly maintained? I for one am skeptical of claims to perfection.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Here, there, everywhere
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another day, and a few more facts have come to light. See the link below for details;
UPDATE: Canadian Regulator To Order Bombardier Q400 Fix - WSJ.com
(Rewrites first four paragraphs. Updates Transport Canada's comments in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4. Updates fleet number and adds detail in paragraph 5. Adds background in paragraph 6. Updates stock price.)
By Caroline Van Hasselt and Kaveri Niththyananthan Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
TORONTO (Dow Jones)--Canada's civil-aviation safety regulators told Dow Jones Monday that it is in the process of issuing an air-worthiness bulletin on Bombardier-built Q400 turboprops relating to the potential for cracks or corrosion near the landing gear.
"Transport Canada is aware of concerns relating to the turboprop aircraft landing gear, and the department is in the process of issuing an Air-worthiness Directive on this subject," says Transport Canada spokeswoman Maryse Durette. Such a directive would require all operators to correct the specific problem.
Australia's Qantas Airlines Ltd. (QAN.AU) on the weekend temporarily grounded five of its 21 Q400 turboprops after conducting inspections related to recent Bombardier service bulletins that were issued after U.K. carrier Flybe Ltd. (FBE.YY) raised concerns about the undercarriage fittings on its Q400 fleet. This latest issue is not related to the landing-gear problems that grounded Scandinavia-based SAS Group's Q400 fleet in 2007, says a Bombardier Inc. (BBD.B.T) spokesman.
Montreal-based Bombardier is "communicating with all owners of Q400 to provide them with the next steps, and Transport Canada is monitoring" the company's "proactive response," Transport Canada said. Bombardier issued the service bulletins in July and April related to the fittings in the turboprop's nacelle area near the landing gear. The nacelle area is a streamlined enclosure that's not part of the fuselage.
Of the 300 Q400 fleet worldwide, 222 planes need to be inspected, says John Arnone, a Bombardier spokesman. The inspections are meant to catch any corrosion, fatigue or stress before it becomes an issue. To date, 60% of the 222 planes have been inspected, and 4% of the inspected planes were found to have potential problems and have been either fixed or awaiting parts, he says.
This latest issue with the Q400, a popular quiet short-haul turboprop, comes just months after Canadian and U.S. regulators ordered the company to fix certain angle-of-attack, or AOA, components on the Q400 that warn of aerodynamic stalls. Bombardier first alerted Transport Canada to potential AOA problems last fall after one of its suppliers informed it of a stalling incident due to icing on a non-Bombardier aircraft. French parts-maker Thales SA (HO.FR) is Bombardier's supplier.
Sydney-based Qantas said in a statement, dated Aug. 21, that it grounded the five short-haul planes after "inspection of a main landing-gear component." The airline began inspecting its fleet after discussions with Bombardier and after Flybe, a major operator of the aircraft, detected a cracked fitting during a regular maintenance check.
A spokesman for the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority confirmed it was aware of the issue. "Flybe were performing normal maintenance checks and informed the manufacturer," the spokesman said, adding that the regulator isn't aware of any further issues.
A Flybe spokesperson told Dow Jones that "procedures, such as the checks carried out on the Q400 fleet, are standard practice throughout the industry," adding that its Q400 fleet is operating its normal schedule, with no delays or cancellations.
U.K. airlines must notify the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority of safety critical issues within 96 hours of an incident. Foreign airlines are regulated by their home authorities.
Qantas said it expects the component fix to take around seven days for each aircraft. As a result, QantasLink cancelled some of its Sydney-Canberra Q400 services, is operating supplementary jet flights and using larger aircraft where possible.
"The issue is not an immediate flight safety concern, but does need to be rectified before each aircraft can return to service," said Alan Joyce, Qantas' chief executive.
In 2007, SAS pulled all 27 of its Q400 fleet out of service after landing-gear-related problems led to three crash landings within seven weeks. Charlotte, N.C.-based Goodrich Corp. (GR) supplied the landing gear. A year later, Bombardier agreed to pay SAS Scandinavian compensation of around $164 million in cash and credit for future aircraft purchases. As part of the agreement, SAS agreed to order 27 aircraft, with an option for 24 more.
In Toronto Monday, Bombardier B shares are down 9 Canadian cents, or 2%, to C$4.47 on about 1.9 million shares. In Sydney, Qantas closed slightly lower at A$2.59 on 23.4 million shares.
-By Caroline Van Hasselt and Kaveri Niththyananthan; Dow Jones Newswires; 416-306-2023; [email protected]
UPDATE: Canadian Regulator To Order Bombardier Q400 Fix - WSJ.com
(Rewrites first four paragraphs. Updates Transport Canada's comments in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4. Updates fleet number and adds detail in paragraph 5. Adds background in paragraph 6. Updates stock price.)
By Caroline Van Hasselt and Kaveri Niththyananthan Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
TORONTO (Dow Jones)--Canada's civil-aviation safety regulators told Dow Jones Monday that it is in the process of issuing an air-worthiness bulletin on Bombardier-built Q400 turboprops relating to the potential for cracks or corrosion near the landing gear.
"Transport Canada is aware of concerns relating to the turboprop aircraft landing gear, and the department is in the process of issuing an Air-worthiness Directive on this subject," says Transport Canada spokeswoman Maryse Durette. Such a directive would require all operators to correct the specific problem.
Australia's Qantas Airlines Ltd. (QAN.AU) on the weekend temporarily grounded five of its 21 Q400 turboprops after conducting inspections related to recent Bombardier service bulletins that were issued after U.K. carrier Flybe Ltd. (FBE.YY) raised concerns about the undercarriage fittings on its Q400 fleet. This latest issue is not related to the landing-gear problems that grounded Scandinavia-based SAS Group's Q400 fleet in 2007, says a Bombardier Inc. (BBD.B.T) spokesman.
Montreal-based Bombardier is "communicating with all owners of Q400 to provide them with the next steps, and Transport Canada is monitoring" the company's "proactive response," Transport Canada said. Bombardier issued the service bulletins in July and April related to the fittings in the turboprop's nacelle area near the landing gear. The nacelle area is a streamlined enclosure that's not part of the fuselage.
Of the 300 Q400 fleet worldwide, 222 planes need to be inspected, says John Arnone, a Bombardier spokesman. The inspections are meant to catch any corrosion, fatigue or stress before it becomes an issue. To date, 60% of the 222 planes have been inspected, and 4% of the inspected planes were found to have potential problems and have been either fixed or awaiting parts, he says.
This latest issue with the Q400, a popular quiet short-haul turboprop, comes just months after Canadian and U.S. regulators ordered the company to fix certain angle-of-attack, or AOA, components on the Q400 that warn of aerodynamic stalls. Bombardier first alerted Transport Canada to potential AOA problems last fall after one of its suppliers informed it of a stalling incident due to icing on a non-Bombardier aircraft. French parts-maker Thales SA (HO.FR) is Bombardier's supplier.
Sydney-based Qantas said in a statement, dated Aug. 21, that it grounded the five short-haul planes after "inspection of a main landing-gear component." The airline began inspecting its fleet after discussions with Bombardier and after Flybe, a major operator of the aircraft, detected a cracked fitting during a regular maintenance check.
A spokesman for the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority confirmed it was aware of the issue. "Flybe were performing normal maintenance checks and informed the manufacturer," the spokesman said, adding that the regulator isn't aware of any further issues.
A Flybe spokesperson told Dow Jones that "procedures, such as the checks carried out on the Q400 fleet, are standard practice throughout the industry," adding that its Q400 fleet is operating its normal schedule, with no delays or cancellations.
U.K. airlines must notify the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority of safety critical issues within 96 hours of an incident. Foreign airlines are regulated by their home authorities.
Qantas said it expects the component fix to take around seven days for each aircraft. As a result, QantasLink cancelled some of its Sydney-Canberra Q400 services, is operating supplementary jet flights and using larger aircraft where possible.
"The issue is not an immediate flight safety concern, but does need to be rectified before each aircraft can return to service," said Alan Joyce, Qantas' chief executive.
In 2007, SAS pulled all 27 of its Q400 fleet out of service after landing-gear-related problems led to three crash landings within seven weeks. Charlotte, N.C.-based Goodrich Corp. (GR) supplied the landing gear. A year later, Bombardier agreed to pay SAS Scandinavian compensation of around $164 million in cash and credit for future aircraft purchases. As part of the agreement, SAS agreed to order 27 aircraft, with an option for 24 more.
In Toronto Monday, Bombardier B shares are down 9 Canadian cents, or 2%, to C$4.47 on about 1.9 million shares. In Sydney, Qantas closed slightly lower at A$2.59 on 23.4 million shares.
-By Caroline Van Hasselt and Kaveri Niththyananthan; Dow Jones Newswires; 416-306-2023; [email protected]
Last edited by Love_joy; 24th Aug 2010 at 19:13.
