It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bombardier delivered `gear-up Q400`, missing crucial bolt

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:26 AM

Japanese safety investigators concluded that work done by Bombardier on one of its Q400 turboprops before delivery to All Nippon Airways subsidiary Air Central caused a 13 March 2007 incident in which the aircraft's nose landing gear failed to deploy on landing at Japan's Kochi airport.

and the really damning part

However, while ARAIC originally found the bushing moved because a bolt dislodged, it has now concluded there never was any bolt because the manufacturer failed to install it following repair work carried out before delivery to the airline in July 2005.

the Q400 is a lethel aircraft - and it airworthiness is really being put into question - a spate of accidents , all involving undercarraige either failing to lower or failing to lock down all caused by damaged , missing or displaced bolts.

Bombadier aircraft have been grounded around the world over safety fears a number of times over the last 3 years - and all undercarraige related.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:36 AM
REally? and I suppose thats why SAS the person who was the main vocal customer has order 10-15 new planes from Bombardier? The reason you hear about these issues is that people listen for them about the Q400 and its getting a rep that isn't right. These small issues happen with other manufactures like Embraer but since they are caught before you don't hear about them because they aren't out trying to damage the manufacture like SAS etc.

Sure im generalizing but I feel like you post is more then a bit one sided.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:09 AM
Yeah Im afraid I have to agree with Canada on this one Harlequin. ALL aircraft, if you look hard enough get delivered with faults. I know of brand new C-130J's delivered to the RAAF that had a nice and thoughtful collection of bolts, nuts, screws and washers left behind main bus panels to shower down for the convenience of the avionics engineers. And missing bolts by Airbus and Boeing are not unknown. It isn't acceptable, but realistically it isnt allways practically avoidable.

OTOH, one may ask how come no ANA engineers picked up this problem for 20 months? I have a sneaking suspicion that the moved bushing was not the result of a missing bolt in manufacture, but rather the bolt being removed at a later date. It's funny that at first they seem to be saying a bolt was there, but later they correct themselves and say there was not. I dont know exactly which bolt they are talking about (I am assuming in the undercarriage up locks) but it seems highly unlikely that the aircraft could operate for over a year and a half before the problem manifested itself without being seen by standard inspections. If I was a betting man I would say that this is more likey a piece of traditional Japanese ass covering than a fault on the behalf of the manufacturer.


posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:12 PM
i know it seems to be one sided (and i suspect a somewhat nation bias of canada_EH as well
) but how many Embraer have suffered landing gear failure since september last year?

for SAS they`ve had 3 with undercarraige failure in that time( sep 9th , sep 12th and oct 27th)

further you have the PAN calls made on 12th oct by SAS flight poland > copenhagen undercarraige related , sep 21st luthansa LH4096 , nose wheel locked up , and 10th oct again SAS flight with front nose wheel problem (pan call)

thats just in sep, oct - going back to april last year theres the nose wheel of ANA in march (lock up) and the left gear collapse of the bahamasair flight on 20th april

thats alot of quite serious incidents in 1 year for a type - and all undercarraige related. luckily no has died

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:39 PM
Haha Oh I'll give you a run for your money.

Yes there has been issues with the Q400 landing gear but its unclear what is specifically is causing them. And before going head long in to the tech that we discussed in the other thread of where these locations are and how messed up it is to think that these bolt issues are left over from manufacturing. The simple fact that these exact same airlines continue to operate the plane and if not buy more of them should be a positive hint though I don't deny I could be wrong.

-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.

-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. 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.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:55 PM
from a business point of view - if bombadier offered SAS new Q400`s on the next order at cost price +$1 , SAS would drop any investigation for cheap as chips aircraft

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:03 PM
personally 10% less isn't huge to me buy in terms of a million dollar purchase of a number of planes yeah sure I see how that can heal wounds but also the squeaky wheel gets the grease in this case as you don't hear anyone else complaining like SAS.

SAS made the case and couldn't back away from it with out looking like fools. So Bombardier gives them a nice out as a way to say well agree to disagree and thats that for the time being. SAS threatened to ground permanently all of their 400s but you don't see that happening.

I can't say that Bombardier is blameless and they could hide things well if they wanted but to me its seems as SAS at the very least has/had blown this way out of proportion.

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:11 AM
I must ask what to most might be a stupi question but when I google Bombadier as a company i only find personal watercraft manufacturer. Who are they and what do they produce if someone doen't mind.

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:16 AM

Originally posted by djvexd

when I google Bombadier

Maybe you'll get more hits if you spelled the name correctly?

Btw, there's an old related thread about the Q400 incidents here:

Bombardier: Ground All Dash-8 Planes Worldwide!

[edit on 2008/5/31 by Hellmutt]

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link fingers type faster than brain can keep up

[edit on 31-5-2008 by djvexd]

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:52 PM
Bombardier aircraft is a company that's "moving on up" in the aviation world with the advent of their new C-Series underwing-engined jets. The Bombardier CRJ (Canadair Regional Jet) is nothing short of legendary in the world of regional air travel with incredible levels of safety, economy and outright speed. The Q-400 (de Havilland DHC-8 "Dash-8") has alot of common parts with the CRJ as Bombardier likes to have things simplified as much as possible when it comes to servicing and piloting the planes themselves. Using common parts where possible also saves money. The landing gear of the Q400 in my opinion, was probably tampered with by a maintenance crew that screwed it up and are trying to cry foul. So many carriers around the world use the Q400 and you don't hear them complaining. As was stated earlier, this is not a human being, this is a machine. If a bolt or bushing the could cause this problem was missing from the plane as it left the factory, it would have crashed on it's maiden flight and never reached the customer to begin with. This whole thing stinks of a coverup to me and Bombardier's paying the price with rumors and posts like this one by this "Joker" named "Harlequin". Lethal aircraft indeed! Shame on you!

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by Canada_EH

Danish Newspapers are reporting February 22, 2009 that Danish Board of Civil Aviation has known all along that the most likely reason for the SAS Copenhagen crash is SAS faulty maintenance.

this article (in English) links to the original Danish one.

They make the point that SAS in badmouthing Bombardier was in effect blackmailing them for SEK 1.1 billion.

As someone having lived in Sweden for years, I can witness that the cover up by the Aviation Board is pretty much the standard operation here: the cooperation, no matter how corrupt, is 'justified' for as long as it has common [national] benefit.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:39 PM
I live in Denmark and here we have grounded the Q400 aircrafts several times since our different flying companies has had several problems especially the landing gear, so how ever much dirt you throw on OP threadstarter he is still right on this one.

Even the new Machines Bombadier delivered are full of mistakes and errors, why on earth should the normal tourist become test pilot?

Best regards


posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:48 PM

Originally posted by djvexd
I must ask what to most might be a stupi question but when I google Bombadier as a company i only find personal watercraft manufacturer. Who are they and what do they produce if someone doen't mind.


Bombardier has two divisions - Aeospace (covered here) and Transportation - it is also the world's largest/second largest manufacturer of trains and railway equipment. It is family run and it's original productss were leisure orientated - e.g. snowmobiles and boats.


new topics

top topics


log in