KAPF - Naples Florida - Challenger crash on highway
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.
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.
You’ve never heard the term “dusty tanks” for out of gas? Really? There was more fire than empty tanks would produce. Ever see video of planes without fuel crashing? Pretty much nothing except flying dust and debris, zero fire.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: florida
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18 years flying bizjets, including all models of the Bombardier line, never flew without a computer flight plan. The odds of both engines flaming out at the same moment due to fuel exhaustion is approximately zero, dual flameouts are so rare this is actually a unique event in truest meaning of unique.
You’ve never heard the term “dusty tanks” for out of gas? Really? There was more fire than empty tanks would produce. Ever see video of planes without fuel crashing? Pretty much nothing except flying dust and debris, zero fire.
You’ve never heard the term “dusty tanks” for out of gas? Really? There was more fire than empty tanks would produce. Ever see video of planes without fuel crashing? Pretty much nothing except flying dust and debris, zero fire.
Have you heard about the former ntsb inspector speaking out how the penny pinching by these types of operators is the cause of this accident?
A very sad accident with the loss of two very experienced Pilots.
A great feat for the Stewardess to quickly open the rear baggage hold door as the escape route for her passengers.
This accident below, which pretty much has gone under the radar, also almost made it down on a Freeway.
In 1971 a Paninternational Airlines BAC 1-11 515FB airliner D-ALAR made an Emergency Landing on the Hamburg-Kiel Autobahn when both engines failed within 90 seconds of take off from Hamburg Airport.
Shortly after takeoff from runway 34 at Hamburg-Fuhlsbüttel Airport, as the aircraft climbed to 1000 feet on it's way to Malaga Spain with 115 Passengers and 6 Crew, both of the Rolls Royce Spey jet engines failed and the Captain quickly decided his only choice was to make an emergency landing on the Bundesautobahn about 4.5 km from Hamburg Airport.
During the forced landing, on the southbound carriageway to avoid heavy traffic out of Hamburg, Captain Hüls was just able to avoid a collision with a nearby high-voltage line.
An oncoming couple in a Fiat 500 managed to scurry under the plane safely.
The unpowered BAC 1-11 crashed into the road near Quickborn at 150 knots and ten tons over its permitted landing weight.
The nose and right main landing gears collapsed, causing the aircraft to deflect to the left and collided with an overpass bridge and multiple concrete pillars.
The T-tail was sheared off.
The left wing struck an emergency telephone and the guard rails, the forward fuselage with the cockpit separated ending up in a ditch.
The rest of the fuselage skidded to a halt, initially remaining intact resting against an oak tree, but subsequently caught fire and burned out.
A Cabin Crew member and 21 passengers were killed in the crash, while all other 99 occupants escaped.
CRASH OF A BAC 111-515FB IN HAMBURG
Probable cause:
It was determined at the subsequent Investigation that the tank for the Water-Injection engine thrust-augmentation system (used to cool the engines to increase performance for the high maximum takeoff weight of 47 tonnes) was that the contents of five canisters had inadvertently been refilled with a mix of water and Jet A1 Kerosene fuel, instead of with all Demineralised Water.
Spraying this additional jet fuel into the engines caused them both to overheat and fail shortly after take-off.
Crash on the highway - In German - Use Google Translate for English
A great feat for the Stewardess to quickly open the rear baggage hold door as the escape route for her passengers.
This accident below, which pretty much has gone under the radar, also almost made it down on a Freeway.
In 1971 a Paninternational Airlines BAC 1-11 515FB airliner D-ALAR made an Emergency Landing on the Hamburg-Kiel Autobahn when both engines failed within 90 seconds of take off from Hamburg Airport.
Shortly after takeoff from runway 34 at Hamburg-Fuhlsbüttel Airport, as the aircraft climbed to 1000 feet on it's way to Malaga Spain with 115 Passengers and 6 Crew, both of the Rolls Royce Spey jet engines failed and the Captain quickly decided his only choice was to make an emergency landing on the Bundesautobahn about 4.5 km from Hamburg Airport.
During the forced landing, on the southbound carriageway to avoid heavy traffic out of Hamburg, Captain Hüls was just able to avoid a collision with a nearby high-voltage line.
An oncoming couple in a Fiat 500 managed to scurry under the plane safely.
The unpowered BAC 1-11 crashed into the road near Quickborn at 150 knots and ten tons over its permitted landing weight.
The nose and right main landing gears collapsed, causing the aircraft to deflect to the left and collided with an overpass bridge and multiple concrete pillars.
The T-tail was sheared off.
The left wing struck an emergency telephone and the guard rails, the forward fuselage with the cockpit separated ending up in a ditch.
The rest of the fuselage skidded to a halt, initially remaining intact resting against an oak tree, but subsequently caught fire and burned out.
A Cabin Crew member and 21 passengers were killed in the crash, while all other 99 occupants escaped.
CRASH OF A BAC 111-515FB IN HAMBURG
Probable cause:
It was determined at the subsequent Investigation that the tank for the Water-Injection engine thrust-augmentation system (used to cool the engines to increase performance for the high maximum takeoff weight of 47 tonnes) was that the contents of five canisters had inadvertently been refilled with a mix of water and Jet A1 Kerosene fuel, instead of with all Demineralised Water.
Spraying this additional jet fuel into the engines caused them both to overheat and fail shortly after take-off.
Crash on the highway - In German - Use Google Translate for English
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the collector tanks ran dry, on each side you would get multiple CAS messages:
MAIN EJECTOR FAIL (White)
FUEL LO PRESS (Amber) Which would bring on both
FUEL PUMP ON (Green), rapidly replaced by
FUEL PUMP (Amber) as it detected no output pressure.
So finally six messages, accompanied by multiple chimes from the Master Caution
It would then be around a further 30 seconds before the engines actually flamed out, as the fuel in the lines is drawn in.
After the engines flame out, it is another 10 seconds or so before you get the ENG OIL PRESS red message and associated voice warning.
Since none of these are mentioned in the report I think we can rule out fuel exhaustion.
MAIN EJECTOR FAIL (White)
FUEL LO PRESS (Amber) Which would bring on both
FUEL PUMP ON (Green), rapidly replaced by
FUEL PUMP (Amber) as it detected no output pressure.
So finally six messages, accompanied by multiple chimes from the Master Caution
It would then be around a further 30 seconds before the engines actually flamed out, as the fuel in the lines is drawn in.
After the engines flame out, it is another 10 seconds or so before you get the ENG OIL PRESS red message and associated voice warning.
Since none of these are mentioned in the report I think we can rule out fuel exhaustion.
Last edited by Pilot DAR; 4th Mar 2024 at 10:34. Reason: Political deleted
Despite what you think, unusable fuel in a 604 would not be near enough to produce a fire capable of destroying the entire airframe. Theres only a couple dozen gallons at most.
If fuel exhausion is eliminated - Unsupported by EICAS messages and perhaps by fire size
and
If accidental shut off is eliminated - Proven design with millions of flight hours on various types including PF in right seat
what is left?
I'm actually not impressed by "never happened in millions of flight hours". I used to work on Design Assurance Level A aircraft systems for which the acceptable probablilty of catastrophic failure was 10^-9. That's 3 orders of magnitude less probable than never in a few million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_25....0(10%E2%80%935).
and
If accidental shut off is eliminated - Proven design with millions of flight hours on various types including PF in right seat
what is left?
I'm actually not impressed by "never happened in millions of flight hours". I used to work on Design Assurance Level A aircraft systems for which the acceptable probablilty of catastrophic failure was 10^-9. That's 3 orders of magnitude less probable than never in a few million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_25....0(10%E2%80%935).
Last edited by EXDAC; 4th Mar 2024 at 16:17.
Agreed on “one in a million” but I don’t think independent DAL Level A includes throttles or pilot interaction with throttles. After all, we have to shut off the engines on a variety of cases and we can’t preclude ****ting them off. The 767 hs had accidental in-flight shut downs by crews as has the Global during test where a clipboard “did it”. Guards were 8nstalled on the Hlobal and Boeing re-designed the engine control switches in the 757/767 family.
FADECs I’m familiar with include a rapid restart to provides a means of restarting, if the switch moves rapidly from RUN to OFF and back to RUN.
FADECs I’m familiar with include a rapid restart to provides a means of restarting, if the switch moves rapidly from RUN to OFF and back to RUN.
I have not handled these throttles or the shut off interlocks so genuine questions -
How many hands are needed to intentionally shut off one engine?
How many hands are needed to intentionally shut off both engines simultaneously?
Has it been verified that an arm placed in the worst possible position behind the thrust levers can lift the unlock levers (triggers?) if thrust levers pulled to idle position?
Yes, flight test sometimes reveals issues that no one had ever considered. We were close to starting cert demos for the 717 when the flight crew reported a spontaneous change in baro setting. It was confirmed by data review and had the potential for causing a major delay in the program. Fortunately there were cameras on the flight deck and it was shown that the baro set knob had been rotated by the Jepp plates binder as it was passed over the glareshield. Glareshield was extended to guard the knobs and cert completed on schedule.
How many hands are needed to intentionally shut off one engine?
How many hands are needed to intentionally shut off both engines simultaneously?
Has it been verified that an arm placed in the worst possible position behind the thrust levers can lift the unlock levers (triggers?) if thrust levers pulled to idle position?
Yes, flight test sometimes reveals issues that no one had ever considered. We were close to starting cert demos for the 717 when the flight crew reported a spontaneous change in baro setting. It was confirmed by data review and had the potential for causing a major delay in the program. Fortunately there were cameras on the flight deck and it was shown that the baro set knob had been rotated by the Jepp plates binder as it was passed over the glareshield. Glareshield was extended to guard the knobs and cert completed on schedule.
One, One, it’s been demonstrated in a YouTube video that an arm behind the throttles can be placed to unlatch the releases, one or both. But, it was suspected and done in the sim, not in the plane.
Join Date: Mar 2024
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See post on EICAS messages that would post if there was fuel exhaustion. Which is what my manual confirms. I haven’t flown the 605 is years, so went thru it and there would be at least six messages in addition to OIL PRESS LO. If you have a hard-on for 135 Florida ops, fair enough, but stick with facts.
Despite what you think, unusable fuel in a 604 would not be near enough to produce a fire capable of destroying the entire airframe. Theres only a couple dozen gallons at most.
Despite what you think, unusable fuel in a 604 would not be near enough to produce a fire capable of destroying the entire airframe. Theres only a couple dozen gallons at most.
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: United States
Age: 69
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most likely yes but here is another question. If I recall correctly (CL601-3AS/SN 5003/1990-1999) the fuel shutoff red throttle located "paddles" would not allow a normal 0r abnormal engine shutdown if you activated either one of those levers before the actual throttle was actually positioned to the furthest aft travel as possible. If you pushed that lever prior the throttle would not allow further travel to cutoff. So if that is true the throttles would have been moved to full idle, then the accidental encounter with the left seat pilots arm as he reached to the flap handle, then the right seat guy pulled further on the throttles in an attempt to be at idle. Any active CL pilots comments?
I have not handled these throttles or the shut off interlocks so genuine questions -
How many hands are needed to intentionally shut off one engine?
How many hands are needed to intentionally shut off both engines simultaneously?
Has it been verified that an arm placed in the worst possible position behind the thrust levers can lift the unlock levers (triggers?) if thrust levers pulled to idle position
How many hands are needed to intentionally shut off one engine?
How many hands are needed to intentionally shut off both engines simultaneously?
Has it been verified that an arm placed in the worst possible position behind the thrust levers can lift the unlock levers (triggers?) if thrust levers pulled to idle position
Regarding “has it been verified…,” many CRJ and Challenger pilots (so claimed) across multiple forums have stated it is possible. There is also a video short that can be accessed on PoA that demonstrates the scenario (still available, watched just moments ago).
Two posters have referenced a video showing an arm can release the shut off latches but no links were provided. Any chance a link can be provided to one, or both, videos? My searches do not find it/them.
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: United States
Age: 69
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing good about a fatal crash except the lesson learned. It can be stated that pilots in the right seat do not often fly the plane from the right seat except 121 and maybe with some frequency 135. For the most part 91 ops switch seats. At EAL I flew right seat DC-9 for nearly 5 years. I would advocate a “must do” on, an occasion, is to operate a complete flight with the PF in the right seat if you can. One night departing TEB for London as we waited for the passengers i moved the left seat full aft. That’s where it failed and there was nothing we could do to move it forward. We flew the trip with PF in the right seat. What a significant diversion from our otherwise routine ops. So in this case a new to the aircraft pilot in the right seat. Nothing bad about that. Considering the total number of CF34 engines on Canadair’aircraft there is an extreme frequency of PF in the right seat especially with the Commuters. I would imagine at the 121 level, training and actual, there may be those that teach with a caution to this possibility. Seems real. I still believe you would need to have those levers “on the stops” to go further to shutdown, inadvertent or on purpose.
Last edited by WITCHWAY550; 5th Mar 2024 at 21:38.
Being cleared to land, tight on base to final for a US slam dunk visual, ask for full flaps as you retard back to idle to get a speed change/trend under way.., easy to be back on the stops at same time an arm is in the way..
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: United States
Age: 69
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree. You could go back to idle with those CF34's and expect to get the thrust you need, when you need it. Given you are on approach, lower to the ground, almost all the drag you can put out there with the final flap call you will soon need some power to stabilize it all. I go back to what I said. A lot less frequency of PF's in the right seat in that type of operation except there was a new guy. If this is what happened why was he not in the left seat or just let the left seat guy be the PF. I further thought about the likelihood that things like this and perhaps well known by the 121 guys that flew or fly the CRJ's, but not the 91 guys. No "pass-thru" of that sort of valuable knowledge. Or did Canadair or GE ever put out a warning on that. I still think its certain that those throttles had to be back to the stops, then the call for full flaps (or thereabout the time) then the arm goes across then, for what ever reason, the PF pulls back on both throttles without knowing he was already at idle.
Just how far out would you want base leg to be on a visual in this aircraft type?