Dash 8 Tail Tipping
 

A question. Imagine a Q402, 56 pax, very low fuel state. If you start moving pax to the rear of the aircraft, what is the risk of sitting the thing on its tail?

Appreciate that this might seem a bit obscure but there is a point to my question. Honest. Thanks.

The Q400 is a nose heavy aircraft to begin with. You tend to block forward rows apart from exit seats and seat the pax towards the back but in regards I couldn't see the dash tipping, the ATR well is another beast:}

Now if
 

you were talking Shorts 330/360 i would understand .Been on quite a few that have tipped on the ground ,due to no stick been put up

Couldn't see it happening...
The worst I've had is where all the baggage has been loaded with no pax, and the nose rises slightly, but enough to trigger WoW caution and for the ADCs to get a bit confused (no IAS).
This all goes away when the pax have boarded and the nose is compressed again. :}

Just to add to what Death Pencil said, in the 100/300's, I've seen the stick-shaker go off, WoW Caution Light and even the FT (flight time) on the clock starts running. Never seen (or heard) the tail tipping.

Believe it r not there were a few 300's out there with the gear slightly forward of the rest and they were tippy enough that you didn't dare walk to the back of an empty one. I seem to recall the first six 300's had to be equipped with pole stands as a result and I think the retirement of the VP of Engineering was hastened a bit when it was discovered.

I have long since left DH engineering but I don't imagine they would ever allow such a situation to be repeated on the -400's

turbocharged... you said there was a point to this question....?

No problem at all on the Q400. I've had all the luggage on, and the back half filled with about 30 pax, with the large and not very bright family in row 10 blocking everyone else getting off while they sorted their lives out.

It was a fair old step down from the door, granted, but it certainly wasn't going anywhere in the way you ask.

Sometimes if the bags are loaded first, an airspeed error message appears and the airspeed bugs cannot be set until the first few passengers get on. It was a bit alarming the first time wondering what the hell was wrong, and how long the delay was going to be.
Brings back memories of the Shorts and the pogo stick!

The point of my question ....
 

I'd heard of the -300s tipping before they redesigned the gear. In this case, a -402 crew could not get the nose gear down. After 21 attempts using various combinations of normal, standby and emergency lowering, having pulled g in a steep turn and done a touch-and-go they finally accepted the inevitable - land. The aircraft had been flying around for 2:30 by this stage and the captain estimated about 20 mins fuel remaining. He remembered an SEP scenario he once took part in and decided to get the cabin to shift some of the pax to the rear - his logic being to allow for a more gentle lowering of the nose. I was just wondering if he might inadvertently have increased the risk of sitting the thing on its tail.

Thanks for everyones' input

Did it actually tailstrike on landing? I can't imagine a Q400 without a nosegear tipping onto it's tail after a normal landing run.

No, it didn't. What interested me as that the captain took action (moving pax) on an understanding that it might make the job of keeping the nose off the ground for as long as possible easier. I'm guessing that he thought it would also reduce the impact when the nose finally dropped.

I don't know how the 56 pax were distributed at the start of the flight nor do I know the baggage weight. However, I was just interested in the extent to which attempts to avoid one problem (or mitigate a situation) might have increases the probability of a different problem.

I know of examples of smaller aircraft (J41s and Saab 340) where various combinations of overloading bags and pax moving seats after take-off (to get away from the prop area) have resulted in issues with landing and taxiing in a tail-heavy state.