Raytheon's new BE400 Safety Communique for Dual Engine Failure

[pamed19]

Help me out.What was the cause of the flameouts? I could not figure it out.

 

[Ultra Grump]

They're theorizing that ice crystals melted during compression in the fan section, then re-froze on the stator vanes, blocking airflow to the engine.

 

[pamed19]

Is that a reasonable assumption ?Do you think the procedures as outlined will stop the flameouts? I do not know if I should fly in one.

 

[Ultra Grump]

It sounds plausible, but I don't know why it would happen only in Beechjets and not other aircraft that use the same/similar engines, or why it would suddenly be epidemic in just the last few years. That's what's odd.

 

[400A]

Is that a reasonable assumption ?Do you think the procedures as outlined will stop the flameouts? I do not know if I should fly in one.

I think it is a very reasonable explanation. Ice could have also formed on the probes that talk to the electronic fuel controlers, which would not have reacted properly.

From what I was told, the new icing procedure is the same as on the citations. Someone correct me if I am wrong. That would have explained why the citations with the same engines have not had the problem.

I am still very comfortable in the airplane. I would not be affraid to fly it. (still do)

 

[pamed19]

Both your posts and 400A's have been helpful to me in the first thread and I thank you both for same. What I get out of the NTSB letter is,as you say, an explanation,but it does not tell me the cause.Hopefully that will be discovered soon.I do not think I can ride in the 400A worrying that the pilot is going to turn all the right knobs at the right time.I should give you all more credit,I guess.Thanks again for taking the time to post!

 

[Choppy]

Both your posts and 400A's have been helpful to me in the first thread and I thank you both for same. What I get out of the NTSB letter is,as you say, an explanation,but it does not tell me the cause.Hopefully that will be discovered soon.I do not think I can ride in the 400A worrying that the pilot is going to turn all the right knobs at the right time.I should give you all more credit,I guess.Thanks again for taking the time to post!

You are exactly correct in stating that the NTSB gave you an explanation but failed to give you the cause. The reason is nobody knows the cause!! That is the whole problem with the 400A, everbody's answer is an educated guess. If they really knew what the problem was there would not be a Safety Commun. there would be a change to the AFM for the checklist. They simply don't know exactly they just have thoughts!

 

[400A]

Both your posts and 400A's have been helpful to me in the first thread and I thank you both for same. What I get out of the NTSB letter is,as you say, an explanation,but it does not tell me the cause.Hopefully that will be discovered soon.I do not think I can ride in the 400A worrying that the pilot is going to turn all the right knobs at the right time.I should give you all more credit,I guess.Thanks again for taking the time to post!

Every aircraft requires the pilot to turn on all the right knobs and switches or really bad stuff can happen. If you are going to rule out any aircraft that has had something strange hapen to it, you better not fly.

For example. they are not sure what made the Citation go down in Colorado, just before landing.

Challengers do not tolerate ANY wing contamination on take-off.

Get a 20 or 30 series Lear slow and you are in big trouble.

Lear 45's had a pitch trim problem.

A few CJ's have had some flame outs.

Have read many reports of Westwinds with complete electrical failures.

MU2,,, dont even go there.

Brazillia, no thank-you.

Just more food for thought, not flame-bait.

The last time Flight Safety discussed it, The only fatal Beechjet / Diamond accidents were CFIT.

The Aircraft is built like a Tank and I always feel very safe in it. I would much rather fly it than a small bodied Citation. I have flown both and liked both, the Beechjet is just more solid to me. I have been in it for almost 7 years and it has never scared me.

 

[400A]

You are exactly correct in stating that the NTSB gave you an explanation but failed to give you the cause. The reason is nobody knows the cause!! That is the whole problem with the 400A, everbody's answer is an educated guess. If they really knew what the problem was there would not be a Safety Commun. there would be a change to the AFM for the checklist. They simply don't know exactly they just have thoughts!

They safety communique said there is 2 AFM Changes.

 

[SabreFlyR]

The Aircraft is built like a Tank and I always feel very safe in it. I would much rather fly it than a small bodied Citation. I have flown both and liked both, the Beechjet is just more solid to me. I have been in it for almost 7 years and it has never scared me.[/quote]


I agree with 400A, if you ever get the chance to see the manufacturing process of the Beechjet do so. This airframe is right up there with the Hawker when it comes to strength.
As far being worried about flameouts, I am concerned but by no means afraid of the plane. In fact we just sold our straight 400 and have a late model 400A going to prepurchase.
I do not like having to run the engine heat at altitude for long periods though,at least with the ignition on also. I predict that we will start changing ignitors and ignition boxes more frequently now.