Those Crazy Sweedish Dash Drivers! (gear collapse)

[The_Russian]

-But on the first page of this thread that is exactly what you suggested the pilots were negilgent for NOT doing.

Doesn't this show that I'm listening? Everyone has been quick to accuse me of not absorbing the material presented.

 

[The_Russian]

I can see that some of you are doing the same. Most are not.

 

[JimNtexas]

Yep, I am sure you have evidence to back that statement up, right?

Certainly. You claim to be a professional pilot yet you advocate doing crazy things in an airplane you've never flown, things that are not authorized or safe, because you think you're some kind of Chuck Yeager in a skirt.

When pilots who actually fly the airplane you're babbling about explain in painful detail the certain tragic consequences of turning an airliner into a glider you just put your fingers in your ears and go 'LALALALALALA'.

You're a walking talking bag of hazardous attitudes.

I cease to think you are a pilot at all. You're probably a patient in some kind of mental institution who has computer access.

 

[Q400 Gear Bitch]

I don't. It doesn't matter anyway. How and why did they get into a situation were they would get hurt in an emergency egress? Maybe it had something to do with departing the runway and crashing into a knoll.

Ok. Well we can armchair qb this thing to death. Here's what I think. The crew that had this on video did a good job. Could they have shut down the right engine to keep the props from turning into a flying ginsu knife collection. Yes. They could have. Could they have shut down both engines and kept it on the runway? I seriously doubt it. With both engines gone, no hyds, no ac power to power the pumps, no rudder, no nosewheel steering. Not good mojo in my book. Did the crew that shut down the # 2 engine in Vilnius careen off of the runway and into a grassy knoll where the shooter was hiding? I dunno. But they might have. With all that drag on that side, I don't care how good of a pilot you are, you're heading for the weeds. Could they have gone to a wider runway? Sure. Could they have called in fatigued because they just went through customs 5 times doing the sea-yyj shuttle and had just spent the last 2 hours waiting for their airplane cuz crew scheduling screwed up and forgot to notifiy the airport reserve guy that he had to fly and he was late cuz he was diddling the flight attendant in the back room? Maybe. All plausible.
And finally could they have disabled the ground spoilers before touchdown. I don't think so. There is a spring loaded switch in front of the captain. So it would only stay in the down position with a wow indication and the power levers at a low angle. You could have him hold the friggin switch, but if it were my ship, I'd be at the helm and not holding a friggin toggle switch.

One other point to consider. Had they shut down both engines prior to touchdown, they would have had NO directional control on the runway. They might have totally fireballed into the grassy knoll instead of just careeening into it at a relatively low speed. If I had been that crew, I don't think I'd have done anything different. They didnt know about the gear problem then, and I think they did the best they could with the info they had at the time. I'd buy em a beer, or shot of Aqua vitae at the bar. NO prob.

 

[The_Russian]

Certainly. You claim to be a professional pilot yet you advocate doing crazy things in an airplane you've never flown, things that are not authorized or safe, because you think you're some kind of Chuck Yeager in a skirt.

Wow. You are way off base here buddy. Why don't you read my posts. No one said anything about doing anything crazy. What is crazy about a soft touchdown, securing the engines, and trying to delay impact of the effected wing? Get bent, dude. You are following the masses and their misinterpretation.

When pilots who actually fly the airplane you're babbling about explain in painful detail the certain tragic consequences of turning an airliner into a glider you just put your fingers in your ears and go 'LALALALALALA'.

No I didn't. Re-read what I have written. I was asking a lot of questions. Most of the responses didn't answer the questions asked. Only a response including name calling and other childish remarks. In no way did suggest turning the airliner into a glider. You misrepresent my statements completely.

You're a walking talking bag of hazardous attitudes.

And you know that for a fact? You can discern that from one single topic debate? Ha!

I cease to think you are a pilot at all. You're probably a patient in some kind of mental institution who has computer access.

Well, I used to thing you were an objective contributer to this forum. Now I see otherwise. I used to respect your posts. After a few debates, I can see you are just like the rest of these people.

 

[quinnlake]

Doesn't this show that I'm listening? Everyone has been quick to accuse me of not absorbing the material presented.

I agree that you are listening. I suppose what I find most objectionable is that on you're early post you made instant assumptions about how they crew handled the emergency, and discount knowledge of the DASH systems as unimportant. I appreciate that you did not rise to personal attacks.

 

[DrewBlows]

Anyone think deactivating the roll/ground spoilers with the push off switch could have helped keep the wing flying a bit longer?

That's the first thing I though of, but my thought was maybe Bombardier will change the procedure, not "on my next gear unsafe landing I'm going to disable the ground spoilers". If Bombardier changes the procedure in the CRJ (not likely) I'll comply, otherwise I'm going by the book.

I'm not familiar with the spoiler system of the Q-400, but from a previous post it seems as though it would take one pilot physically holding the switch through touchdown and roll out. Not ideal. Perhaps Bombardier will change the switch and the procedure for future incidents.

 

[DashTrash400]

This is what we are talking about here. These are the things you are debating with me. You defend his reasoning for moving passengers but you wouldn't defend him if any similar precaution was taken? Including the possibility of shutting both engines down close to touchdown?

What?!?! It's not in the checklist and now it is OK? Get your story straight man. Is it OK or not OK for a crew to stray from the procedure to meet the extent of the emergency? Yes it is!

20/20 hindsight? Isn't that what we are doing now? Everyone is saying how bad this is, but another Captain just prevented injuries by analyzing and adjusting un-published procedures. To you he is the hero? Amazing.

We never ever said that one is confined by the QRH. Our point was basically that once you do something that's not only outside the QRH but not even on the same planet - like shut both engines down and killing every means of directional control you have - everything better turn out perfect and you'd better have a dang good excuse if it doesn't.

You've changed your tune considerable since this thread started. At first you were condemning the crew for being irresponsible and endangering their passengers, and now you're meekly asserting the right of a Captain to do something outside the QRH. Well, duh. I just hope you're never that Captain.

Awright, I'm done here. Debating kinda presupposes that both sides have the benefit of logic.

 

[LR25]

I havnt been this entertained in a long while on FI.

 

[Captzaahlie]

Nor do I want to fly with someone who can't read and interperet simple English.

Thanks in advance!

Hey Rush,

The spelling of your fore mentioned "simple" English seems to have you confused!

How can I read "your" English when you can't spell words like "interpret"?

C minus on the spelling dude........

Thanks for keeping all of us amused!
:laugh:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpret

 

[My name is EARL]

The Russian you have to remember is not use to flying an advanced aircraft, all his hrs in MIG's, SU's and AN's are all steel and cables. Advanced technology for WWII aircraft. Thats how they won the cold war!

My question to you is it ok to let your kid fly the plane?

 

[Captzaahlie]

The Russian you have to remember is not use to flying an advanced aircraft, all his hrs in MIG's, SU's and AN's are all steel and cables. Advanced technology for WWII aircraft. Thats how they won the cold war!

My question to you is it ok to let your kid fly the plane?

I agree the ruskie has overdosed on the combat flight sim's........ because the electro-hydro -nuclear back up systems he refers to just don't seem to be part of our real airline world....

Heck yes it's OK to let your kid fly the plane, see my new avatar!

 

[Flying-Corporal]

Some idiot makes a non-sense comment and the whole thread turns into a discussion about it ... Incredible...

If QRH doesn't say anything about shutting the engines down, then don't do it.

If any line pilot comes up with his own "good sense" procedure in an emergency (instead of following the QRH) then I doubt any of us will pass our initial FO checkride.

Russian, are you sure you fly airplanes for living??? I don't mean Cessnas, MS Fsim, remote-control, etc.

 

[The_Russian]

Hey Rush,

The spelling of your fore mentioned "simple" English seems to have you confused!

How can I read "your" English when you can't spell words like "interpret"?

C minus on the spelling dude........

Thanks for keeping all of us amused!
:laugh:

Sorry for the spelling. A lot of responses with an early education in phonics doesn't help. I can do calculus in my head but grammer and spelling is a constant challenge.

 

[The_Russian]

We never ever said that one is confined by the QRH. Our point was basically that once you do something that's not only outside the QRH but not even on the same planet - like shut both engines down and killing every means of directional control you have - everything better turn out perfect and you'd better have a dang good excuse if it doesn't.

Right. There should be reasoning behind the decision.

You've changed your tune considerable since this thread started. At first you were condemning the crew for being irresponsible and endangering their passengers, and now you're meekly asserting the right of a Captain to do something outside the QRH. Well, duh.

Sure. IMHO, I still condemn them for not at least shutting down the right engine and not holding that wing off of the ground. As soon as that prop hit, they lost all directional control of that aircraft. Thankfully, the next crew used their heads and shut the prop down, staying on the runway this time. If you do a good comparison to other gear-up landings, you will notice how poor this one went compared to others.

I just hope you're never that Captain.

Thanks. I'm sure you can surmise my Captainship from a single discussion. Apparently eveyone else can too.

Awright, I'm done here. Debating kinda presupposes that both sides have the benefit of logic.

Right.

 

[Captzaahlie]

Sorry for the spelling. A lot of responses with an early education in phonics doesn't help. I can do calculus in my head but grammer and spelling is a constant challenge.

very impressive.....

I'm done here too.....

I heard NASA is looking for you Russian , they want you to develop a plan to land the Space Shuttle engine less! (wait they already do that, but I'm sure you could perfect the QRH).
:laugh:

 

[whymeworry?]

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.

That would be completely foolish. Pilots are not calibrated to judge glide performance of an aircraft without power. They can certainly be taught, but there is no training program in the world that includes such a manuever with time allotted for repeated practice.

When I was a checkairman in the sims, I use to introduce a dual engine flamout on my PCs just as a teaching tool ( would never fail a guy for not being able to perform one to a landing). Over time, I found that 9 out of 10 pilots landing (or crash landed as it were) just short of the runway. Not their fault, it was the fault of our industry which basically believes dual flameouts are impossible these days (yeah, tell that to the Airtransat A330 crew). If pilots aren't trained to perform a certain manuever, one can't expect them to pull it off flawlessly.

Had they shutdown both motors and misjudged the glide performance of the aircraft, they surely would have crashed just short of the runway. How many would have been killed in that scenario?

 

[DashTrash400]

Sure. IMHO, I still condemn them for not at least shutting down the right engine and not holding that wing off of the ground. As soon as that prop hit, they lost all directional control of that aircraft. Thankfully, the next crew used their heads and shut the prop down, staying on the runway this time. If you do a good comparison to other gear-up landings, you will notice how poor this one went compared to others.

Whew, we can all let this thread die now, Ruskie has finally stopped arguing that the only responsible thing to do is shut both engines down and Bob Hoover it down without benefit of hydraulics or most electronics (in a very hydraulic, electronic airplane).

I actually agree with you, Ruskie, that shutting down one engine did cause less damage in Vilnius. I'm sure the pilots will get a healthy Christmas bonus for that. So far as passenger safety is concerned, it didn't make a difference: the five light injuries in the first accident were all unrelated to the prop turning, they were evacuation injuries.

In the 2nd accident, I'm curious what flap setting the pilots landed with. On one engine, our E/A checklist calls for Flaps 15, but that increases Vref by 10 kts. If you decided to land Flaps 35 for the slower Vref, you need like 60% torque on the good engine just to maintain glidepath. I suspect we'll see some guidance on this in the E/A checklist in the future.

 

[AV80R]

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.


They may not have needed to do a simultaneous dual engine shutdown, but they could have done something more appropriate for their aircraft type.-- The Russian

…-But on the first page of this thread that is exactly what you suggested the pilots were negilgent for NOT doing…


Doesn't this show that I'm listening?...

Everyone has been quick to accuse me of not absorbing the material presented.

IMHO, I still condemn them for not at least shutting down the right engine and not holding that wing off of the ground…

I highlighted your statements in red, I figured a commie such as yourself would appreciate that…

So are you ‘absorbing the material’ well enough to say

…“sorry SAS pilots” for “condemning” you and for ridiculing your airmanship and your handling of the emergency when in fact I know absolutely nothing about your procedures, your aircraft, your aircraft’s mechanical circumstances, etc. Frankly, I know absolutely nothing about flying except that I like to use a picture of mass murders Godfather as my avatar…

Yeah…I didn’t think so…

 

[The_Russian]

I highlighted your statements in red, I figured a commie such as yourself would appreciate that…

So are you ‘absorbing the material’ well enough to say

…“sorry SAS pilots” for “condemning” you and for ridiculing your airmanship and your handling of the emergency when in fact I know absolutely nothing about your procedures, your aircraft, your aircraft’s mechanical circumstances, etc. Frankly, I know absolutely nothing about flying except that I like to use a picture of mass murders Godfather as my avatar…

Yeah…I didn’t think so…

Oh, you won the debate with that point! Get real. Compare this landing to the second crew's work and you will understand what I am talking about here. Also, I recommend going back and reading the Airplane Flying Handbook. Along with that, you can take the time to apply some "common sense" flying techniques to the accident video. From that you will see what was done wrong.

This is how we learn. Stop trying to insist that sitting here praising this crews poor airmanship is better than analyzing cause. You wouldn't be saying any of this if the second flight crashed and hurt more innocent people. I won't say "sorry" because there is reasoning behind my statements. Other posters with appropriate backgrounds have noted that. Whether or not you agree with that is your passengers problem, not mine.

 

[rptrain]

You have an inverter on a standby bus, right?

of all the arrogant and idiotic things you have said on this thread, this one by far does the best job of illustrating your ignorance.

people with experience in the dash keep trying to tell you that the hydraulics are powered by 115V 3-phase AC power. an inverter is a tiny little piece of electronics about the size of a paperback book. you somehow think that 28V AC is going to power the hydraulics on an airplane that weighs >70,000lbs?

you have absolutely no understanding of aircraft power requirements. expecting an inverter to power Q400 hydraulics (or even a standby electric pump for that matter) is like expecting a AAA battery to run your household vacuum cleaner. a standby electric pump is good for maintaining parking brake pressure on the ground and that's about it. there's absolutely no way it will be capable of actuating flight controls or steering the nosewheel on a transport category airplane.

you seem enamored with the notion that preventing prop fragments is far more important that shutting down both engines, regardless of the multitude of systems that you'd lose by doing so. you imply that an airplane could not be certified without having a "backup" hydraulic system. do you have any experience in certification? have you actually read part 25? it does not require that all systems be available with both engines shut down. guess what the backup system is for the left hydraulic pump?

your 1900 experience is almost completely irrelevant to this occurence. the braking system on that plane is even simpler than a car. the rudder is completely mechanical. without the powered nosewheel steering option it's all mechanical. shutting down the engines has almost zero implications on a safe rollout. how you can say the same for the Q400 is beyond me.

answer this very simple question: with no hydraulics in a Q400 (limited/no brakes, no rudder, no nosewheel steering), would you be able to maintain directional control after a main gear collapse? i don't even have to refer to the AFH or AIM to answer that one.

you also fail to consider that the fuselage may have protections designed to stop prop fragments. is it worth disabling major airplane systems and potentially endangering ALL the passengers instead of relying on the certification basis of the airplane? you obviously are way smarter than the designers, certifiers, and the QRH. you're amazingly capable of completely analyzing all aspects of the airplane's design and making an on-the-fly decision that takes into consideration every single interaction of aircraft systems. the rest of us mortals just follow the QRH.

is it ok to debrief the accident and consider alternative courses of action? of course. maybe they should have landed with all 3 up. maybe they should have shut down just the right engine. hindsight is always 20/20. they followed their procedures, yet you think it's ok to come on here and call them incompetent. shame on you.

 

[The_Russian]

of all the arrogant and idiotic things you have said on this thread, this one by far does the best job of illustrating your ignorance.

You should note that this was a question, not a statement.

people with experience in the dash keep trying to tell you that the hydraulics are powered by 115V 3-phase AC power. an inverter is a tiny little piece of electronics about the size of a paperback book. you somehow think that 28V AC is going to power the hydraulics on an airplane that weighs >70,000lbs?

you have absolutely no understanding of aircraft power requirements. expecting an inverter to power Q400 hydraulics (or even a standby electric pump for that matter) is like expecting a AAA battery to run your household vacuum cleaner. a standby electric pump is good for maintaining parking brake pressure on the ground and that's about it. there's absolutely no way it will be capable of actuating flight controls or steering the nosewheel on a transport category airplane.

You missed the point, the airplane is crashing.

you seem enamored with the notion that preventing prop fragments is far more important that shutting down both engines, regardless of the multitude of systems that you'd lose by doing so.

Airplane is crashing, or in the "controlled crash" state, if possible.

you imply that an airplane could not be certified without having a "backup" hydraulic system. do you have any experience in certification? have you actually read part 25? it does not require that all systems be available with both engines shut down. guess what the backup system is for the left hydraulic pump?

Yes, kinda. No, don't have to. Yes. No, it does not. It does require:

§ 25.1307 Miscellaneous equipment.
b) Two or more independent sources of electrical energy.

and....

25.1309 Equipment, systems, and installations.

(a) The equipment, systems, and installations whose functioning is required by this subchapter, must be designed to ensure that they perform their intended functions under any foreseeable operating condition.
(b) The airplane systems and associated components, considered separately and in relation to other systems, must be designed so that—
(1) The occurrence of any failure condition which would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane is extremely improbable, and
(2) The occurrence of any other failure conditions which would reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions is improbable.
(c) Warning information must be provided to alert the crew to unsafe system operating conditions, and to enable them to take appropriate corrective action. Systems, controls, and associated monitoring and warning means must be designed to minimize crew errors which could create additional hazards.
(d) Compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section must be shown by analysis, and where necessary, by appropriate ground, flight, or simulator tests. The analysis must consider—
(1) Possible modes of failure, including malfunctions and damage from external sources.
(2) The probability of multiple failures and undetected failures.
(3) The resulting effects on the airplane and occupants, considering the stage of flight and operating conditions, and
(4) The crew warning cues, corrective action required, and the capability of detecting faults.
(e) Each installation whose functioning is required by this subchapter, and that requires a power supply, is an “essential load” on the power supply. The power sources and the system must be able to supply the following power loads in probable operating combinations and for probable durations:
(1) Loads connected to the system with the system functioning normally.
(2) Essential loads, after failure of any one prime mover, power converter, or energy storage device.
(3) Essential loads after failure of—
(i) Any one engine on two-engine airplanes; and
(ii) Any two engines on three-or-more-engine airplanes.
(4) Essential loads for which an alternate source of power is required by this chapter, after any failure or malfunction in any one power supply system, distribution system, or other utilization system.
(f) In determining compliance with paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section, the power loads may be assumed to be reduced under a monitoring procedure consistent with safety in the kinds of operation authorized. Loads not required in controlled flight need not be considered for the two-engine-inoperative condition on airplanes with three or more engines.
(g) In showing compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section with regard to the electrical system and equipment design and installation, critical environmental conditions must be considered. For electrical generation, distribution, and utilization equipment required by or used in complying with this chapter, except equipment covered by Technical Standard Orders containing environmental test procedures, the ability to provide continuous, safe service under foreseeable environmental conditions may be shown by environmental tests, design analysis, or reference to previous comparable service experience on other aircraft.

Both of these tell me that if both engines have failed, you should be able to power hydraulics in order to maintain directional control since it will be required to make a safe landing.

your 1900 experience is almost completely irrelevant to this occurence. the braking system on that plane is even simpler than a car. the rudder is completely mechanical. without the powered nosewheel steering option it's all mechanical. shutting down the engines has almost zero implications on a safe rollout. how you can say the same for the Q400 is beyond me.

Stop assuming I'm on the 1900. The (My) incident occured while I was on the E120. Now I'm on the 727.

answer this very simple question: with no hydraulics in a Q400 (limited/no brakes, no rudder, no nosewheel steering), would you be able to maintain directional control after a main gear collapse? i don't even have to refer to the AFH or AIM to answer that one.

Obviously not after the spinning prop hits. Please don't ignore the second accident involved in this situation.

you also fail to consider that the fuselage may have protections designed to stop prop fragments. is it worth disabling major airplane systems and potentially endangering ALL the passengers instead of relying on the certification basis of the airplane? you obviously are way smarter than the designers, certifiers, and the QRH. you're amazingly capable of completely analyzing all aspects of the airplane's design and making an on-the-fly decision that takes into consideration every single interaction of aircraft systems. the rest of us mortals just follow the QRH.

Once again, off topic and out of line. What I am talking about goes beyond the QRH. Why can't you people get past that? Basic airmanship.

is it ok to debrief the accident and consider alternative courses of action? of course. maybe they should have landed with all 3 up. maybe they should have shut down just the right engine. hindsight is always 20/20. they followed their procedures, yet you think it's ok to come on here and call them incompetent. shame on you.

I never referred to them as incompetent. I said they did a horrible job with the landing. And that they did. Watch the video. Really, I hate to say it myself.

 

[AV80R]

...I never referred to them as incompetent...

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…..
IMHO, I still condemn them for not at least shutting down the right engine and not holding that wing off of the ground…


What is YOUR definition of someone being incompetent? :erm:

 

[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…..
IMHO, I still condemn them for not at least shutting down the right engine and not holding that wing off of the ground…


What is YOUR definition of someone being incompetent? :erm:

Maybe they sew or make dinner really well.

 

[rptrain]

Both of these tell me that if both engines have failed, you should be able to power hydraulics in order to maintain directional control since it will be required to make a safe landing.

then you're a moron.

first, it says TWO sources of ELECTRICAL energy. discounting the fact that we're talking about HYDRAULICS, how many engines does a dash 8 have?

you didn't even read what you posted. look at (e)(3)(i). single engine failure, not both.

i'll bet you don't even know what "improbable" or "extremely improbable" means in (b)(1) and (2). homework assignment: read AC 25.1309. extra credit: what category do you suppose a double engine failure falls under?

stop pretending to be an expert. you don't have to believe me. the dash guys keep trying to tell you that a double engine failure means no hydraulics, but you won't listen.

 

[The_Russian]

then you're a moron.

Wow! We can't have a discussion without you resorting to personal attacks or insults?

first, it says TWO sources of ELECTRICAL energy. discounting the fact that we're talking about HYDRAULICS, how many engines does a dash 8 have?

you didn't even read what you posted. look at (e)(3)(i). single engine failure, not both.

i'll bet you don't even know what "improbable" or "extremely improbable" means in (b)(1) and (2). homework assignment: read AC 25.1309. extra credit: what category do you suppose a double engine failure falls under?

You are correct. Thanks for providing the AC definitions. I hadn't seen that before.

stop pretending to be an expert. you don't have to believe me. the dash guys keep trying to tell you that a double engine failure means no hydraulics, but you won't listen.

I am not at all trying to be an expert. No hydraulics will not be a factor when the aircraft is skidding down the runway on its belly. When will you folks realize what I am talking about here? Please stop talking my statements and posts out of context. I am talking about controlled crashes.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Wow.

This is the most entertainment I've gotten from FI in a long time.

6000 hrs of dash time tells me:

1. With no motors, even with props feathered, the dash flies like a manhole cover. Bad Juju.

2. With no motors, you would have no hydraulics. No battery backup, no RAT, no other standby system other than what is provided from the AC gens on the RGB. Now even at feather, I would admit that there is some rotation of the RGB since the props are still turning about 200-300rpm. Enough to run the hydraulics? Nah. So, no hydraulics means no rudder. More bad juju.

3. No rudder=no yaw control. No hydrualics means no roll spoilers which means degraded roll control. Extremely bad juju.

4. There is no manual reversion for the Dash 8 rudder. You get that russian? None, nada, zilch, kleine, nyet, zero, squat.

Everyone lived. Nice job SAS. The end.

 

[C601]

Russian, you still flying for [SIZE=-1]Gulfstream [/SIZE]?

 

[The_Russian]

Wow.

This is the most entertainment I've gotten from FI in a long time.

Heck yeah!

6000 hrs of dash time tells me:

1. With no motors, even with props feathered, the dash flies like a manhole cover. Bad Juju.

2. With no motors, you would have no hydraulics. No battery backup, no RAT, no other standby system other than what is provided from the AC gens on the RGB. Now even at feather, I would admit that there is some rotation of the RGB since the props are still turning about 200-300rpm. Enough to run the hydraulics? Nah. So, no hydraulics means no rudder. More bad juju.

3. No rudder=no yaw control. No hydrualics means no roll spoilers which means degraded roll control. Extremely bad juju.

4. There is no manual reversion for the Dash 8 rudder. You get that russian? None, nada, zilch, kleine, nyet, zero, squat.

Oh yeah, I get it. Completely. It seems like only two or so people have been able to absorb what I have been saying. Too bad. I am not sure what else I can say to tell you folks that hyd's don't matter when the aircraft is skidding or in a controlled crash state.

Everyone lived. Nice job SAS. The end.

The end, fine. Please. I am tired of discussing things with folks who don't listen, yet expect you to listen to them. Sometime around last week was when I got the fact that the hyd system will not work without the engines running. Questions about certification and reversion systems came from me, but that was it. I pulled out some points, some made it, some didn't. Thanks to the people who were able to help me learn and listen to my points also.

I still think the first SAS crew could have done much better. The second crew at SAS clearly demonstrated that. The reason that point is so clear is because the primary procedures you need to apply when in this situation are based on primary flight training procedures, not a QRH.

 

[The_Russian]

Russian, you still flying for [SIZE=-1]Gulfstream [/SIZE]?

No. I haven't updated my profile in a few months.