Another dual engine flameout

[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