So what's the story on this latest 400 flameout?

[pamed19]

Check your facts, the guys into JAX didn't get the engines re-lit if I remember right.

If it is Prist deal it would seem to be an easy fix, but it keeps happening.

Pamed19 is correct, one of these times, someone is going to crap out on one of these flameouts it is only a matter of time.

The JAX incident was a dead stick landing under adverse weather conditions. The Pilots were magnificent in my opinon.

 

[Guitar rocker]

Check your facts, the guys into JAX didn't get the engines re-lit if I remember right.

If it is Prist deal it would seem to be an easy fix, but it keeps happening.

Pamed19 is correct, one of these times, someone is going to crap out on one of these flameouts it is only a matter of time.

I thought that the JAX incident was without engines as well. One of these times it wont work, like you say....hopefully it's not going to happen to anyone ferrying one to Europe either...

 

[RNObased]

The JAX incident was a dead stick landing under adverse weather conditions. The Pilots were magnificent in my opinon.

A job well done in my opinon also....

 

[cjdriver]

Jax was marginal vfr, they got vectored to the ILS and made it in. Magnificent. No doubt professional pilots are way under paid.

 

[WrknStff]

I just find it amazing that these incidents have all happened recently and in a relatively short period of time. These planes have flown for years and years without problems. Makes me think that it is something outside the basic design of the airplane thats flawed. Although if you ask me, saving money on a design by relying on anti-ice in the fuel has always been a bad idea considering some of the line monkeys I've seen out there.

 

[pamed19]

I just find it amazing that these incidents have all happened recently and in a relatively short period of time. These planes have flown for years and years without problems. Makes me think that it is something outside the basic design of the airplane thats flawed. Although if you ask me, saving money on a design by relying on anti-ice in the fuel has always been a bad idea considering some of the line monkeys I've seen out there.

How do we get to the cause? Does the FAA/NTSB do that or is the Raytheon responsible?Will the aircraft keep flying if no cause is found?

 

[WrknStff]

The NTSB has a team working with Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon and the operators to try and figure out what the deal is. If they can't figure something out for sure they'll probably come up with a couple of fixes that covers the the most likely causes and require changes in operations/equipment to cover them.

 

[Correcting]

There is absolutely no way that this is an issue of lack of additive in the fuel. Think of all the millions of flight hours that aircraft requiring prist have had without incident. Now, suddenly 3 Beechjets in less than 2 years have dual flameouts and it's a prist incident? That's bullsheet.

 

[doublepsych]

Correcting,

I'm with you, I just don't buy the prist explanation, just from a common sense standpoint. I guess the question is, what has changed that is causing/allowing this to occur, when for so long with the Diamond/Beechjet fleet it did not occur, not to mention the other types with similar characteristics, i.e. aircraft with no fuel heaters, other types with jt15d engines, etc.

It would seem that it would have to be something in the fuel supply to get both engines at exactly the same time. Tank vent lock issues, ice, or something. Even with gelling fuel, I would expect a filter bypass or some other warning prior to flameout...who knows...I guess iced stators is plausible, but it seems to me that you would have to be in a pretty narrow set of environmental conditions for quite a while, not to mention that this would have likely occured before the first incident in 2004.

I fly a 400A part 91, and I have spoken with some contacts within Raytheon and FLOPS and I honestly believe that they do not know what the cause is. Yet. May never. If they do, they are not saying. It would be nice to know...

 

[dime line]

""There is absolutely no way that this is an issue of lack of additive in the fuel.""

Actually the first FLOPS BJ (the one over the Gulf) was very light on Prist, I don't remember the number, but it was well below what was suppose to be there. Did that make the motors quit? Don't know, but at least it was a place to start with.

""Think of all the millions of flight hours that aircraft requiring prist have had without incident.""

I'm right there with you, but it only takes one line guy to forget Prist, and a trip up at altitude for a long time, and there you have it. And we all know the brains of some ot the line guys.

""If they do, they are not saying""

I wish that we did, this is an FAA and Pratt & Whitney investigation, not FLOPS. I have to fly the BJ 16 days a month, and I now think a little differently than before.

 

[WrknStff]

Well I'm not sure about this most recent one, but I know the others had one main thing in common, a power reduction to descend after a long flight at high altitude. The stopgap measures put out by FLOPS is to put the engine ignitions and boost pumps on before initiating a descent. I don't know if that advice has gotten out to all the other BE400 operators, but it can't hurt. Pesonally if I was back in a bj after spending a long flight at high altitude, I would definately pull the throttles back pretty darn slowly and maybe one at a time even. Luckily, I've moved on to better things now (especially an APU, mmmm.... a/c).

 

[SabreFlyR]

Well I'm not sure about this most recent one, but I know the others had one main thing in common, a power reduction to descend after a long flight at high altitude. The stopgap measures put out by FLOPS is to put the engine ignitions and boost pumps on before initiating a descent. I don't know if that advice has gotten out to all the other BE400 operators, but it can't hurt. Pesonally if I was back in a bj after spending a long flight at high altitude, I would definately pull the throttles back pretty darn slowly and maybe one at a time even. Luckily, I've moved on to better things now (especially an APU, mmmm.... a/c).

Good advice, we operate BJ and have adjusted our decents to minimize power reductions also and we never let the fuelers begin fueling until we confirm that there is prist in the jug and can show us that it is flowing. Of course if its premixed, you can only hope.

 

[beechjetpilot1]

I just don't go above 320 anymore unless I absolutely have to in the beechjet. I have been flying it for 7 years, and this problem concerns me. Flops has us turn on the engine heat and boost pumps when starting a descent from cruise. Problem is that you have to pull back power in order to turn on engine heat, so most of us turn on ignitors first, then boost pumps, then slowly pull back power below 90% so we can turn on engine heat. I don't know it this procedure does much, but at least the ignitors are on? My real problem is a lack of information from P&W and Raytheon with this issue. There has been a long silence with no answers....so for me...fly low and enjoy the scenery!

 

[cjdriver]

I know for a fact that the fuel filter bypasses I got in both the CJ and the Hawker were due to bad fuel. I've had several in the CJ, including at least two dual bypasses. Each requiring a precautionary landing. The check list states 'consider the possibility of partial or total loss of both engines thrust'. This was a big problem in the CJ, requiring sumping of fuel every morning. It's bad fuel. I think the oil companies and distribution chain just aren't making enough profit to provide quality product, they need to raise their prices.

 

[RNObased]

My real problem is a lack of information from P&W and Raytheon with this issue. There has been a long silence with no answers....so for me...fly low and enjoy the scenery!

The silence is deafening.... That is a major problem for me also. As for FLOPS procedures, I suppose anything is worth a shot at keeping both of them turning. God knows there is very little guidence coming from the engine or airframe maker.

 

[Gwadwerc]

Deja Vu all over again...

[FONT=&quot]Quote: I just find it amazing that these incidents have all happened recently and in a relatively short period of time. These planes have flown for years and years without problems. Makes me think that it is something outside the basic design of the airplane thats flawed. Although if you ask me, saving money on a design by relying on anti-ice in the fuel has always been a bad idea considering some of the line monkeys I've seen out there. Unquote

Let me say first I don't know squat about the BJ. As far as basic design goes, sometimes things don't turn up for years. The KC-135 had been flying 30 years when they started blowing up in the late 80s. 3 or 4 in under 5 years, if memory serves me. Finally traced it to an in-tank fuel pump which had "lifetime lubricated" bearings. These pumps were not required to be inspected on any maintenance schedule. Whaddaya know, after 30 years, the bearings were wearing out, overheating, and igniting an explosion when the fuel level decreased to the point that the pump came in contact with fuel vapor. Boeing has always had great engineers, but what engineer in the 1950s would have ever thought that someone would fly a given tail number for 30 years?

Again, if memory serves me, the temporary fix was to prohibit burning the fuel below the point where the pumps woudl be uncovered in level flight, and pulling the breakers on the pumps before descent. Eventually all the pumps were replaced. Hopefully they're required to get periodic inspections...
[/FONT]

 

[CRJDispatchKid]

Just came across this thread, but found it interesting. Not having much experience in bizjets (just a 3-month internship at NJA) I've noticed the following: the NTSB initial reports that a member posted earlier both suggest dual-engine flamouts when aircraft were at high altitudes and given clearance for decents. This would put the plane from a fairly high engine power setting to nearly idle, correct (I'm not a pilot either, but on my obersative time in the CRJ, when a decent is given, power is reduced to near idle)? Does the BeechJet and it's engines have a history of engine core lock? Are the engine given a grind in procedure?

For those not familar with the phenomenon, it's when the engine is shut down suddenly at high torque, high altitude, and it isn't restarted immediately, metal parts inside the engine begin to cool and contract at different rates. In rare cases, metal can contact metal and prevent the core from rotating freely--core lock.

Just something I found interesting. Hopefully, I haven't intruded on this discussion, and I open this back up to all the NJA and FLOPs drivers for more insight.

 

[gunfyter]

I vote we blame it on Global Warming... Its the only thing they forgot in "An Inconvenient Truth".

 

[Ultra Grump]

gunfyter: 1) Have you seen it? (If not, you're not really qualified to comment on it.) 2) Why do you need to bring your right-wing political agenda into a discussion that clearly doesn't call for it?

Well I'm not sure about this most recent one, but I know the others had one main thing in common, a power reduction to descend after a long flight at high altitude. The stopgap measures put out by FLOPS is to put the engine ignitions and boost pumps on before initiating a descent.

In the latest one, anti-ice was selected on and power reduced. Doesn't say whether they were going to descend, or reducing power in order to turn on the anti-ice. Also doesn't mention ignitions or boost pumps.

 

[WrknStff]

Core lock is apparently what happened in the Jacksonville incident that kept them from being able to restart. As far as I know all the others had successful restarts on at least one of the engines.