Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

KAPF - Naples Florida - Challenger crash on highway

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

KAPF - Naples Florida - Challenger crash on highway

Old 29th Feb 2024, 20:33
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,455
Received 25 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by EXDAC
How did this fuel shut off design ever get certified if it is so vulnerable to inadvertent activation when aircraft is flown from the right seat? Is this design weakness emphasized when converting to type?
Once in how many million hours/cycles of almost 3,000 600-series models, this isn’t a problem for airworthiness, based on the known facts.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2024, 03:55
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
Once in how many million hours/cycles of almost 3,000 600-series models, this isn’t a problem for airworthiness, based on the known facts.
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.
605carsten is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2024, 07:44
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: florida
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by josephfeatherweight
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?
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.
resetjet is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2024, 16:42
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by 605carsten
and heck even the Global has a fence either side of the switches after a checklist slid off glareshield on rotation and whacked both off in testflight phase.
Any more info on this incident?
punkalouver is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2024, 23:03
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 333
Received 23 Likes on 10 Posts
Preliminary report is out now.

Possible fuel contamination.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...ort/193769/pdf

RickNRoll is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2024, 00:00
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 770
Received 66 Likes on 46 Posts
Originally Posted by RickNRoll
Preliminary report is out now.

Possible fuel contamination.
I saw no reference to possible fuel contamination in the preliminary NTSB report. Your post appears to link fuel contamination to the NTSB report and I think that is misleading.
EXDAC is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2024, 00:09
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 991
Received 371 Likes on 201 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"
MechEngr is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2024, 00:23
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,455
Received 25 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by resetjet
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.
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
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2024, 01:10
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 24 Posts
Originally Posted by EXDAC
I saw no reference to possible fuel contamination in the preliminary NTSB report. Your post appears to link fuel contamination to the NTSB report and I think that is misleading.
The possibility of fuel contamination was introduced directly by the JB video (post #145) rather than the NTSB preliminary report, which simply describes the fuel characteristics at multiple locations without drawing any implications.

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.
BFSGrad is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2024, 01:50
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 991
Received 371 Likes on 201 Posts
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.
MechEngr is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2024, 04:22
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
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.
605carsten is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2024, 04:30
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
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?
605carsten is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2024, 13:29
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 770
Received 66 Likes on 46 Posts
Originally Posted by MechEngr
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.
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.
EXDAC is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2024, 13:39
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 770
Received 66 Likes on 46 Posts
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."
EXDAC is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2024, 14:19
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,455
Received 25 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by EXDAC
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 aft tanks aren’t used for flights under 3 hours, then it’s a mix of fuselage and aft tanks based on CG consideration.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2024, 19:58
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: florida
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
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
Yes no computed fuel burns like airlines do….so maybe they burned more then they thought they would. Savings depends on any fuel contracts. Was the fuel indicator system working properly?

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.



resetjet is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2024, 03:37
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
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.

605carsten is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2024, 04:56
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: florida
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 605carsten
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.
well the fuel system does balance the tanks keeping them fairly equal. So in theory with little in them and a slight negative g or a bank or both might do the trick. Once the pump cavitates its game over even if momentarily. Not sure what is recorded to the FDR but you would think there would be a low fuel caution. But like i said, NTSB already knows. They are withholding alot.
resetjet is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2024, 11:37
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 605carsten
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.
604 should have no problem making it to 400 with 3 in the cabin and trip fuel+alternate+reserve. Disclaimer - my estimation based on over a decade on a 601 and being pretty sure the 604 wasn’t ‘worse’.

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.
rippey is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2024, 13:49
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 24 Posts
Originally Posted by rippey
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.
No need to make that call. The KOSU FBO website lists the minimum fuel purchase to waive fees by aircraft size. For the Challenger 604, to avoid the $600 ramp fee, the minimum fuel purchase is 350 gallons.
BFSGrad is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.