Guest floatrrr Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 The landing that had just occurred , very likely was not the cause, like another poster said, if it was, it would have collapsed on the runway. An investigation will find what or if any AD's were complied with. My opinion {not that anyone cares here} we will start to see an increasing number of these sorts of mishaps from Jazz. Point the finger wherever you want. Pilots, Maintenance, AC Manufacturer but please remember where the root of the problem usually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I'll throw in my $.0018 USD here. The chances of both main gears collapsing at the same time are virtually nil. The very fact that they retract inward almost precludes that. The possibility that the F/O inadvertantly retracted them as the landing checklist was being carried out? Possible but you can't separate the mains from the nose in the retract sequence so why is the nose gear still down. Scratch that one. My fairly well educated opinion is this was a systems failure but I'm probably wrong. On second thought it's undoubtedly pilot error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 "but please remember where the root of the problem usually is." ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrrr Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 "but please remember where the root of the problem usually is." ??? ??? . ???. I know you are not that naive. Let's just let the investigation and ensuing audit expose the problem ,shall we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I've just seen detailed pictures... Oh my! ... The gear didn't collapse... it went backward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Really? Both collapsed rearwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 I've just seen detailed pictures... Oh my! ... The gear didn't collapse... it went backward! C'mon Mitch, let's see those pics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I believe one went outward and the other rearward. Look at the upper surface of the port wing. In the pics it appears that the gear assembly actually pierced and extends above the surface? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 No, the gear folded back and pushed the flap panel up. That's what you can see in the pics from a distance. Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Thanks Deicer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 " the gear folded back and pushed the flap panel up" Interesting? Or scary??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Is it a 100 series ac? Is there some form of linkage in the gear system that isn't fail safe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 there's been an AD out on that gear for at leas 3 years.... The gear is prone to cracking in the transition area between the trunion and the gear leg. Visual inspection is required every 5 days and NDT every month (at least that is what I remember from the amount of times we did this on the Air Canada aircraft. This was a 100 aircraft, one that used to be operated by Air Canada No. CF-2004-18R1 Issue Date: 21 September 2005 AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your name. ADs are issued pursuant to Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 593. Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H, the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable Ads. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above- referenced Standard. This AD has been issued by the Continuing Airworthiness Division (AARDG), Aircraft Certification Branch, Transport Canada, Ottawa, telephone (613) 952-4357. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 there's been an AD out on that gear for at leas 3 years.... The gear is prone to cracking in the transition area between the trunion and the gear leg. Visual inspection is required every 5 days and NDT every month (at least that is what I remember from the amount of times we did this on the Air Canada aircraft. This was a 100 aircraft, one that used to be operated by Air Canada No. CF-2004-18R1 Issue Date: 21 September 2005 ] Posted 21 May by Mr. Conehead..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 The photos I saw showed both gear folded backward and tearing parts of flap and other structure with them (some of which had indeed been injested by the engines)... The right side appeared a little worse with some of the torn structure protruding above the wing... the belly was scraped as if some movement had continued as the a/c sank lower... IOW, this was no "systems failure". It was more like simultaneous structural failure of both main gear (fwd attach fittings perhaps?).... We'll all have to wait to find out what caused that. Sorry to say I cannot post, nor forward any photos... I only saw them, I don't have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Mitch; From your observations of the photos, can you see how far it appears the a/c travelled? Just trying to picture the moment of collapse...high or low speed, turning/not turning etc. The a/c is quite a distance from the c/l of the runway so I am assuming the collapse was at low speed and that the a/c travelled only a few feet foward rather than sliding a ways...just curious, I know the initial report will provide some detail...tx. I have no sympathy for your addiction but I am slightly jealous of your bakelite toy...I recall the one we had as children...it didn't have that neat clicky dial because one had to call the operator for a connection... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 ... I'll leave the talk of that addiction elsewhere... No Don, I can't tell anything at all how far the travel... I'd be guessing, based on what I've seen, that the lions share of the damage was most likely done at touchdown and as the a/c moved, the gear continued to tear its way aft and under.... until it became evident to those up front that dragging the belly all the way to the gate wasn't an option. .... Just a guess though. Glad to see you're still poking your nose around this place Don... Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Posted 21 May by Mr. Conehead..... Guess we are not the only ones with "Old timer's Kip "...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Mitch, are you saying it appears as if the gear failed during the landing and the crew kept it moving until it wouldn't go any further? Yikes! I was thinking that the gear failed right where it stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Heck Seeker, I really don't know... Looking at pictures isn't going to tell the whole story no matter how much you squint.... not in this case at least. I'd say that's a possibility though. ... and when you consider the sorts of stresses that could cause the structural failure on both sides, it looks to me more likely that there would have been an initial failure at the point of touchdown , perhaps followed by a somewhat gradual collapse?... but maybe not... maybe it was sudden when the bird was on D3? ... I need to stop guessing... I don't want to sound like I'm drawing any conclusions.... Like someone else said, Maybe all the landings this machine had had, coupled with the known problems that gear can have, came together on that day to equate to sudden simultaneous failure on Delta 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Thanks Mitch... I agree with you... drawing any conclusions still can't be done and your hesitancy in doing so is top notch. The information will be out soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 I have the pictures you speak of Mitch, The failure is an exact scenario of the AD I posted earlier. The crack inspection area is at the forward transition area where the trunion transitions to gear leg. Lufthansa had the same thing happen (the AD originated after that fact) . Maybe the landing caused the crack and the taxi out with side loads was the straw that broke the camels back? One thing is for sure.... the visual inspection asked by that AD is not likely to find problems.... That aircraft seems like a good example of that. Inspected every 5 days and still..... Éric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 ...I recall the one we had as children...it didn't have that neat clicky dial because one had to call the operator for a connection... They had phones back then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 Has anyone listened to the ATC recording on one of those ATC sites. Isn't there a rumour of debris on the runway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.