How Do You Say 'Code Brown!' In French?

"user314" (user314) 01/05/2020 at 18:43 • Filed to: Planelopnik, Dash-8, Jazz air, Canada, Code brown, yikes

3

24

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

A video posted to Twitter shows a wheel !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! a Jazz Air Dash 8-300 Friday, seconds after taking off from Trudeau Airport in Montreal. The plane landed safely after circling the airport for a time to burn off fuel, and no one was injured.

CB > user314 01/05/2020 at 18:58

0

Air Canada never fails to disappoint. Looking forward to flying to the UK and seeing what falls off then!

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > user314 01/05/2020 at 19:11

1

What is the point in circling before landing? Just a waste of fuel. Might as well get closer to or to your destination. Might crash, sure, but it’d happen either way and you have a chance of landing safely regardless.

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > user314 01/05/2020 at 19:17

0

Heh. Man, do I hate the Dash-8. Despise the Dash-8. Loathe the Dash-8.

Looks like a bearing maintenance thing this time. Usually it’s gear mechanism lubrication...

Wacko > user314 01/05/2020 at 19:21

0

Air jazz is the even shittier aircanada.

When I took air jazz in November to go to Montreal I recorded sparks coming from the same wheel while we landed in Val-d’Or before getting to Rouyn-Noranda.

At the time I thought it was just the brakes.

When I went to Cuba in December we were suppose to take air jazz from Timmins to Toronto, but 10 min after takeoff, the pilot announced we were turning back to Timmins because the the door seal was too frozen to pressurize the plane.

We ended up driving 7 hours to Toronto and went with sunwing instead of air Canada.

Fuck air canada

Noodles > Eric @ opposite-lock.com 01/05/2020 at 19:21

2

I'm guessing to make the plane lighter.

Wacko > Noodles 01/05/2020 at 19:31

4

I’m guessing also less fuel to catch on fire if it does crash land.  

Cash Rewards > Eric @ opposite-lock.com 01/05/2020 at 19:39

1

What wacko said. Less fire to put out if  it all goes pear shaped

jimz > Eric @ opposite-lock.com 01/05/2020 at 19:40

4

Planes have a maximum landing weight and may exceed that if fully fueled, plus if it’s an emergency situation you want less fuel onboard to potentially  catch fire.

ClassicDatsunDebate > user314 01/05/2020 at 19:41

1

Oh man that view is so familiar.  Whoever serviced that bearing last is gonna have some ‘splainin to do.

Noodles > Wacko 01/05/2020 at 19:43

1

You make a VERY good point.

ttyymmnn > Eric @ opposite-lock.com 01/05/2020 at 19:45

2

What JimZ said. Planes can take off at a higher weight than they can land with. It is assumed that a specific amount (weight) of fuel will burn off during the flight. 

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > Eric @ opposite-lock.com 01/05/2020 at 19:45

1

To reduce weight. Most airplanes can take off at a higher weight than they can land at. This would be especially true for an airplane that just lost one of its main landing gear wheels. The main gear take something like 80-90% of the weight while the aircraft is on the ground. When landing they take the entire landing impact which is a huge shock load.

The reason for circling the airport instead of flying to their destination is so that they are close to a runway if they need to make an emergency landing. Probably the plane would be fine to fly to it’s destination, but it would suck to be out of range of an airfield to find out the wheel damaged an engine or punctured a fuel tank while it was parting ways, and now you’ve got to make an emergency landing on a hillside and it might be an hour or two before emergency vehicles can make it to your burning wreck of a plane cash.

ttyymmnn > user314 01/05/2020 at 19:47

1

That’s why they have two wheels on each side. Redundancy!

On the one and only time I flew on a DC-10, there was a problem with the gear. The wheels came up, then they came back down. The captain announced that we would be returning to CVG to have it checked out. The guy sitting next to me said, “Why the hell can’t they check it out when we get where we’re going ?”

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > Eric @ opposite-lock.com 01/05/2020 at 20:00

1

Many aircraft take off at higher than MLW (maximum landing weight), so circling around gets the weight down to something that won’t structurally compromise the aircraft upon landing. Larger aircraft have fuel dump systems for this purpose, whereas others have an inspection procedure for an overweight landing, but that takes the aircraft out of service for several days and could be avoided if you get the weight down. Circling around also gives time to redirect other aircraft, get fire/rescue teams ready (and call in others from out of town if necessary), foam the runway, etc.

At LAX I remember hearing about a Jet Blue A320 that was returning because of a nose gear problem. We waited for at least an hour for things to get set up, but when the airplane finally arrived it was essentially a non-issue - a few sparks, some fire hoses spraying down the gear, unload the passengers and then tow the aircraft off of the runway. It almost seemed routine.

Montreal is probably a big maintenance base, so it makes sense to land there rather than one of the out of the way stations that this aircraft routinely flies to which may not have the same repair capabilities. I remember a few years ago when LOT had a landing gear problem departing Chicago, and rather than land back at Chicago they opted to fly all the way to Warsaw and deal with the problem there. They landed without the gear, on the belly, but they were at their main base and we’re able to fix up the aircraft and put it back into service relatively quickly, and probably at a lower cost than it would have been if they had it repaired by a third party in Chicago. IMHO it wasn’t a very good decision, however; with ETOPS flights you really should divert to the nearest airport to fix problems, and if this aircraft had some other issue crop up during the Atlantic crossing, the lack of operational landing gear would complicate an emergency landing at some remote airfield. They got lucky...

And this Dash-8? No problem and plenty of redundancy - they still had another wheel on that side, so nothing to worry about (except for a blowout on landing due to excessive weight, but that’s just nitpicking, right? . .)

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > user314 01/05/2020 at 20:05

1

Pfft - no problem. They still had another wheel, right? It’s not like the B-36 prototype, which only had one big wheel per side. Lose one of those and you’re in for a world of hurt, especially when you’re carrying nuclear bombs. Thankfully this “feature” didn't make it into production.

OPPOsaurus WRX > Eric @ opposite-lock.com 01/05/2020 at 20:15

1

right? your going to have a hell of a time telling me ‘o this one will work much better’ let’s keep going and try our luck where we were going to go.

i’m guessing the real reason is to get the plane down ASAP. who knows what else could have happened. Did it take out a hydraulic line? Do you want to leak jet fuel across the country? If it damaged a panel, thats just more time for it to figgle free and come flying off and into the en gine.

Only Vespas... > user314 01/05/2020 at 20:18

0

Bearings!  Blame maintenance, but the Dash does/has chronic gear issues.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/05/2020 at 20:23

3

Still not as awesome as the version with track s for main gear. I can’t even imagine what a maintenance headache tracks would be.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > Eric @ opposite-lock.com 01/05/2020 at 20:26

2

According to deHavilland the Dash 8-400 has MTOW of up to 67,200 lbs. The MLW is only 64,000 lbs, and presumably less with damaged landing gear.

https://dehavilland.com/en/dash-8-400

The other reason for not continuing on to their destination is that they wouldn’t have wanted to retract the landing gear for fear of damaging things further, and possibly having the gear fail to extend after being retracted. 

Urambo Tauro > user314 01/05/2020 at 20:27

3

The wheel FELL OFF. It FELL OFF. It FELL THE FUCK O FF.

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

user314 > Urambo Tauro 01/05/2020 at 20:47

1

Thank you, that was perfect. 

kanadanmajava1 > Eric @ opposite-lock.com 01/06/2020 at 07:18

0

If the landing gear is busted they could indeed fly to their destination and do the crappy landing there. But I guess the passengers/crew might panic while waiting.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > Noodles 01/06/2020 at 11:54

0

I guess it wasn’t clear. I knew they would be doing it to drop weight, but you’ll burn the fuel whether circling or going to the destination. Circling to consume fuel makes less sense when you could crash in either location, but you could also land in either destination.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 01/07/2020 at 01:49

0

That is a legitimate reason. Thank you.