Netjets 680 down on Highway in Laredo

NJP_MAN said:
You can hardly find a slower business jet, additionally its one of the least sophisticated business jets as well. Its a fantastic jet but its only good because its so cheap to operate and it get into tight fileds better than any other plane in category.
Click to expand...

.78m is that slow huh?

It will fly at .80m but that's right up on barber pole.
 
Doc Holliday said:
.78m is that slow huh?

It will fly at .80m but that's right up on barber pole.
Click to expand...
Climbing the thing is an absolute dog, constantly getting turned out of the way for other traffic behind. Only in a descent will I ever see .78. Usually cruise at .74 and maybe .76 if we are lucky. In a world of business jets flying .85-.92 I would certainly say yes its slow. Slower than a 737.
 
NJP_MAN said:
In a world of business jets flying .85-.92 I would certainly say yes its slow. Slower than a 737.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but those faster ones usually have to stay up longer before they reach a decent bathroom. And below 10K, nobody's legally faster than you are to get there first.
 
dtuuri said:
Yeah, but those faster ones usually have to stay up longer before they reach a decent bathroom. And below 10K, nobody's legally faster than you are to get there first.
Click to expand...
A proper fast business jet has as nice a lavatory as you could ever want.
 
NJP_MAN said:
Climbing the thing is an absolute dog, constantly getting turned out of the way for other traffic behind. Only in a descent will I ever see .78. Usually cruise at .74 and maybe .76 if we are lucky. In a world of business jets flying .85-.92 I would certainly say yes its slow. Slower than a 737.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

I flew the CE680 Sovereign. We could cruise at .80 but usually was .78m. Very impressive climb rates.

Didn't realize the 680A was so different.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Interesting.

I flew the CE680 Sovereign. We could cruise at .80 but usually was .78m. Very impressive climb rates.

Didn't realize the 680A was so different.
Click to expand...
The soverign is faster and goes 2k feet higher. Everything else being equal the lattitude's larger (fatter) fuselage really drags down those PW306Ds. I was initially typed in the sov+ but now fly the 680a and I think the Sovereign was a fantastic machine.
 
dtuuri said:
Yeah, but those faster ones usually have to stay up longer before they reach a decent bathroom. And below 10K, nobody's legally faster than you are to get there first.
Click to expand...
Below 10K? 250 kts.
With adsb I see speeds above 300kts ground speed regularly. Just all tailwinds or nobody cares??
 
bonefishpete said:
Below 10K? 250 kts.
With adsb I see speeds above 300kts ground speed regularly. Just all tailwinds or nobody cares??
Click to expand...
Sure, tailwinds could do it. But generally, just like the canyon betweeen holding as taught on a pedantic piston checkride and the real world, it's generally a "nobody cares" affair. It's like everything in life, it's when you inconvenience or kill someone who matters more than you, that these rules all of a sudden matter. Selective enforcement is not a dynamic unique to aviation.

P.S. Of course there's those of us with a wrinkled letter of exemption from the aDminStRator stashed somewhere back in the MAJCOM offices. 3 cool bills below 10. Then there's some really sparsely frequented Class Echo airspace in parts of the hinterland where even ATC doesn't care, and well....not today FSDO, ya lurking bastids! :fingerwag:
 
hindsight2020 said:
Should be a straightforward investigation, seeing how both pilots are alive and remained conscious through the letdown and egress.
Click to expand...
Yes, both pilots are alive and well, plus FDR, CVR, ADSB, ATC recording, initial inspection of the wreckage, a preliminary report “should” be available in a couple of weeks. But of course, possible lawyers actions to delay it, wrangling between parties involved , what to say or not to say publicly, it could take several weeks…….
 
Cesarmx said:
But of course, possible lawyers actions to delay it, wrangling between parties involved , what to say or not to say publicly, it could take several weeks…….
Click to expand...
FYI: attorneys not permitted to be involved in investigation so no issue. Only the NTSB IIC determines when prelim is released in most cases.
 
NJP_MAN said:
To lose electrical power would require, loss of 2 engine driven generators, 2 transformer rectifier units, and the APU generator which is the exact same part number as an engine driven unit. Just some food for thought.
Click to expand...

Total speculation here, but using this crash for an example, what's the chances it would take so long into a flight for contaminated fuel to affect engine performance?

If both engines quit from fuel contamination (or other reasons) causing the engine driven generators to die, will the APU start and restore electrics automatically... or do the pilots have to first flip some switches to start the APU and regain electrics, including the normal operation of the FMS and associated devices?

Could the contaminated fuel that shut down the engines possibly also negatively affect the start up and operation of the APU?
 
Cesarmx said:
Yes, both pilots are alive and well, plus FDR, CVR, ADSB, ATC recording, initial inspection of the wreckage, a preliminary report “should” be available in a couple of weeks. But of course, possible lawyers actions to delay it, wrangling between parties involved , what to say or not to say publicly, it could take several weeks…….
Click to expand...

Doesn't the NTSB realize there are pilot forums waiting for the prelim so they can pick it apart? The nerve!
 
Rick A said:
Total speculation here, but using this crash for an example, what's the chances it would take so long into a flight for contaminated fuel to affect engine performance?

If both engines quit from fuel contamination (or other reasons) causing the engine driven generators to die, will the APU start and restore electrics automatically... or do the pilots have to first flip some switches to start the APU and regain electrics, including the normal operation of the FMS and associated devices?

Could the contaminated fuel that shut down the engines possibly also negatively affect the start up and operation of the APU?
Click to expand...
A very good question!
 
Doc Holliday said:
Doesn't the NTSB realize there are pilot forums waiting for the prelim so they can pick it apart? The nerve!
Click to expand...
The right of public to know and to avoid possibly some other accidents in the remaining fleet of 680s ….or any airplane or crew depending on the outcome
 
Last edited:
Cesarmx said:
The right of public to know and to avoid possibly some other accidents in the remaining fleet of 680s ….or any airplane or crew depending on the outcome
Click to expand...

If there was any inkling this was a problem with the fleet, the FAA and Textron would already be putting out service bulletins. Just like happened with the MD-11 after the recent UPS crash. By now the FAA, NTSB, Textron, and Netjets being party to the inspection probably have a good idea of what happened, and you haven't seen any grounding or inspection orders.
 
Are the Pilots forced to give statements to NTSB or to anyone?
How does it work? Right to keep quiet both civil or criminally?
 
Rick A said:
Total speculation here, but using this crash for an example, what's the chances it would take so long into a flight for contaminated fuel to affect engine performance?

If both engines quit from fuel contamination (or other reasons) causing the engine driven generators to die, will the APU start and restore electrics automatically... or do the pilots have to first flip some switches to start the APU and regain electrics, including the normal operation of the FMS and associated devices?

Could the contaminated fuel that shut down the engines possibly also negatively affect the start up and operation of the APU?
Click to expand...
The 680A would require the crew to manually start the APU. There is a backup battery that will last 20 minutes after dual engine failure and give you time to start an the APU. The APU uses fuel from the rught wing so if the fuel was contaminated enough to shut the right engine down, thats also the APU fuel source.
 
Given the CVR, that likely contains most of what they’d need to know, I’d think.

I’m seriously wondering if we’re looking at a Liter / gallon mixup though.
 
dans2992 said:
Right, but perhaps that slipped through somehow?
Click to expand...
Dunno about NetJets, but every operator I've worked for has had a verbal confirmation of fuel quantity and balance in some checklist or other prior to takeoff.

Of course, if the crew decides to "go through the motions" and not actually check the things on the checklist, there's any number of things that could take them down easily.
 
RyanB said:
The speed limit should be limited to 250kts GS, that way everyone is going the same speed. :stirpot:
Click to expand...

How would that be any different than everyone going the same IAS?

flyingcheesehead said:
Dunno about NetJets, but every operator I've worked for has had a verbal confirmation of fuel quantity and balance in some checklist or other prior to takeoff.

Of course, if the crew decides to "go through the motions" and not actually check the things on the checklist, there's any number of things that could take them down easily.
Click to expand...

NetJets is a professional, well trained outfit. I highly doubt a crew of theirs would takeoff, cruise for a few hours, then run out of fuel.
 
bonefishpete said:
Below 10K? 250 kts.
With adsb I see speeds above 300kts ground speed regularly. Just all tailwinds or n
Click to expand...

Rick A said:
Total speculation here, but using this crash for an example, what's the chances it would take so long into a flight for contaminated fuel to affect engine performance?

If both engines quit from fuel contamination (or other reasons) causing the engine driven generators to die, will the APU start and restore electrics automatically... or do the pilots have to first flip some switches to start the APU and regain electrics, including the normal operation of the FMS and associated devices?

Could the contaminated fuel that shut down the engines possibly also negatively affect the start up and operation of the APU?
Click to expand...
In 2020, the FAA banned the Kathon FP 1.5 biocide from use in jet fuel. It could, especially if "overdosed", cause engine issues up to and including (because it happened) double flameout. (You can find the ADs on it; my job at the time required updated the engine operating manuals to specifically prohibit the use.)
So it can happen, and not instantly, but after hours (perhaps over several flights). I think it blocked the fuel filters with chemical salts, something like that.
As fuel flow is the "throttle", you can lose power, any amount, from either engine.
 
Groundpounder said:
How would that be any different than everyone going the same IAS?



NetJets is a professional, well trained outfit. I highly doubt a crew of theirs would takeoff, cruise for a few hours, then run out of fuel.
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt of their professionalism but we are still humans and subject to err despite of rigorous training in any profession…..
 
dans2992 said:
Right, but perhaps that slipped through somehow?
Click to expand...

That would be difficult considering the route has been loaded in the FMS and it looks at FOB and flight time. In case it was underfueled the FMS would be messaging that there is not enough fuel for the planned route. The FMS also has programmed in reserve fuel as well, so another message would appear warning of inadequate reserve fuel.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Dunno about NetJets, but every operator I've worked for has had a verbal confirmation of fuel quantity and balance in some checklist or other prior to takeoff.

Of course, if the crew decides to "go through the motions" and not actually check the things on the checklist, there's any number of things that could take them down easily.
Click to expand...
Some years back I used to fly into Mexico and it was as part of the SOP for refueling there to handle the attendant the fuel in litters wanted, being there present during refueling , verify the truck was for “Turbosina”, no additives ordered, look at the end the truck’s meter of total amount supplied, verify in panel by both pilots in instrument fuel indicator the total amount in tanks…….not saying or implying in any way, shape or form they are incapable people but………..Risk is everywhere, especially when there is a 3.7 multiplier involved……
“Trust But Verify” ( President Ronald Reagan)
 
Last edited:
Kenny Phillips said:
In 2020, the FAA banned the Kathon FP 1.5 biocide from use in jet fuel. It could, especially if "overdosed", cause engine issues up to and including (because it happened) double flameout. (You can find the ADs on it; my job at the time required updated the engine operating manuals to specifically prohibit the use.)
So it can happen, and not instantly, but after hours (perhaps over several flights). I think it blocked the fuel filters with chemical salts, something like that.
As fuel flow is the "throttle", you can lose power, any amount, from either engine.
Click to expand...

Right now Netjets has halted uploading fuel while in Mexico and they're tankering fuel.
 
Last edited:
Every modern jet I've flown has the fuel quantity at each waypoint as well as the destination staring you in the face, and in most cases some sort of alert that occurs if you'll be under your reserve. Contamination? Okay, but straight up running out of fuel because of improper loading is tough for me to imagine.
 
Groundpounder said:
Well, that's a pretty big clue as to what they think the cause is.
Click to expand...
…..apparently now the investigation is focusing into possible fuel contamination and not to fuel exhaustion, it puzzles me the fact that there was not a post crash fire due to fuel remaining in the tanks which normally is also accompanied by a big explosion………especially after fuselage breakup……..
 
Cesarmx said:
…..apparently now the investigation is focusing into possible fuel contamination and not to fuel exhaustion, it puzzles me the fact that there was not a post crash fire due to fuel remaining in the tanks
Click to expand...

iu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top