I never flew the 604, but have several thousand hours in the 601. We always took negative fuel unless pre-mixed was the only option - challenger has fuel heaters. Also the fact there was no icing inhibitor makes a situation where the fuel was contaminated by DEF unlikely. In previous cases of DEF related engine damage I believe the prist tanks on the truck were accidentally filled with DEF.

Core lock on the CF34 doesn’t cause engine shutdown. Instead it complicates engine restart following a shutdown. For core lock to occur, N2 has to stop rotating.

Thanks for the info, BFS

Ice would seem to be a factor at FL400 much more than landing in Florida, unless you had some weird 1 in a million thing happen where an ice ball built up slowly and then melted all at once.
The idea that they just ran out would also imply the crew staring at fuel gauges headed toward the Big E didn't bother to mention it or land and buy more.

BA38 at LHR?

If the Flight Dept is hard over on fuel costs it would be tragic. The final fuel slips are already under review.

Wasn’t the cause of the BAW38 accident unique to the Rolls Royce Trent engines?

Landing video - flew it right til the end
 

Almost pulled it off. A little too much left to right momentum. So close. RIP

Landing Video

[QUOTE=MLHeliwrench;11595877]Almost pulled it off. A little too much left to right momentum. So close. RIP

Landing Video [/QUOTE ]Yes what a shame! RIP guys.

I do wonder if the PIC was planning for the golf course just on the other side of the sound wall (Wyndmere Country Club) and very late in the descent realized he didn’t have the altitude to clear the sound wall and attempted to then align with I-75.

Not the first Challenger to suffer a dual-engine flame out. 1994, a 601-3A at FL 410 over Nebraska about 2.5 hours into their flight. Fuel contamination (water). Here's a link to the report; https://reports.aviation-safety.net/...CL60_N88HA.pdf

Dashcam video of the plane crashing on the freeway.

https://nypost.com/2024/02/13/news/s...orida-highway/

After watching the dash cam video, it might have been better to try for the median strip? The pavement pretty much guaranteed an encounter with vehicles. Granted, the crew was between a rock and a hard place with no great choices .

And next to no time! I'm not a pilot but having just looked at options on Google Earth, my decision would have been the I95 knowing full well it wasn't ideal but the best that there was. At least they saved the passengers and F/A. Feel really sorry for the pilots. They tried their very best.

The Challenger 604 does not have fuel heaters as per say… the fuel/oil heat exchanger’s primary function is to cool off engine oil and yes heat the fuel in the engine and does not heat up the fuel in the wings… the reason why you cannot fly with bulk fuel colder than -37C. https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...080&fit=bounds

Will the recorders shed more light into the cause?

I have seen no reports that indicate anyone on the highway was injured. I see nowhere on the golf course that is longer than 1,000 ft before hitting obstructions. The median has a cable or other barrier and is barely more than a wingspan wide between carriageway edges. The Southbound lane is about 110 ft between the median barrier and the wall and almost all obstructions except the wall are moving in the same direction as landing.

The touchdown (ground impact) seems to have been on the roadway but to have resulted in collapse of the right MLG then shortly after the left MLG as the aircraft leaves the paved surface. Did MLG collapse cause rupture of the wing tanks?

The crew had less than a minute to sort this out. I'd say they did a damn good job that three on the aircraft survived and no one on the ground was killed. Very sorry the pilots were not so fortunate.

The plane crushed a small truck. The driver somehow didn't die.
https://winknews.com/wp-content/uplo...ple-2-9-24.jpg

In hindsight the canal was the least obstructed choice. It's shallow enough to prevent sinking and wheels up would have been less traumatic. Width wise is a bit tight, but doable. Engines over wings so they don't scoop water. However I can see the option of setting the plane down on a nice concrete landing area would be very attractive, so second guessing doesn't show the choice from the front seats was fundamentally flawed. It's been done successfully by others, but the traffic here was far denser than those previous landings and the plane much faster than similar attempts. Coasting a 172 off at the next exit is far simpler than this.

Had they not hit the truck they might have managed to straighten it out, but the collision with the truck looks to me like it forced the plane to roll (as in roll-pitch-yaw) towards the wall.

Reported that two people in a vehicle were injured.

Google Maps coupled with 20/20 hindsight shows a number of lagoons in the area, two quite sizable to the NE & SW of the I-74 interchange to the North of the crash location, that may have been reachable.

Precious little think time available to a startled crew.