Those Crazy Sweedish Dash Drivers! (gear collapse)

[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.

 

[ExpWayVis31]

Come on Russian...Tell us the truth...Your really not a pilot.

 

[The_Russian]

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

In no way did I state or imply that. I did compliment my own landings, though!

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.

False unsafe indication? As a crew member, you do not have the right to assume a false indication. What may look normal from afar may not be. Those pilots, if they followed procedures, would have tried all alternate means of obtaining a green light on that landing gear. Crossing the fence, they knew that the gear was not secure. You would know too.

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.

Why would I second guess the crew for making an attempt to be safe? From the beginning of training, pilots are taught to secure the engine prior to a possible or imminent impact. I would rather look silly than be injured or dead.

good thing I never make mistakes

You do, and so do I. Maybe we can learn from theirs.

 

[The_Russian]

Come on Russian...Tell us the truth...Your really not a pilot.

Geez! You got me I'm a Zookeeper.

I just wanted to belong!

 

[bizzum]

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.

The rudder is actually 2 rudders connected to each other. One half runs of hyd 1 the other off of hyd 2. No engines, no rudder. Even a few seconds of "gliding" would mean no rudder, and with any crosswind, with no rudder, you would end up landing off-center, side loading the gear, and IMO would be worse off.

 

[venr122]

I would think (I know the mighty B1900D did) that there is some sort of reinforcment (kevlar panels etc) along the prop arcs to protect the pax from ice and exploding props etc.

It will be a good conversation if it ever happens to me, but both engines are running if the gear looks down.....

The big difference is your version of the most conservative approach is different than many of us. AND most of us are reluctent (sp?) to second guess a situation that we were not privy to the details of.....just a thought. fly safe.

 

[Little Bubba]

Russian, for the last time..
What does the Dash-400 QRH say in reference to "landing with unsafe gear"

 

[DashTrash400]

Wow, Russian, I generally avoid the name calling on FlightInfo but in this case you thoroughly deserve to be called out as an idiot. If you haven't flown the airplane and aren't familiar with the procedures and weren't in the cockpit and have only seen a video clip of the incident, second guessing the pilots is no better than the non-pilot TV anchors who speculate about airline accidents before the airplane's stopped burning.

For what it's worth, the DHC8-400 is even harder to land well consistently than the other Dash 8s. Maximum pitch up on landing is only 6 degrees to avoid a tailstrike, meaning you can increase pitch only a little bit in the flare. In addition, those 13' props create a ton of lift, so retarding them by even 5% torque in the flare results in a big sinker. I have 2200 hours in the airplane and still get a lot of thumpers; I fly with Captains who've been in it since Day One and it still humbles them a lot. Until you've flown the Q400 and can say you grease every landing, saying these guys should've landed better is the equivalent of seeing a major league ballplayer hit a deep fly ball and scoffing that you would've hit it over the fence.

And then having critisized the landing, you go and say they should make it even harder by disregarding the CRH and shutting down BOTH engines in the flare! Incredible!

 

[The_Russian]

Russian, for the last time..
What does the Dash-400 QRH say in reference to "landing with unsafe gear"

I answered your question, so don't try to act like I was dodging you. If you didn't like my answer, respond to that. If you are settled with my answer, move on to another question.

The QRH is irrelevant. At the time of this scenario, the QRH has been completed. The QRH will not give a step by step progression for the landing sequence. On all QRHs the next step would be "Emergency Evacuation". The crew had an unsafe gear indication which could have only lead to an abnormal landing, most likely a crash landing. Therefore, abnormal actions and procedures are applicable.

We are talking about basic airmenship here, not procedural errors.

 

[tyuwerty]

What was the wind doing at the time? Looked like a right X-wind. Kind of a catch 22, take the crab out and touch the right main first.

I have over 3000 PIC in -300's and in my opinion the landing was the best he could probably have gotten.

I think in our QRH, shutting the engines down AFTER touch down was suggested as a consideration. (It has been over 7 years for me)

All the other stuff that Russian is saying about rigging Hyd systems and disabling spoilers is just crazy talk.

 

[The_Russian]

BTW, I could not find the information to support this statement. Somehow I got confused in my debate and threw this one out there. It is by no means the truth. However, I still stand by my other posts.

Both turboprop QRH's I have dealt with recommend securing the engines just prior to touchdown.

This was not in either QRH.