I work at Bombardier at the original plant. Planes fly over the plant on 24R/6L @YUL. Bombardier is not the problem. Goodrich is. Bombardier gives Goodrich the specs of their aircraft and Goodrich designs accordingly. Also maintenance is to blame. These planes are work horses and they can take a beating!!!!
Awesome! I train at the Toronto City Center Airport (CYTZ), Porter's home base! : D They're a very smart company and they really take good care of thier planes : )
Quit pussy fighting. Why don't you enjoy this beautiful video that YULspotter has provided us. If you hate this aircraft then don't watch the video... People are getting stupider after every post.
All the crashes that I heard about with the Q400 are on the older generation Q400's. Porter and all the other airlines who keep up with maintenance and purchased the new generation dash 8 Q400's now have planes that have reinforced and stronger landing gear stronger airframes and many more features. Porter has the new generation Q400 so you won't hear an explsion from porter.
@Aviationnation10 Actually, there is a "Next Gen" Q400 which is cheaper to maintain and burns less fuel. It also has some interior upgrades for passenger comfort!
Those crashes have more to do with poor maintenance than with poor design. This plane has been under a lot of scrutiny since those SAS crashes and many government aviation safety regulators in many countries have examined the Q400's design and found no flaws. It's poor reputation is not justified. I blame SAS.
So did the civilian aviation safety regulators of any of those airline's blame the quality of the Q400 for those crashes? No they did not! Funny how you seem incapable of understanding that. Did Sweden's regulatory body for airline safety blame the quality of the Q400 after those SAS crashes? No they did not. They blamed inadequate maintenance. Too bad for you. But I guess you know better than any safety inspector.
Yes, it is normal. Obviously! If it wasn't then the safety regulators in every country the Q400 flies in would have issued Airworthiness Directives to change the design of the Q400"s gear. But they haven't, because the design of the gear isn't the problem. Too bad you can't understand that. :(
Seriously, what is your problem? Is it just Bombardier you hate or is it all of Canada? Are you just some sad, lonely kid with too much time on his hands because he has no friends? I think you are.
I spent a boring 30 min. reading thru the comments previously posted on this page and that question was answered tor you by menokrazy. The Airbus A319/ 320/ 321 has had more landing gear failures. I wish I had read the previous comments at the start. Menokrazy called you a troll fag and i have to agree with him. You're just some guy desperate for attention. And I'm also done wasting my time on you.
4148 airbus (320 series) have been built flying from 1988 to now.... Q400 only 364 has been built from the year of 2000. so.... No other airplane has had more landinggear accidents then the Q400 !
Well you can ofcourse call me names but it will not change the fact that I´m right , and that the Q400 landing gear is sub standard !
@Sjusovare2 "That says alot about the safety standars of those airlines dosen´t it ? "
Yes your right @Sjusovare2, it says that overall this plane has had no problems and is very reliable...
Other than the HAND FULL of company's that have had MULTIPLE problems, which is obviously a maintenance issue with the airline not a defect of the manufacturer.
@Integrity2109 so 14 accidents during 7 years with 9 diffrent companys ?????
And all you got is wrong maitenace ? Or maybe you think that this kind of failure is normal ?
Lets stick the head in the sand and blame companys like Lufthansa, SAS, Nippon and colgan ? These companys have no landinggear problem with any other aircraft in there fleet, only the Q 400 ? *suprised* NOT !
Can you name one other aircraft with similar landing gear problems ? Can you ?
@Sjusovare2 these aircraft were older generation Q400's. Remember that Porter Airlines is shifting very quickly to the newer Q400's. and if you look at their crash records on Wikipedia, only 2 accidents occured, and none had to do with the landing gear, and only one was a structural damage
From wiki:
"On September 12, 2007, Bombardier recommended all Q400s with over 10,000 landings to be grounded for inspection of their landing gear after two non-fatal accidents within..." to be cotinued
@Sjusovare2 "...three days involving the landing gear of a Q400 series aircraft. Both incident aircraft were operated by Scandinavian Airlines, an early operator of the type. This affected about 60 aircraft, out of 140 Q400s in service. In all, eight Q400s had landing gear failures while landing during 2007: four in Denmark, one in Germany, one in Japan, one in Lithuania and one in South Korea; see section Notable incidents and accidents. Following an incident at Copenhagen..." to be continued
@Sjusovare2 "...Airport, October 27, 2007, Scandinavian Airlines' executive board decided to permanently remove its entire Q-400 fleet from service. In a press release on October 28, 2007, the company's president said: "Confidence in the Q400 has diminished considerably and our customers are becoming increasingly doubtful about flying in this type of aircraft. Accordingly, with the Board of Directors' approval, I have decided to immediately remove Dash 8 Q400 aircraft from..." to be continued
@Sjusovare2 "...service." On March 10, 2008, SAS ordered 27 more aircraft from Bombardier in a compensation deal.
In November 2007, it was revealed that Swedish Civil Aviation Authority began an investigation and accused Scandinavian Airlines System of cutting corners for maintenance. The airline reportedly made 2,300 flights in which safety equipment was not up to standard."
@Sjusovare2 and also, this is not a place to discuss De Havilland Bombardier Dash 8-Q400's, this is a place to discuss the video, so please drop the landing gear accident in question and comment on the landing in this video
Just to add to the comment below. I have a friend pilot who flew these for 2 years in Japan and he never had an incident. Also about 99% or so of accidents are caused by three things. Bad maintenance, Bad weather and Pilot error! I can only count maybe on one hand the amount of aircraft that had serious major flaws with them. I begin to wonder if this is more a case about aircraft manufacturers like Bombardier and Embraer cornering the regional carrier market. Go Canada. You make great planes
I have to agree with and stand behind Bombardier and the decision of the "Swedish" Civil Aviation Authority who found issues of "Cutting corners" with SAS maintenance. This practice has shown time and time again that it not only causes accidents but a loss of lives. Aircraft manufacturers go to extreme lengths and years to make sure their A/C stand up to all types of conditions as long as strict maintenance procedures are done. This is one of the safest/productive regional props in the world.
You guys really need to stop talking about SAS. They had awful maintenance for this plane and they didn't want to take blame so they blamed SAS. Bombardiers Q400 NG has stronger landing gear fuselage and many better things. SAS used the old generation. Focus on the beatiful porter plane on the vid.
Yes sure Q400 is a cheap airplane so i´m not suprised that some lowcost airlines try to save money by bying them. But when the wheels start to come of the "good" deal isn´t so good anymoore.
To want to fly with a good aircraft is not more strange then wanting a good car.
Its not brave to want bad quality.... just stupid.
It's also stupid to be afraid of something safe - which the Q400 is. But whatever. I'm tired of arguing with you. I don't care if you never fly on a Q400. I don't care if any Swede ever flies on a Q400. I read somewhere that France's Securite Civile bought those 2 SAS Q400's that crashed and converted them into multi-role transport/waterbomber aircraft. So now its official - Sweden has replaced France as Europe's "nation of pussies".
Yes that is correct, most planes that SAS sold was not kept as passenger planes but cargo planes..... That is common with planes that are not trusted for passenger transports anymore.
I´m not aware of france useing any Q400 as a commercial passenger plane.
You haven´t argued with me.... You throw insults and try to shift the the real issue,the failing landingear, to anything ells you might think of.
the reason to convert to cargo is probably more politco-emotional than for technical reasons and safety issues. Those tail numbers were tainted by bad press.
50 % of the SAS group is owned by the goverments in Sweden Denmark and Norway. the rest of the stocks can be bought on the open marked in all scandinavian countrys.The workers are from the all three countrys. We own it and run it together..... Accept it !
I think it is funny how you try to get this to be about Sweden, SAS, Airbus or anything but the landing gear problem.
on the crash-8 planes
But hey, when you know your wrong thats what you do I guess.
This is about Sweden because Swedes are a bunch of pussies who live in fear of the Q400. Maybe the Danes do too - I don't know. Norwegians aren't afraid - they love the Dash 8s of Wideroe Airlines. Neither is the rest of Europe. It's hard to find a country that doesn't fly the Dash 8 ( or want to). I think Croatia is the latest country to buy some new Q400s. WOOHOO Croatia!!! :)
This is about SAS because SAS are a bunch of hypocritical liars. They sued Bombardier claiming the Q400 was unsafe, yet as part of the compensation package they accepted from Bombardier they will receive 14 new Q400 NextGen aircraft (with an option for 7 more). 8 will go to their airBaltic subsidiary and 6 to Wideroe. Why would SAS accept these "dangerous" aircraft? Because they aren't dangerous at all and SAS knows it. Lying scumbags!
This is about Airbus becuase the Airbus A319/320/321 has had its share of landing gear problems. Yet SAS (and Swedish travellers) have no problem flying them to where-ever. But if 2 Q400s malfunction its time to sell the whole Dash 8 fleet and call in the lawyers because Swedes can't even think of flying on Q400s anymore without wetting their pants. Stupid Swedes.
If Airbus has a problem with some aircraft I think that is bad..... but you cant use that to justify Q400 landing gear to to brake 7 times in one year. That is for me unacceptable..... Maybe its ok for.
But we have higher standards in Sweden... Simple as that.
The Q400 was first sold in 1999. not 25 years ago.
And yes modifications of the landinggear has been made after the SAS accidents. even on old planes. SAS plane had there landingear modfied before sold on.
Anything ells would have been irresponsible as they where not safe !
(For the record I don´t like SAS to much, my favorite airline company is Malmö aviation wtih its avro planes) No junky propeller planes there !
The Q400 may have been first sold in 1999 but the landing gear design is basically the same for all versions of the Dash 8 which has been sold for 25 years. The only difference is that Goodrich makes the gear for the Q400 and Messier-Dowty made the gear for all other versions.
There were modifications made to the landing gear? Prove it, because I think yer full of shit!
Propeller planes are "junky"? ROFL!! "Sjusovare" must be Swedish for "moron".
Im´ talking about the landinggear problem with Colgan Air Flight 3268 at Niagara International Airport. on the 12 of may 2009. It was certenly no pilot error.
Oh, Flight 3268 - the accident that wasn't! Where a seized outer wheel bearing caused a wheel on the NLG of a Q400 to break loose. The Q400 then proceeded to land safely on the remaining wheel. No other damage to the aircraft. No injuries to passengers or crew. Yeah that was some accident, lol.
The part of the story that you left out is that even despite Flight 3268 and Flight 3407 Colgan Air has still ordered another 15 Q400 NextGen aircraft. Yanks aren't pussies like Swedes are. :)
Sweden has a higher safety standard? LMAO!! What exactly do you do to make air travel safer? Oh right, if an aircraft has 3 landing gear failures you sell all the planes and sue the manufacturer. I forgot. :D So why hasn't SAS sold all their Airbus A319s and A321s then, since they've has over 67 NLG failures since the 1990's? Cuz Swedes are stupid. They think if SAS hasn't had an accident with a plane it's safe and if SAS has its unsafe. Stupid Swedes!
It's funny how you ignore my questions and just repeat over and over how the Q400 is unsafe. Its also funny how you now try to claim SAS isn't a Swedish company.
I wonder why talking shit about the Q400 is so important to you.
Most STOLplanes sacrifice safety for performance, in other words, the ability to stop fast which is one of the reasons the Dash 8's landing gear has so many problems
Problems with Dash 8 landing gear: 2002 Tyrolean Airways 2004 Nippon airways 2007 Nippon airways 2007 Bahamas air 2007 Scandinavian airlines (3 incidents) 2007 Jeju Air 2007 Lufthansa 2008 PAL express 2008 Piedmont Airlines 2009 Austrian airlines 2009 Colgan air Only a moron doesn´t understand that the dash 8 has problems with their landing gear. Most , but not all has been with the first examples of the Q400 modell And still some pepole say it is maitinance issues . LOL
This list is pure bullshit! For example, that Colgan Air accident was caused by pilot error. It had nothing to do with the landing gear. But I guess you're so desperate to make SAS look good that you'll say anything.
MENOKRAZY is right that colgan air flight was because the pilots were not trained with the stick pusher which pushes the nosedown when it determines a stall is imminent in order to maintain airspeed so the wings continue to generate lift and keep the aircraft aloft. they did not know how to use this feature . they pulled up instead and it created a stall and might even a spin
The landing gear wasn' t changed. Stop making shit up, you liar!
The maintenance checks were expanded to include areas that weren't checked regularly before, and more often (every 10,000 landings instead of every 15,000). The cause of the problems was excessive corrosion not the design. That's the findings of the European Aviation Safety Agency. And that's why there never was a design change.
The Dash 8 has been in production for 25 years. The design has been well tested out.
SAS maintenance fail to de-ice the tops of the wings of an MD-81. Shortly after Flight 751 takes off ice on the wings breaks loose and is sucked into the engines, causing loss of power. Although the crash breaks the plane into 3 pieces, no-one is killed.
That is acually true. But atleast on the jcket of the guyes it says Arlanda airport not SAS. I´m not sure if it is SAS pepole or if the hire ground crew from Arlanda to do this job. But the jackets indicate the later.
You're going to blame the airport ground crew? LOL, so you mean sloppy maintenance is everywhere in Sweden? :) And you still won't admit SAS was to blame for the Flight 2867 crash? Yeah typical.
I read the other day that SAS is such a money-losing catastrophe of a company that the younger SAS pilots are threatening and bullying the older pilots to make them quit - to harass them into retirement. I'll bet that makes for some interesting flights. :D
SAS Flight 2867 crashes in Denmark. The Danish Accident Investigation Board rules that the cause of the Dash 8's crash was that the retraction/extension restrictor valve was blocked with an O-ring. The O-ring was part of a solenoid sequence valve which had been replaced on Oct. 16. Well done, SAS maintenance personnel! It's hard to screw up seating those O-rings properly, but you found a way to do it. :D
This is about SAAB because SAAB used to compete with Bombardier - well, try to anyway! :D They stopped building commercial aircraft because no-one wanted to buy their crap when they could own a Bombardier instead. But I shouldn't bad-mouth SAAB, especially since British Aerospace now owns a major part of SAAB. Maybe the British can teach you how to build planes that people want. :P
Are you a mentally challanged ? SAAB DON`T BUILD COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES ANYMORE ! And they don´t plan to start ! BA bought into saab for the military stuff nothing ells.
Hey retard, I know Saab doesn't make commercial aircraft anymore. I said so myself, in my last post. Read it again dumbass! The reason Saab doesn't make commercial aircraft anymore is because BOMBARDIER DROVE THEM OUT OF THE MARKET! Given a choice between buying a Dash 8 or a Saab 340 or a Saab 2000 airlines always chose the Dash 8! And the reason airlines bought a Dash 8 instead of a Saab is that the DASH 8 IS A BETTER AIRCRAFT! That's the hard fact. Get over it, crybaby. ;D
ROFL! I don't know anything? that's the baest comeback you can manage? Well, I do know a few things. I know Bombardier kicked Saab's ass. I know that even your cousins, the Norwegians and the Danes, can't be persuaded to buy Saab's crappy Gripens. Honestly, who in their right mind wants to pay $60 million for that junk when $55 million will buy the superior F-18E Super Hornet? XD
Btw, what's it like to be out-argued by a child? Just wondering. :D
For the record, the Norwegians and Danes have no intention of buying F-18s. They plan on buying even better aircraft, the F-35. I only mentioned the F-18E because Swedes seem to think that if something is less expensive than what they make it is automatically of lower quality. :p That's Swedish logic for you. Long live socialism!! ;D
The 39 Gripen is not made to be a alternative to either the F-35 or the old
F-18.
The 39 gripen is a light weight fighter, best suitble for small airforces. it can start and land from roads.
the gripen was made as a gerilla type of fighter for the swedish airforce. Made to combat the russians in a situation when the russians had air dominance.
The Dash 8 has an undeservedly bad reputation which is perpetuated by troll-fags like Sjusoswedensux. The Concorde had bigger problems with its landing gear than the Dash 8 but Euros think that piece of crap was the best jet ever. : D
If I'm angry at anyone, I'm angry at myself for wasting my time responding to Swedish flame-trolls. Life in Sweden must be really boring.
You are krazy ! The Q400 has ladningear problems and you talk about, SAAB, concorde, and now its my mothers ( not bombardiers) fault that the landing gear on the Q400 is breaking ?
I hope your mental problems can be medicated ! ;-)
Yes you're right troll fag, I have run out of arguments. You only ignore them anyway, because we both know you have no legitimate reply to any of them. You can't refute SAS's poor safety record. You can't explain why Euro airlines choose the Dash 8 over Euro jets. You can't explain why no-one wants Saab aircraft. All you can do is repeat over and over that there were 8 Dash 8 crashes. And that's what internet troll fags do. You are Sweden's Perez Hilton. It's not an insult if its true.
Hehehe.... At least you admit you run out of arguments !
SAS has a excelent safety record.... Thats why they sold the Q400. To keep the safety record perfect.
If you chose the Q400 insted of jets you do it to save money.
SAAB does not make any comercial aircraft anymoore... Thats why no one wants them, You cant buy them ! SAAB stillmakes combat airplane, missiles and so on
Saab started as a military industry which it still is, cars and commercial aiirplanes where just a side buisniz
SAS has "an excellent safety record"? ROFL!! Only 2 weeks before the first Dash 8 crash, the Swedish Civil Aviation Authority published a report that listed 2300 SAS flights that had been made without safety equipment being up to standard. The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority also accused SAS of cutting corners on maintenance and flying unsafe aircraft. It's not just me who thinks SAS sucks and that you're a liar and a troll fag - so do your airline regulators. :P
SAS safety record is great. You are bullshitting. Without any grounds for it.
The fatal accident rate for SAS is 0,19
The same rate for Air Canada is 0,33
0,00 is the best rate.
But this is not about SAS really beacus its not just sas who had problems with the Q400 landing gear, ask the japanes what they think of the Q400 landing gear !
SAS's safety record is shit. According to the Swedish News Agency TT, SAS had 441 flight "irregularities" (4 of them serious) in the first 7 months of this year. But that's still better than last year, when SAS had 486 incidents, 11 of them serious. SAS sucks!
If you want to compare airlines, compare SAS to Porter Airlines. They have a 0,00 fatal accident rate and use nothing but Dash 8 planes. Skytrax, the airline rating firm, gives them a 4 star rating. SAS can barely manage 3 stars. :D
Those irregualities proves nothing more then a working reporting no-blame culture system and you know it.
But during the last 20 years SAS had 5 major incidents. One due to iceing on the wings (MD80) and one due to traffic controllers (MD80) and 3 accidents with Bombardiers dash8 q400.
and thats proves my point.
And buy the way that you belive that you make any sence is a prove of your childiness. I agree with cruise mate.
Why fight with a child that don´t knows any better.
LOL! What the hell is a "working reporting no-blame culture system"? I can back up everything I say about SAS, using Swedish sources. All you can do is repeat, over and over, that the Dash 8 crashed 8 times. Who is REALLY the child here? When the Swedish Civil Air Authority investigated those 3 SAS crashes, they found SAS at fault. Your attempts to discredit your country's safety watchdog and your national news services only proves that you are a pathetic troll fag.
On September 14, 2007, Bombardier issued an All-Operators Message (AOM) recommending new procedures concerning the landing gear inspection for all aircraft with more than 8,000 flights. Bombardier acknowledged the likelihood of corrosion developing inside the retract actuator.
So...what? Bombardier recommended new inspection procedures looking specifically for corrosion. Seems like the proper thing to do. It was suspected that improper hydraulic fluid became easily contaminated and was failing to retard corrosion. We use Avcorp fluids here in Canada. I think Europe uses vegetable oil. :-)
Previous maintenance procedures mandated checking this component after 15,000 landings. The new maintenance schedule affects about 85 of the 165 Q400 aircraft worldwide. Some operators have found that spare parts for this unexpected actuator replacement program are not available, grounding their aircraft indefinitely.
The authority in sweden that investigates accidents for airplanes is HAVKOM and they have not investigated this accidents. Because they did not happen in sweden and the planes where not swedish registred.
Do you really want to try this nitpicking bullshit? I know you're desperate to try and cut the connection between SAS and Sweden but you can't escape the fact that SAS are headquartered in Stockholm. Or that the government of Sweden holds 21.4% ownership. So it doesn't matter if SAS also operates in Norway and Denmark. Because if it does I'll remind you that Wideroe is owned by SAS and they have 17 Dash8 100's, 10 Dash 8 300's and 2 Dash 8 Q400's (with an order for 4 more).
Yes and Widerö is a Norweigian company only flying out of Norway.
They bought Q400 later then SAS when Bombardier had modified the landingear. So no problem for them. Same maitinance scheduel though. Just one more exampel of how it is a production error and not maitinance issues that cause the landing gear to break.
And yes sweden owns a part of SAS, the Danish and Norweigian goverment also owns part of SAS, together they own bigger part then then Swedish goverment does.
This is my final post. I'm tired of providing rebuttals to your incessant "the Dash 8 sucks" whining. There's nothing that Sweden can teach Canada about how to build quality aircraft or how to run an airline properly so maybe you should stfu.
Saab is a joke and so is SAS. Euro-crap like the Concorde and the Airbus A330 is ridiculously overpriced and 3rd rate airlines like AirFrance can't seem to keep them from crashing (Flights 4590 and 447 respectively). DASH 8 FOREVER!!! XD
Airbus or Boeing aircraft are not over priced. They are good quality aircraft and that costs. If you whant a ceaper products there are Tupolev or Bombardier who builds airplane at a budget price with a lower set of quality standards.
Why you try to mix Saab and now Air France into this? I have not a clue.
most regional jets are Bombardier either the Dash 8 or the CRJ series SAAB is a joke at most airlines a SAAB captain get's paid $59 an hour as a 5 year captain, in a CRJ-700 get's paid 70$ an hour
wow you "rest" you case? you have no proof or evidence of what your talking about that wasn't in context. No bombardier aircraft are larger and therefore can carry more passengers. There were 3 cases in 12 months where 3 Boeing 737's crashed due to hydroloc failures and it's still the most popular aircraft in the aviation industry. Dash 8 is still a reliable aircraft since the gear faults were worked out
the Q400 crashed cuz the SAS mechanics didnt know how to maintain the gear i know a test pilot for maple aviation they do testing for DHC and bombardier
just accept your wrong there is nothing wrong with the Q400 SAS is a shit airline for DHC anyway porter austrian continental fronteir and horizon never had a problem with them so it is SAS
1 in South Korea. But thats just normal right ? Accidents worldwide with landingear not comeing down. All this problems was with early produced Q400. Bombardier started selling them before they where finished testing them. It was not a safe product.
Now they suffer from it. Their reputation as a low quality airplane manufacturer is cemented.
LOL, yeah SAS should have bought European planes instead like the Saab 340 or the ATR 42/72. I wonder why they don't. Could it be because the ATR 72 falls like a brick at the first sign of icing, like with American Eagle Flight 4184? I read somewhere that ATR had to pay $110 million in compensation to the families of the 68 passengers and crew who were killed. LOL, that's why Euro-crap is so expensive. So much compensation to pay! :D
You don´t think junk sell? Just go to wallmart, and you see. Sweden ? In 2007 there where 8 landing gear failures. 3 in Denmark. 1 in Germany. 1 in Japan. 1 in Lituhania. 1 in South Korea. 0 in Sweden What you don´t know about socialism, can fill books. And the present Swedish goverment is Conservative.... But what do you know about anything?
What do I know about anything? Well... I know what bidragskulture is. :D I know that your comparison of the Dash 8 to Wal-Mart is really stupid. I know you like to twist the facts to minimize the Swedish Civil Aviation Authority's condemnation of SAS maintenance standards. I know that it doesn't matter where a plane crashes, it's who owns/ operates the plane that's important. Am I leaving anything out?
Actually its very common in Canada - we know how to maintain them properly over here. :) What's really interesting is how so many European airlines would rather fly the Dash 8, despite its bad reputation, than waste their money on those flying turds that Saab makes. :p
I thought the Saab 2000 was still in production, but I checked and you were right - they stopped making them 10 years ago. ROFL! They only managed to sell about 50 of them. It was made to compete with the Dash 8 and the Dash 8 kicked its ass. XD Like I said, the Dash 8 is very popular with European airlines. Norway's Wideroe Airlines really love theirs. :-) Woohoo, GO NORWAY!
Duh - I never said the Saab 2000 was made to compete with the Q400, I said the Dash 8. (there's more than one model you know). And if the issue is quality then let's talk about the low quality of service of Scandinavian Airlines. There's a reason that 3 of 8 of those hydraulic failures occurred at that airline, and it has nothing to do with the aircraft. I think SAS used the crashes to get a sweetheart deal on their CRJ jets. :( SAS sucks!
Hi, Why does the Dash 8 have a bad reputation? They are the first aeroplane I fell in love with and they are beautiful. And don't knock the Saab 340 either. Regional Express (REX) use them.
The Dash 8 has a bad reputation because Swedes can't do maintenance properly. Scandinavian Airlines had 3 landing gear failures in 4 days in 2007 and won't stop whining about it. This despite the fact that the accident investigations found that the failures were the result of corrosion caused by using unsuitable hydraulic fluid and in one of the crashes an improperly seated O-Ring blocked the valve opening. Despite the findings, SAS refused to use the Q400 and got CRJ jets in compensation.
First of all SAS is not a Swedish Company. Its a scandinavian one.
But you are right in the maintenace part. SAS has always used high quality aircraft with normal need of maintenance.
Airbus, boeing, MD, and Fokker.
So when you buy a low quality aircraft like the Q400, the higher need of maintenance comes as a chock.
Suddenly you realize you got what you paid for ! So they got rid of them. If you are to be a medium cost airline you have to have better planes then that. Its just that simple
The headquarters of SAS AB are in Stockholm, so that makes it a Swedish company. Two weeks before the Dash 8 crashes the Swedish Civil Aviation Authority blasted SAS for its lax maintenance procedures. The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority also complained about SAS maintenance when an SAS plane took off with a fuel leak. So it isn't just me who thinks your airline sucks - your governments think so too! :p Btw, I noticed that your list of SAS aircraft didn't include any Saabs. ROFL!
Yeeeaaa.... youre twisting the truth as much as you can. The Swedish Civil Aviation authority don´t complain on anyone. They write remarks. Almost every airline that gets inspected get some form of remark. Its their job to write some ! Check how many remarks FAA write every year.... Plenty man plenty !
The fact is that the only major incident SAS have had is with the crash8 Q400.
although they are a small aircraft they sure are loud on appraoch. don't you think?
planes1997 1 month ago
I DONT EVER WANT BOMBARDIER TO STOP MAKING THESE DASH 8S!!!! :)
ghettoperson257 3 months ago
i just love how bombardier gave that plane the name of "dash" it kinda suits the aircraft
ghettoperson257 3 months ago
Continental Q400 crashed near Buffalo killing 50 - pilot error, stall response.
cornerstone228 7 months ago
@cornerstone228 Due to Pilot error..
Aviationnation10 6 months ago
@XXXGhostGrenadeXXX It wasn't a plane actually but a motorcycle that was passing by on the highway as I started filming.
YULspotter 8 months ago
A crash 8 400 that didn´t crash ?
Now I hear a Bombardier CRJ-300 has crashed in Congo killing a lot of its passengers.
Sjusovare2 10 months ago
OMG I AM FLYING ON IT TOMORROW 24/DEC/10. CANT WAIT IT IS GOING TO BE SO AWESOME!!
nwa333 1 year ago
now thats an airport....it has its own wal mart. I think thats what it looks like back there.
collinsworth1982 1 year ago
Looks like a hotdog with wings.
Michael55443 1 year ago
@Michael55443 What an insult. I love the q400
possumpouch 11 months ago
@possumpouch Don't get me wrong, I like it too. :)
Michael55443 11 months ago
LOVE THAT AIRPLANE!
willettgarrett 1 year ago 11
@willettgarrett I think after the 737, the Q400 is my favorite aircraft. It's a damm good plane.
Northeastern292 8 months ago
Cheers to the only 4 star airline in Canada....
bladeere14 1 year ago
can someone tell me when this plane was made?
Wadeforce 1 year ago
@Wadeforce 1983, it was introduced in 1984 with NorOntair
ghettoperson257 3 months ago
What a fantastic plane! The main landing gear is still alive!
sirMIREK 1 year ago
I work at Bombardier at the original plant. Planes fly over the plant on 24R/6L @YUL. Bombardier is not the problem. Goodrich is. Bombardier gives Goodrich the specs of their aircraft and Goodrich designs accordingly. Also maintenance is to blame. These planes are work horses and they can take a beating!!!!
HuckThis1971 1 year ago
Awesome! I train at the Toronto City Center Airport (CYTZ), Porter's home base! : D They're a very smart company and they really take good care of thier planes : )
Shankovich 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@simpleudeable
Sorry I took up a subject that can´t be discussed.
14 accidents with 9 companies ? maybe all of them is doing wrong maitinance ?
What does that say about the maitinance manual?
What ? I didn´t hear you? What ?
Face it. This is the blody FIAT of the skys. ( no dissrespect to the italians )
But now I hear , they have modified the landing gear..... not a moment to soon.
Better late then not at all.
Sjusovare2 1 year ago
Comment removed
Sjusovare2 1 year ago
Quit pussy fighting. Why don't you enjoy this beautiful video that YULspotter has provided us. If you hate this aircraft then don't watch the video... People are getting stupider after every post.
ACjazzRules 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Or rather the landingear was porly constructed and/or badly built.
I disslike bad enginering in all its forms. Where ever and when ever it can be found.
The other questions are quite irrelevant.
I will not post an answer on u-tube, as it will not add anything to the issue at hand.
Sjusovare2 1 year ago
All the crashes that I heard about with the Q400 are on the older generation Q400's. Porter and all the other airlines who keep up with maintenance and purchased the new generation dash 8 Q400's now have planes that have reinforced and stronger landing gear stronger airframes and many more features. Porter has the new generation Q400 so you won't hear an explsion from porter.
ACjazzRules 1 year ago 5
@ACjazzRules there is no "next gen" Q400 the modifications are make it still the same model
Aviationnation10 8 months ago
@Aviationnation10 Actually, there is a "Next Gen" Q400 which is cheaper to maintain and burns less fuel. It also has some interior upgrades for passenger comfort!
sdrawkcab96 6 months ago
@sdrawkcab96 I found that out a few weeks ago
Aviationnation10 6 months ago
@ACjazzRules This is practically the most absurd comment I have ever heard! Check your facts dude!
Aviat92 5 months ago
No thats right.....
The noice the Q 400 makes is CRASH as its landing-gear breakes !
Sjusovare2 1 year ago
When the video started, I though, "Holy crap! That is NOT the noise a Q400 makes!!!"
PhoenixFoxglove 2 years ago
aka the winged pencil
youngbleeb 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
That is alot of crashes. What is that 14 in 7 years ? 2 / year...... *suprised*
cruisemate 2 years ago
Those crashes have more to do with poor maintenance than with poor design. This plane has been under a lot of scrutiny since those SAS crashes and many government aviation safety regulators in many countries have examined the Q400's design and found no flaws. It's poor reputation is not justified. I blame SAS.
wtfUidjit 2 years ago
Blame the maitinance of SAS ?
And Tyrolean air ? and Nippon air ?
and Bahamas air ? and Jeju air ?
and Lufthansa ? and PAL express ?
and Piedemont airlines ? and Austrian air ? and Colgan air ?
Or maybe just accept that there is something wrong with the quality of the landing gear ?
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
@Sjusovare2
So did the civilian aviation safety regulators of any of those airline's blame the quality of the Q400 for those crashes? No they did not! Funny how you seem incapable of understanding that. Did Sweden's regulatory body for airline safety blame the quality of the Q400 after those SAS crashes? No they did not. They blamed inadequate maintenance. Too bad for you. But I guess you know better than any safety inspector.
wtfUidjit 2 years ago
So for you it is normal to have all this crashes and failiure with landing gear all over the world ?
No other aircraft have had this many landing grear accidents.
Which is more likely that all this airlines are misshandeling the maitinance of just this aircraft type but not of any other in there fleets.
Or that there realy is a problem with the landing gear on the Q400 ?
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Yes, it is normal. Obviously! If it wasn't then the safety regulators in every country the Q400 flies in would have issued Airworthiness Directives to change the design of the Q400"s gear. But they haven't, because the design of the gear isn't the problem. Too bad you can't understand that. :(
Seriously, what is your problem? Is it just Bombardier you hate or is it all of Canada? Are you just some sad, lonely kid with too much time on his hands because he has no friends? I think you are.
wtfUidjit 2 years ago
Its normal to have 14 landingear failiurs in 7 years ? realy ? Which other aricraft has had this many landing gear incidents?
No I don´t hate Canada. Or Bombardier. But I don´t like the way many companies cut corners to make a profit.
And if those companies are named Bombardier, Toyota or anything ells doen´t matter.
Quality is important.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
I spent a boring 30 min. reading thru the comments previously posted on this page and that question was answered tor you by menokrazy. The Airbus A319/ 320/ 321 has had more landing gear failures. I wish I had read the previous comments at the start. Menokrazy called you a troll fag and i have to agree with him. You're just some guy desperate for attention. And I'm also done wasting my time on you.
wtfUidjit 2 years ago
Yes but the crayzy guy twisted numbers.
4148 airbus (320 series) have been built flying from 1988 to now.... Q400 only 364 has been built from the year of 2000. so.... No other airplane has had more landinggear accidents then the Q400 !
Well you can ofcourse call me names but it will not change the fact that I´m right , and that the Q400 landing gear is sub standard !
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
@Sjusovare2
The problem is these planes are so reliable in comparison to jets that the airlines let the maintenance slip on the Q-400's.
I'm curious what your life is like outside of your obsessive hate for this aircraft Sjusovare?
What other things do you hate?
Do you have any friends or pets?
Maybe another hobby?
Integrity2109 1 year ago
Comment removed
Sjusovare2 1 year ago
@Sjusovare2
Wow, you love to pull things from your ass don't you?
The Austrian/Tyrolean incident was limited to exactly one, but you list it twice under two different airlines.
Colgan air? You mean the wheel falling off? Yeah that's a designs defect, just like the pilot crashing the plane.
The funny part is that both of the airlines have current orders on the books for MORE Q-400's!
Damn that Q-400.
Integrity2109 1 year ago
@Integrity2109 That says alot about the safety standars of those airlines dosen´t it ? Planes with failing landing gear, lets buy more of them !
Hahaha.....
Nope there are 2 seperate accidents (by tyrolean) one on the 28th of january 2002 and one on the 13th of february 2009.
Sjusovare2 1 year ago
@Sjusovare2 "That says alot about the safety standars of those airlines dosen´t it ? "
Yes your right @Sjusovare2, it says that overall this plane has had no problems and is very reliable...
Other than the HAND FULL of company's that have had MULTIPLE problems, which is obviously a maintenance issue with the airline not a defect of the manufacturer.
Integrity2109 1 year ago
@Integrity2109 so 14 accidents during 7 years with 9 diffrent companys ?????
And all you got is wrong maitenace ? Or maybe you think that this kind of failure is normal ?
Lets stick the head in the sand and blame companys like Lufthansa, SAS, Nippon and colgan ? These companys have no landinggear problem with any other aircraft in there fleet, only the Q 400 ? *suprised* NOT !
Can you name one other aircraft with similar landing gear problems ? Can you ?
Sjusovare2 1 year ago
@Sjusovare2 these aircraft were older generation Q400's. Remember that Porter Airlines is shifting very quickly to the newer Q400's. and if you look at their crash records on Wikipedia, only 2 accidents occured, and none had to do with the landing gear, and only one was a structural damage
From wiki:
"On September 12, 2007, Bombardier recommended all Q400s with over 10,000 landings to be grounded for inspection of their landing gear after two non-fatal accidents within..." to be cotinued
simpledudeable 1 year ago
@Sjusovare2 "...three days involving the landing gear of a Q400 series aircraft. Both incident aircraft were operated by Scandinavian Airlines, an early operator of the type. This affected about 60 aircraft, out of 140 Q400s in service. In all, eight Q400s had landing gear failures while landing during 2007: four in Denmark, one in Germany, one in Japan, one in Lithuania and one in South Korea; see section Notable incidents and accidents. Following an incident at Copenhagen..." to be continued
simpledudeable 1 year ago
@Sjusovare2 "...Airport, October 27, 2007, Scandinavian Airlines' executive board decided to permanently remove its entire Q-400 fleet from service. In a press release on October 28, 2007, the company's president said: "Confidence in the Q400 has diminished considerably and our customers are becoming increasingly doubtful about flying in this type of aircraft. Accordingly, with the Board of Directors' approval, I have decided to immediately remove Dash 8 Q400 aircraft from..." to be continued
simpledudeable 1 year ago
@Sjusovare2 "...service." On March 10, 2008, SAS ordered 27 more aircraft from Bombardier in a compensation deal.
In November 2007, it was revealed that Swedish Civil Aviation Authority began an investigation and accused Scandinavian Airlines System of cutting corners for maintenance. The airline reportedly made 2,300 flights in which safety equipment was not up to standard."
Is that enough proof?
simpledudeable 1 year ago
@Sjusovare2 and also, this is not a place to discuss De Havilland Bombardier Dash 8-Q400's, this is a place to discuss the video, so please drop the landing gear accident in question and comment on the landing in this video
simpledudeable 1 year ago
Just to add to the comment below. I have a friend pilot who flew these for 2 years in Japan and he never had an incident. Also about 99% or so of accidents are caused by three things. Bad maintenance, Bad weather and Pilot error! I can only count maybe on one hand the amount of aircraft that had serious major flaws with them. I begin to wonder if this is more a case about aircraft manufacturers like Bombardier and Embraer cornering the regional carrier market. Go Canada. You make great planes
lionheart270866 2 years ago
I have to agree with and stand behind Bombardier and the decision of the "Swedish" Civil Aviation Authority who found issues of "Cutting corners" with SAS maintenance. This practice has shown time and time again that it not only causes accidents but a loss of lives. Aircraft manufacturers go to extreme lengths and years to make sure their A/C stand up to all types of conditions as long as strict maintenance procedures are done. This is one of the safest/productive regional props in the world.
lionheart270866 2 years ago
You guys really need to stop talking about SAS. They had awful maintenance for this plane and they didn't want to take blame so they blamed SAS. Bombardiers Q400 NG has stronger landing gear fuselage and many better things. SAS used the old generation. Focus on the beatiful porter plane on the vid.
ACjazzRules 2 years ago
Nice to see a landing when the landing gear dosn´t brake on this planes :-)
cruisemate 2 years ago
@cruisemate Yes that is not often ;-)
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Yes sure Q400 is a cheap airplane so i´m not suprised that some lowcost airlines try to save money by bying them. But when the wheels start to come of the "good" deal isn´t so good anymoore.
To want to fly with a good aircraft is not more strange then wanting a good car.
Its not brave to want bad quality.... just stupid.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
It's also stupid to be afraid of something safe - which the Q400 is. But whatever. I'm tired of arguing with you. I don't care if you never fly on a Q400. I don't care if any Swede ever flies on a Q400. I read somewhere that France's Securite Civile bought those 2 SAS Q400's that crashed and converted them into multi-role transport/waterbomber aircraft. So now its official - Sweden has replaced France as Europe's "nation of pussies".
Congratulations!
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Yes that is correct, most planes that SAS sold was not kept as passenger planes but cargo planes..... That is common with planes that are not trusted for passenger transports anymore.
I´m not aware of france useing any Q400 as a commercial passenger plane.
You haven´t argued with me.... You throw insults and try to shift the the real issue,the failing landingear, to anything ells you might think of.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago 2
the reason to convert to cargo is probably more politco-emotional than for technical reasons and safety issues. Those tail numbers were tainted by bad press.
mikel1982 2 years ago
If people don't dare to fly by the planes SAS has to get other ones. They had done the same thing if it was Boeing, Airbus or whatever.
basebbe 2 years ago
SAS head office:
Frosundviks Alle 1
195 87 Stockholm
Phone
+46-8-797 0000
Fax
+46-8-797 1603
Just in case you want to contact this non-Swedish company! XD
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
50 % of the SAS group is owned by the goverments in Sweden Denmark and Norway. the rest of the stocks can be bought on the open marked in all scandinavian countrys.The workers are from the all three countrys. We own it and run it together..... Accept it !
I think it is funny how you try to get this to be about Sweden, SAS, Airbus or anything but the landing gear problem.
on the crash-8 planes
But hey, when you know your wrong thats what you do I guess.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
This is about Sweden because Swedes are a bunch of pussies who live in fear of the Q400. Maybe the Danes do too - I don't know. Norwegians aren't afraid - they love the Dash 8s of Wideroe Airlines. Neither is the rest of Europe. It's hard to find a country that doesn't fly the Dash 8 ( or want to). I think Croatia is the latest country to buy some new Q400s. WOOHOO Croatia!!! :)
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
This is about SAS because SAS are a bunch of hypocritical liars. They sued Bombardier claiming the Q400 was unsafe, yet as part of the compensation package they accepted from Bombardier they will receive 14 new Q400 NextGen aircraft (with an option for 7 more). 8 will go to their airBaltic subsidiary and 6 to Wideroe. Why would SAS accept these "dangerous" aircraft? Because they aren't dangerous at all and SAS knows it. Lying scumbags!
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
This is about Airbus becuase the Airbus A319/320/321 has had its share of landing gear problems. Yet SAS (and Swedish travellers) have no problem flying them to where-ever. But if 2 Q400s malfunction its time to sell the whole Dash 8 fleet and call in the lawyers because Swedes can't even think of flying on Q400s anymore without wetting their pants. Stupid Swedes.
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
If Airbus has a problem with some aircraft I think that is bad..... but you cant use that to justify Q400 landing gear to to brake 7 times in one year. That is for me unacceptable..... Maybe its ok for.
But we have higher standards in Sweden... Simple as that.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
As usally your off..... Airbaltic is not a subsidary of SAS anymore.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
meNoKrazy
The Q400 was first sold in 1999. not 25 years ago.
And yes modifications of the landinggear has been made after the SAS accidents. even on old planes. SAS plane had there landingear modfied before sold on.
Anything ells would have been irresponsible as they where not safe !
(For the record I don´t like SAS to much, my favorite airline company is Malmö aviation wtih its avro planes) No junky propeller planes there !
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
The Q400 may have been first sold in 1999 but the landing gear design is basically the same for all versions of the Dash 8 which has been sold for 25 years. The only difference is that Goodrich makes the gear for the Q400 and Messier-Dowty made the gear for all other versions.
There were modifications made to the landing gear? Prove it, because I think yer full of shit!
Propeller planes are "junky"? ROFL!! "Sjusovare" must be Swedish for "moron".
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Hahaha.... YouAreKrayzy
Im´ talking about the landinggear problem with Colgan Air Flight 3268 at Niagara International Airport. on the 12 of may 2009. It was certenly no pilot error.
Just another dash 8 with problems.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Oh, Flight 3268 - the accident that wasn't! Where a seized outer wheel bearing caused a wheel on the NLG of a Q400 to break loose. The Q400 then proceeded to land safely on the remaining wheel. No other damage to the aircraft. No injuries to passengers or crew. Yeah that was some accident, lol.
The part of the story that you left out is that even despite Flight 3268 and Flight 3407 Colgan Air has still ordered another 15 Q400 NextGen aircraft. Yanks aren't pussies like Swedes are. :)
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
The yanks are not pussys like Swedes ? Ignoring the fact that SAS still not a Swedish company.....
Well thats one way to say that they accept a lower safety standard ! You just accepted my point and gave me right !
Thanks.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Sweden has a higher safety standard? LMAO!! What exactly do you do to make air travel safer? Oh right, if an aircraft has 3 landing gear failures you sell all the planes and sue the manufacturer. I forgot. :D So why hasn't SAS sold all their Airbus A319s and A321s then, since they've has over 67 NLG failures since the 1990's? Cuz Swedes are stupid. They think if SAS hasn't had an accident with a plane it's safe and if SAS has its unsafe. Stupid Swedes!
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Well its kind of problematic to sue a manufacturer for a fault someone ells has !
Once again this is not Sweden vs Canada. Thats only in your head.
This is a airline manufacturer who make aircraft with substandard landing gear, causing crashes all over the world..... read my list again.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
It's funny how you ignore my questions and just repeat over and over how the Q400 is unsafe. Its also funny how you now try to claim SAS isn't a Swedish company.
I wonder why talking shit about the Q400 is so important to you.
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Most STOLplanes sacrifice safety for performance, in other words, the ability to stop fast which is one of the reasons the Dash 8's landing gear has so many problems
Faz0n 2 years ago
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
This list is pure bullshit! For example, that Colgan Air accident was caused by pilot error. It had nothing to do with the landing gear. But I guess you're so desperate to make SAS look good that you'll say anything.
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
MENOKRAZY is right that colgan air flight was because the pilots were not trained with the stick pusher which pushes the nosedown when it determines a stall is imminent in order to maintain airspeed so the wings continue to generate lift and keep the aircraft aloft. they did not know how to use this feature . they pulled up instead and it created a stall and might even a spin
sanabria789 2 years ago
ITS NOT THAT CRASH ! This crash is another landinggear that doesn´t work. The trademark for this aircraft type.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
The most important thing is that Bombardier admitted their maitinance instructions where wrong and then more maitinance was needed.
Also intresting is that this was not neede for all aircrafts. only for 85 of 165.
The rest of the aircrafts where newer with improved landinggear... HAHAHA why change something if it worked from the begining ?
Face it the Q400 was put in production before it was well tested out.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
The landing gear wasn' t changed. Stop making shit up, you liar!
The maintenance checks were expanded to include areas that weren't checked regularly before, and more often (every 10,000 landings instead of every 15,000). The cause of the problems was excessive corrosion not the design. That's the findings of the European Aviation Safety Agency. And that's why there never was a design change.
The Dash 8 has been in production for 25 years. The design has been well tested out.
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
27 Dec. 1991
SAS maintenance fail to de-ice the tops of the wings of an MD-81. Shortly after Flight 751 takes off ice on the wings breaks loose and is sucked into the engines, causing loss of power. Although the crash breaks the plane into 3 pieces, no-one is killed.
Another proud moment for SAS maintenance.
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
That is acually true. But atleast on the jcket of the guyes it says Arlanda airport not SAS. I´m not sure if it is SAS pepole or if the hire ground crew from Arlanda to do this job. But the jackets indicate the later.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
You're going to blame the airport ground crew? LOL, so you mean sloppy maintenance is everywhere in Sweden? :) And you still won't admit SAS was to blame for the Flight 2867 crash? Yeah typical.
I read the other day that SAS is such a money-losing catastrophe of a company that the younger SAS pilots are threatening and bullying the older pilots to make them quit - to harass them into retirement. I'll bet that makes for some interesting flights. :D
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
27 Oct. 2007
SAS Flight 2867 crashes in Denmark. The Danish Accident Investigation Board rules that the cause of the Dash 8's crash was that the retraction/extension restrictor valve was blocked with an O-ring. The O-ring was part of a solenoid sequence valve which had been replaced on Oct. 16. Well done, SAS maintenance personnel! It's hard to screw up seating those O-rings properly, but you found a way to do it. :D
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
But this is not about SAAB.
Its not Saabs fault that the Q400 (made by bombardier) keeps breaking during landing !
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
This is about SAAB because SAAB used to compete with Bombardier - well, try to anyway! :D They stopped building commercial aircraft because no-one wanted to buy their crap when they could own a Bombardier instead. But I shouldn't bad-mouth SAAB, especially since British Aerospace now owns a major part of SAAB. Maybe the British can teach you how to build planes that people want. :P
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Are you a mentally challanged ? SAAB DON`T BUILD COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES ANYMORE ! And they don´t plan to start ! BA bought into saab for the military stuff nothing ells.
cruisemate 2 years ago
Thats right but he don´t get that.....
He just angry beacuse, he is Canadian and Bombardier fails to build god airplanes so he attack SAAB for it. Canadian logic ;-)
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Hey retard, I know Saab doesn't make commercial aircraft anymore. I said so myself, in my last post. Read it again dumbass! The reason Saab doesn't make commercial aircraft anymore is because BOMBARDIER DROVE THEM OUT OF THE MARKET! Given a choice between buying a Dash 8 or a Saab 340 or a Saab 2000 airlines always chose the Dash 8! And the reason airlines bought a Dash 8 instead of a Saab is that the DASH 8 IS A BETTER AIRCRAFT! That's the hard fact. Get over it, crybaby. ;D
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
If you don´t know anything don´t comment.
Maybe your an expert on bombardier, I don´t know, but clearly you known nothing about SAAB and the idea to focus on its core busniess.
I´m not going to discuss with you beacuse you have so clearly shown that you are a child.
cruisemate 2 years ago
ROFL! I don't know anything? that's the baest comeback you can manage? Well, I do know a few things. I know Bombardier kicked Saab's ass. I know that even your cousins, the Norwegians and the Danes, can't be persuaded to buy Saab's crappy Gripens. Honestly, who in their right mind wants to pay $60 million for that junk when $55 million will buy the superior F-18E Super Hornet? XD
Btw, what's it like to be out-argued by a child? Just wondering. :D
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
For the record, the Norwegians and Danes have no intention of buying F-18s. They plan on buying even better aircraft, the F-35. I only mentioned the F-18E because Swedes seem to think that if something is less expensive than what they make it is automatically of lower quality. :p That's Swedish logic for you. Long live socialism!! ;D
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
The 39 Gripen is not made to be a alternative to either the F-35 or the old
F-18.
The 39 gripen is a light weight fighter, best suitble for small airforces. it can start and land from roads.
the gripen was made as a gerilla type of fighter for the swedish airforce. Made to combat the russians in a situation when the russians had air dominance.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Ahh, fresh bullshit! And you said you would stop arguing with a kid. :D Everything you wrote here is bullshit. Do I really need to point out why? :-)
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Hey, menokrazy, why so angry? I'm glad you like the Dash 8 but no need to be a dick about it. ; )
wtfUidjit 2 years ago
@wtfwhatever
The Dash 8 has an undeservedly bad reputation which is perpetuated by troll-fags like Sjusoswedensux. The Concorde had bigger problems with its landing gear than the Dash 8 but Euros think that piece of crap was the best jet ever. : D
If I'm angry at anyone, I'm angry at myself for wasting my time responding to Swedish flame-trolls. Life in Sweden must be really boring.
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
HAhahahaha..... No The Q 400 has a bad rep... because its LANDINGEAR KEEPS BREAKING !
Nope Sweden is not more boring then most places.... I just got in from a night out... now its time for bed. Good night !
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
I like the Q-400. Got to try it out in a training simulator for Horizon. :)
Apollo580 2 years ago
Hmmmm.... Calling Concorde and Airbus Euro-crap ?
Airbus is together with Boeing the leading manufacturers of airplanes in the world.
cruisemate 2 years ago
Airbus is not with boeing at all there battling for top spot but boeing will win
YYZspotter24 2 years ago
? What ? Who says ?
The two manufactures Boeing and airbus are the two leading builders of aircrafts in the world.
They have no link. No one have said so.
cruisemate 2 years ago
@ cruisemate
Why bring Boeing into this? They're American and therefore not Euro-crap. Or did you think they made the Concorde? LOL.
Btw, who is the 3rd largest aircraft maker in the world?
Bombardier! Ahahahahahahahaha.
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Oh my godness ! 100000 empolyes and their aircraft still breaks into pieces on landing ! What is this ? Africa ? What are all pepole doing ?
3rd largest COMMERCIAL aircraft maker.
If you mix military aircraft into the picture UAC is bigger.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Piss off troll fag! I realize you're desperate for attention but its not Bombardier's fault your mommy didn't hug you enough. -_-
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
You are krazy ! The Q400 has ladningear problems and you talk about, SAAB, concorde, and now its my mothers ( not bombardiers) fault that the landing gear on the Q400 is breaking ?
I hope your mental problems can be medicated ! ;-)
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Yeah whatever, troll fag. Do you feel better now that I've acknowleged your pathetic existence?
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Hahaha.... If you run out of arguments, just try insults.....
Shifting focus from the airplanes landingear to scandinavian mythology
( trolls ) or sexual preference ( fag ).
Are you 10 years old or something ?
Don´t be angry at me, its not my fault that Bombardier faied in constructing and building of the Q400.
And no its not the fault of my mother, the trolls, or homosexuals either.... ;-)
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Yes you're right troll fag, I have run out of arguments. You only ignore them anyway, because we both know you have no legitimate reply to any of them. You can't refute SAS's poor safety record. You can't explain why Euro airlines choose the Dash 8 over Euro jets. You can't explain why no-one wants Saab aircraft. All you can do is repeat over and over that there were 8 Dash 8 crashes. And that's what internet troll fags do. You are Sweden's Perez Hilton. It's not an insult if its true.
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Hehehe.... At least you admit you run out of arguments !
SAS has a excelent safety record.... Thats why they sold the Q400. To keep the safety record perfect.
If you chose the Q400 insted of jets you do it to save money.
SAAB does not make any comercial aircraft anymoore... Thats why no one wants them, You cant buy them ! SAAB stillmakes combat airplane, missiles and so on
Saab started as a military industry which it still is, cars and commercial aiirplanes where just a side buisniz
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
SAS has "an excellent safety record"? ROFL!! Only 2 weeks before the first Dash 8 crash, the Swedish Civil Aviation Authority published a report that listed 2300 SAS flights that had been made without safety equipment being up to standard. The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority also accused SAS of cutting corners on maintenance and flying unsafe aircraft. It's not just me who thinks SAS sucks and that you're a liar and a troll fag - so do your airline regulators. :P
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
SAS safety record is great. You are bullshitting. Without any grounds for it.
The fatal accident rate for SAS is 0,19
The same rate for Air Canada is 0,33
0,00 is the best rate.
But this is not about SAS really beacus its not just sas who had problems with the Q400 landing gear, ask the japanes what they think of the Q400 landing gear !
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
SAS's safety record is shit. According to the Swedish News Agency TT, SAS had 441 flight "irregularities" (4 of them serious) in the first 7 months of this year. But that's still better than last year, when SAS had 486 incidents, 11 of them serious. SAS sucks!
If you want to compare airlines, compare SAS to Porter Airlines. They have a 0,00 fatal accident rate and use nothing but Dash 8 planes. Skytrax, the airline rating firm, gives them a 4 star rating. SAS can barely manage 3 stars. :D
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Those irregualities proves nothing more then a working reporting no-blame culture system and you know it.
But during the last 20 years SAS had 5 major incidents. One due to iceing on the wings (MD80) and one due to traffic controllers (MD80) and 3 accidents with Bombardiers dash8 q400.
and thats proves my point.
And buy the way that you belive that you make any sence is a prove of your childiness. I agree with cruise mate.
Why fight with a child that don´t knows any better.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
LOL! What the hell is a "working reporting no-blame culture system"? I can back up everything I say about SAS, using Swedish sources. All you can do is repeat, over and over, that the Dash 8 crashed 8 times. Who is REALLY the child here? When the Swedish Civil Air Authority investigated those 3 SAS crashes, they found SAS at fault. Your attempts to discredit your country's safety watchdog and your national news services only proves that you are a pathetic troll fag.
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
On September 14, 2007, Bombardier issued an All-Operators Message (AOM) recommending new procedures concerning the landing gear inspection for all aircraft with more than 8,000 flights. Bombardier acknowledged the likelihood of corrosion developing inside the retract actuator.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
So...what? Bombardier recommended new inspection procedures looking specifically for corrosion. Seems like the proper thing to do. It was suspected that improper hydraulic fluid became easily contaminated and was failing to retard corrosion. We use Avcorp fluids here in Canada. I think Europe uses vegetable oil. :-)
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Previous maintenance procedures mandated checking this component after 15,000 landings. The new maintenance schedule affects about 85 of the 165 Q400 aircraft worldwide. Some operators have found that spare parts for this unexpected actuator replacement program are not available, grounding their aircraft indefinitely.
That says it all !
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Yeah? And the source of this nugget of bs is... what? You're over-active imagination?
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
This source i wiklipedia. But it was on Swedish news at the time as well.
And you allready said how much you trust the Swedish news agencys so.....
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
But keep talking about SAS safety record.... LOL
The authority in sweden that investigates accidents for airplanes is HAVKOM and they have not investigated this accidents. Because they did not happen in sweden and the planes where not swedish registred.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Do you really want to try this nitpicking bullshit? I know you're desperate to try and cut the connection between SAS and Sweden but you can't escape the fact that SAS are headquartered in Stockholm. Or that the government of Sweden holds 21.4% ownership. So it doesn't matter if SAS also operates in Norway and Denmark. Because if it does I'll remind you that Wideroe is owned by SAS and they have 17 Dash8 100's, 10 Dash 8 300's and 2 Dash 8 Q400's (with an order for 4 more).
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Yes and Widerö is a Norweigian company only flying out of Norway.
They bought Q400 later then SAS when Bombardier had modified the landingear. So no problem for them. Same maitinance scheduel though. Just one more exampel of how it is a production error and not maitinance issues that cause the landing gear to break.
And yes sweden owns a part of SAS, the Danish and Norweigian goverment also owns part of SAS, together they own bigger part then then Swedish goverment does.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
@Sjusovare2
This is my final post. I'm tired of providing rebuttals to your incessant "the Dash 8 sucks" whining. There's nothing that Sweden can teach Canada about how to build quality aircraft or how to run an airline properly so maybe you should stfu.
Saab is a joke and so is SAS. Euro-crap like the Concorde and the Airbus A330 is ridiculously overpriced and 3rd rate airlines like AirFrance can't seem to keep them from crashing (Flights 4590 and 447 respectively). DASH 8 FOREVER!!! XD
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Airbus or Boeing aircraft are not over priced. They are good quality aircraft and that costs. If you whant a ceaper products there are Tupolev or Bombardier who builds airplane at a budget price with a lower set of quality standards.
Why you try to mix Saab and now Air France into this? I have not a clue.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
most regional jets are Bombardier either the Dash 8 or the CRJ series SAAB is a joke at most airlines a SAAB captain get's paid $59 an hour as a 5 year captain, in a CRJ-700 get's paid 70$ an hour
TheBasketball5135 2 years ago
Hahaha.... I did not know that.
That the Captain get extra "risk" money to fly the Bombardier aircraft ! LOL
I rest my case.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
wow you "rest" you case? you have no proof or evidence of what your talking about that wasn't in context. No bombardier aircraft are larger and therefore can carry more passengers. There were 3 cases in 12 months where 3 Boeing 737's crashed due to hydroloc failures and it's still the most popular aircraft in the aviation industry. Dash 8 is still a reliable aircraft since the gear faults were worked out
TheBasketball5135 2 years ago
Well time and time again you prove my point for me.... Its very nice of you.
3 crashes with 737 in a year. There are more then 6000 built, lets guess 5000 in operation. 3 faults on 5000.
During 2007, 8 Q400 crashed with landing gear failiure. there are 300 Q400 built today, in 2007 it was even less.
That would mean it is 44 times more likely to have a accident with the Q 400 then the Boeing 737.
That is the differance between quality and cheap junk for you.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
the Q400 crashed cuz the SAS mechanics didnt know how to maintain the gear i know a test pilot for maple aviation they do testing for DHC and bombardier
YYZspotter24 2 years ago
Or maybe as a chief mechanic at SAS said: " I have never in 30 years as a airplane mechanic seen a plane with so many problems as the Q400 "
Thats what happens if you start to deliver a plane that is not ready yet.... SAS was one of the firts who recived the Q400.
The SAS subsidary Wiberö did not have any problems with there Q400 (they where produced later) ... so blaming mechanics is just silly.
Just accept thet Bombardier fucked up !
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
just accept your wrong there is nothing wrong with the Q400 SAS is a shit airline for DHC anyway porter austrian continental fronteir and horizon never had a problem with them so it is SAS
Blaming bombardier is just silly
just accept SAS fucked up
YYZspotter24 2 years ago
In 2007 there where 8 landing gear failures.
4 in Denmark.
1 in Germany.
1 in Japan.
1 in Lituhania.
1 in South Korea. But thats just normal right ? Accidents worldwide with landingear not comeing down. All this problems was with early produced Q400. Bombardier started selling them before they where finished testing them. It was not a safe product.
Now they suffer from it. Their reputation as a low quality airplane manufacturer is cemented.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
because bombardier makes the best props and RJ's in the world
YYZspotter24 2 years ago
my friend sorry . i want to clarify first that i am not french but calling air france 3rd rate airlines shows a bit of ignorence on your part
nizz00 2 years ago
Comment removed
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
S.A.S. replaced all of their old Dash8 400's with new Dash8 400's.
Sounds like they trust the aircraft.
S.A.S. also have fired half of their maintenance personnel and sent the other half back to school.
Integrity2109 2 years ago
I think SAS replaced their Q400s with CRJs
gaguy1967 2 years ago
There are no SAS Dash8 Q400 anymore.
The Latvian AirBalic has 8 Q400 on order... if they don´t go bankrupt first. SAS are withdawing from Airbaltic
Widerö has Q400. Widerö is not SAS but a Daughter company that specialise in Norwegian domestic flights with propeller planes.
cruisemate 2 years ago
Thats right. SAS Does not want its brand connected with this noice makeinge free falling piece of junk.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
LOL, yeah SAS should have bought European planes instead like the Saab 340 or the ATR 42/72. I wonder why they don't. Could it be because the ATR 72 falls like a brick at the first sign of icing, like with American Eagle Flight 4184? I read somewhere that ATR had to pay $110 million in compensation to the families of the 68 passengers and crew who were killed. LOL, that's why Euro-crap is so expensive. So much compensation to pay! :D
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
8 Landingear failiurs in 2007 with the crash-8 Q 400.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Comment removed
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
What do I know about anything? Well... I know what bidragskulture is. :D I know that your comparison of the Dash 8 to Wal-Mart is really stupid. I know you like to twist the facts to minimize the Swedish Civil Aviation Authority's condemnation of SAS maintenance standards. I know that it doesn't matter where a plane crashes, it's who owns/ operates the plane that's important. Am I leaving anything out?
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Yes ofcourse you are leaving a lot out.
Its not just who flyes the plane but who built the piece of crap to begin with.
As you se the crashes is not just in Europe but all over the world.
SAAB 340 is to small for SAS and has not been built for more then 10 years.
SAS should no be involved with this small propeller aircraft att all. and especially not the ones who break into pieces on landing.
cruisemate 2 years ago
My comparison Dash8 vs wal-mart was spot on.
Cheap crap sales. It doesn´t matter in what buisness. there is always a market for a low quality product.
And that is ok. I just don´t want to fly with it. But if you do its all up to you.
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Comment removed
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
they fly over my house every day in toronto atleast 4 planes a day
mgrvercetti 2 years ago
hey, how do u get the customized banner above the description on your videos?
Robusto94 2 years ago
I sent you an e-mail with the instructions.
YULspotter 2 years ago
A crash-8 Q400 that does not crash on landing ? That must have been the first !
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
@Sjusovare2
Actually its very common in Canada - we know how to maintain them properly over here. :) What's really interesting is how so many European airlines would rather fly the Dash 8, despite its bad reputation, than waste their money on those flying turds that Saab makes. :p
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
YouKarzy !
Saab hasn´t made any commercial aircraft for like 10 years ! Maybe that has anything to do with anything ?
Good the keep the Crash 8 overthere so we don´t have to fly with them overhere. :-)
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
@Sjusowhatever
I thought the Saab 2000 was still in production, but I checked and you were right - they stopped making them 10 years ago. ROFL! They only managed to sell about 50 of them. It was made to compete with the Dash 8 and the Dash 8 kicked its ass. XD Like I said, the Dash 8 is very popular with European airlines. Norway's Wideroe Airlines really love theirs. :-) Woohoo, GO NORWAY!
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Yes I´m always right.
Saab 2000 was never sold at the same time as the Q400 which make your claims really silly.
Besides its not a question of quantity its about quality. If you want to fly with a low cost, crapy, airplane thats your problem.
The crash 8 Q400 is just that...
Dash8 Q400 = CRASH ! boom, pang, duns.....
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
Duh - I never said the Saab 2000 was made to compete with the Q400, I said the Dash 8. (there's more than one model you know). And if the issue is quality then let's talk about the low quality of service of Scandinavian Airlines. There's a reason that 3 of 8 of those hydraulic failures occurred at that airline, and it has nothing to do with the aircraft. I think SAS used the crashes to get a sweetheart deal on their CRJ jets. :( SAS sucks!
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Hi, Why does the Dash 8 have a bad reputation? They are the first aeroplane I fell in love with and they are beautiful. And don't knock the Saab 340 either. Regional Express (REX) use them.
PLANESRULE 2 years ago
The Dash 8 has a bad reputation because Swedes can't do maintenance properly. Scandinavian Airlines had 3 landing gear failures in 4 days in 2007 and won't stop whining about it. This despite the fact that the accident investigations found that the failures were the result of corrosion caused by using unsuitable hydraulic fluid and in one of the crashes an improperly seated O-Ring blocked the valve opening. Despite the findings, SAS refused to use the Q400 and got CRJ jets in compensation.
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
First of all SAS is not a Swedish Company. Its a scandinavian one.
But you are right in the maintenace part. SAS has always used high quality aircraft with normal need of maintenance.
Airbus, boeing, MD, and Fokker.
So when you buy a low quality aircraft like the Q400, the higher need of maintenance comes as a chock.
Suddenly you realize you got what you paid for ! So they got rid of them. If you are to be a medium cost airline you have to have better planes then that. Its just that simple
Sjusovare2 2 years ago
The headquarters of SAS AB are in Stockholm, so that makes it a Swedish company. Two weeks before the Dash 8 crashes the Swedish Civil Aviation Authority blasted SAS for its lax maintenance procedures. The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority also complained about SAS maintenance when an SAS plane took off with a fuel leak. So it isn't just me who thinks your airline sucks - your governments think so too! :p Btw, I noticed that your list of SAS aircraft didn't include any Saabs. ROFL!
meNoKrazy 2 years ago
Yeeeaaa.... youre twisting the truth as much as you can. The Swedish Civil Aviation authority don´t complain on anyone. They write remarks. Almost every airline that gets inspected get some form of remark. Its their job to write some ! Check how many remarks FAA write every year.... Plenty man plenty !
The fact is that the only major incident SAS have had is with the crash8 Q400.
I wounder why ? Maybe beacuse its low quality Junk !
Sjusovare2 2 years ago