Dash-8 Runway Excursion

[pelmet]

This one is interesting. Perhaps they lost their braking because the aircraft sensed that it was still airborne. I wonder if differential reverse could assist in a situation like this. Could be briefed but it might be easier said than done. Anyone ever had to use differential reverse to maintain directional control? Ice strip ops perhaps.

"C-FABA, a de Havilland DHC-8-102 aircraft operated by Wasaya Airways, was conducting flight
WSG815 from Pickle Lake (CYPL), ON to Fort Severn (CYER), ON with 2 crew members on
board. While enroute, the crew received a weight on wheels (WOW) caution light and decided to
return to CYPL. During the return trip, the WOW caution light went out and then illuminated once
more during approach into CYPL. The crew proceeded to land on Runway 09 at CYPL and then
received several caution lights on touchdown. During the landing roll, the aircraft did not respond to
tiller steering input. As the aircraft came to a slower speed (below 30 kts), the aircraft brakes were
unresponsive and the crew then lost directional control and the aircraft then veered off the runway.
The aircraft came to a stop approximately 100 feet off to the north side of the runway. There were
no injuries and the aircraft sustained minor damage.
An inspection of the landing gear system by the operator's maintenance revealed two faulty
proximity sensors."

[C-GGGQ]

Yeesh that sounds like a sim ride where the examiner is out to get you. "Oh and your brakes don't work" perfect example of you can't breif for everything. Sounds like they did the best they could on the spot though. I'd have to agree about differential reverse. Probably "easier said than done" if it even would occur to you in the 10 seconds before you went off.

[Inverted2]

That’s an ex Air BC / ex Jazz plane I used to fly. I had a WOW caution a long time ago but I don’t recall how it would cause you to lose normal brakes. The emergency checklist basically said return for landing and maintenance action required before next flight.

[Dry Guy]

It looks like rwy 09 that the landed on has a steep downhill grade. Since only 2 crew were on board I assume this was a freighter which means the would be at or close to max weight. They probably aren't used to landing fully loaded downhill back at base since they'd normally be coming back empty. The brakes didn't become "unresponsive" until below 30 kts. Is it possible they just cooked the brakes?

[goingnowherefast]

Not sure it's possible to "cook" the brakes on a Dash 8-100, especially after 2 hours in the air (yer return). A MTOW V1 reject will be much harder on the brakes vs a long landing roll down a hill after burning 2 hrs of gas.

Also doesn't explain the lack of nosewheel steering.

[plhought]

Nosewheel steering is electronically controlled so if plane thinks it's in the air it won't work.

You can defer the nosewheel steering on the Dash though thanks to the trailing-link nose gear - casters like a Grumman.

The 'unresponsive' brakes - I read that as 'anti-skid ineffective' - also likely because of the weight off wheels issue. Ultimately no reason the brakes wouldn't work fine traditionally.

As a last ditch effort you could cycle the landing gear inhibit switch with the gear down - that will power cycle the PSEU and may clear up things at least for the approach and landing.

Not sure what the QRH says but you should always brief for antiskid and nosewheel steering unavailable with weight off wheels issues in the Dash.

[MD-2]

If all else fails you still have the park brake.

[fish4life]

It looks like rwy 09 that the landed on has a steep downhill grade. Since only 2 crew were on board I assume this was a freighter which means the would be at or close to max weight. They probably aren't used to landing fully loaded downhill back at base since they'd normally be coming back empty. The brakes didn't become "unresponsive" until below 30 kts. Is it possible they just cooked the brakes?

It’s not that steep, also the runways they would be used to landing on are half the length at max weight so that wouldn’t be an issue. Throw on the fact that a 100 doesn’t need brakes to stop on a runway that long and I think the nose wheel steering is a bigger issue. Now if the WOW wouldn’t let them go below flight idle, the spoilers didn’t arm and the brakes has issues I can see there being problems.

[goingnowherefast]

So how did this QRH...

The emergency checklist basically said return for landing and maintenance action required before next flight.

Leave out this sort of information...

Nosewheel steering is electronically controlled so if plane thinks it's in the air it won't work.

You can defer the nosewheel steering on the Dash though thanks to the trailing-link nose gear - casters like a Grumman.

The 'unresponsive' brakes - I read that as 'anti-skid ineffective' - also likely because of the weight off wheels issue. Ultimately no reason the brakes wouldn't work fine traditionally.

As a last ditch effort you could cycle the landing gear inhibit switch with the gear down - that will power cycle the PSEU and may clear up things at least for the approach and landing.

Not sure what the QRH says but you should always brief for antiskid and nosewheel steering unavailable with weight off wheels issues in the Dash.

Sounds like a pretty shit QRH if it's missing so much vital information.

[GoinVertical]

Screenshot_20191206-203702.png (706.38 KiB) Viewed 1005 times

Jazz QRH. I don't work there, this could be out of date, but you would think they would have it if it was known there would be anti-skid and nose wheel steering issues.

Anyone that work there have an up to date version?