Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#1 Post by Jet Jockey » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:34 pm

Proves that the Dash 8/400 is a very solid aircraft...

5.7 Gs!

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... di-450086/
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3481
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#2 Post by pelmet » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:48 pm

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 5#p1023193

Of course the worst hard landing at Jazz was when they were trying to get pics of the AF A340 crash in YYZ on short final and then plonked it on really hard. Collapsed both main gear. I heard they then tried to taxi in(according to someone in the know).
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MrTurbine
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:36 pm

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#3 Post by MrTurbine » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:18 pm

pelmet wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:48 pm
Not sure where they work now. AC?
You savage 😆👌🏻👍🏻
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#4 Post by C.W.E. » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:43 pm

A hard landing at Air Canada is not 5. 7 G's it has to be in the approach lights short of the runway. :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#5 Post by goingnowherefast » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:10 pm

Am I on avcanada or TIYCP?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Bede
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2985
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#6 Post by Bede » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:29 pm

pelmet wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:48 pm
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 5#p1023193

Of course the worst hard landing at Jazz was when they were trying to get pics of the AF A340 crash in YYZ on short final and then plonked it on really hard. Collapsed both main gear. I heard they then tried to taxi in(according to someone in the know). Not sure where they work now. AC?
I knew that captain. Probably one of the best guys to fly with. He made a dumb mistake and paid for it. He's still at Jazz as far as I know. The FO went to WJ.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Lightchop
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 10:03 am

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#7 Post by Lightchop » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:47 am

This is pretty old news.

The Captain from what I heard was quite experienced. Everyone that throws stones, we'll see how you cope when you one day are the one to make a mistake.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Alcoholism
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#8 Post by Alcoholism » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:32 pm

Lightchop wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:47 am
Everyone that throws stones,...
Like a 50,000lb stone? Dropping onto a rwy? Not sure which would land harder, the Q or the stone?
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3481
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#9 Post by pelmet » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:39 pm

One has to wonder if 5.7 g is accurate. That is a lot. Would there not be injuries? Maybe not. There was video of a dash-8 in Europe recently where it's right gear collapsed after landing. With all the gear collapses over the years on the -400, one might think that 5.7g would collapse the gear as well.

But I don't know much about the type, perhaps some keener on type could explain about the history of gear collapses on type and the actual robustness of the of the aircraft. Prior to reading this thread, I was under the assumption that it has a gear that collapses fairly easily but this incident may prove otherwise.
---------- ADS -----------
  

tbayav8er
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:47 pm

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#10 Post by tbayav8er » Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:32 pm

Wow, 5.7G. That's impressive that the gear held up. Even if the plane was only 50 000 lbs at landing (which is almost empty), that's close to 300 000 lbs on the gear at touchdown.
---------- ADS -----------
  

rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#11 Post by rigpiggy » Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:19 am

I think if they landed with 5.7g there would be lots of casualties, I think the navy landings are around 2.2 g "youtube carrier landing hud" with about 800-1000 fpm plonk'er on which is about 12-15 fps with those big, long undercarriage oleos. I don't think navy airplanes would take it let alone a dash 8
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1553
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#12 Post by digits_ » Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:38 am

rigpiggy wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:19 am
I think if they landed with 5.7g there would be lots of casualties, I think the navy landings are around 2.2 g "youtube carrier landing hud" with about 800-1000 fpm plonk'er on which is about 12-15 fps with those big, long undercarriage oleos. I don't think navy airplanes would take it let alone a dash 8
To compare the data, it is important to know where the G sensor is located: below or above the strut. Below the strut ("ground level") will usually (always?) be higher than the g felt in the cabin. 2-3 g does not hurt anyone. You'll notice it is harder than usual, but it is not an extreme event. To have really damaging effects, the g needs to be sustained for a longer period of time. A landing/touchdown is a short event.

G-force is really hard to judge. A slap on the face could easily give you 50-100g locally, for a short period, and not "damage" you. A rollercoaster with only 5 g's could black you out because it takes longer.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Victory
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:32 am

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#13 Post by Victory » Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:20 pm

rigpiggy wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:19 am
those big, long undercarriage oleos
The oleos on the Dash 8 might be big but they don't seem to absorb much of anything.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Cliff Jumper
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#14 Post by Cliff Jumper » Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:33 pm

pelmet wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:39 pm
One has to wonder if 5.7 g is accurate.
rigpiggy wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:19 am
I think if they landed with 5.7g there would be lots of casualties
So, you are suggesting that the TSB engineers got it wrong?
---------- ADS -----------
  

rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#15 Post by rigpiggy » Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:46 pm

No, I am saying the sensor must have been wrong. The structure is only certified to 3.3G's "someone correct me if I'm wrong" I think a 5.7 g would have snapped the gear and possibly the wings off
---------- ADS -----------
  

Cliff Jumper
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#16 Post by Cliff Jumper » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:57 pm

rigpiggy wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:46 pm
No, I am saying the sensor must have been wrong. The structure is only certified to 3.3G's "someone correct me if I'm wrong" I think a 5.7 g would have snapped the gear and possibly the wings off
It's fun to think things.

Have you read the report?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Inverted2
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1983
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:46 am
Location: Ontario

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#17 Post by Inverted2 » Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:13 pm

Regardless, the plane was damaged and repaired. I’ve flown it since and it’s fine.
---------- ADS -----------
  

tbaylx
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:30 pm

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#18 Post by tbaylx » Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:58 pm

rigpiggy wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:46 pm
No, I am saying the sensor must have been wrong. The structure is only certified to 3.3G's "someone correct me if I'm wrong" I think a 5.7 g would have snapped the gear and possibly the wings off
It wasn't wrong, its a mechanical latch sensor located under the floorboard and was tested at the TSB lab and functioned correctly. The gear manufacturer also conducted a tear down and the type of damage to the orifice tube was consistent with a 5G+ force. The TSB report details cover that.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 7o0243.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
  

FL007
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#19 Post by FL007 » Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:34 pm

rigpiggy wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:46 pm
No, I am saying the sensor must have been wrong. The structure is only certified to 3.3G's "someone correct me if I'm wrong" I think a 5.7 g would have snapped the gear and possibly the wings off
"Certified to" is different than "destroyed if exceeded". Just like "max demonstrated crosswind" or "G limit". There is a safety factor added to these certifications and lots are exceeded every day accidentally, (turbulence penetration speeds, etc) and only need a quick maintenance inspection to verify no damage.

5.7g is a lot though, and I'm not recommending overstressing aircraft, just saying that if it's certified to 3.3 I wouldn't be surprised if the gear could take double that.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3481
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Jazz operates a Q400 after a hard landing...

#20 Post by pelmet » Sun Jul 22, 2018 11:52 am

Reading through the report, some things don't make sense.....

We know that the landing was enough to cause damage yet according to the report, "neither pilot considered the landing to have been firmer than others previously experienced". Does that sound realistic?

If the pilots decided to consider this a hard landing, a maintenance inspection would be required but that would take a while as the maintenance was at YYZ and they would not be able depart before the curfew. So they departed and then wrote up that there was a suspected hard landing. Not exactly legal.

The FDR Caution annuniator illuminated(indicating failure of the unit) at the time of the hard landing. However the crew were assured by their Maintenance Control Centre that this was unrelated to the hard landing. They were allowed to depart using an MEL as long as the CVR was deemed to be serviceable(which was no longer the case). But no one bothered to even check to see if it was serviceable and relied on a test earlier in the day. Would it not make sense to do the CVR test again? In my experience, it is a simple test taking less than 5 seconds.

From a regulatory point of view, an MEL should be entered prior to the next departure. Same with the hard landing log entry. While Jazz may be providing extra training about this, it is difficult to believe that every pilot working there was not already aware of this requirement. Of course, we all have entered a snag into the logbook on the flight back to main base where maintenance is located, there is usually no way for any outside person to prove that the failure didn't happen on that last leg. But there was no way to hide this. I'm surprised they actually did it. They could have claimed that they did not feel the landing was hard, as they actually did to the TSB and they would have been technically legal. But to enter a suspected hard landing on a subsequent leg is.......unusual.

One would think TC would be all over this case?

Looking at the damage that happened to the fuselage, it is a good example of how damage from a hard landing can happen at a location that is not neccesarily where you might expect it to be. One might be more inclined to check the landing gear area more carefully as compared to other areas.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”