Bombardier: Ground All Dash-8 Planes Worldwide!

reply to post by Hellmutt


Maybe a disgruntled service technician, or maybe just a careless one - see a more detailed report from Denmark's Accident Investigation Board at blog.flightstory.net...

I seriously doubt that it was sabotage. It happened to at least two other airlines, half a world away. And several OTHER airlines, besides those two have found the problem before it caused an accident.

It looks like ANA1603 was a different problem. That accident involved nose gear doors that wouldn't open. There was a bushing problem that locked the doors shut once they closed.

reply to post by Zaphod58


The last accident with SAS has been detirmined to be a error with the maitenance made by SAS. Sorta ticks me off with their over reaction and pulling all the planes. The planes are fine just fix your freakin maitenance team.


www.flightglobal.com...

HCL says that in-depth analysis of the Q400’s hydraulic system shows that the O-ring “could not have travelled” from the solenoid valve to the actuator because certain components, such as the mechanical sequence valve, would prevent passage.

But it points out that the right main landing-gear’s solenoid valve was replaced on 16 October and the mechanical sequence valve was replaced on 22 October – just five days before the Copenhagen accident......

“We are concerned about the impact negative comments might have had on Bombardier and the Q400 turboprop’s reputation and we will do all that is necessary to protect our brand and, by association, the reputation of our Q400 aircraft customers.”

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Still, De Havillands always did carry two reputations in the past. One was for being beautiful and, unfortunately, the other was for coming apart, often in the sky!

An undercarriage failure is pretty mundane compared to the picture below, maybe this is why theuy don't carry the De Havilland name anymore (and lets not even mention the Comet! )

Dash-8 is from Bombardier? When did that happen? I must've have been asleep. I thought it was de Havilland.

Edit: Never mind. Just saw the post above. But still, when did the acquisition happen?

[edit on 6-11-2007 by Beachcoma]

reply to post by Beachcoma


Happened in 1992 just before development on the Q versions. DHC was bought by Bombardier Aerospace from Boeing. Boeing had purchased the company in 1988 in a effort to get a better postion for the Air Canada orders of early 1990. This eventually (contract) went to Airbus and Boeing looked for a way to offload the company and thats when Bombardier became interested.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

reply to post by waynos


Awe come on Waynos don't mix us Canucks with you Brits. Give DHC a bit more credit! There is a difference you know!

DHC-1 Chipmunk
DHC-2 Beaver
DHC-3 Otter
DHC-4 Caribou
DHC-5 Buffalo
DHC-6 Twin Otter
DHC-7 Dash 7
DHC-8 Dash 8
And the Tracker

Anyone able to explain why Bombardier off loaded the rights to build most of those planes to Viking?

LOL, of course. It was kind of funny though after seeing this thread I went and picked up the book with that in it and the Homer Simpson voice in my head went "hmmmm, de Havilland"

reply to post by Canada_EH


That's pretty typical though. NO airline is going to say "We screwed up." and take the blame for an accident. They may have it rammed down their throats by the investigators, but they'll never admit they did something wrong. It would hurt them too badly to do it.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Well this thread seems to have calmed down alot in the past day or 2.
Honestly though we have an answer for the latest accident and the 2 before that from SAS where identified and dealt with so is the problem null then from the sounds of it. Will be interesting though if it comes back at all. The worse thing for the company if one of their main planes gets a bad wrap.

More info coming to light about the Q400 in SAS service. Sounds like the pilots had trouble dealing with over speed issues with the props and failure to feahter them when power was dropped to idle. Not sure what to make of this 100% but it does bring to light another issue with SAS personel. Airliners have a huge uphill battle not saying they are horrible because of this now just another thing to think about in the handling of their personel and a need for more communication from the sounds of it.

Investigators have criticised Scandinavian Airlines’ Bombardier Q400 training and monitoring procedures after inquiries into a serious unstable-approach incident discovered that Q400 crews repeatedly failed to follow emergency checklists when handling propeller overspeed.

www.flightglobal.com...

What makes it worse is that they were basically TRAINED not to follow the checklists. They would ignore them with instructor pilots sitting next to them doing check flights, or follow improper procedures, and the IP wouldn't say anything about it.

Well we now have some news of the fallout of the SAS accidents.
www.flightglobal.com...

Scandinavian Airlines’ Swedish division has formally notified authorities that it might be forced to lay of up to 230 pilots and cabin crew following SAS Group’s decision to ground the Bombardier Q400 fleet.

The news ofcourse revolve around their loss of capacity. Key points from the article highlight the fact that SAS has been given special ability to lease aircraft and the company seems to beheaded towards longer term leases of aircraft. Also ofcourse the line that the layoffs aren't finalized yet and they are doing everything in their power to limit shuch loses.

On the other hand Q400 prices could drop as much as 10% because SAS is flooding the market with them.

A Dash 8 had an emergency landing in Norway just 15 minutes ago. No details yet.

It was a Dash 8-Q300 and not a Q400. It had a crack in the windshield. Everyone's safe.

Well this is just the same thing over again. SAS is still trying to blame Bombardier for the problem with the O-ring in the main landing gear assembly. SAS Group claims that the door sequence solenoid valve has a “construction error” and that the component is being modified.

The company says its technical department has checked the Q400 fleet and found problems in 63% of the door sequence solenoid valves it inspected after the grounding.
SAS Group says it is waiting for HCL’s findings, but insists: “SAS had no possibility of – and cannot be blamed for not – discovering these problems…in the course of its maintenance work.”
HCL says a loose O-ring could not normally have migrated to the landing-gear because certain components in the aircraft, notably a mechanical sequence valve, prevented passage.

For me the answer is in the very next line.

But SAS technicians replaced both the door sequence solenoid valve and the mechanical sequence valve on the aircraft in question just days before the accident.

In short SASs news release today seem to me at least nothing short of old information from a company that is still trying to pin the plane on someone else for spotty maintenance and improper training of the there pilots.

A Dash 8-Q400 from Austrian Airlines carrying 78 passengers from Nuremberg, Germany, had to make an emergency landing in Vienna, Austria today. There were apparently some problems with its landing gear...


Austrian Airlines plane makes emergency landing in Vienna



Bloomberg: Austrian Airlines Dash 8 Lands Safely After Gear-Display Fault

A cockpit indicator, while stressful and worrysome can be nothing more than a burned out lightbulb. It's a not uncommon occurance. In the 1980s a burned out lightbulb caused the crash of an Eastern Airlines L1011 in the Florida Everglades.