Another dual engine flameout

[RVATOR]

Doesnt someone need to die to make an offical AD?....just kidding not really funny but it seems thats what it takes. I suppose twice should be a big red flag that something needs fixed, be it aircraft or proceedures.

 

[Lead Sled]

Doesnt someone need to die to make an offical AD?....just kidding not really funny but it seems thats what it takes. I suppose twice should be a big red flag that something needs fixed, be it aircraft or proceedures.

You've got that right. Many (most) regulations can be traced back to accidents. The FARs are literally written in blood.

'Sled

 

[jimcav]

Glad to hear it turned out like it did. Kudos to the crew.

 

[Stealthh21]

So anyway...Good job to the crew. We are all happy that they are safe.

 

[NYCPilot]

How are the flight controls acutated in that plane.

If you dead sick it in, are your hydraulics lost or are they backed up. Wondering if its tough flying manually. Isn't this "manual reversion."

 

[joepilot111]

Hydrualics?

it flown the same way a C-150 flies, old fashioned cables.

 

[learflyer]

the spoilers (no ailerons on beechjet) are not hydraulic. Just cables.

 

[Quebec]

would like to know more about this.. need refresher on whether this will qualify for NTSB follow up and what NTSB url will be so we can share with the gang at www.fractionalforum.com

 

[jsingel]

T-1 specifics

400A,
The military T-1 has cables for all flight controls and the only fuel heater is the pilot descending when he reaches his fuel temp limit of -40C.

 

[Fedmagnet]

jsingel

400A,
The military T-1 has cables for all flight controls and the only fuel heater is the pilot descending when he reaches his fuel temp limit of -40C.

Most do not pay any attention to that, and the ones that have questioned it are told "It's ok, keep an eye on it". The flight planners at Flops default each flight plan to the highest known altitude of each aircraft and the pilots are compelled to struggle to these altitudes so they won't get into any trouble with the fuel nazzies.
The fuel savings are very good if you shut down both engines at TOD and land.
Flops pilots are taught to ignore all those pesky LIMITATIONS in the AFM.

 

[Quebec]

Most do not pay any attention to that, and the ones that have questioned it are told "It's ok, keep an eye on it". The flight planners at Flops default each flight plan to the highest known altitude of each aircraft and the pilots are compelled to struggle to these altitudes so they won't get into any trouble with the fuel nazzies.
The fuel savings are very good if you shut down both engines at TOD and land.
Flops pilots are taught to ignore all those pesky LIMITATIONS in the AFM.

FedMagnet..forgive my naivety .. let me clarify, are you saying:
a) that FLOPS flight planners put the planes at risk be sending 'em too high (cold soak wing, potential Prist issues / core lock..etc..)
b) couldn't FLOPS pilots just say .. "eh.. let's stop at FL 390, I'm not feeling like a good soldier today"? (or do they then get beat up for sipping too much fuel at 390 vs. 410 or whatever?)
We run this site www.fractionalforum.com and this site www.rsvpair.com and we have a vested interest in getting "the truth" out..whatever it is..whether FLOPS looks like a star or demon. Also.. if you have web links that can document / verify any big claims you can make.. we can post it for the members of those two sites.

I still don't know what the reason was for them not being able to get a restart.. wouldn't it be possible once they made it back to warmer temperatures?

 

[Lead Sled]

I still don't know what the reason was for them not being able to get a restart.. wouldn't it be possible once they made it back to warmer temperatures?

Assuming that the engines flamed out because of ice formation in the fuel, the airplane will be descending faster than the ice is going to be melting.

'Sled

 

[Quebec]

Assuming that the engines flamed out because of ice formation in the fuel, the airplane will be descending faster than the ice is going to be melting.

'Sled

ah / ok..thank you.. I am confused since I have no turbojet type ratings or experienced and I have heard of some lucky folks getting a restart, but what you are saying is that it is just as likely (in a real bad cold soak situation) that the ice build up is so significant that there is not enough time to "get the melt" when it is performing its new role as "bad glider."

 

[Lead Sled]

ah / ok..thank you.. I am confused since I have no turbojet type ratings or experienced and I have heard of some lucky folks getting a restart, but what you are saying is that it is just as likely (in a real bad cold soak situation) that the ice build up is so significant that there is not enough time to "get the melt" when it is performing its new role as "bad glider."

Quebec...
That's why I prefaced my remarks with ice being the culprit. There can be other reasons for an engine(s) to quit at altitude such as:

Fuel Exhaustion - Unless you happen to have some fuel hiding somewhere else on the airplane (that you can get to) you're probably not going to get them relit. I said it the way I did on purpose - some aircraft (Lear 25s and 35s for example) have fuel in tanks that can't be directly accessed by the engines. That fuel has to be pumped into the wing tanks once there has been enough burn off to provide space. This rate of transfer might not be enough to sustain 2 engines on some airplanes.

Aerodynamic Reasons - Some engines can be susceptible to airflow interruptions at high altitudes. There are many stories out there of engine flameouts in Lear 24s and 25s due to airflow interruptions. Under these conditions it's likely that the engine will restart once you get the airplane to a lower altitude.

Mechanical Reasons - Such as a failure of a jet pump or an engine-driven high-pressure fuel pump. If you have an engine driven pump you're probably not going to get a restart. If you've had a jet pump failure, the engine will restart at a lower altitude.

I haven't provided much detail, but I hope this helps you to understand.

'Sled

 

[Quebec]

Quebec...
That's why I prefaced my remarks with ice being the culprit. There can be other reasons for an engine(s) to quit at altitude such as:

Fuel Exhaustion - Unless you happen to have some fuel hiding somewhere else on the airplane (that you can get to) you're probably not going to get them relit. I said it the way I did on purpose - some aircraft (Lear 25s and 35s for example) have fuel in tanks that can't be directly accessed by the engines. That fuel has to be pumped into the wing tanks once there has been enough burn off to provide space. This rate of transfer might not be enough to sustain 2 engines on some airplanes.

Aerodynamic Reasons - Some engines can be susceptible to airflow interruptions at high altitudes. There are many stories out there of engine flameouts in Lear 24s and 25s due to airflow interruptions. Under these conditions it's likely that the engine will restart once you get the airplane to a lower altitude.

Mechanical Reasons - Such as a failure of a jet pump or an engine-driven high-pressure fuel pump. If you have an engine driven pump you're probably not going to get a restart. If you've had a jet pump failure, the engine will restart at a lower altitude.

I haven't provided much detail, but I hope this helps you to understand.

'Sled

Sled,
Very helpful thank you... we'll also be keeping an eye out for NTSB and FAA findings on this event...also.. we've heard (in these forums) that this is not the second, but perhaps the 4th such event ... can anyone corroborate that?
Also.. what is the penalty for not reporting an incident...if memory serves the FAR's require us to report certain things (like ad hoc gliding lessons in turbojet aircraft) in order to be square with NTSB reporting. Anyone got ideas there?

Thanks again Sled...for the help.

 

[clickclickboom]

Stupid Response

Most do not pay any attention to that, and the ones that have questioned it are told "It's ok, keep an eye on it". The flight planners at Flops default each flight plan to the highest known altitude of each aircraft and the pilots are compelled to struggle to these altitudes so they won't get into any trouble with the fuel nazzies.
The fuel savings are very good if you shut down both engines at TOD and land.
Flops pilots are taught to ignore all those pesky LIMITATIONS in the AFM.

.


In any jet you fly at the the max altitude for temp, weight, range, acft performance, isa + or -, winds etc..

If i am filed to 410 and can go right to 410 and cruise at .85 why would i stop at 360 and burn 400 more pph?

Flight planners at ops file the flight plans and there is no pressure put on the pilots to " struggle to any altitude" we fly at the best alt for the conditions and I have never had a call from flops in 7.5 years.

There isnt a pilot at flops that is taught to ignore limitations. Get your facts straight

 

[Quebec]

so, where does the truth lie?

i can see that it would be insane to officially teach pilots to push limitations, but this is the 2nd known flame out and someone else was yammering about how it is actually the 4th

our main concern is to figure out what is going on...here are some things we do know

a) fractionals are awash in red ink - cutting expenses is top priority
b) owners are being charged big fuel surcharges.. perhaps with no bearing or relevance on what fuel costs actually are
c) the safety / cost barrier is the classic interface in aviation ..and it would not be the first time that aviation suffered from the mentality whereby safety went out the window in favor of cost (just look at the Part 135 industry)

it is however, not consistent that a big co. (FLOPS) would let safety be compromised in the name of cost (too much exposure).. so you are right to say that getting facts straight is critically important

so the question begs.. what is going on?.. is this the 2nd, 3rd or 4th event like this?

and are we talking about a pilot training problem, a fuel handler problem or are there really "fuel nazis" out there enforcing behavior? (fly slower, fly higher, etc...)

 

[Ultra Grump]

...this is the 2nd known flame out and someone else was yammering about how it is actually the 4th...

I wasn't "yammering." I have heard that there were actually 2 other unreported engine flameouts in the 400 at Flops. I could be wrong, but it's what I've heard. If you consider that "yammering," so be it.

b) owners are being charged big fuel surcharges.. perhaps with no bearing or relevance on what fuel costs actually are

Are you kidding? Does Jeeves fill the tank for you at the gas station every time? Have you seen the cost of fuel/gasoline/oil lately?

 

[Quebec]

I wasn't "yammering." I have heard that there were actually 2 other unreported engine flameouts in the 400 at Flops. I could be wrong, but it's what I've heard. If you consider that "yammering," so be it.

Are you kidding? Does Jeeves fill the tank for you at the gas station every time? Have you seen the cost of fuel/gasoline/oil lately?

Ultra Grump,
Terribly sorry...didn't mean to denigrate by choice of words. "Having heard" is not enough for our group though.. can you give Tail #'s / dates / times? Pilots?
These "must" be recorded no? It sounds like a rather serious problem if there are that many concentrated with one carrier.

 

[dime line]

"so, where does the truth lie"

You sound like a snake TV reporter just looking for somebody to buy into your website. Truth doesn't sell, Chaos sells.

So just for the record I fly the BJ for FLOPS and have so for a really, I meany really long time, and there have only been 2 such instances. That is it. This is not a FLOPS thing this is a fueling thing and could happen to "Any" company flying these motors.

Now you look at pilot training........hmmmmmmmm.......go and ask your local 6.00 per hr fuel man an see if he knows what "Prist" is. Prist is not a pilot thing, we have no way to "Really" know if prist is "Actually" being pumped into our planes. We have a "Good" idea when we see the handle turned from off to on or "Inject" on the fuel truck.


" can you give Tail #'s / dates / times? Pilots?"

Your smoking crack, go back to "my" first sentence

 

[FracCapt]

I wasn't "yammering." I have heard that there were actually 2 other unreported engine flameouts in the 400 at Flops. I could be wrong, but it's what I've heard. If you consider that "yammering," so be it.

Where exactly did you hear that from? A co workers brothers cleaning lady who once delivered catering to a Flops pilot that said so?

Anybody that believes everything, or even half of the crap, they read on this board is a complete idiot. Hopefully the guy running this owner info site is not that stupid...but from some of the posts, it seems he may be. Don't you think if there were info of this nature out there in public knowledge, along with the specifics you requested, that it would have hit this board within 90 seconds? If it had, then you could research it...but you would probably take it at face value and publish it. :bomb:

 

[Quebec]

"so, where does the truth lie"

You sound like a snake TV reporter just looking for somebody to buy into your website. Truth doesn't sell, Chaos sells.

So just for the record I fly the BJ for FLOPS and have so for a really, I meany really long time, and there have only been 2 such instances. That is it. This is not a FLOPS thing this is a fueling thing and could happen to "Any" company flying these motors.

Now you look at pilot training........hmmmmmmmm.......go and ask your local 6.00 per hr fuel man an see if he knows what "Prist" is. Prist is not a pilot thing, we have no way to "Really" know if prist is "Actually" being pumped into our planes. We have a "Good" idea when we see the handle turned from off to on or "Inject" on the fuel truck.


" can you give Tail #'s / dates / times? Pilots?"

Your smoking crack, go back to "my" first sentence

Dime Line,
We are group that represents the interests of owners - the ones that indirectly cause you to be able to get paid. Documenting when things happen is important (so that when they go to FLOPS and say "wtf"..they have some data.)

Re: not being a FLOPS thing..that is what we need to hear..and that was my hunch... I think FLOPS might just get the negative press since they are the heaviest users of the breed and if bad things happen.. more likely it will be to them.

Re: fuel guy training..this is a big deal and points to a problem that is more on the FBO side than it is on the operational side.

Re: buy into site.. and truth and all that.. we actually get paid to dig..and this forum seems like a good place to dig.. we have nothing to hide / no agenda.. just want frienly, helpful and respectful pilots like you to educate us

Thanks for your help though.. I think your comments are important and will make our assesment more objective etc.

The tail #'s dates and time can be corroborated with the NTSB stuff.. if they were ever reported... if they weren't..then you have a serious problem on operations side since they should just come clean and deal with the problem. (That info can be shared with me privately btw via [email protected])

Off to my crack pipe,

Quebec Out

 

[choppengruven]

From what I've heard neither flameout had anything to do with prist. It was just a easy blame for the company. Pilot error is to blame from the rumors I hear.

 

[dime line]

choppengruven:

you need to know the facts before you post things like you did. How is it pilot error when you start to decend and both motors "just" quit. I'd love to know that one!

 

[choppengruven]

What makes you think I dont know the facts? hmm? I also fly the beechjunk just to let you know. I will however not post it here. I will not debate it here on a public forum. And BTW if you werent so aggresive in your posts you would probably get better feedback.

 

[zugzug]

Flops

Flight Planners? Is that just another word for co-ordinator or is this something diff?

 

[jetwash]

I don't know what happened in the airplane but I just heard that the two pilots were brought to Cleveland with their wives for the company Christmas/Kwuanza/Honika/Ramadan Party and were given a big Atta Boy by the CEO and each recieved a model of the Beech Jet .

They were then able to sit in the front row and watch as management handed out Awards and $1000 checks to the office folks who have been so successful in making Flight Options into the company that it is.
They did not receive a dime !!!! just an Atta Boy!!!!

They just saved a Multimillion dollar aircraft and their lives and get a few nice words when some office puke who figued out a way to save $3 in paper clips gets a $1000 check

Send in your cards !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FracCapt]

We are group that represents the interests of owners - the ones that indirectly cause you to be able to get paid.

we have nothing to hide / no agenda.. just want frienly, helpful and respectful pilots like you to educate us

In that case, I'm waiting for my login info for your site via PM. If you really value info from the pilots instead of simply BS that you read on the internet, you will allow those fractional pilots you want info from access to your forums without having to pay for it.

Don't expect a reply from me anytime soon...I'm going on vacation for the next 10 days, and won't be wasting my time checking the internet.. When I return, I expect to have a PM with my login info. I will be sure to let everybody here know whether or not you provide such info.

 

[Diesel]

The only thing that is good to come out of quebec is Poutin and hamburger all the way. Even the hotel we stay at in Colibri is just good enough for snowmobiliers and our trailers.

 

[Ultra Grump]

Where exactly did you hear that from? A co workers brothers cleaning lady who once delivered catering to a Flops pilot that said so?

Anybody that believes everything, or even half of the crap, they read on this board is a complete idiot. Hopefully the guy running this owner info site is not that stupid...but from some of the posts, it seems he may be. Don't you think if there were info of this nature out there in public knowledge, along with the specifics you requested, that it would have hit this board within 90 seconds? If it had, then you could research it...but you would probably take it at face value and publish it. :bomb:

I never said I read it here. I didn't request any specifics. Who exactly are you responding to? If you're not responding to me, don't quote me before your response. If you are, get your facts straight. In any case, I don't have any corroborating evidence for what I heard - that's why I posted, to see if others had heard the same. So far, apparently not. And I'm not about to tell you where I heard it, but it was from a sufficiently reliable source that I can't discount it as false (yet).