Dash8 Q400 incident at Munich (Picture)

On Friday night, once again a Dash 8-400 (Q400) was involved in a landing-gear-related incident. This was the 3rd accident of a Q400 within only 3 weeks and raises concerns about the safety and a possible design flaw of the Bombardier Q400.

An Augsburg Airways (member of Lufthansa Regional) Dash 8 Q400 originally bound from Munich to Florence (Italy) did an emergency landing at Munich Franz Josef Strauss International Airport (MUC), Germany, after the nose landing gear failed to deploy.

Q400 MUC

During approach to Florence the crew experience difficulties to deploy the nose gear. After trying several times to deploy the front landing gear without avail they decided to return to Munich. Main reason for returning back were security concerns, Munich provides much longer runways than those available in Florence.

After the emergency landing, without nose gear, at MUC the Dash 8 skidded down the runway and came to rest on its nose. None of the 65 passengers and 4 crew members aboard the flight were injured.
The involved Q400 was even inspected last week, with main focus on the landing gear.
Just a few days ago Bombardier announced that approximately 70% of all Q400 worldwide have been returned back to service.

7 thoughts on “Dash8 Q400 incident at Munich (Picture)”

  1. SAS Dash Q400 history:

    Oct 2000
    SAS grounds all planes of type Dash8/Q400 after a long series of instrumental problems.

    SAS Q400s are out of service pending inspection of pitot/static system after an aircraft landed at Copenhagen with no speed or height information.

    Jan 01
    SAS Commuter and Bombardier work together to fix on going Dash Q400 problems.

    Feb 01
    Scandinavian carrier SAS Commuter is to ground all of its Canadian built turbo prop planes beacause of recurring inflight technical problems.

    Jan 02
    All Q400 grounded due to a crack found in main landing gear. This is after multiple problems with the fleet, including many unsafe gears, uplocked gear, hydraulic leaks and losses of quantity in one system, many faults related to vibration, parts of structure fallen off in flight, excessive wear on hoses, uplock hooks.

    Sas examines 21 dash 8 Q400 planes for possible bolt defects.

    Jan 03
    An SAS (SK) Dash 8 Q400 had to make an emergency landing in Stavanger.

    SAS Commuter had to ground it’s Dash8 Q400 fleet after several instances of false smoke warnings from the cargo hold resulting in multiple emergency landings.

    Feb 06
    All Nippon’s flight crew was forced to deploy their Dash 8’s landing gear manually after all three sets of wheels refused to come down.

    March 07
    All Nippon’s Dash 8’s crashes during landing at Kochi after the front wheel fails to deploy.

    Sep 07
    Many SAS flights cancelled due to technical faults.

    Sep 07
    SAS Dash 8 Q400 makes emergency landing in Denmark due to landing gear failure.

    9 Sept
    A SAS Q400 runs off the runway at Ã…lborg airport (Denmark) after landing gear collapses

    10 Sept
    Two Q400 have to return to Kastrup airport (Denmark) after reports of technical problems onboard

    12 Sept
    Landing gear collapses during landing on an Q400 in Vilnius.

    21 Sept
    An Augsburgs Airways Q400 crashes during landing after the front wheel fails to deploy.

    10 Oct An
    Q400 headed to Gdansk has to return to Copenhagen after malfunction with the hatch at the forward landing gear is reported.

    11 Oct
    An Q400 from Stockholm to Berlin has to return after indications of engine problems.

    12 Oct
    An Q400 has to return to Warzaw after reports with the landing gear right after takeoff.

    19 Oct
    Q400 returns to Kastrup airport after reports that the hatch for a landing wheel hasn’t properly closed.

    27 Oct
    The right landing gear failure during landing at Copenhagen.

    Must people have to die before they stop using this plane?

  2. I think that these European Airline Companies hav to take a fresh look at their maintenance compliance procedures rather than blame, or at least intimate blame on the aircraft manufacturer