SAS q400 gear collapse vid

[abc xyz]

http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id- ... ml?forside

[bose]

hi....i dont know the danish very well but i think it said somethin about this is the seneca line indoc for jazz???

[linecrew]

Yes. They were sent overseas to deal with situations like unsafe gear indications onboard foreign carriers.

Funniest never ending joke in the frikin country...for fuksakes.

[Guido]

Almost looks like they knew there was a problem before they landed - the firetruck was out there in no time!

[linecrew]

Almost looks like they knew there was a problem before they landed - the firetruck was out there in no time!

SAS Conducting Extra Checks of Q400 Gear

By Frank Jackman/AviationWeek.com

Scandinavian carrier SAS is conducting an extraordinary inspection of the landing gear on all of its Bombardier Dash 8-400 (Q400) in the wake of Sunday's accident in which the right landing gear of an SAS Q400 collapsed on landing at Aalborg, Denmark. There were no serious injuries among the more than 70 passengers and crew on board. According to Ascend's CASE database, SAS operates 23 Q400s with an average age of six years.
In a statement released Monday, SAS said that although it regards the Aalborg accident as isolated incident, it has decided to launch the extra inspections immediately and expected all aircraft to be inspected within four days. The aircraft are being checked in consultation with Bombardier, SAS said, adding that the inspections are not expected to affect scheduled traffic. SAS's decision to implement the special inspections came after discussions with Bombardier on Monday. SAS said Bombardier confirmed "that what happened in Aalborg has never occurred before with this aircraft type at any airline in the world."

According to SAS, flight SK1209 was enroute from Copenhagen to Aalborg with 69 passengers and a crew of four when a problem with the aircraft's main landing gear was identified. The pilots prepared for a controlled emergency landing and, after landing, the right main gear collapsed. Five passengers were "lightly injured" during evacuation, SAS said.

The Danish Accident Investigation Board will investigate the accident.

[pelmet]

Looks like the new procedure is to shut down the engine on the affected side as a precaution...

"C-GJZD, a Bombardier DHC-8-400 aircraft operated by Jazz Aviation LP, was conducting flight JZA8533 from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson Intl (CYYZ), ON to Thunder Bay (CYQT), ON. Upon extension of the landing gear during the approach at CYQT, the flight crew did not receive a down & locked indication for the left main landing gear, on both the advisory panel and the alternate indicator on the floor. A missed approach was conducted, and the flight crew performed an alternate landing gear extension; however, it was unsuccessful. In accordance with the QRH, the landing gear was pumped down 30 to 50 times with no effect.

The flight crew declared an emergency, shut the number 1 engine down as per the procedure, and requested ARFF in attendance. The cabin was prepared for an emergency landing, and passengers were briefed. The subsequent landing was conducted without further incident with the left engine inoperative.

The aircraft was towed to the gate. The operator's maintenance replaced the Proximity Sensor Electronic Unit (PSEU), and repaired wiring at the landing gear down-lock. Landing gear swings were performed with no further faults."

[valleyboy]

To create an emergency (as defined) and thus compounding an existing emergency makes sense to me - not-. Maybe the Danes made the right choice in getting rid of the aeroplane. Concerns of prop shredding passengers is likely the reason for the shut down. Is this really part of the QRH and if it is I'm thinking this is a major issue for the aircraft and needs to be addressed. How can an aircraft be certified if this is how they deal with a gear issue. Who can shed light on this?

As a paying passenger and suffering on routes the Q400 was never intended to operate at that stage length I hope they are replaced by jets and go away. I have yet to see a passenger who is happy to ride in them.

[Heliian]

To create an emergency (as defined) and thus compounding an existing emergency makes sense to me - not-. Maybe the Danes made the right choice in getting rid of the aeroplane. Concerns of prop shredding passengers is likely the reason for the shut down. Is this really part of the QRH and if it is I'm thinking this is a major issue for the aircraft and needs to be addressed. How can an aircraft be certified if this is how they deal with a gear issue. Who can shed light on this?

As a paying passenger and suffering on routes the Q400 was never intended to operate at that stage length I hope they are replaced by jets and go away. I have yet to see a passenger who is happy to ride in them.

Interesting viewpoint. The debate on whether or not to stow an engine for a gear problem is not new and it is not restricted to just this one aircraft.

Jets? really? on a yyz-yqt or any of the other dash routes? You should start your own airline.

[linecrew]

I have yet to see a passenger who is happy to ride in them.

Well then let me introduce myself, I quite enjoy being a passenger in the Q.

The whiners in a Q are the same that bitch and moan about being in anything smaller than a 737...you can't fix that mindset.

[av8ts]

This

[NotDirty!]

Jets? really? on a yyz-yqt or any of the other dash routes? You should start your own airline.

Before Encore, WJA ran 737s on that route... JZA ran CRJ705s and 200s before they got the Qs. ACA ran A319/320s, DC9s, et al.

So it is not inconceivable to run jets on this dash route!

[C-GGGQ]

Yup everything from Toronto to the NB was a 200 or 705. Then jazz got the q and no more jets.

[mixturerich]

I have yet to see a passenger who is happy to ride in them.

I have to admit, when the ANVS (noise cancelling) is U/S, it is a f*cking noisy bird, almost worse than a classic. But if the noise cancelling is working it isn’t so bad, in which case I prefer it over the unsynched loose vibrating plastic sounds on the classic.

[Diadem]

Before Encore, WJA ran 737s on that route... JZA ran CRJ705s and 200s before they got the Qs. ACA ran A319/320s, DC9s, et al.

So it is not inconceivable to run jets on this dash route!

It's conceivable, at substantially reduced capacity. Passengers like flexibility and the freedom to choose their schedule, rather than having to get on the only flight of the day at 6 am because there aren't any other options. It also makes it easier to increase capacity, because running six Q400s a day provides more seats than one or two 737s. Those aircraft are then able to go operate on routes that are more appropriate to the aircraft where they can actually make money.
Most pax don't even realize what aircraft they're on; they just want to get where they're going, when they want to get there.

[valleyboy]

The debate on whether or not to stow an engine for a gear problem is not new and it is not restricted to just this one aircraft.

Indeed it has been discussed and debated for years and we have all seen the guy landing gear up vids with engines caged but the issue is whether it's approved in the certification of the the aircraft. I ask again what is the QRH and emergency check list saying. Shutting an engine down in a "multi" is not considered and emergency but in a twin it is. You have now created a compound emergency. One would look pretty stupid to land without incident with the gear only to go off the runway (or anything else caused by having an engine shut down) because you out thought yourself.

Well if you enjoy riding in a dash-8 you are likely not paying full price for your ticket. If I showed up for a fligt and I had the choice between a turbo prop and a jet I know I would not need to even think twice what aircraft I would take. I think the Q400 will disappear as soon as there is a good jet replacement. The aircraft was never intended to operate more that 11/2 hr legs.

The issue is not with the size but the form of propulsion.

[Diadem]

The issue is not with the size but the form of propulsion.

Precisely: the CASM for the Q400 is something like 70% that of the CRJ 900, with a comparable number of seats. On legs that take the Q 1.5 hours to operate, a jet might save 10 or 15 minutes, but cost substantially more to fly. Unless passengers are avoiding flying on one airline because they operate props, management won't care about their comfort; if they can fill a Q, they aren't going to spend 30% more to run jets instead, just because it'll be nice for the pax. Their concern is profitability, and for short legs nothing beats the CASM of the Q except the ATR. They'd rather put the jets on legs that are 3+ hours.

[rigpiggy]

This is why the metroliner lasted as long in passenger service as it did

[Heliian]

This is why the metroliner lasted as long in passenger service as it did

Bearskin airlines still rocking the flying sewer tubes.

Shutting an engine down in a "multi" is not considered and emergency but in a twin it is. You have now created a compound emergency. One would look pretty stupid to land without incident with the gear only to go off the runway (or anything else caused by having an engine shut down) because you out thought yourself.

Stick to the simulators if you can't land a dash on one engine. Also, there are multiple reasons to use a turboprop over a turbofan, it's not just about comfort and noise.

Personally, I think the dash series is one of the best aircraft ever produced. They're efficient, capable and safe. I don't get in one for the luxuries, I get in to go places.

[cloudskimmer]

The debate on whether or not to stow an engine for a gear problem is not new and it is not restricted to just this one aircraft.

Indeed it has been discussed and debated for years and we have all seen the guy landing gear up vids with engines caged but the issue is whether it's approved in the certification of the the aircraft. I ask again what is the QRH and emergency check list saying.

The QRH in the Q400 does direct the flight crew that they may shut down the engine with due consideration for flight conditions etc. (at Jazz anyways)

[linecrew]

The debate on whether or not to stow an engine for a gear problem is not new and it is not restricted to just this one aircraft.

Indeed it has been discussed and debated for years and we have all seen the guy landing gear up vids with engines caged but the issue is whether it's approved in the certification of the the aircraft. I ask again what is the QRH and emergency check list saying.

The QRH in the Q400 does direct the flight crew that they may shut down the engine with due consideration for flight conditions etc. (at Jazz anyways)

And whomever is sitting in the row(s) next to the prop probably would appreciates that.