Jazz CRJ "Oops" in Toronto...

[conehead]

Right now there is a Jazz RJ sitting on her butt on a taxiway in YYZ. Shortly after landing, while taxi-ing in, both main landing gear have retracted. The nose gear is still extended, cabin door is open, pax being off-loaded on to a bus.

[Kip Powick]

Captain : After Landing Check-list.

FO : What ?

Captain : C'mon Whiplash, you've been gloomy this whole trip...Cheer-up !!

FO: OK ---- Oooooooopps !!

I know, I know..the squat switch probably wouldn't allow that

[DEFCON]

"I know, I know..the squat switch probably wouldn't allow that"

but it did

[Vsplat]

A bit early perhaps to declare the cause, methinks.

The RJ has had structural gear collapses, for a time (not sure if it is still the case) there was a restriction on braking while turning, such as onto a high speed exit, as it could result in the mains giving way.

Let's wait for the facts.....

Vs

[DEFCON]

Vs

In the broader sense you are of course correct.

"The RJ has had structural gear collapses, for a time (not sure if it is still the case) there was a restriction on braking while turning, such as onto a high speed exit, as it could result in the mains giving way."

I don't know why but, I can't stop laughing!

[conehead]

It does appear that this occurred on a high-speed exit.....

[Mitch Cronin]

If the gents had selected gear up, surely the nose would have collapsed ... but it's the only one still down and locked.

...sure looks funny sittin' there like that.

[Don Hudson]

Conehead;

Re, "It does appear that this occurred on a high-speed exit..... "

Vs's input is interesting nonetheless. Understand it was both gear that collapsed? Not sure high side loads would cause this.

The FDA Program (only on some of our 320's) has a high speed exit event and a high yaw rate on ground, both of which include the lateral load parameter.

[CD]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_11184.aspx

[Guest rattler]

I see that city news YYZ thinks it was the "front gear" that collapsed. Nice accurate report.

Attention News Editors:

Air Canada Jazz Confirms Incident

HALIFAX, May 20 /CNW/ - Air Canada Jazz confirms that an incident

involving a CRJ100 occurred today at Toronto Pearson Airport.

Air Canada Jazz flight AC8911 arrived from Moncton carrying 37 passengers

and 3 crew members. After landing, while moving from the active runway onto

the taxiway, the main landing gear buckled. Passengers and crew were not

injured and subsequently were released following medical examination.

Air Canada Jazz is cooperating with investigating authorities. No further

information is available while the incident is under investigation.

[DEFCON]

This minutes version:

F/O landed...hard.

Gear failed.

FOD to both engines.

[Mitch Cronin]

FOD to both engines.

...Those little things are mounted up so high.... ? even sitting like it is with no mains they're still higher than the inlet of a lot of birds... tire debris?

[Seeker]

This minutes version:

F/O  landed...hard.

Gear failed.

FOD to both engines.

Gotta be one seriously hard landing to collapse both main gear - doesn't sound plausible. I would expect other pieces of the airplane to break off before the gear would fold.

[canadairguy]

It's gotta be one terrible landing to collapse both main gears.

In 1995, the CF "collapsed" one main gear on a Challenger 601 during a training flight. I say "collapsed" because the landing (actually a bounce) cracked one side of the MLG trunnion box and deformed he other side, allowing the aft trunnion to fall out of the box and, after flying around to burn fuel for about a half-hour, the front trunnion also fell out of the box and the gear fell from the aircraft.

On the bounce, the FDR sampled 4G so we knew that impact was at least that.

[Seeker]

For a laugh go read what these "geniuses" have to say about it:

Globe and Mail comments

[Don Hudson]

Doesn't appear to be any sharp turns from 06R onto D3, a high-speed exit.

[AAS]

A picture from Airliners

Another

[Guest rattler]

This minutes version:

F/O  landed...hard.

Gear failed.

FOD to both engines.

If so how did they manage to get off of the runway and onto the taxi way. Surely if the landing was hard enough to collapse the gear, th..e collapse would not have been delayed enough for the aircraft to clear the runway??? Is this a case of if something goes wrong, blame the guy in the right hand seat?

[conehead]

Airworthiness Directive

Number:

CF-2004-18R1

Subject:

Main Landing Gear Main Fittings

Effective:

16 September 2004 (the effective date of Airworthiness Directive CF-2004-18).

Revision:

Supersedes Airworthiness Directive CF-2004-18 issued 16 September 2004.

Applicability:

Bombardier Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 “Regional Jet” aircraft equipped with main landing gear main fittings, P/N 601R85001-3 or 601R85001-4 (MDI P/N 17064-101, 17064-102, 17064-103 or 17064-104).

Compliance:

When indicated, unless already accomplished

Background:

One report has been received of the main landing gear main fitting cracked at the section between the forward face of the main fitting on the trunnion side and the area just above the shock strut upper attach lug radius. Laboratory examination has found that the fatigue crack was initiated from a corrosion pit located on the chamfer of the inner bore of the pintle pin socket of the main landing gear main fitting. Failure of the main fitting could result in the collapse of the main landing gear.

Transport Canada has certified the new design of the main landing gear main fitting, part numbers, 601R85001-83 and 601R85001-84 (MDI P/N 17064-107 and -108) as a terminating modification. This directive has been revised to Revision 1 to mandate the retrofit of all in-service CL-600-2B19 ‘’Regional Jet‘‘ aircraft with the redesigned main fitting and to terminate the need to comply with Parts I, II and III of this directive as well as with the requirements of Airworthiness Directive CF-1999-32R3.

Corrective Actions:

Part I - Detailed Visual Inspection of Lateral Surface of Main Fittings

1. For each main fitting, initially, in accordance with the following schedule, whichever occurs later:

(a) Upon accumulating a total of 8,000 flight cycles or 48 months since new, whichever occurs first;

( Upon accumulating a total of 8,000 flight cycles or 48 months since last overhaul of the main landing gear, whichever occurs first; or

© Within 50 flight cycles after the effective date of this directive.

2. Subsequently, at intervals not to exceed five (5) days, repeat the inspection specified in Part I, paragraph 1 above.

3. Unless required by Part II, Paragraph 3 of this directive, the repetitive inspection requirement specified in Part I, paragraph 2 above is no longer required as soon as an ultrasonic inspection as specified in Part III of this directive has been performed.

4. Replace cracked main landing gear main fitting prior to further flight.

Part II - Detailed Visual Inspection of Main Fitting Forward Bushing Sealant

1. For each main fitting, initially, in accordance with the following schedule, whichever occurs later:

(a) Upon accumulating a total of 8,000 flight cycles or 48 months since new, whichever occurs first;

( Upon accumulating a total of 8,000 flight cycles or 48 months since last overhaul of the main landing gear, whichever occurs first; or

© Within 500 flight cycles or 6 months after the effective date of this directive, whichever occurs first.

Perform a detailed visual inspection for sealant damage or corrosion in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin (ASB), A601R-32-099, dated 15 September 2004, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Aircraft Certification, Transport Canada.

2. Subsequently, at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles or 6 months, whichever occurs first, repeat the inspection specified in Part II, paragraph 1 above.

3. If any of the following sealant damage or corrosion is detected:

i. Sealant partially or completely missing from the main fitting forward face or from the bushing flange;

ii. Sealant partially or completely disbonded from the main fitting forward face or from the bushing flange;

iii. Sealant cracked; or

iv. Presence of corrosion (discoloration or red colored deposit) around the bushing flange.

(a) Perform a detailed visual inspection of the main fitting lateral surface for cracking specified in Part I within 5 days, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed five (5) days; and

( Perform ultrasonic inspection of the main fitting lateral surface for cracking specified in Part III within 500 flight cycles or 6 months, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles or 6 months, whichever occurs first.

© As soon as an ultrasonic inspection as specified in Part II, paragraph 3( of this directive has been performed, the repetitive visual inspection for sealant damage or corrosion specified in Part II, paragraph 2 and the repetitive visual inspection of the main fitting lateral surface specified in Part II, paragraph 3(a) are no longer required.

Part III - Ultrasonic Inspection of Main Fittings

1. For each main fitting, initially, in accordance with the following schedule, whichever occurs later:

(a) Upon accumulating a total of 8,000 flight cycles or 48 months since new, whichever occurs first;

( Upon accumulating a total of 8,000 flight cycles or 48 months since last overhaul of the main landing gear, whichever occurs first; or

© Within 500 flight cycles or 6 months after the effective date of this directive, whichever occurs first.

Perform an ultrasonic inspection in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin (ASB), A601R 32 099, dated 15 September 2004, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Aircraft Certification, Transport Canada.

2. Subsequently, at intervals not to exceed 5000 flight cycles or 30 months, whichever occurs first, unless the inspection interval has been modified by Part II, paragraph 3 of this directive, repeat the inspection specified in Part III, paragraph 1 above.

3. Replace cracked main landing gear main fitting prior to further flight.

Part IV - Replacement with New Main Landing Gear Main Fittings

By 30 June 2007, both RH and LH main landing gear main fittings must be replaced with the new main fittings, P/N 601R85001-83 and 601R85001-84 (MDI P/N 17064-107 and 17064-108) in accordance with Bombardier SB 601R-32-093, dated 17 October 2003, or SB 601R-32-093, Revision A, dated 21 September 2004, or SB 601R-32-093, Revision B, dated 14 July 2005, or later revisions approved by Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada. Incorporation of the new main fittings terminates the need to comply with Parts I, II and III of this directive and with the requirements of Airworthiness Directive CF-1999-32R3.

Authorization:

For Minister of Transport

B. Goyaniuk

Chief, Continuing Airworthiness

Contact:

Mr. Anthony Wan, Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613 952-4410, facsimile 613 996-9178 or e-mail wana@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communications Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8, or 1-800-305-2059, or http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communic...tre/address.asp.

24-0022 (01-2001)

[conehead]

That's interesting.... the smilies appeared when I cut and pasted the AD...

[Kip Powick]

That's interesting.... the smilies appeared when I cut and pasted the AD...

..because that particular smilie is made by the letter "B" and close bracket ")" and when put together they form ...if you want to use "B" and a ")" one has to separate them by one space like this (B )..

Fun in cyber world

[Guest Hawkeye]

Bombardier Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 “Regional Jet” aircraft equipped with main landing gear main fittings, P/N 601R85001-3 or 601R85001-4 (MDI P/N 17064-101, 17064-102, 17064-103 or 17064-104).

If one were to carry on and post similar immature comments about this incident as some of you have clearly done here, it would probably sound something like this.” I see that that these fin #'s (102,103,104) were once owned by Air Canada mainline. Maybe all those hard landings by A/C pilots over the years were a factor. Therefore, not a whole lot of good landings left for the less superior Jazz Pilots."

You guys poking fun and making such idle chatter are really sounding like women who like to gossip. Would it not be wiser to be more professional and wait until the investigation is complete and detailed information is made available?

It wasn't so long ago when an Air Canada Airbus crew had little situational awareness and found them selves approaching at the wrong airport in B.C. When certain funny comments were made then, here on this site, I remember cries for "lets wait to have all the facts before making a judgment call." Are double standards in effect here?

Judge not less you be judged.

[Kip Powick]

Hawkeye..

Me thinks you need to lighten up. That there was an incident is a fact but what is more important is that no one was hurt.

That fact alone leads to light hearted banter and it is always within ones nature to poke fun at the "competition". As long as the aviation industry keeps grinding on there will always be incidents and accidents and those adventures that end without the loss of life are those that most enjoy discussing, perhaps in a "gossiping" manner but certainly without malice.

Re the RJ......unless any poster here was in the cockpit, all that is written here...concerning cause and effect.... is pure speculation, and I am certain the vast majority of posters here are well aware of that fact.

Have a nice week.

[Leading Edge]

Bombardier Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 “Regional Jet” aircraft equipped with main landing gear main fittings, P/N 601R85001-3 or 601R85001-4 (MDI P/N 17064-101, 17064-102, 17064-103 or 17064-104).

If one were to carry on and post similar immature comments about this incident as some of you have clearly done here, it would probably sound something like this.” I see that that these fin #'s (102,103,104) were once owned by Air Canada mainline. Maybe all those hard landings by A/C pilots over the years were a factor. Therefore, not a whole lot of good landings left for the less superior Jazz Pilots."

You guys poking fun and making such idle chatter are really sounding like women who like to gossip. Would it not be wiser to be more professional and wait until the investigation is complete and detailed information is made available?

It wasn't so long ago when an Air Canada Airbus crew had little situational awareness and found them selves approaching at the wrong airport in B.C. When certain funny comments were made then, here on this site, I remember cries for "lets wait to have all the facts before making a judgment call." Are double standards in effect here?

Judge not less you be judged.

Two of the posts calling for people to wait and see regarding the facts appear to be from AC Pilots, and another from a WJ guy (I am guessing, on all three counts) So, I think that you should retract your post insinuating that AC Pilots are speculating...

That would be the mature thing to do.

[DEFCON]

Quote of my own, "F/O landed...hard"

This comment wasn't intended as an implication that the landing itself was THE causal event. It's more than likely there is a string of other factors which combined to produce the end result.