Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
So what's the story on this latest 400 flameout?
- Thread starter Ultra Grump
- Start date
- Watchers 25
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Guitar rocker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Posts
- 6,180
Of the couple planes that I have flown, not one of them require anti-ice on in the descent with ignitors and boost pumps on as well. These are band aid fixes for a current unknown problem on the 400XP. At FSI, they told us that anti-ice on in the descent is worthless. I guess the boost pumps and ignitors would be essential before your descent if your already planning on a dual engine flame out to begin with though.....
Raytheon had better figure this out soon.
Raytheon had better figure this out soon.
Last edited:
pamed19 said:
Depends on your defination of "safe".
The ignitors on for decent is basically a poor man's auto re-lite. Anything is worth a shot at this stage.
I have money that if this plane was a Cessna it would be grounded already. However Raytheon has many friends in high places that love the missles they make.
Guitar rocker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Posts
- 6,180
beechjetpilot1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Posts
- 76
Pamed19...as a Beechjet pilot...here are my 2 cents:
I would have to agree with you two.....however, our job is risk management. There is NO safe airplane, some are just safer than others and some are operated safer than others. I don't know why the beechjet is having these issues all of the sudden...it could be design, it could be operator error, it could be pilot error, it could be a mx procedure error...we just don't know and they are not telling us. Many aircraft have come up against issues over the years that wouldn't be considered un-safe aircraft:
747's Fuel pumps in the center tank ...TWA that blew up
737's Rudder problems
Airbus 300 Vertical Tail departed aircraft do to operator error and design
B-52 early models had tails that fell off in turbulence
......and many others
My point is that no aircraft or flight is safe...we try and mitigate those errors to provide the safest, most economical, comfortable and on-time flights we can. My only concern that I voiced earlier on this thread is the utter lack of communication from Raytheon, P&W and Flops to the pilots, owners and operators of the Beechjets. This is starting to cross the unethical line in my mind. If they don't know, say so. If they do know, let us know so it can be fixed or we can operate differently so not to have this happen again. Just tell us so we can make informed decisions. Am I afraid to fly the beechjet now? Absolutely not! I do however operate it differently to mitigate what I consider the problem to be.
Pamed19, I will not tell you that the Beechjet is "unsafe" because I don't have enough information to make that call yet. My suggestion is to tell you that you are an owner. As an owner, I would be on the phone with Raytheon, Flops, FAA, NTSB, and Pratt and Whitney to demand some answers. Ask the tough questions, listen to their answers and decide for yourself if the beechjet is unsafe. Like I said, it may not be the plane...it could be fuelers, mx, pilots, weather or aliens!
I would have to agree with you two.....however, our job is risk management. There is NO safe airplane, some are just safer than others and some are operated safer than others. I don't know why the beechjet is having these issues all of the sudden...it could be design, it could be operator error, it could be pilot error, it could be a mx procedure error...we just don't know and they are not telling us. Many aircraft have come up against issues over the years that wouldn't be considered un-safe aircraft:
747's Fuel pumps in the center tank ...TWA that blew up
737's Rudder problems
Airbus 300 Vertical Tail departed aircraft do to operator error and design
B-52 early models had tails that fell off in turbulence
......and many others
My point is that no aircraft or flight is safe...we try and mitigate those errors to provide the safest, most economical, comfortable and on-time flights we can. My only concern that I voiced earlier on this thread is the utter lack of communication from Raytheon, P&W and Flops to the pilots, owners and operators of the Beechjets. This is starting to cross the unethical line in my mind. If they don't know, say so. If they do know, let us know so it can be fixed or we can operate differently so not to have this happen again. Just tell us so we can make informed decisions. Am I afraid to fly the beechjet now? Absolutely not! I do however operate it differently to mitigate what I consider the problem to be.
Pamed19, I will not tell you that the Beechjet is "unsafe" because I don't have enough information to make that call yet. My suggestion is to tell you that you are an owner. As an owner, I would be on the phone with Raytheon, Flops, FAA, NTSB, and Pratt and Whitney to demand some answers. Ask the tough questions, listen to their answers and decide for yourself if the beechjet is unsafe. Like I said, it may not be the plane...it could be fuelers, mx, pilots, weather or aliens!
Last edited:
Pamed19 -- as an owner (and not a pilot) I emplore you to continue your quest for knowledge. Read this board (but don't believe all you read -- you shouldn't even in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal), andread trade publications like Business and Commercial Aviation (the best $35 a year I have spent since becoming an owner). You will learn alot.
I don not know the safetey of the Beechjet. But I do know that a well trained crew and a well maintained plane and a good program increase your odds tremedously. Almost problem I read about is a compounding of many stupid human errors. Not one, not 2, not 3, not 4 but like 5 -- plus a cheap operator. That is why the major frax are more expensive than charter brokers. Training, maintenance and de-icing fluid cost $$ and someone has to pay for it or not use it.
Fly safe.
P.S. -- since youhave not been scorched on this board I realized I should have been NJAOwneress. Since you name starts with "pam" you are treated much nicer.
I don not know the safetey of the Beechjet. But I do know that a well trained crew and a well maintained plane and a good program increase your odds tremedously. Almost problem I read about is a compounding of many stupid human errors. Not one, not 2, not 3, not 4 but like 5 -- plus a cheap operator. That is why the major frax are more expensive than charter brokers. Training, maintenance and de-icing fluid cost $$ and someone has to pay for it or not use it.
Fly safe.
P.S. -- since youhave not been scorched on this board I realized I should have been NJAOwneress. Since you name starts with "pam" you are treated much nicer.
Guitar rocker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Posts
- 6,180
RossTwivel
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Posts
- 8
The barometric formula, sometimes called the exponential atmosphere, is a formula used to model how the pressure (or density) of the air changes with altitude. It is based on the simplifying (not very realistic) assumption that the temperature does not depend on altitude. However, this formula agrees reasonably well with the actual pressure and density variations above the earth's surface up to a height of about 450,000 ft (140 km).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/d/e/edeecbbd4ec5ba9a2d2691ec6bf7f57c.png or
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/5/1/851575814d5db74077f80470ca551028.png where h is the scale height, ρ (rho) is density, P is pressure, P0 is pressure at ground level (mean sea level pressure is 1013.25 hPa), M = 0.029 kg mol-1 (the mass of 1 mole of air), R = 8.314 J K-1 mol-1 is the gas constant, T is temperature, g0 is the acceleration due to gravity (about 9.8 m s-2 depending on your location, see g) and z is the vertical height above the earth's surface.
Using the same principles, the above equation can be solved for altitude as a function of pressure. This formulation is known as the hypsometric equation.
As a rule of thumb, the pressure decreases by about 1% for every 80 metres increase in altitude.
An alternative rule of thumb, density decreases by half every 20,000 feet (6000 m) below the tropopause, and every 15,000 (4500 m) feet above the tropopause to the stratopause.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/d/e/edeecbbd4ec5ba9a2d2691ec6bf7f57c.png or
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/5/1/851575814d5db74077f80470ca551028.png where h is the scale height, ρ (rho) is density, P is pressure, P0 is pressure at ground level (mean sea level pressure is 1013.25 hPa), M = 0.029 kg mol-1 (the mass of 1 mole of air), R = 8.314 J K-1 mol-1 is the gas constant, T is temperature, g0 is the acceleration due to gravity (about 9.8 m s-2 depending on your location, see g) and z is the vertical height above the earth's surface.
Using the same principles, the above equation can be solved for altitude as a function of pressure. This formulation is known as the hypsometric equation.
As a rule of thumb, the pressure decreases by about 1% for every 80 metres increase in altitude.
An alternative rule of thumb, density decreases by half every 20,000 feet (6000 m) below the tropopause, and every 15,000 (4500 m) feet above the tropopause to the stratopause.
beechjetpilot1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Posts
- 76
RossTwivel
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Posts
- 8
What that says is "Thar ain't much arr up thar"
We could guess all day as to the cause of these flameouts and the fact they are recent occurancies, but consider this.
Maybe we are flying the airplanes higher than we used to. The price of fuel along with the 2,000 ft increments (RVSM) has caused us to fly higher and delay the descent a little longer requiring more power reduction for descent. Some engins have limitations on the amount of power reduction above a certain altitude. I like not below 85% above FL350.
Another point is the Core Lock was probably secondary to the engines quitting. Core lock is caused by pulling all the power off at a cold and high altitude.
So when you get a AFM revision adding a power reduction limitation then I can say "You see what I mean Verne" till then don't fly too high.
We could guess all day as to the cause of these flameouts and the fact they are recent occurancies, but consider this.
Maybe we are flying the airplanes higher than we used to. The price of fuel along with the 2,000 ft increments (RVSM) has caused us to fly higher and delay the descent a little longer requiring more power reduction for descent. Some engins have limitations on the amount of power reduction above a certain altitude. I like not below 85% above FL350.
Another point is the Core Lock was probably secondary to the engines quitting. Core lock is caused by pulling all the power off at a cold and high altitude.
So when you get a AFM revision adding a power reduction limitation then I can say "You see what I mean Verne" till then don't fly too high.
Rubber Ducky
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Posts
- 143
wheres the BEEF???
I still haven't seen from a reliable source a confirmation that this latest event even occurred. Can anyone paste info from the ntsb, faa, or alien government who claims that they have juristiction on this so called event. What day did it occur? If we know the date, we can go to flight aware for a history of landings to see what tail numbers landed in ORF that day, if any.
I still haven't seen from a reliable source a confirmation that this latest event even occurred. Can anyone paste info from the ntsb, faa, or alien government who claims that they have juristiction on this so called event. What day did it occur? If we know the date, we can go to flight aware for a history of landings to see what tail numbers landed in ORF that day, if any.
*#$% Headwinds
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Posts
- 58
I had also heard from a friend who is a FLOPS pilot that igniters and boost pumps before descent became SOP after the second flame out. I am using that procedure for now.
The fact that FSI is making authoritative statements about what solutions won't help tells me that someone has a clue about it. I am also extremely frustrated that no one is talking. I'm going back to FSI RLC in late July for recurrent. I will post up with whatever they have to say.
The fact that FSI is making authoritative statements about what solutions won't help tells me that someone has a clue about it. I am also extremely frustrated that no one is talking. I'm going back to FSI RLC in late July for recurrent. I will post up with whatever they have to say.
Last edited:
Pamedpamed19 said:
No plane is safe, if you are as worried as you look on your posts sell your share and stop flying. I could walk out my front door trip and hit my head on a rock and die.
I should take a poll on here and ask if I should stay in my house. I will get a ton of dumbass remarks saying to become a mole and never leave.
On top of that the Concorde went from the best aviaition safety records to the worst. All in one day it took, now something was done about this. It wasnt because of the incident but because of the aging fleet. Flying is by far safer then driving, yet there is still millions of more people that drive every day then fly.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
