The mfg. of the engine will likely immediately know the stats; if this hasn't happened before, there won't likely be any action (that is, if it's a one-off caused by crappy maintenance, etc.)
Yes, fly over the airport- or within few miles -and circle on down for a short downwind , base and final ; long runways in front (in this case 8200 and 8700 feet for rwys 36) in case you end up high on final …..after so many hours in an airplane the pilots should have an idea of the gliding characteristics of his/her airplane …. Prefer to end high than low and short of the runway ….my idea.
And in your opinion, what would the alert warn of?
Now why would they bother to wait for more information, when the Internet (which has access to comparatively little information) has already figured it all out?
So we are left with having to deduce a fuel leak and shutting spar valve using systems knowledge while confronting compound problems.
I find it hard to believe that an aviation lawyer won’t be involved in an airplane accident investigation…be it a lawyer representing the airplane owner, insurance, pilots, victim survivors ….for their own investigation……this is a litigious society and the different parties want to find out their own conclusions and facts….I am not suggesting those lawyers will be involved in writing the NTSB prelim and final reports…..
An Alert sent off to the operator of the airplane for the inspection of the suspect or failed part.
Now why would they bother to wait for more information, when the Internet (which has access to comparatively little information) has already figured it all out?
I have participated in numerous aviation mishap investigations (albeit military side, not civilian) and I can assure you that we don't let lawyers anywhere near our work. Lawyers can get access to factual information, but all of the personal statements, investigation deliberations, findings, and safety analysis are privileged information and will never be shared except in an appropriate safety report. If the lawyers want that stuff, they have to do their own interviews and investigation. The integrity of the safety investigation is absolutely critical to ensuring we get the best shot at figuring out what happened and how we can prevent it from happening again. People would never be honest if they thought it could be used against them.
I don't care what you believe or not, but the FACT is lawyers are not involved in the direct investigation. The manufacturer may have a lawyer, the insurance company or whatever but they are not allowed direct access.
If they want information for their own investigation then they will wait like everyone else. It's not the job of the NTSB to be the investigative body for lawyers.
Yep, and they wait for the professionals to do their work.
No, but you are alluding that attorneys could be on sight and influencing decisions for their clients, which is totally false.
What would the alert say that's different from what's in the preliminary report? Would it require some action?
Thank you, I don't remember ejectors as the primary fuel pumps from the tank in any of my birds. So would a ground school go over the last step of "If amber boost pump message on. PROCEDURE COMPLETED" with a discussion of why an ejector would not produce enough pressure, one being low or no motive fuel flow and why you might have low or no motive fuel flow? While the procedure is completed I don't think the troubleshooting is.
That is what I stated!
That’s what I meant! Nothing prevents them from starting their own!
Yep!
I can assure you that lawyers have experts in this field and they don’t need the help from you or me!
The transcript, if one is produced, will be in the docket for the investigation. By suggesting that lawers can suppress release you are very much suggesting that lawyers may be involved in the NTSB reports. I don't think it's malicious, I just don't think you understand the process. The docket will also contain a list of parties to the investigation by individual name and role. Look at dockets for closed investigations - I doubt you will find a lawyer listed as a party, even for those that released comms transcripts; but I encourage you to try to find one.
It was never my intention to suggest that lawyers will be involved directly with the NTSB reports, but doing it alone on their own separate investigations; I clearly stated “ for their own investigation”; is it forbidden by law or unprofessional for them to do it that way: separate, independent, alone ?
How would a lawyer doing his own investigation have any influence over whether the NTSB releases a CVR transcript?
So if the days of us having to know how to build the airplane, or know and understand the schematics are gone and all we need to know is how to read and follow steps on a screen it behooves the procedure writers to write procedures that take us to a safe point.
I don't think they had a rapid imbalance at first - At the time the pressure loss first happened, it would have still been balanced.
Seems likely - I'd like to see the QRH for the 680A. It's possible that crossfeed is a troubleshooting step, or it's possible that NetJets maintenance control asked them to crossfeed for troubleshooting purposes, but somehow it seems that crossfeed was probably turned on and then not turned off in time.
I think so. Turbines need high fuel pressure to run, and based on what Doc posted it seems like one way they ensure that's kept is with automated boost pumps.
Ugh. That fuel system schematic looks VERY similar to the one for the jet I fly, and suffers from the same issue: Nowhere does it show where in the system things like fuel pressure/flow are actually measured. That matters when you're trying to figure out what's going on, and it drives me nuts that I have a cockpit indications that I don't know where in the system they're measured.
