FLOPS 2 400a Flameouts

[HSDriver]

I was told by FLOPS that the planes were being flown up to 800 hrs a year.That is how the ownership works out--100 hours for a 1/8th share,200 for a 1/4

800 Managed hours a year. Thats not counting the repo legs every other trip and the empty legs flying accross the country to go to a maintenence base.

HS

 

[pamed19]

800 Managed hours a year. Thats not counting the repo legs every other trip and the empty legs flying accross the country to go to a maintenence base.

HS

Had not thought of those flights.What about the jet cards?They must have upped usage. I guess since we do not know what caused the flameouts,we do not know if usage is the culprit!

 

[guido411]

I do not want to look over the crews shoulders when I fly.Do the bunch of you think the 400a is safe to fly in or should I stop flying in it?Many,Many thanks

No offense, but my life is WAY more important to me than yours is. If the airplane isn't safe enough for ME to be in, I won't start the engines with YOU in the back. Ask any FLOPs crewmember and they will say the same thing. Sit back, relax, have a cocktail. Welcome aboard.

 

[guido411]

Had not thought of those flights.What about the jet cards?They must have upped usage. I guess since we do not know what caused the flameouts,we do not know if usage is the culprit!

The first flameout occured on a BRAND NEW BE400A. . .er, Hawker 400XP. Useage is NOT the culprit.

 

[ProFracPilot]

The first flameout occured on a BRAND NEW BE400A. . .er, Hawker 400XP. Useage is NOT the culprit.

I believe the term "usage", as discussed regarding the Hawker 400XP (nee, Beechjet), refers more to operational issues that may arise after much "fleet use". If by the term "useage", your meaning is as it relates to "time in service" of a single airframe or set of engines, then I agree with your opinion that total time has absolutely nothing to do with the flameouts. However, FlOps has amassed much more fleet "useage" over a wide range of operating conditions than any other Beechjet operator. I believe that when the research is completed, it will be found that there is a narrow set of operating conditions (power reduction at altitude, OAT, ambient moisture content, etc) where these engines - as installed on the Beechjet - are susceptible to this anomoly.

And no, I'm not an engineer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

 

[pamed19]

No offense, but my life is WAY more important to me than yours is. If the airplane isn't safe enough for ME to be in, I won't start the engines with YOU in the back. Ask any FLOPs crewmember and they will say the same thing. Sit back, relax, have a cocktail. Welcome aboard.

Good thought and good advice.Flops crews are great and I have met alot of them.Pleased to fly with them anytime,rain or shine.

 

[dime line]

Hey Pamed19 just remember if your thinking about another Frac, they all do the same thing as Flight Opts with reguard to flying the hell out of the planes.

 

[RNObased]

I certainly will not correct you.I am just a worried passenger!What can I do to make sure the sumping has been done?many thanks

Worried me so much I switched fleets.... hate the 400/beechjunk, the thing is a systems mess. Raytheon should have let this thing die years ago. Now I hear they are going to put proline 21 on it. Like putting a dress on a pig.

 

[dime line]

"Worried me so much I switched fleets"

You mean you upgraded? Payraise?

 

[AceCrackshot]

Worried me so much I switched fleets.... hate the 400/beechjunk, the thing is a systems mess. Raytheon should have let this thing die years ago.

I'm no huge Beechjet booster, but I do believe that this overstates the case by a order of magitude. If you look at 1) the overall fleet safety record and 2) Its general reliability, you have a pretty good aircraft.

The systems are perhaps a little complex, but nothing overwhelming (the fuel and electric come to mind immediately) but both are practically speaking transparent to the crew.

The Beechjet needs:
1) Fuel Heaters
2) Reclinable/more ergonomic pilot seats
3) Larger engines
4) Pro Line 21
5) 18-36" of cabin streach
6) an externally serviceable lav

All these (except 5) are pretty low hanging fruit, if Raytheon could develop and certify derivitives of existing airframes like Cessna can. For whatever reason, they can't, and we are stuck with an aircraft that was probably state of the art in the first Clinton Administration.

We could also use salesmen who would stop telling people that this "Hawker" can do what an actual Hawker can do, mission-wise.