Those Crazy Sweedish Dash Drivers! (gear collapse)

[Captzaahlie]

Here's a pretty cool video clip, it's almost like the fire dept. is trying to drown the pax!
Then again getting wet is better than being on the menu at a barbecue.....

Glad no there was no fatalities!



http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/emergenc...s-smashing-engine-blade-into-cabin-298042.php

 

[The_Russian]

They did a horrible job with that landing. Very unprofessional, very bad airmenship.

Say what you want. The flying pilot slammed it in and never secured the engines. No respect for the safety of the passengers.

Shame on you SAS pilots.

 

[j41driver]

Did the crew know of a potential gear problem before it actually collapsed?

 

[The_Russian]

Yes. They burned fuel off before the landing was attempted.

 

[Turbine Pilot]

Dash's are not easy to get greasers unlike you guys in the jets. I've got several thousand hours and still can't get greasers on demand. It's just luck sometimes. They are hard to get. Look at the gear. They don't give much. Well other then in this case...
Also you can't secure engines in the Dash unless you shut it completly down. Then you have a dead engine to boot and it's not a cakewalk in a Dash unlike the jet... No pun intended... just different machines... even way different then a B-1900. Much harder to land and control single engine, I have flown them too. They are much easier to land and you barely notice an engine failure... I think the crew did a nice job, I couldn't have done any better.

 

[HoldShort31C]

So Russian....
What part of that was such a bad job, more importantly...what was so unprofessional about that?

No serious injuries, etc....what is the basis of your comments???

 

[c9skytrain]

What is Sweedish? A new jelly?

 

[The_Russian]

So Russian....
What part of that was such a bad job, more importantly...what was so unprofessional about that?

No serious injuries, etc....what is the basis of your comments???

Let's see....

Both engines should have been secured prior to touchdown. This is not only for the safety of the passengers, but to reduce damge to the aircraft.

and,

The landing was made with poor technique, allowing the aircraft to contact the runway extremely hard. Much harder than should be considered for an unsafe gear situation.

I hate to say it myself, but it was a botched job. That aircraft could have been landed on the centerline with minimal damage. Instead, it took a hard right after an uncontrolled touchdown and departed the runway.

 

[quinnlake]

Let's see....

Both engines should have been secured prior to touchdown. This is not only for the safety of the passengers, but to reduce damge to the aircraft.

and,

The landing was made with poor technique, allowing the aircraft to contact the runway extremely hard. Much harder than should be considered for an unsafe gear situation.

I hate to say it myself, but it was a botched job. That aircraft could have been landed on the centerline with minimal damage. Instead, it took a hard right after an uncontrolled touchdown and departed the runway.

I see several aircraft listed on you're profile, but not a DASH. Are you suggesting that they should have flown a dead stick landing in order to secure the engines? Wow.

 

[BoilerUP]

Why secure the engines?

With already one emergency with a gear unsafe situation, why create another one for yourself by fiddling with the engines in the critical approach-to-landing phase?

 

[The_Russian]

I see several aircraft listed on you're profile, but not a DASH. Are you suggesting that they should have flown a dead stick landing in order to secure the engines? Wow.

Not at all. You secure both of the engines just prior to touchdown. It is the safe and prudent thing to do in a turboprop. DASH in my profile would not make a difference.

 

[The_Russian]

Why secure the engines?

With already one emergency with a gear unsafe situation, why create another one for yourself by fiddling with the engines in the critical approach-to-landing phase?

The reasons would be:

1. To reduce damage to the aircraft, its occupants, and secondary objects.

2. Reduce the chance of fire after the impact or touchdown. Tis pilot made an impact, not a touchdown.

3. To reduce asymetrical forces on the aircraft once skidding.

Surely you guys can see these reasons as appropriate. Correct?

 

[Little Bubba]

Russian,

Maybe you can tell us what the QRH says...

 

[flyburg]

Well Russian,

I think your comments are somewhat unprofessional in my opinion.

First off all, the landing isn't all that hard. I did touch down on the left gear first ( try to make a soft one on the right subsequently)

Secondly, NO turboprop QRH of any of the types I have flown directs the pilots to shutdown engines before landing in a gear malfunction situation but right after landing, as the gear collapse happened almost immediate I think not even the best test pilot( except off course Chuck Norris) could have shut down the engine that fast, let alone feathering times (maybe he already pulled, or pushed, the feathering lever/button but it takes a few seconds for the engine to feather and stop rotating).

Amongst the many, many reasons not to shut down the engines prior to touchdown (some of them already mentioned) I know of one guy that did that once in a Aztec with a nose gear up landing. He almost ran out of runway before he finally touched down due to the sudden loss of drag.

Once again, I know of no airplanes where the QRH requires you to shut down one or both engines in case of a none engine related failure of any kind. They do however say, space permitting to reseat passengers away from the seat directly adjacent to the prop, and besides that most TP have the hull reenforced right next to the props (in case of ice shedding, have to admit don't know if that is enough to also protect against a prop)

Qurious, what does the b1900 QRH say on the subject??

Makes me wonder, had the guys taken their own iniative and shut down the engine, this thread would have ondoubtly been about foreign substandard training and guys not following procedures, Njet

 

[The_Russian]

I think your comments are somewhat unprofessional in my opinion.

Sure you do. Try to look at this objectively.

First off all, the landing isn't all that hard. I did touch down on the left gear first ( try to make a soft one on the right subsequently)

For a precautionary landing with an unsafe gear indication it is!

Secondly, NO turboprop QRH of any of the types I have flown directs the pilots to shutdown engines before landing in a gear malfunction situation but right after landing, as the gear collapse happened almost immediate I think not even the best test pilot( except off course Chuck Norris) could have shut down the engine that fast, let alone feathering times (maybe he already pulled, or pushed, the feathering lever/button but it takes a few seconds for the engine to feather and stop roatating).

Both turboprop QRH's I have dealt with recommend securing the engines just prior to touchdown. Even if your QRH doesn't say to, it is a very smart and safe thing to do.

The pilots were not suprised by anything. They knew this was coming after the first extension. Even if the prop doesn't feather fast, at least it is not making impact at its greatest RPM. A bent prop is a lot better than a fragmented prop. Fragments enter people. Remember that I am talking about both engines, in the flare.

Amongst the many, many reasons not to shut down the engines prior to touchdown (some of them already mentioned) I know of one guy that did that once in a Aztec with a nose gear up landing. He almost ran out of runway before he finally touched down due to the sudden loss of drag.

Poor planning on his part.

Once again, I know of no airplanes where the QRH requires you to shut down one or both engines in case of a none engine related failure of any kind.

See above.

Qurious, what does the b1900 QRH say on the subject??

I'll refer to it when I get home. Haven't flown that one in a while.

Makes me wonder, had the guys taken their own iniative and shut down the engine, this thread would have ondoubtly have been about foreign substandard training and guys not following procedures, Njet

If an airline does not specify touchdown procedures, then how will the pilots know how to land with an unsafe gear? Obviously, their QRH recommends to slam it in and turn uncontrollably to the right sending prop pieces everywhere. Every QRH I have read has recommendations. These include soft touchdown, securing engines, and using ailerons to reduce impact to the affected wing.

As you can see in this case, the pilot did not touch down softly. The gear began to collapse as the aircraft's right prop struck the runway. Most likely the crew was distracted by the explosion, and lost any control they had of the aircraft prior to this. Luckily, no pax were killed by the flying debris.

 

[Quimby]

Let's see....

Both engines should have been secured prior to touchdown. This is not only for the safety of the passengers, but to reduce damge to the aircraft.

and,

The landing was made with poor technique, allowing the aircraft to contact the runway extremely hard. Much harder than should be considered for an unsafe gear situation.

I hate to say it myself, but it was a botched job. That aircraft could have been landed on the centerline with minimal damage. Instead, it took a hard right after an uncontrolled touchdown and departed the runway.

what's the number on your monday morning q-back jersey?

 

[The_Russian]

what's the number on your monday morning q-back jersey?

I wear #15.

Enjoy the discussion.

 

[Wiggums]

Russian, can you consistently grease it on? Under pressure? Even if they had made a better landing would it have mattered? Once the spoilers came up the gear would have probably collapsed anyways.

If you shut down the engines in the flare you are relying on a whole bunch of backup systems in an aircraft that already has problems. If the gear didn't collapse now you have to rely on backup hyd for braking and steering? What about the spoilers, will they work on backup hyd? Does the PA or radios work with no engines or APU running?

Why would you operate outside of the QRH? What at your company allows to make up your own procedures in an emergency?

 

[The_Russian]

Russian, can you consistently grease it on? Under pressure?

Yep, I have the Channel 7 news video to prove it.

Even if they had made a better landing would it have mattered? Once the spoilers came up the gear would have probably collapsed anyways.

Are you saying they cant disable the spoilers? Either way, that is their decision to meet the needs of the situation. The gear collapsing is not the problem here. The problem is the fragmenting prop and the complete loss of control.

If you shut down the engines in the flare you are relying on a whole bunch of backup systems in an aircraft that already has problems. If the gear didn't collapse now you have to rely on backup hyd for braking and steering? What about the spoilers, will they work on backup hyd? Does the PA or radios work with no engines or APU running?

Set up the hydraulics to run on APU or battery power. Same with the PA. The gear has overcenter lock and will hold on the respective gear if you have a green light. Once again the problem is damage, fire, and injury. Not the other systems.

Why would you operate outside of the QRH? What at your company allows to make up your own procedures in an emergency?

I wouldn't be. Even if I was, I can do what is nessecary to meet the extent of the emergency.

 

[flyburg]

Well, I guess your entitled to your opinion. I think I see almost all things differently than you.

I think the touchdown isn't all that hard, you think it is, who's right? etc, etc

I am curious though, you say both turboprops you flew recommended the engines to be shut down prior to touchdown but a little later you admit you have to check the beech 1900 as you haven't flown it for a while.

I gotta admit, I haven't flown the J31 and saab for a long time but I know for a fact that the Fokker 50 QRH directs you to shut down the engines immediatetely after touchdown, and as far as the SF340 and J31, I'm pretty sure they are the same.

Enough of this for me though, who cares, every time there is an accident, somebody feels the need to start critisizing and give opinions on how they would have done it differently...good luck with that.

Allready regret having even responded!

 

[The_Russian]

I am curious though, you say both turboprops you flew recommended the engines to be shut down prior to touchdown but a little later you admit you have to check the beech 1900 as you haven't flown it for a while.

What I meant by that was the exact wording. I thought that is what you were asking for. I will check it out for you.

 

[Wiggums]

Are you saying they cant disable the spoilers?

So you think that the best procedure is the shutdown the engines and disable to spoilers? Plus you have to grease in on also? Then stop with no reverse and on backup hyd? How much should we multiple the landing distance by, 4,5,6 times? What is the gear hadn't collapsed and they went off the end using that plan?

 

[The_Russian]

So you think that the best procedure is the shutdown the engines and disable to spoilers? Plus you have to grease in on also? Then stop with no reverse and on backup hyd? How much should we multiple the landing distance by, 4,5,6 times? What is the gear hadn't collapsed and they went off the end using that plan?

It's a turboprop, not a 200,000 lb jet aircraft.

If the gear does collapse, friction with the runway will stop the aircraft. This is where my concern is. Always brief and fly it like it WILL collapse.

and,

If the gear doesn't collapse:
1. Pick a suitable, i.e., longest runway. (prior)
2. Vref at the numbers.
3. Brakes on hydraulics with battery or apu power. or, use emergency brake if available.
4. Aerodynamic braking.

You should have this briefed and set up prior to landing.

 

[Little Bubba]

Russian,

How about following the QRH?

 

[Junkflyer]

I'm sure the Russian would have greased that Dc-10 on in Sioux City if only she was the captain instead of Al Haynes.

 

[The_Russian]

It appears as if I am the only one NOT taking crazy pills today.

Watch the video. Compare will all other successful gear up/gear unsafe landings. You will see the difference.

 

[The_Russian]

Russian,

How about following the QRH?

Um, this really has nothing to do with the QRH. The QRH can give recommendations, but it cannot teach you the technique nessecary to safely guide the aircraft through a safe landing. Nor can the QRH adapt itself to environmental issues surrounding the emergency.

What you must be thinking of is the procedures in the QRH prior to touchdown. I am not insisting that you skip those steps. Like I said before, this is beyond those procedures, in the touchdown phase.

I am not quite understanding why you think it is wrong to secure the engines prior to a suspected unsafe touchdown. Why would you keep the props at max RPM?

 

[bizzum]

Um, this really has nothing to do with the QRH. The QRH can give recommendations, but it cannot teach you the technique nessecary to safely guide the aircraft through a safe landing. Nor can the QRH adapt itself to environmental issues surrounding the emergency.

What you must be thinking of is the procedures in the QRH prior to touchdown. I am not insisting that you skip those steps. Like I said before, this is beyond those procedures, in the touchdown phase.

I am not quite understanding why you think it is wrong to secure the engines prior to a suspected unsafe touchdown. Why would you keep the props at max RPM?

I have never flown the Q400, but have about 1000hrs in the 300, 200, 100. I have flown with guys that have 20,000 hours in the Dash, and STILL can not grease it on. It is a VERY stiff legged machine, and unless you have a wet runway or snow, you are gonna feel it. Assuming the systems are similar in the 400 as the rest, If you shut down both motors, you will have no rudder. You will also only have enough brake accumulation for 3 pumps on the brakes. If I remember right, there are no electric hydraulic pumps, so if you lose both engines you are SOL, so to speak. Also, the props are composite, you can bend them with your two hands. If you hit the ground, they will fragment. Those guys had no way of knowing that the gear was going to collape, and turning that thing into a 60,000lb glider as a "precaution" would be absolutely foolish IMO.

 

[venr122]

My thoughts (which won't be anywhere near as professional or correct as the Russian)

That gear looked awfully normal to me, and looking out the window they probably thought it was a FALSE unsafe indication.....which happens a whole lot more than an actual unsafe gear. They sure would have looked silly, and probably even secondguessed by you had they shut two perfectly normal motors down. I don't think the Dash 8's have APU,s but not sure about the -400.

I agree they probably could have gotten a little more of the crab out prior to touchdown....but knowing what we know (which is Jack SHT) I would have done it the same way

good thing I never make mistakes

 

[The_Russian]

I have never flown the Q400, but have about 1000hrs in the 300, 200, 100. I have flown with guys that have 20,000 hours in the Dash, and STILL can not grease it on. It is a VERY stiff legged machine, and unless you have a wet runway or snow, you are gonna feel it. Assuming the systems are similar in the 400 as the rest, If you shut down both motors, you will have no rudder. You will also only have enough brake accumulation for 3 pumps on the brakes. If I remember right, there are no electric hydraulic pumps, so if you lose both engines you are SOL, so to speak. Also, the props are composite, you can bend them with your two hands. If you hit the ground, they will fragment. Those guys had no way of knowing that the gear was going to collape, and turning that thing into a 60,000lb glider as a "precaution" would be absolutely foolish IMO.

There must be a manual reversion to use the rudder. Otherwise, that aircraft would not have been certified. The problem is that the props will fragment, possible killing or injuring passengers and crew members in the aircraft.

Those guys had EVERY reason to believe that the gear was going to collapse. You must treat every unsafe gear indication as the real thing, even if there is a chance that the gear is ok. The aircraft would not have been gliding for more than a few seconds. I have stated many times that the proper time to secure is in the flare closer to touchdown.