Source/Link: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4a5be994&opt=0
It looks as if a 2nd FlyBe Dash 8Q400 had landing gear issues while on approach to Hanover.
The aircraft is still parked in Hanover tail registration: G-JECR.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- BobleBrave
- Posts: 34
- Joined:
Re: 2nd FlyBe Dash 8Q400 with landing gear issues
Steering issue with the nose wheel doesn't seem quite as bad an incident as the collapse of MLG though.
Re: 2nd FlyBe Dash 8Q400 with landing gear issues
Not as major, but this type is really known for it's landing gear issues. SK got rid of them because of that.
Re: 2nd FlyBe Dash 8Q400 with landing gear issues
Sad to see the Q400 have these issues. SAS had these issues back in 2007, and now Flybe is having these issues. Hopefully it gets solved soon.
Re: 2nd FlyBe Dash 8Q400 with landing gear issues
Eindhoven wrote:Not as major, but this type is really known for it's landing gear issues. SK got rid of them because of that.
SK was found at fault for using chemicals that were not approved. They degraded a part and caise the trouble. There were no other airlines having that issue. The plane has flown for years with few problems.
Re: 2nd FlyBe Dash 8Q400 with landing gear issues
Also a stering issue happens on airliners of all types. It has no bearing on a collapsed gear as they are 2 different and unconnected items.
-
- aerolimani
- Posts: 1460
- Joined:
Re: 2nd FlyBe Dash 8Q400 with landing gear issues
NichCage wrote:Sad to see the Q400 have these issues. SAS had these issues back in 2007, and now Flybe is having these issues. Hopefully it gets solved soon.
A nose-gear steering issue is very different from the SK issues. If you read that site which reports aviation incidents, you will understand just how common nose wheel steering issues are. (like all the ATR incidents where one of the nose wheels detaches and rolls away) As to this FlyBe, one MLG collapse (during very bad weather) does not indicate that the Q400 is plagued with some systemic issue.
SK got ride of their Q400's for PR reasons. They felt that their passengers had a negative perception of the aircraft.
-
- Dominion301
- Posts: 4126
- Joined:
Re: 2nd FlyBe Dash 8Q400 with landing gear issues
aerolimani wrote:NichCage wrote:Sad to see the Q400 have these issues. SAS had these issues back in 2007, and now Flybe is having these issues. Hopefully it gets solved soon.
A nose-gear steering issue is very different from the SK issues. If you read that site which reports aviation incidents, you will understand just how common nose wheel steering issues are. (like all the ATR incidents where one of the nose wheels detaches and rolls away) As to this FlyBe, one MLG collapse (during very bad weather) does not indicate that the Q400 is plagued with some systemic issue.
SK got ride of their Q400's for PR reasons. They felt that their passengers had a negative perception of the aircraft.
PR indeed. Ironically my first ever Q400 ride was on SK just a couple of months before the series of gear collapses. I thoroughly enjoyed it and noticed how different it felt compared to a DH1/3.
-
- prebennorholm
- Posts: 7295
- Joined:
Re: 2nd FlyBe Dash 8Q400 with landing gear issues
rbavfan wrote:Eindhoven wrote:Not as major, but this type is really known for it's landing gear issues. SK got rid of them because of that.
SK was found at fault for using chemicals that were not approved. They degraded a part and caise the trouble. There were no other airlines having that issue. The plane has flown for years with few problems.
Dear rbavfan, it is impossible to write anything which is more faulty than your comment above. You know absolutely nothing about it. But you can read the following ADs and learn about it:
The following air worthiness directives (AD) were issued:
• Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-20 dated September 12, 2007.
• EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive No. 2007-0252-E dated September 13, 2007.
The above AD’s were revised after additional information became available during the investigation.
• Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-20R1 dated October 11, 2007.
• EASA Airworthiness Directive No. 2007-0272 dated October 16, 2007.
All SK planes were on the way to failing. SK planes failed first because they were launch customer. All Q400 planes were modified to correct the design fault as described in the ADs. All Q400 planes, before being modified, would fail sooner or later if they were operated in climate where they sometimes had to climb and descend in clouds.
The last of the three SK accidents was unrelated. It was caused by sloppy mx work during the hasty fleet modification according to the ADs above.
But it is correct that SK ditched the Q400 due to PR reasons. The relations to the public was so that they would have folded within a month or two if they had insisted on keeping the Q400 in the fleet.
Two of the three accident planes were scrapped. The 26 other planes in the fleet were repaired/modified by Bombardier and are now flying for other operators around the world.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 74LS00, ADM94, ASguy2012, AstanaMagic, ba9216c, christao17, Crazy4Planes, DrewBe, EI320, emtrouwee, factsonly, findingnema, FJL767400, flyoregon, HBJZA, hollywoodcory, JeremyB, LGWFAN, lp137, Manderson12, melpax, Noshow, qf789, reply1984, sirtoby, sudenmorsian, Superboi, tealnz, tullamarine and 215 guests