Those Crazy Sweedish Dash Drivers! (gear collapse)

[The_Russian]

I seem to remember a 737 a few years ago that tried to use aero braking (against procedures) and ran off the end of the runway. Aero braking is fine for an F-15, not so much for a 121 aircraft. Also, I don't think that you have any idea how much braking you get from having those props flat, which of course you would lose in your scenerio.

Yes I do. I shut both engines down in the flare on my emergency landing.

 

[regionalcap]

It is truly scary that a captain would shutdown both engines while still in the air. You have one main that may not be locked. Why in the hell would you shutdown them both in flight???? We are not private pilots. We all have plenty of experience flying multiengine aircraft. I have not seen one person that agree with you. You have just compounded your emergency with a dead stick landing with only emergency braking. Keep an engine running. This is ridiculous.

 

[DashTrash400]

We just got word from SAS that the captain in Vilinius (Lithuania) actually did secure the right engine and that resulted in less damage. Mind you, with the right engine shut down you still get all electrical power and most hydraulics (via PTU). Only a real knucklehead would shut down the other engine and deadstick it with no hydraulics.

By the way, whoever made reference to the Dash8 having standby rudder...the -400 does not have that. There are #1 and #2 PCUs only. No #1 and #2 hydraulics = no rudder.

BTW Russian, what aerodynamic braking exactly are we gonna use? Elevator? It really doesn't deflect that far on the Q400. Disc or reverse? That's our normal source of aerodynamic braking - except you just shut both engines down!

 

[regionalcap]

Let's break down this catastrophe that the Russian has just created.

Dead stick landing
No hydraulics
No normal brakes
No rudder control (no directional control now)
Only emergency brakes (which can pop the tires, heat the brakes and cause a wheel well fire)

If this is the kind of emergency decision making done by the Russian, then she has no business carrying passengers.

 

[DrewBlows]

I have a few questions.

1. Is there anyone here who flies for a 121 company whose airline suggests shutting down an engine outside of the procedures written in the QRH? What company is this? What airplane(s) is this?

2. How does the Q-400 QRH direct it's pilots to operate the engines in the event of a possible unsafe gear situation?

One final thought. I've flown with the Captain who landed the EMB-120 gear up. I don't recall exactly what transpired that day, but apparently the QRH directed the pilots to configure the aircraft in such a way that it was impossible to lower the landing gear. In that case the manufacturer (and the FAA who certified the aircraft) were 100% wrong. Needless to say the QRH was revised.

It's already apparent Bombardier is concerned enough with the accident to recommend grounding a significant portion of the Q-400 fleet. I would guess they will investigate the incident thoroughly and make changes to manufacturing procedures, maintenance policies, and/or operating procedures (i.e. QRH). It's fortunate no one was injured in this accident and hopefully the end result will be a safer product.

 

[unwashed]

I have hours is in DHC-100's,200's, and 400's and I would not shutdown both engines. I could give a Sh*t about further damage to aircraft. Safety first, what does the QRH direct you to do? is it stupid? if not, then do it. With both engines out how do you expect to get anything but standby power on any system (if it is available). I have not heard of QX having any gear problems (engines are a different matter) why just the kids at SAS?

 

[The_Russian]

Stop

You are all taking my posts out of context. This has to end. Listen to what I am saying, then try as hard as you can to implement these thoughts for your passenger's safety.

Do not accuse me of being a rebel or cowboy pilot who disregards checklists and safety. Checklists, procedures, and a QRH are great tools that you have available to guide you through an emergency. All of which I follow thoroughly. But, they do not make up for proper technique and decision making. There are things you MUST do as a pilot that are required to keep people alive. Some of those things may be outside your little handy book.

Five people were injured in this crash because of pilots who did not think about primary procedures for a controlled crash. They knew the gear was not secure prior to approaching the airport, so this was no surprise for them. They may not have needed to do a simultaneous dual engine shutdown, but they could have done something more appropriate for their aircraft type. Their technique sent them careening off of the runway at an excessive rate of speed causing injuries. How can you say it was a good landing?

OK. You want to talk about me? Let's talk about you. You guys are the pilots who will hide behind the checklist just to cover your own azz. You will not consider doing something you know should be done to save lives because you don't want to get in trouble. Bullcrap. Do your job. Do what is nessecary to save your passengers lives. Don't hide behind the opinion of the FAA and a manufacturer who doesn't want to extend liability and give you the BEST recommendation for the procedure.

Don't miss the point, or your passengers will suffer.

 

[regionalcap]

I agree that sometimes you need to think outside of the box. However, the checklist were written for a reason. When you start being a cowboy and doing your own procedures, you dang better know what you are getting into. If not, then you are only making things worse.

 

[Quimby]

You are all taking my posts out of context. This has to end. Listen to what I am saying, then try as hard as you can to implement these thoughts for your passenger's safety.

Do not accuse me of being a rebel or cowboy pilot who disregards checklists and safety. Checklists, procedures, and a QRH are great tools that you have available to guide you through an emergency. All of which I follow thoroughly. But, they do not make up for proper technique and decision making. There are things you MUST do as a pilot that are required to keep people alive. Some of those things may be outside your little handy book.

Five people were injured in this crash because of pilots who did not think about primary procedures for a controlled crash. They knew the gear was not secure prior to approaching the airport, so this was no surprise for them. They may not have needed to do a simultaneous dual engine shutdown, but they could have done something more appropriate for their aircraft type. Their technique sent them careening off of the runway at an excessive rate of speed causing injuries. How can you say it was a good landing?

OK. You want to talk about me? Let's talk about you. You guys are the pilots who will hide behind the checklist just to cover your own azz. You will not consider doing something you know should be done to save lives because you don't want to get in trouble. Bullcrap. Do your job. Do what is nessecary to save your passengers lives. Don't hide behind the opinion of the FAA and a manufacturer who doesn't want to extend liability and give you the BEST recommendation for the procedure.

Don't miss the point, or your passengers will suffer.

This isn't a part 91 310 trying to save engines...none of us are Bob Hoover, don't make the problem worse.

 

[lineflyer1]

I agree that sometimes you need to think outside of the box. However, the checklist were written for a reason. When you start being a cowboy and doing your own procedures, you dang better know what you are getting into. If not, then you are only making things worse.

Here I go!

The Russian makes some good points. I have seen a few people shy away from making a decision because they are afraid to shoulder the responsability of making a decision. I have not been afraid to make those decisions and if I should make one thats wrong, then hold me liable.

On the other hand, Russian. I don't like this quote from you.

"Their technique sent them careening off of the runway at an excessive rate of speed causing injuries. How can you say it was a good landing?"

It wasn't a great landing or outcome, but only 5 people were injured and no-one killed.

How do you know that even if they had shutdown at least the right engine the outcome would not have been the same? You are being very judgemental here.

Perhaps it was the landing gear collapsing the way it did and digging into the runway surface that was the main cause of the runway excursion. Wait until the safety reports are complete, then you can read it along with everyone else and ascertain if it indeed was their fault.

I will agree with you that not shutting down the engine was perhaps an error in judgement. But what do we know of the status of engine driven generators, hyd pumps or anythign else that may have elad to their decision to leave the right engine running? We don't, so for now I find it difficult to criticize.

They touched down left wheel first absorbing a great amount of the momentum. The right did not collapse on touchdown, but shortly there after and it just may have caused the aircraft to swerve no matter what was going on with the right engine.