KAPF - Naples Florida - Challenger crash on highway
yep, complete non-issue.. remember same system is used on all the CRJ airline series.. with again F/Os only flying from the right seat.
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: florida
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say, there is probably not sufficient time to recover the engines in this scenario.
But I would also add, that the chance of this happening to BOTH thrust levers is extremely remote. I say this having flown as PM from the LHS of a 604 (and actuated the flaps) on many occasions.
The CVR would likely reveal much more - was it recovered/usable?
But I would also add, that the chance of this happening to BOTH thrust levers is extremely remote. I say this having flown as PM from the LHS of a 604 (and actuated the flaps) on many occasions.
The CVR would likely reveal much more - was it recovered/usable?
This is really gonna shake up the industry and may lead to more regulation. All this online selling of flights has brought prices too low and coat cutting has gone too deep. Taking minimum fuel on a vfr day is consistent with this theory. I really hope I am wrong but from where i sit, everything leads to this. I cant begin to tell you how reliable these engines are. Like I said, most pilots have their low fuel stories. You always make it until you don't.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
Two places imply fuel contamination:
"About 16 ounces of liquid with an odor and appearance consistent with Jet-A fuel was drained from the aft tail fuel tank; the sample contained about ˝ ounce of what appeared to be water."
"The fuel from the fuel filter bowl and heat exchanger displayed a yellowish tint, while the other fuel samples were clear"
"About 16 ounces of liquid with an odor and appearance consistent with Jet-A fuel was drained from the aft tail fuel tank; the sample contained about ˝ ounce of what appeared to be water."
"The fuel from the fuel filter bowl and heat exchanger displayed a yellowish tint, while the other fuel samples were clear"
if the apu were running and you were flapless, gear up and 250kts……maybe. But i believe they knew there was no reason to do so. The would have punched the igniters before n2 spooled that far back i assume. I believe based on this report and observations of the crash they ran out of fuel. They uploaded 350 gallons. No idea what they had on board, but 350 gallons is less then half of what they would have needed. No fuel in one of the engine lines is tells the tale. Pump lost prime. Low fuel and manoeuvring to land can easily starve both engines. The other thing is the amount of fire is not enough.
This is really gonna shake up the industry and may lead to more regulation. All this online selling of flights has brought prices too low and coat cutting has gone too deep. Taking minimum fuel on a vfr day is consistent with this theory. I really hope I am wrong but from where i sit, everything leads to this. I cant begin to tell you how reliable these engines are. Like I said, most pilots have their low fuel stories. You always make it until you don't.
This is really gonna shake up the industry and may lead to more regulation. All this online selling of flights has brought prices too low and coat cutting has gone too deep. Taking minimum fuel on a vfr day is consistent with this theory. I really hope I am wrong but from where i sit, everything leads to this. I cant begin to tell you how reliable these engines are. Like I said, most pilots have their low fuel stories. You always make it until you don't.
Oh, after a two-hour flight, the fuel burn at both engines was such that the two independent wing tanks ran out at within one second of each other? Is that your contention?
how do you account for dusty tanks creating such an impressive fire—the plane is largely consumed, the road and the sound barrier heavily scorched. No fuel equals no, or little, fire
Regarding the 1/2 oz of water in the tail tank, unclear how that could result in either engine failure. From the 604 fuel system description in post #102, the 604 draws from the mains until 93%, then keeps the mains at 93% by drawing from the tail and aux tanks until those are empty. Thus, assuming the mains were less than 93% upon arrival at KAPF, any contamination in tail or aux tanks would have been irrelevant.
Regarding the yellow tinted fuel from the #2 engine, OK, but not an explanation for dual engine failure.
Too little so far to tell the significance but it's 1/2 ounce in a 16 ounce sample, not 1/2 ounce in the tank.
Water in tail tank is misleading as the post 149 above mentions ref fuel burn schedule. Besides.. with 2 independent systems, having both shut down within a second of each other is pretty unrealistic.
I saw in Juans youtube comment section about how nobody flies from RHS in the Challengers, but please remember the CRJ series is same triggers for shutoff hence a million airline F/Os fly regularly from the Right Seat so maybe a few CRJ captains can chime in with their views?
The report says - "About 16 ounces of liquid with an odor and appearance consistent with Jet-A fuel was drained
from the aft tail fuel tank; the sample contained about ˝ ounce of what appeared to be water."
My interpretation is that they were able to collect only approximately 16 ounces of fluid from the aft tail tank. It was essentially empty.
Ref - https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents...sManualApp.pdf
"Flammable liquids and gases -- Can ignite or be hazardous if skin contact is made or if vapors are inhaled. Have the airplane defueled before going near it and record the amount of fuel that is removed. Instruct personnel that smoking will not be permitted at the accident site."
"Flammable liquids and gases -- Can ignite or be hazardous if skin contact is made or if vapors are inhaled. Have the airplane defueled before going near it and record the amount of fuel that is removed. Instruct personnel that smoking will not be permitted at the accident site."
My interpretation is different.
The report says - "About 16 ounces of liquid with an odor and appearance consistent with Jet-A fuel was drained
from the aft tail fuel tank; the sample contained about ˝ ounce of what appeared to be water."
My interpretation is that they were able to collect only approximately 16 ounces of fluid from the aft tail tank. It was essentially empty.
The report says - "About 16 ounces of liquid with an odor and appearance consistent with Jet-A fuel was drained
from the aft tail fuel tank; the sample contained about ˝ ounce of what appeared to be water."
My interpretation is that they were able to collect only approximately 16 ounces of fluid from the aft tail tank. It was essentially empty.
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: florida
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have no idea what the fuel on board at KOSU was, but have concluded fuel exhaustion based on what, exactly? Having been in private jet ops, we are more likely to be far as few operators look at fuel burns and loads as airlines do—there’s not much saving to be had.
Oh, after a two-hour flight, the fuel burn at both engines was such that the two independent wing tanks ran out at within one second of each other? Is that your contention?
how do you account for dusty tanks creating such an impressive fire—the plane is largely consumed, the road and the sound barrier heavily scorched. No fuel equals no, or little, fire
Oh, after a two-hour flight, the fuel burn at both engines was such that the two independent wing tanks ran out at within one second of each other? Is that your contention?
how do you account for dusty tanks creating such an impressive fire—the plane is largely consumed, the road and the sound barrier heavily scorched. No fuel equals no, or little, fire
2 engines will fail at the same time if super low and maneuvering.
i dont know what you mean by dusty tanks, but jet a VAPOR will self ignite just like diesel when compressed. Liquid is mol not compressable.
that is not an impressive fire. It was consumed over time, like any vehicle fire. I am looking at the fact that the right wing was torn off. There should have been 150 gallons or much more in there. The plane hit and spun which should have littered the highway with fuel. Go pour a gallon of diesel on a campfire and the answer will be quite clear.
no fuel in the fuel line is also key. The other engine likely primed up after they leveled but at that point n2 had degraded.
that and 5000 hours in this series most as pic. With no obvious engine damage, and i cannot begin to tell you how bulletproof these engine are
Dual engine flameouts are super rare.
and for those worried about 1/2oz of water, forget it. Comtamination after 2 hr flight….possible, but those engines will burn corn oil mixed with water and still run. It would have to be alot of water.
ntsb witheld alot in that report. They know way more. Just threw us a bone.
I just have a hard time believing they would BOTH fail within a second of each other.. but considering they flew back at FL400 (FL410 is max)which the airplane hates unless really light, means we cant really eliminate the fuel load either.
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: florida
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other posters have mentioned 350 gal not being enough, which is true, but if you called the FBO in Ohio that they used and asked what the minimum uplift to waive the ramp/handling fee was I would not be surprised if they said 350 gal. Pretty standard ops for 91/135 is to tanker from home base (or other location with cheap fuel) and only take the minimum needed to waive elsewhere.
Other posters have mentioned 350 gal not being enough, which is true, but if you called the FBO in Ohio that they used and asked what the minimum uplift to waive the ramp/handling fee was I would not be surprised if they said 350 gal. Pretty standard ops for 91/135 is to tanker from home base (or other location with cheap fuel) and only take the minimum needed to waive elsewhere.