Those Crazy Sweedish Dash Drivers! (gear collapse)

[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.

 

[BoilerUP]

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

To me, basic airmanship is not adding a second, unnecessary emergency to a first.

But WTF do I know, I just fly a shiny jet...:blush:

 

[The_Russian]

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

Can you explain the systems to me then? Why can't they run a standby hyd on batt or APU? Do they even need hyd to complete the landing? Why can't the spoilers be disabled from deploying?

 

[Booker]

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.

There are two electric standby hydraulic pumps on the 1/2/3. I can't remember if they're available in essential power, though. And for The Russian, on the 1/2/3, the APU is WOW-switched for ground ops only. You couldn't light it in flight if you wanted to. But anyway, I don't think any of this matters until a 400 driver comes on here to clarify the extent to which that series is similar to the earlier models.

 

[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.
This was not in either QRH.

Another correction,

The information is in the 1900 QRH to support engine shutdown prior to touchdown. I could not find my QRH for the E120 but I assumed it would say the same thing. So as of right now:

1900=shutdown
E120=not so sure yet

Sorry for the confusion, I have been pretty busy on another new aircraft.

 

[The_Russian]

There are two electric standby hydraulic pumps on the 1/2/3. I can't remember if they're available in essential power, though. And for The Russian, on the 1/2/3, the APU is WOW-switched for ground ops only. You couldn't light it in flight if you wanted to. But anyway, I don't think any of this matters until a 400 driver comes on here to clarify the extent to which that series is similar to the earlier models.

Can you run the hyd off of standby power? If so, these guys could have had brakes and still shut down the engines.

 

[The_Russian]

To me, basic airmanship is not adding a second, unnecessary emergency to a first.

But WTF do I know, I just fly a shiny jet...:blush:

How about a second emergency due to fire, loss of control, and passenger injury from flying pieces of prop? I would rather skid it in on no engines.

 

[328dude]

Ok, so I get a bug up my butt and call and old instructor guy I know in Montreal that taught me in the CRJ and asked him about this crash. Here's the thing. The gear collapsed rearward. The gear is designed to collapse forward if it is going to collapse. By design, if the gear collapsed like it was designed, there is enough distance between the radius of the spinning prop and the ground when the aircraft falls on it's wing. The Dornier 328 was also like this. Even if it collapsed, the wing would hit first thus clearing the prop. This of course is strickly based on landing on a runway. Any other surface, clearance can not be anticipated.

Now since the gear collapsed the wrong way, all bet's were off. If the gear would have collpased the correct way, he feels that they would have stayed on the runway sliding on the wing and the prop never would have hit the ground. Once the prop hit, this is what sent them into the grass.

They don't know why, but they sent investigators to SAS to inspect the plane and find out what caused it to fail the wrong way. He did say, the crew followed everything to a "T" and there was no way to know that the airplane would not have failed as designed.

This is not the first of gear problems with the 400. Other failures hav occured, but non which resulted in prop strikes since they failed like designed. Also, since the props are composite, they are designed to shatter at impact. The prop shield on the fuselage is made of a 6-layer carbon fiber material that will stop the blade from entering the cabin. It will not stop it from piercing the cabin itself however.

Just FYI

 

[GuppyWN]

Shut the engines down? And give away all that reverse thrust (prop) on the good engine? I don't think so.

Gup

 

[Captzaahlie]

Ok, so I get a bug up my butt and call and old instructor guy I know in Montreal that taught me in the CRJ and asked him about this crash. Here's the thing. The gear collapsed rearward. The gear is designed to collapse forward if it is going to collapse. By design, if the gear collapsed like it was designed, there is enough distance between the radius of the spinning prop and the ground when the aircraft falls on it's wing. The Dornier 328 was also like this. Even if it collapsed, the wing would hit first thus clearing the prop. This of course is strickly based on landing on a runway. Any other surface, clearance can not be anticipated.

Now since the gear collapsed the wrong way, all bet's were off. If the gear would have collpased the correct way, he feels that they would have stayed on the runway sliding on the wing and the prop never would have hit the ground. Once the prop hit, this is what sent them into the grass.

They don't know why, but they sent investigators to SAS to inspect the plane and find out what caused it to fail the wrong way. He did say, the crew followed everything to a "T" and there was no way to know that the airplane would not have failed as designed.

This is not the first of gear problems with the 400. Other failures hav occured, but non which resulted in prop strikes since they failed like designed. Also, since the props are composite, they are designed to shatter at impact. The prop shield on the fuselage is made of a 6-layer carbon fiber material that will stop the blade from entering the cabin. It will not stop it from piercing the cabin itself however.

Just FYI

Not to knock heads with you slim, I wanna be YOUR gear b!tch one day at SWA but........

If the gear is not straight up and down the prop will hit the ground.... there is no way (zilch) you can have prop clearance with a dash dragging a wingtip. The dash 8 already has a special debris exemption because the prop is so close to the ground. The over center locking mechanism on the main might let it collapse forward but physics in this situation would not let it fall fwd, you got some weight moving forward right ? (the mass of the A/C touching down and rolling fwd, it will push the gear back ward regardless of how it's hinged. Food for thought it does retract rearward during normal ops.) Even if the gear did collapse fwd. the gear itself would stick into the prop arc. It goes against the checklist but the no. 2 prop could have been feathered on very short final with the engine still running to maintain the #2 hyd services off that side but you are declaring yourself a test pilot and could be hanging yourself (is this good judgement?) if everything was normal during the landing........
It's a tough call, glad it's a well built (strength wise) machine it kept the people relatively safe and sound.

 

[328dude]

Like I said, I'm no engineer, just passing what the Canadians said.

"Talk amongst yourselves".

With an attitude like that and your total disregard for authoritie, no need to apply here".

 

[atrdriver]

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.

As a crew member you also don't have the right to assume that you know more than the guys who designed the aircraft. They are the ones that came up with the QRH procedures, do you REALLY think you know more than they do? And FWIW, since you say ALL turboprops, if you feathered both engines in the ATR at 10 feet you would float for probably 4 or 5 thousand feet trying to make the TD smooth.

 

[Wiggums]

There must be a manual reversion to use the rudder.

Well that shows how ignorant you are. Plenty of aircraft have rudder systems that are hyd only with no cables for backup. A few other products from Montreal come to mind.

 

[328dude]

Boeings another.

 

[AV80R]

Sweedish drivers? Too bad they were Daaninsh, huh? I know it's all the same - Scandihoovians.

Maybe we should ask 'Russian' NTSB, huh? Seems like with some vodka help the Russian knows every aircraft procedure in he world.

Then again, why should anyone be asking him for advice? After all, it’s a person who is using :uzi: Lenin's picture as his avatar? Personally I think using Adolph Hitler instead would have been less offensive. At least Hitler inspired mass murders stopped after WW2, while Lenin's inspired mass murders and oppression continued long after WW2.

 

[The_Russian]

Shut the engines down? And give away all that reverse thrust (prop) on the good engine? I don't think so.

Gup

You wont have a prop anyway. One or more of them will be disintegrated. Reverse is not an issue here, you will have friction to stop you. If the gear stucks, smooth consistant braking on a backup or emergency system will suffice.

 

[The_Russian]

Not to knock heads with you slim, I wanna be YOUR gear b!tch one day at SWA but........

If the gear is not straight up and down the prop will hit the ground.... there is no way (zilch) you can have prop clearance with a dash dragging a wingtip. The dash 8 already has a special debris exemption because the prop is so close to the ground. The over center locking mechanism on the main might let it collapse forward but physics in this situation would not let it fall fwd, you got some weight moving forward right ? (the mass of the A/C touching down and rolling fwd, it will push the gear back ward regardless of how it's hinged. Food for thought it does retract rearward during normal ops.) Even if the gear did collapse fwd. the gear itself would stick into the prop arc.

You are correct.

It goes against the checklist but the no. 2 prop could have been feathered on very short final with the engine still running to maintain the #2 hyd services off that side but you are declaring yourself a test pilot and could be hanging yourself (is this good judgement?) if everything was normal during the landing........
It's a tough call, glad it's a well built (strength wise) machine it kept the people relatively safe and sound

Personnally, I would feather and secure both just prior to touchdown. Hyd on battery will suffice for enough time (at least) to stop any turboprop. Feathering both wll prevent asymetric forces from taking away your stabilized landing.

 

[The_Russian]

Well that shows how ignorant you are. Plenty of aircraft have rudder systems that are hyd only with no cables for backup. A few other products from Montreal come to mind.

Name a turboprop that doesn't. How can it be certified without a manual reversion or a backup? Are you saying that if you lose primary hydraulics you lose the ability to input rudder? What if you lose an engine after a full hydraulic failure? There must be a standby hydraulic or manual reversion.

In this case, rudder could have been operated, along with bakes, by the standby system.

 

[The_Russian]

Sweedish drivers? Too bad they were Daaninsh, huh? I know it's all the same - Scandihoovians.

Maybe we should ask 'Russian' NTSB, huh? Seems like with some vodka help the Russian knows every aircraft procedure in he world.

Then again, why should anyone be asking him for advice? After all, it’s a person who is using :uzi: Lenin's picture as his avatar? Personally I think using Adolph Hitler instead would have been less offensive. At least Hitler inspired mass murders stopped after WW2, while Lenin's inspired mass murders and oppression continued long after WW2.

Hey, you're a funny guy!

:laugh:

 

[Captzaahlie]

You are correct.

Personnally, I would feather and secure both just prior to touchdown. Hyd on battery will suffice for enough time (at least) to stop any turboprop. Feathering both wll prevent asymetric forces from taking away your stabilized landing.

like we said no brakes.....
no pressure will not last , its gone in a second. I know.... for a fact from an fo's mistake one day.

Ruskie , you are making things up as you go along, stop while you are ahead....

 

[The_Russian]

like we said no brakes.....
no pressure will not last , its gone in a second. I know.... for a fact from an fo's mistake one day.

Ruskie , you are making things up as you go along, stop while you are ahead....

Are you saying that there is no backup braking method or system? Can't you put the brakes on backup hyd? Ther must be a way. You cannot certify an aircraft with hydraulics and not have a backup system for the primary.