Leading Edge Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 Q: For the Maintainence Gents on the Board, the RJ was famous for sticky brakes, could the previously mentioned structural problems coupled with sticky brakes lead to this type of failure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 The spar box failed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 To-day a retired pilot from RAPCAN sent me a Power Point Presentation ( that he got from a "friend in YUL) which includes a ton of photos about this incident. Wanna copy ??? email me .. (Confidentiality as to names/handles respected as always) kidi@sympatico.ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 Collapsed wings not collapsed gear? Hard (very hard) landing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crow Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Heard it was actually only the left side that failed. The right side is compressed under all the weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 I have seen the pictures and I can confirm what Mitch has stated, both gears folded back. something does not sit right with these pictures.I could see one gear folded back maybe, but both in identical position???? The final report will be interesting. There is also speculation that this aircraft just came back from a third party maintenance outfit for a complete ship set of the gear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 A bounce then a hard landing I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 A bounce then a hard landing I believe. Perhaps it was the gear collapse that caused the hard landing rather than a hard landing causing the gear to collapse. As Roberts says, strange that both gear would have folded backwards. Surely a hard landing would have driven the gear up through the wing (it they were to fail at all) and how come no passengers are reporting being injured. If the landing was hard enough to smash the gear, surely some one inside the aircraft would have been hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 rattler, it depends on the nature of the impact. We all assume a hard landing is a straight vertical impulse, Most of the time, this isn't the case. When the crew detects a high descent to the runway, often times there is an instinctive control input to arrest the descent. This input can have a paradoxic effect of driving the tail down, and, depending on where the gear is relative to the centre of rotation of the aircraft, you can get one heck of a lateral impact on the gear as it is rotating forward at the moment of impact with the runway. With the landing speeds as high as they are and if the crew was working to prevent a hard landing, it would not surprise me at all to learn that the gear failed backward. Just a guess.... Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 ....and how come no passengers are reporting being injured. If the landing was hard enough to smash the gear, surely some one inside the aircraft would have been hurt. Even if no one was hurt I'm surprised that we haven't seen a story in the news about the "crash landing" from one of the passengers looking for his, or her, 15 minutes of fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Even if no one was hurt I'm surprised that we haven't seen a story in the news about the "crash landing" from one of the passengers looking for his, or her, 15 minutes of fame. Guess it is one of the benefits of being a separate company from Air Canada. Press not interested Of course it could also be a great case of damage control when even the Toronto Star does not take up the story except for a very brief article on May20th. But then again this story did not hit this forum: ACE Aviation chief to quit Peter Rakobowchuk Canadian press MONTREAL–Robert Milton says he expects to leave the boards of companies that make up ACE Aviation (TSX: ACE. before the year is over, paving the way for him to step down. "I'm in a position now where clearly by the end of the year, it would be my expectation that I'm moving off the subsidiary company boards," Milton told reporters Tuesday at ACE's annual meeting. The CEO boasted that ACE had achieved a lot of the milestones and also said he expects Air Canada's maintenance division to be sold in the second quarter. But Milton stressed that ACE will retain "meaningful" ownership in Air Canada Technical Services "because we think this is an exciting business that can grow." He refused to say how many investors are currently interested in the maintenance operation. Milton also would not define what percentage of ownership ACE would retain. "It really depends on the ultimate winner, the structure they seek and what's acceptable to us," he added. "Given the names we're down to, these are high-quality, high-capability entities who are really going to help us to propel this business forward," Milton said. The ACE executive complained about the carnage which has been going on in airlines in North America. "Basically the airline employees that do aircraft maintenance in North America have been devastated as maintenance has been outsourced by airlines." Milton said ACE is going in the opposite direction – "getting big investors to grow ACTS to the benefit of its owners and its employees, so we look at this as a big positive picture." During the first quarter, ACE recorded a loss of $72 million, worth 70 cents per share. But Milton brushed off the loss, repeating what he had been saying for years. "So long as you are a long-haul international airline based in Canada, the ability to stimulate people from around the world to come to Saskatoon or Val D'Or in February, means you will loose money in the first quarter," he said. ACE was created less than three years ago as part of Air Canada's emergence from bankruptcy-court protection. The holding company controls Air Canada as well as the Jazz Air and Aeroplan income funds. Milton predicted that Air Canada will do "very well for the full year". He also said Jazz was running a good business and offering shareholders "terrific yields" and he called Aeroplan "a phenomenal success story." But Milton noted that high fuel prices continued to be a thorn in the company's side. "Every dollar per barrel that oil moves up is a hit of about $28 million on operating income ... these are very big numbers but it's part of the reality that we deal with," he added. Shares of ACE closed at $26.20, up 27 cents on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah from the likes of milton in a thread about airplanes??!! ... Rattler! ..... ... I told him I'd be here longer than him. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah from the likes of milton in a thread about airplanes??!! ... Rattler! ..... ... I told him I'd be here longer than him. .... You likely will Mitch but in his case I suspect his millions will shelter him against the downside of leaving. Of course guys like you and I have our pensions to tide us over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 This was the only article in the news from the passengers perspective that I saw... Of course, the delayed stress and anxiety has yet to set in. Air Canada passenger upset over carry-on stress Last Updated: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 | 9:30 AM AT CBC News Passengers aboard an Air Canada Jazz flight from Moncton to Toronto got a rocky welcome at Pearson International Airport on the weekend, but at least one passenger is feeling uneasy about what happened after they got off the plane. The 37 passengers and three crew members were not injured after the main landing gear collapsed Sunday, but Sandy Kemsley says the real stress came later, as passengers waited for hours to get the carry-on belongings they left behind as they were evacuated from the aircraft. "I would have been a lot more comfortable if I had been able to get even just my handbag that had my identification, my wallet and that sort of thing in it right away as it was, since I was kind of stressed for the whole three or four hours we were waiting," said Kemsley, a Toronto woman who had been visiting family in the Maritimes. "I had no idea. Was it being secure, and how was I going to get it back, and what if I didn't get it back? That sort of thing." Airline staff had asked the passengers to leave all their belongings on the plane. Kemsley said she was angry to see that, hours later, her belongings were placed in the arrivals area, where there was no security nearby. "They brought our carry-on things out in big plastic bags and started putting them out on a cart. And I saw my purse, and said, 'That's my purse,' and grabbed it. And anyone could have done the same thing." The main landing gear on the 50-seat regional jet collapsed shortly after the plane landed on the Pearson runway. Passengers say the plane touched down once, bounced and landed again, making a loud, banging noise. Kemsley said she just thought a tire had blown. Air Canada has apologized to its passengers for the delay in returning their belongings, but is releasing few details, other than saying the Transportation Safety Board is investigating the incident. CBC article... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 This was the only article in the news from the passengers perspective that I saw... Of course, the delayed stress and anxiety has yet to set in. CBC article... Most ambulance chasing lawyers would have served notice of a "class action" law suit by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 What an asinine remark!! You'd be the first at the door with hand out if there was absolutely ANYTHING in it for you!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Speaking of which... Flight 560 Updates April 12, 2007 At present, we are in advanced settlement negotiations with defence counsel. The proposed settlement, if approved by the Court, will provide compensation to passengers who have sustained physical injuries, psychological injuries consequent to physical injuries and physical manifestations of a psychological injury. In addition, we are negotiating for an enhanced voucher that will be provided to all passengers, without proof of injury. We have recently sent a letter to all class members, for whom we have current mailing information, to inform you of a possible limitation date of May 22, 2007 which could affect a small segment of class members who wish to commence an individual lawsuit based on purely psychological injuries. SkyServiceClassaction.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 SkyServiceClassaction.com Ohhhhhhhhh!That sorta stuff gets me soooooo irked! ....Duhhhhh! Air travel has it's risks, and ...stuff happens!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 I don't know Mitch but in this case they might be right about deserving compensation. A landing that's so hard it bends the fuselage might not count as "stuff happens". Unexpected turbulence or a birdstrike and I'd agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 rattler, it depends on the nature of the impact. We all assume a hard landing is a straight vertical impulse, Most of the time, this isn't the case. When the crew detects a high descent to the runway, often times there is an instinctive control input to arrest the descent. This input can have a paradoxic effect of driving the tail down, and, depending on where the gear is relative to the centre of rotation of the aircraft, you can get one heck of a lateral impact on the gear as it is rotating forward at the moment of impact with the runway. With the landing speeds as high as they are and if the crew was working to prevent a hard landing, it would not surprise me at all to learn that the gear failed backward. Just a guess.... Vs If it was a very hard landing the likelihood of the gear going back is minimal. It would be more so of the gear going through the top of the wing and the fuselage having buckling marks in it. Also the drag brace would probably fail causing the gear to splay outwards on the path of least resistance. Even if the gear were to fold back, the likelihood that they would be so equal is odd to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 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 Just looking at the ADs and the areas for inspections it does seem like a lot of them are concerned with that area but instead of the side loads wouldn't it just be the brake application that caused the shock strut and wheels to rotate counter clockwise back towards the flaps? eg the brakes slow the lower portion of the assy but the upper portion (the fuse) keeps on going down the rwy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Someone finaly published some of the photos: Right main: Left Main: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Holy excrement!! That is a SERIOUS failure! Bombardier is undoubtedly sweating profusely on this one!! Guaranteed write-off me thinks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Just looking at the ADs and the areas for inspections it does seem like a lot of them are concerned with that area but instead of the side loads wouldn't it just be the brake application that caused the shock strut and wheels to rotate counter clockwise back towards the flaps? eg the brakes slow the lower portion of the assy but the upper portion (the fuse) keeps on going down the rwy. The pictures don't show the good angles. What you need to see is the gear leg itself. The pictures seem to point to an aft trunion support failure but I suspect that the trunion let go as a result of the gear buckling. Again, it's hard to tell with those pictures. Brake applications combined with side loads are likely the catalyst that made the airplane stop in its tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Brake applications combined with side loads are likely the catalyst that made the airplane stop in its tracks. It didn't stop dead in it's tracks. Other pictures showed he dragged it quite a ways..... Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.