It should have happened on the 13th of August 2007 - thats all I know. But here it is the left main gear that failed to extend or collapsed during landing. And I think that Jejuair is quite a new operator of the Q400.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8014 times:
Quoting Airboss (Reply 2): It doesn´t say whether the aircraft went of the RWY because of landing gear failure, or if the gear collapsed because the aircraft went of the RWY.
sounds like the latter. hit the drainage ditch which took out the gear, causing the prop to strike the ground...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Cdekoe From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7893 times:
Looks like SAS will suspend operations with the Q400 indefinitely, after another one had a MLG failure in Denmark on Saturday.
"Confidence in the Q400 has diminished considerably and our customers are becoming increasingly doubtful about flying in this type of aircraft," said chief executive Mats Jansson
Pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 1891 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7784 times:
The Toronto Star had an article today quoting SAS saying that they may consider trading their Q400's for newer ones or even ordering CRJ700/900. Very odd considering what is going on.
"Yet, depite all of the recent problems, Stoelen said SAS would consider replacing its older Q-400 fleet with newer versions of the same plane, or, possibly, Bombardier-made regional jets. In the meantime, he said, SAS is in the process of leasing aircraft."
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2490 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7697 times:
Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 5): The Toronto Star had an article today quoting SAS saying that they may consider trading their Q400's for newer ones or even ordering CRJ700/900. Very odd considering what is going on.
What this tells you is there's a lot of posturing going on around this, all designed to maximize SAS' negotiating strength. For Stoelen to suggest they would accept newer versions of the Q400 is disingenuous, since they are grounding them for public perception reasons and to save their own reputation. Does he really think all those passengers now thoroughly spooked by the Q400 would be happy getting on a new one? How would they market that?
I'm not sure where this is going, since the preliminary accident reports on the latest gear incident seems to be pointing towards maintenance as a cause. At best, it's now 50-50 whether this failure was design-related, or maintenance related. Maybe Stoelen is hoping to negotiate something with BBD before that cause is identified, given the impact an MX cause would have on his bargaining position.
Oops. I'm too slow. Latest report says this one WAS a maintenance issue. Something about an O-ring. That should change the rhetoric on this somewhat.
[Edited 2007-10-30 10:37:41]
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Alangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2050 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6917 times:
I'm not sure if this has been discussed on one of the other Q400 threads, but the other threads are sooooo long, can't read every post.
If Bombardier take back all the SAS Q400s, Bombardier and Goodrich can examine them and give them "as new" warranties. That would give Bombardier a chance of finding new customers for the planes - perhaps airlines who find the price of new build planes a bit steep.
The Q400 is a great plane - can't wait for the stretch version.
ERAUgrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6824 times:
Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 8): The Q400 is a great plane - can't wait for the stretch version.
Lnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1586 posts, RR: 20 Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3002 times:
Quoting Cumulus (Reply 10): This is getting rediculous now............
What is getting rediculous?
The number of threads on the quality of the aircraft? Or the number of threads on the quality of the aircraft where investigations have shown that MX is partly to blame, and people are blowing it out of proportion?
B747forever From Sweden, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 16085 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2922 times:
Pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 1891 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2899 times:
In this mornings paper the cause of the latest collapse was found to be unrelated to the previous two by Danish officials. There was a foreign O ring found in the gear mechanics which cause the gear to not lock properly. Hmmm? That sounds awefully like a maintenance thing. Again the Toronto papers have quoted SAS as saying they have nothing against Bombardier it is just the Q400 and that even though the fault of the collapse has been found they have not changed their mind about the grounding.
Access-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1938 posts, RR: 22 Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2483 times:
Has anyone thought that maybe there is some sort of flaw in the main landing gear structures that is causing this failure??
In contrast, what was rate at which this kind of thing happens/happened to the Fokker F.27?? I know that the system in the Fokkers F.27s (Not Fokker 50s) were pneumatic and might have a problem with gear collapses just as the Q400....
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
C6bfc From Bahamas, joined Nov 2006, 4 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2272 times:
I N T E R E S T I N G..................
WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THESE Q400's..........
Is it a design FLAW that BOMBARDIER just happen to overlook.......One incident is too much........
SpeedyGonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 608 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2049 times:
This accident is completely different.
It appears that the landing gear broke because the plane ran into the ditch, not the other way around. Very few landing gears wold survive a similar impact with a drainage ditch.
Lnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1586 posts, RR: 20 Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1981 times:
Quoting B747forever (Reply 12): And this show that accidents with the Q400s doesn't just happens SAS
Why don't you take the time to read through the 3+ threads going on, and actually discover the facts about the Jejuair INCIDENT. See below for a clear and concise explanation.
Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 16): This accident is completely different.
It appears that the landing gear broke because the plane ran into the ditch, not the other way around. Very few landing gears wold survive a similar impact with a drainage ditch.
My goodness, doesn't anyone read on this website? Or do they just read the subject line, and THEN freak out?... Thanks Speedy for a clear and concise explanation.
Sponsor Message: 
From Denmark, joined Feb 2003, 16 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1176 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2005, 4 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20630 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 1891 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 227 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2050 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1402 posts, 
From Sweden, joined exactly 5 years ago today! 
, 16085 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
