777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:27 am

Following on from Part 2, SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 2 (by 777ER Oct 29 2007 in Civil Aviation)
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:55 pm

So -- do we have any updates regarding this? Any new news coming out of CPH regarding this?

It is interesting that how now that there are preliminary reports (by governmental bodies), this thread has almost petered off to nothing..

Any updates?

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
airevents
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 7:20 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:32 pm

Also I think it would be interesting to hear what other aircraft are now used instead of the grounded DH8-4s. In the reservation systems it still says DH4 on many routes, but these are definitely not flying, are they?
www.airevents.com
 
Elliott
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 3:56 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:13 pm

Not sure if reported already.
(i try to search all 3 other topics).

The 3rd incident as it looks is not related by the 9th September one.

All these according to Denmark Aviation Safety Board Preliminary Reports. I can not understand completely the explanations of the drawing (yet).

http://www.airtransportnews.aero/article.pl?mcateg=&id=7014

Elliott
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:26 pm

The paper called it a "foreign" O ring. Sounds like one was used that wasn't spec or didn't belong. This would lead you to believe it is a maintenance issue but someone else would know better.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:27 pm

Are the Q400's being grounded immediately? Or being removed from service over a short period of time?
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:31 pm

The situation is unchanged since yesterday. The name of the game is still, as the preliminary report says: "The continuing investigation will focus on the source of the O-Ring".

I could easily imagine, that while the cause of the 3rd accident was found and reported at record speed, then the last step may take a long time.

The source of the o-ring - which side of the Atlantic - may already be known beyond (practically) any doubt. But there is a lot of money involved for various insurance companies.

Therefore the solid facts may be a lot more complicated than pointing fingers in one direction with 99.99% certainty and leave the rest to possibly illegal, undocumented work, sabotage or whatever a lawyer can invent to try to protect his client.

I think that the investigation board will spend some time on details such as fingerprints and "DNA analysis" of the o-ring and then use the hard facts for their testimony when the insurance companies go to court to decide who has to pay.

The final report may not be published until the court has talked. And that can take a long time. Very likely some time into the trial the court will require further auditing of operator and manufacturer records, and time will drag on for many months, probably a year or more.

Any urgency has been removed since it has been documented that the 3rd accident unlike the two first is not a generic problem, and therefore it air safety wise falls into an entirely different class.

This is of course pure guesswork from me. But it is my guess that it is very likely that for a long time into the future we may only hear rumors about how this happened. And since this is a.net, then we will (of course) also hear unconfirmed "facts".  Wow!
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:08 pm

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 5):
Are the Q400's being grounded immediately? Or being removed from service over a short period of time?

Dear Yyz, you must have been away from this forum for some time.

Saturday afternoon the Scandinavian authorities grounded all SAS' 27 Q400 with immediate effect following the third emergency landing with a landing gear problem since 9th September.

On Sunday afternoon the SAS board of directors at an unscheduled meeting decided to retire the Q400 from the SAS fleet with immediate effect.

Tuesday it was confirmed by the accident investigation board that the third accident was caused by an individual problem on the accident plane, not a generic problem as on the two first.

It is unknown whether the grounding has been lifted again. But it has little relevance since there is no longer Q400s in operation in the three Scandinavian countries.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
aeronut
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:41 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:14 pm

Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 1):
So -- do we have any updates regarding this? Any new news coming out of CPH regarding this?

It is interesting that how now that there are preliminary reports (by governmental bodies), this thread has almost petered off to nothing..

Any updates?

1011yyz

Whats interesting is the group of people that have had the most to say about the poor design of the Q400 now have the least to say all of a sudden. They also don't seem to want to speculate anymore about anything and suggest that its in the lawyers hands now and we all will have to wait a very long time.

Come on, people out of CPH, whats going on?
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:42 pm

Quoting Airevents (Reply 2):
I think it would be interesting to hear what other aircraft are now used instead of the grounded DH8-4s. In the reservation systems it still says DH4 on many routes, but these are definitely not flying, are they?

Qimber Air has put in all their spare capacity to help SAS on some Danish domestic routes with their ATR-42 and -72.

Sterling Airlines take on some longer European flights with B738s freeing up SAS MD-80 and 737 capacity for short haul.

On some high frequency routes with 8 or 10 daily departures two Q400 flights are made into one MD-80 or 737 flight.

Spannair has also put in its spare capacity, probably Blue1, Estonian and Air Baltic as well.

Still roughly half of the departures previously served by Q400 are cancelled. Things seem to move on pretty well, most likely due to a lot of overtime work at SAS planning.

From SAS press release:

1. Review of network and reallocation of aircraft capacity within the SAS group (0-3 months)
2. External wet lease* capacity (0-1 month)
3. External dry lease* capacity (3-6 months)

In parallel, work has already been initiated how to replace the aircraft type long term. SAS expect to start to implement a long-term solution by second half of 2008.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Elliott
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 3:56 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:58 pm

how does all these cost to SAS?

I have another quistion to put on the topic. What if SAS announce an order for Bombardier Regional Jets soon?
(Not sure if you understand what i am saying )  Wink
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:54 pm

Quoting Elliott (Reply 10):
how does all these cost to SAS?

SAS says that direct extra ops costs will end up being around SEK (Swedish kroner) 500 million (US$80m). But nobody can produce more than a rough estimate.

The key point is that it is estimated to be more expensive to continue Q400 ops even if it proved successful in the future. The reason is that they have already during seven years lost tons of business to the competition, and would lose even more at an accelerated rate.

So the decision to dump the Q400 is in reality a necessary ECONOMIC decision which shall save money for SAS.

Even if we imagine reliable SAS Q400 ops from today and into the unknown future, then it would take at least two years to regain a level of customer confidence which smells of the level needed for SAS to continue as the major player in Scandinavian air traffic.

Quoting Elliott (Reply 10):
What if SAS announce an order for Bombardier Regional Jets soon?

That's absolutely a possibility. SAS partner Qimber Air operated them with great success. ATRs are also likely, and so are new Q400, even if I doubt that they have the inside track.

There could also be a major strategy change which means that the 27 Q400 will never be replaced by a similar number of short haul low capacity planes on a one to one basis. They might for instance leave a bigger part of short haul low capacity flights to partners like Qimber, and concentrate more on only higher capacity jets.

Pure guesswork, nobody knows today, and certainly not the SAS CEO.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:56 am

Does anyone know if SAS has a legitimate legal claim against Bombardier with respect to any compensation they are after? If any of the affected aircraft were still under warranty, I suspect there could be claims for corresponding business loss due to loss of productivity as well as the claim to fix the aircraft with BBD's money. But if the last incident ends up bearing no responsibility on BBD's part, and the fact that Horizon, Flybe, and Porter have come out saying that they stand behind the Q400, what chance of success does SAS have in arguing that they can walk away from the product (assuming out of warranty and no fault on BBD for the last incident) ? Sure they can pay the liquidated damages if they are tied-in with their leases, but I assume the cost would be high. There have been far more disastrous events in history, such as the B737 rudder hard overs that killed everyone on board two US operators, but the carriers did not drop the type even though they also had A320s in their fleets (US and UA).
Only the paranoid survive
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 11):
The key point is that it is estimated to be more expensive to continue Q400 ops even if it proved successful in the future. The reason is that they have already during seven years lost tons of business to the competition, and would lose even more at an accelerated rate.

It really is too bad that they've had such a horrible time with the aircraft. It's predecessors have proven to be a very valuable addition to many fleets.

Porter so far isn't having any issues, so that's also good.

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
CPHGuard
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:58 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:22 am

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 8):
Whats interesting is the group of people that have had the most to say about the poor design of the Q400 now have the least to say all of a sudden. They also don't seem to want to speculate anymore about anything and suggest that its in the lawyers hands now and we all will have to wait a very long time.

Come on, people out of CPH, whats going on?

I'll tell you this.

The first production of Q400's that ended up with SAS are poor aircrafts.

I'll stand by that comment ANYTIME.
Issue after issue, hundreds of safety landings, and two accidents related to poor design. Yes the first production aircrafts are indeed poor.

I beleive however that never Q400's are probably good aircraft, but not the ones with SAS.

I
 
degenfly
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:27 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:43 am

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 8):
Whats interesting is the group of people that have had the most to say about the poor design of the Q400 now have the least to say all of a sudden. They also don't seem to want to speculate anymore about anything and suggest that its in the lawyers hands now and we all will have to wait a very long time.

What, you want them to dismiss the results if this latest investigation based on nothing, like the investigation of the first two accidents was dismissed by the Bombardier camp?

9-to-1 against Bombardier getting the blame for this latest accident.

[Edited 2007-11-01 05:00:28]

[Edited 2007-11-01 05:03:27]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13844
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:11 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 6):
I could easily imagine, that while the cause of the 3rd accident was found and reported at record speed, then the last step may take a long time.

The source of the o-ring - which side of the Atlantic - may already be known beyond (practically) any doubt. But there is a lot of money involved for various insurance companies.

Therefore the solid facts may be a lot more complicated than pointing fingers in one direction with 99.99% certainty and leave the rest to possibly illegal, undocumented work, sabotage or whatever a lawyer can invent to try to protect his client.

That's quite a vivid imagination.

If the source is known, the investigators have the obligation to say, so that operators can avoid introducing such foriegn matter into their aircraft in the future.

Your imagination would seem to run in conflict with all the statements in parts 1 and 2 of this thread about how incredibly honest the Scandanavians are....
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
CRGsFuture
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:04 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:21 pm

Here's something I wanted to ask. If not for ATR's or newer turboprops, will this order free up something SK wanted for a while, the replacement for the MD-80? Could it be the SSJ, ERJ, or BRJ?
Flying you to your destination; your girlfriend to her dreams.
 
CPHGuard
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:58 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:36 pm

Quoting CRGsFuture (Reply 17):
Here's something I wanted to ask. If not for ATR's or newer turboprops, will this order free up something SK wanted for a while, the replacement for the MD-80? Could it be the SSJ, ERJ, or BRJ?

I don't beleive the MD's will be phased out for another 5-8 years.

The problem is that no manufacturer will be able to deliver aircraft with a short notice.

My money is actually on Bombardier. They will take the Q400's back, and then deliver new Q400's or RJ's. That will be a solution all parts can live with.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:18 pm

Quoting CPHGuard (Reply 18):
My money is actually on Bombardier. They will take the Q400's back, and then deliver new Q400's or RJ's. That will be a solution all parts can live with.

I think the SAS marketing and sales department will resign en masse if they accept new Q400s. The decision to dump the Q400 was made for sound commercial reasons unique to SAS and its experience with the aircraft. Their customers will not understand, nor will they accept, an explanation that these new Q400s (which to the passenger look exactly like the old ones) are OK and you don't need to worry.

This is an unfortunate set of circumstances for both SAS and Bombardier. I think the Q400 is a good airplane, and so do a lot of other carriers, despite the reliability issues. But it isn't good for SAS, and if it does a deal with Bombardier I bet it is for CRJ7s or CRJ9s -- not for new Q400s. SAS has a very strong bargaining position on this (despite the apparent MX cause for this latest episode) and Bombardier will make sure they get the CRJs for an appropriate price.

They both need to put this behind them as quickly as possible.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:25 pm

SAS didn't get all the early production Q400s.
They got MSNs 4008-13, 18-25, 33-36, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44.
Augsburg got 4003, 28, 29, 45.
Tyrolean got 4014, 15, 26, 27, 42.
Horizon got 4030-32, 37, 46-51
Flybe's first was 4094.

That accounts for most of the first fifty odd. I don't know who got the MSNs not listed above.

Olympus69
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:27 pm

There was a press conference today. It was told that the foreign o-ring is as small as 14 mm diameter (just over half an inch).

Finger pointing seem to be mostly in direction of SAS, but there is no firm conclusion, and investigations continue with assistance from SAS and BBD.

The last accident plane had a specially troubled history. It had the components including the actuator exchanged with new spares following the two first accidents. Having been in service for a few days pilots reported that the right hand MLG extended notably slower than the left hand one. It was then taken out of service. Then a third new actuator was mounted Wednesday last week following which it was tested OK on Thursday and put into service again. But two days later...

The authorities haven't issued a new press release since Tuesday. But since the press after the press conference indicates finger pointing against SAS, then I would guess that BBD can sleep well tonight.

The investigation continues with assistance from SAS and BBD, and no stone will be left unturned.

From the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten quoting the investigators:
"14 mm o-rings are used at several places on the Q440 plane. Therefore the investigation board has initiated an investigation to find out exactly which make of o-ring it is. In principle the o-ring can have entered the hydraulic system any time from the birth of the plane until the emergency landing.
The investigation board confirms that one theory is that the o-ring has entered the hydraulic system on SAS's own service shop. Another theory is that it was already inside one of the components which was replaced on the plane".

That's the most "official" words I can find. But as I already said, the press dares to point fingers in direction of SAS which may indicate the more likely outcome. A third option could be that it proves impossible to confirm with 100% certainty what happened when and where.

In any case, we should not expect a fast final accident report. It has only been proved 100% that this third accident, unlike the first two, was caused by a human fault totally unrelated to the quality of the plane or its design.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:03 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 21):
The last accident plane had a specially troubled history. It had the components including the actuator exchanged with new spares following the two first accidents. Having been in service for a few days pilots reported that the right hand MLG extended notably slower than the left hand one. It was then taken out of service. Then a third new actuator was mounted Wednesday last week following which it was tested OK on Thursday and put into service again. But two days later...

That is interesting -- IF indeed the report is as suggested, this latest accident appears (again, heavy on the 'suggested and appears") that the introduced O-Ring would appear to be the concern.

As a troubleshooter, and now that we have something to maybe look at (O-Ring).. IF the O-Ring were present during all three swap-outs of the Actuator, you could (heavy on the could) possible deduce that the O-Ring was the factor that made THIS incident very unlike the others.

Wow.

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:49 pm

Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 22):
That is interesting -- IF indeed the report is as suggested, this latest accident appears (again, heavy on the 'suggested and appears") that the introduced O-Ring would appear to be the concern.

It was proved already Tuesday that the "extra" o-ring blocked the actuator valve and thereby prevented gear extension. The only thing missing: How did that o-ring end up floating in the hydraulic system.

Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 22):
IF the O-Ring were present during all three swap-outs of the Actuator

There were only two swaps, making the failing actuator the third one on the plane.

Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 22):
you could (heavy on the could) possible deduce that the O-Ring was the factor that made THIS incident very unlike the others.

The third incident is technically totally unrelated to the first two.

But we can guess that a tired and sleepy overtime worker accidentally placed that o-ring where it shouldn't be. Following the first two incidents 24 SAS planes plus an unknown number world wide had to have corroded parts exchanged asap.

That many spares were not available and had to be produced. The o-ring may have been placed by the spare parts producer or the mx people mounting them on the planes. That way there might be a "mental" relationship.

The third and unlikely option would be that the o-ring has been floating in the hydraulic system on the plane since it was built.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:32 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 23):
The third incident is technically totally unrelated to the first two.

Technically unrelated yes. However, I find it hard to believe that it is purely a coincidence that a failure in the same area of the plane should occur on an aircraft that had so recently been inspected, and belonging to the same airline. As Prebennorholm suggests, there almost has to be a connection of some kind.
 
cf105arrow
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:47 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:26 pm

Any update on the subject.
 
PKK
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 3:03 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:53 am

Latest update in English from HCL (Danish NTSB) can be found here:
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...iminary%20Report%20UK_03112007.pdf

The update ends:

"During the replacement of the MSV, the rogue O-Ring found blocking the orifice in the restrictor valve of the accident aircraft could, hidden in a union, have unknowingly been transferred from one side of the MSV to the other side by maintenance personnel.
Following a possible transfer of the O-Ring, it could travel through the hydraulic lines towards the main landing gear retraction/extension actuator restrictor valve causing the blockage of the valve.

The investigation continues"

Finger more and more pointing to SAS mx....

Brgds
Peter
 
CPHGuard
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:58 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:03 pm

Quoting PKK (Reply 26):
Finger more and more pointing to SAS mx....

I partly agree. They do however say the following in the report:

During the replacement of the MSV, the rogue O-Ring found blocking the orifice in the restrictor valve of the accident aircraft could, hidden in a union, have unknowingly been transferred from one side of the MSV to the other side by maintenance personnel.

So in the end I guess we will come down to bad design, faulty maintenance and BAD LUCK.

[Edited 2007-11-04 04:04:54]
 
cf105arrow
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:47 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:30 pm

Quoting CPHGuard (Reply 27):
So in the end I guess we will come down to bad design

By bad design are you refering to the latest incident or to previous ones?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:57 pm

Quoting CPHGuard (Reply 27):
During the replacement of the MSV, the rogue O-Ring found blocking the orifice in the restrictor valve of the accident aircraft could, hidden in a union, have unknowingly been transferred from one side of the MSV to the other side by maintenance personnel.

How does this make it a design problem...?
What the...?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:50 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
How does this make it a design problem...?

It is by no means unusual to have a rough mesh "last chance strainer" in hydarulic/oil lines just in front of critical system components. Many engine manufactures apply them in their oil system to provide additonal protection to critical bearings. Their function is not to filter out the very small debris, but to catch somewhat larger particles [including cut O-ring material] that may have [unknowingly] been introduced when the oil system is exposed [ie. during maintenance]. It is not uncommon for O-rings to be installed blind,meaning that the maintenance mechanic can not see actually see the engaging of the O-ring; sometimes [small] parts of O-rings get cut during installation.

Not having such a "last chance strainer" device in an apparently flight critical component might, just might, be considered a design problem. Don't really know if this is the case as I'm not familiar with this system architecture, and I am not aware of the appropriate certification parameters.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:58 pm

Bombardier issued a statement yesterday that I haven't seen posted here, expressing guarded satisfaction at the outcome of the investigation to date.

I found the third paragraph, the quote promising to protect the brand and reputation of the plane and its operators, somewhat ominous for SAS.

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=788388
 
CPHGuard
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:58 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:18 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
How does this make it a design problem...?

In my humble opinion I beleive it is a design problem if the o-ring has QUOTE: "unknowingly been transferred from one side of the MSV to the other side by maintenance personnel"

The design should be made so this could not unknowingly be done.

The good thing about accidents like this is, that manufacturers learn from it, and refine the systems.

I'm sure when the final report comes out, it will point a finger both towards SAS maintenance for missing the o-ring, and Bombardier for not having a built in redundancy system for this.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:26 pm

Quoting CPHGuard (Reply 32):

I work on devices that have dozens of o-rings from 4mil to 330. All of them are critical to the operation of the device and under very high pressure. Because of this, I make sure that every journal is clear of obstructions before reassembly. There is a procedure for checking each one.

Unknowingly, I'm afraid, is not the same as not being able to know.

Just because he didn't see the o-ring, doesn't mean it was impossible to see if he properly looked. That's what we're all waiting for the report to tell us. I will reserve judgement until then.
What the...?
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:31 pm

Quoting CPHGuard (Reply 32):
In my humble opinion I beleive it is a design problem if the o-ring has QUOTE: "unknowingly been transferred from one side of the MSV to the other side by maintenance personnel"The design should be made so this could not unknowingly be done.The good thing about accidents like this is, that manufacturers learn from it, and refine the systems.I'm sure when the final report comes out, it will point a finger both towards SAS maintenance for missing the o-ring, and Bombardier for not having a built in redundancy system for this.

Wishful thinking. Any accident where maintenance has implications could be prevent, in theory, by adding another layer of redundancy, but in the end, it comes down to the error itself. Even redundancy systems can be ignore or bypassed because somebody is in a hurry. A redundancy system might create new problems. You can put an extra trap in a hydraulic system and have it create a backup that results in a different malfunction. At the end of the day, Mr. Surgeon, don't leave your watch in the patient because you're running short of time.
 
GCT64
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:58 pm

Quoting Olympus69 (Reply 20):
Flybe's first was 4094.

Actually, FlyBE's first was #4052 G-JEDI
(#4094 G-JECE is the first alphabetically)
Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,(..53 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
aeronut
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:41 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:59 pm

Quoting CPHGuard (Reply 32):
In my humble opinion I beleive it is a design problem if the o-ring has QUOTE: "unknowingly been transferred from one side of the MSV to the other side by maintenance personnel" The design should be made so this could not unknowingly be done. The good thing about accidents like this is, that manufacturers learn from it, and refine the systems. I'm sure when the final report comes out, it will point a finger both towards SAS maintenance for missing the o-ring, and Bombardier for not having a built in redundancy system for this.

The term is fool-proofing I beleive.  Wink
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:34 am

Quoting PW100 (Reply 30):
Not having such a "last chance strainer" device in an apparently flight critical component might, just might, be considered a design problem. Don't really know if this is the case as I'm not familiar with this system architecture, and I am not aware of the appropriate certification parameters.

Well, it's clearly not flight critical since the plane flew just fine and landed without any injuries. A "last chance strainer" would have have prevented this type of occurrence, but introduced other problems. Beyond just complexity and cost, we might be staring at the same accident only with the actuator jammed by a chunk of failed strainer. You need to be very careful about introducing fixes for one-off events because you often cause more problems than you solve.

Quoting CPHGuard (Reply 32):

In my humble opinion I beleive it is a design problem if the o-ring has QUOTE: "unknowingly been transferred from one side of the MSV to the other side by maintenance personnel"

The design should be made so this could not unknowingly be done.

Poor maintenance practices can always overcome any design feature that the manufacturer incorporates. There are, literally, tens of thousands of maintenance opportunities for a mechanic to screw up an aircraft that are not designed out. If they were all designed out, the airplane would be so expensive and so heavy that none of us could afford to fly. There is a reason aviation mechanics are more highly trained and far more highly regulated than maintenance personnel in pretty much any other industry. There is never an excuse for not doing maintenance properly.

There are aircraft out there with "idiot-proof" connectors that are keyed so that they can only be connected the right way. And what do you find in service? Connectors with the keys filed off.

It is absolutely true that, often, the manufacturer could make a maintenance procedure easier. However, failing to do so does not absolve the mechanic of any responsibility for doing a known procedure incorrectly.

Quoting Aeronut (Reply 36):

The term is fool-proofing I beleive.

If you make a design fool-proof, you will merely find a bigger fool.

Tom.
 
cf105arrow
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:47 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:37 pm

Latest info:

AFX News Limited
SAS says Bombardier Dash Q400 problems to cost it 700 mln skr
11.05.07, 3:19 AM ET

STOCKHOLM (Thomson Financial) - SAS AB chief executive Mats Jansson said the costs for the three Bombardier Dash Q400 planes crashes, and the decision to stop flying its fleet of 27 Dash Q400s, will cost the company around 700 mln skr, the newspaper Dagens Industri reported.

He denied that the crashes were due to SAS skimping on maintenance work.

'SAS invests more than other airlines in safety and maintenance. It is a high priority area for us,' Jansson said.

He said SAS's board will have enough information by the summer of 2008 to take a decision on whether to invest up to 50 bln skr in new planes.

'Despite the fact that we have gotten a lot of beatings and people have painted a sometimes undeserved negative picture of SAS, customers still have faith in us. We will fly over 40 mln passengers this year,' Jansson said.

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited...eds/afx/2007/11/05/afx4298614.html


Latest Air New Zealand news:

Air NZ decides to review Bombardier Q-400 aircraft before purchasing
Monday, November 05, 2007

Air New Zealand has decided to assess the Bombardier Q-400 aircraft’s performance and safety before the airline makes a choice to purchase them, reported the New Zealand Herald.

During late 2005, Air NZ acquired 17 Bombardier Q-300 planes before deciding to take up an opportunity to acquire 13 of the 70-seat Q-400s.

However, Scandinavian Airlines have prohibited the Q-400 model due to problems with the landing gear.

Tracey Palmer, Corporate Communications Manager for Air NZ, stated that the airline have so far been extremely satisfied with the Q-300 fleet’s performance.

http://www.etravelblackboard.com/index.asp?id=71079&nav=2

[Edited 2007-11-05 05:48:25]
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:02 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 37):
Well, it's clearly not flight critical since the plane flew just fine and landed without any injuries.

From an airworthiness point of view, landing phase is considered part of flight. Landing gear is most certainly considered to be "flight critical component". Most, if not all landing gears have life-limited [ie. cycle limited] components which you have to throw away after the design-limit in terms of cycles [landings] have been reached.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 37):
A "last chance strainer" would have have prevented this type of occurrence, but introduced other problems. Beyond just complexity and cost, we might be staring at the same accident only with the actuator jammed by a chunk of failed strainer. You need to be very careful about introducing fixes for one-off events because you often cause more problems than you solve

I absolutely agree on introducing fixes may cause other problems, I was merely trying to point out how it can not necessarily be simply declared as a maintenance issue. It might very well be, but it is not that simple.

Kind Regards,
PW100


PS. "Classic" braided Strainers were huge nightmares indeed, and failed strainers might have caused more problems than they could have potentially safed. However this is no longer the case with latest tech laser drilled strainers.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:28 pm

Its interesting how supposedly a "first rate airline with a spotless MX record" could miss the writing on the wall with the 3rd occurance.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 21):
Having been in service for a few days pilots reported that the right hand MLG extended notably slower than the left hand one. It was then taken out of service

Seriously WTF?

How can you miss it? Just imagine the hell that would rain down if people died and they clearly ignored a sign like this for DAYS.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18991
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:36 pm

Latest news from the Danish investigation says that a part intended for the nosegear was reconfigured by SAS maintenance staff for use in repairing the main gear 5 days before the latest incident.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1082&sid=afDQAXZ1jTmA&refer=canada
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:59 pm

I am surprised that they have not announced an order for ATR72-500s or even the shiny new -600s to get those -400s replaced.

Is there any gossip on that?

NS
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:41 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 40):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 21):
Having been in service for a few days pilots reported that the right hand MLG extended notably slower than the left hand one. It was then taken out of service

Seriously WTF?

How can you miss it? Just imagine the hell that would rain down if people died and they clearly ignored a sign like this for DAYS.

Dear XT6Wagon, where did you learn to read? The paragraph which you quoted continues:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 21):
Then a third new actuator was mounted Wednesday last week following which it was tested OK on Thursday and put into service again.

Of course SAS never put a plane in the air with a known fault. They did exactly the opposite of ignoring the slow actuator, they replaced it immediately with a new one.

It was that new actuator, replacing the slow actuator, which failed two days later.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:10 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 41):
Latest news from the Danish investigation says that a part intended for the nosegear was reconfigured by SAS maintenance staff for use in repairing the main gear 5 days before the latest incident.

From the preliminary report:
"....the replacement MSV (mechanical sequence valve), supplied, was a P/N 48303-7 which was initially configured for installation into the nose landing gear hydraulic system. Prior to installation on the occurrence aircraft, the supplied MSV was reconfigured by maintenance personnel. To make the MSV P/N 48303-7 compatible with the installation requirements for the main landing gear, the unions from the replaced MSV P/N 48303-5 were used".

The report does not indicate that there should be something wrong with that. It tells the story as part of the full story of all work processes leading to a theory explaining how the rogue o-ring could by human fault have been ingested in the actuator.

The full preliminary report is here:
http://www.hcl.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...iminary%20Report%20UK_03112007.pdf
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:38 am

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 35):
Quoting Olympus69 (Reply 20):
Flybe's first was 4094.

Actually, FlyBE's first was #4052 G-JEDI
(#4094 G-JECE is the first alphabetically)

You're right. If I had turned the page in my book I would have seen a whole bunch with lower serial numbers than 4094.
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:49 am

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 35):
Quoting Olympus69 (Reply 20):
Flybe's first was 4094.

Actually, FlyBE's first was #4052 G-JEDI
(#4094 G-JECE is the first alphabetically)

Yoiu're right. If I had turned the page in my book I would have seen a whole bunch with serial numbers lower than 4094.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:36 am

What the...?
 
Someone83
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:15 pm

So based on the findings so far could we almost conclude that Bombardier (and maybe Goodrich) are to blame for the 2 first crashes, while SAS is to be blamed for the 3rd one
 
XaraB
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:23 pm

RE: SAS Dumps All Dash 8Q400s Part 3

Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:48 am

Out 20 minutes ago;

Aftenposten, one of Norways biggest newspapers, reports that SK did not follow the correct procedures while changing a spare part 5 days prior to the CPH crash, according to findings by the investigation board. No further details given. Link to Norwegian story here: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article2088638.ece

If correct, seems like there will be a legal pissing match between SK and BBD in the wake of this, and SK might have trouble getting out of their leasing agreement...
An open mind is not an empty one