Plane crash on FL freeway

francisco collazos said:
I don't disagree there but what would be the reason for water there?
Click to expand...
post 202 beat me to the punch. It's an insignificant amount.

My read of that prelim doesn't really give credence to a theory of water being the cause of the shutdowns. The theory of throttles being pulled past the fuel cutoff in a poorly designed family of pedestals where people online have anecdotally confirmed they have inadvertently shut down engines on, especially when a left seater acts as PNF on flap actuation behind the arm of a right-seater manipulating power lever inputs towards idle, is much more credible to me.
 
Let’s also be honest, how many jets operating right now in the skies probably have an ounce of water or 2 floating around in one of the tanks?

I have a type myself and how many times have you seen a crew sump the fuel in their plane? I can count how many times I have on one hand in 18 years. Not to mention, how many hundreds of gallons got put on to it during the fire response. That being said, it’s not a water or contamination issue on this flight.
 
Did the low oil P warnings come after throttles moved to off? ie pilot chooses to kill engines for some as yet undetermined reason, and a normal shutdown audio/annunc panel warning occurred (as happens after every flight)?

or did the warnings occur before the throttles were moved to off and maybe a pilot responded, for some reason, by killing the engines?

Or is that known yet?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Did the low oil P warnings come after throttles moved to off? ie pilot chooses to kill engines for some as yet undetermined reason, and a normal shutdown audio/annunc panel warning occurred (as happens after every flight)?

or did the warnings occur before the throttles were moved to off and maybe a pilot responded, for some reason, by killing the engines?

Or is that known yet?
Click to expand...
New to the forum. According to the rules I can't post a link, but have read all the posts and may have missed it, but have read several of the posts that there were three passengers. There were two passengers and a cabin attendant and they exited thru rear baggage door. If you want preliminary report, google Challenger
Accident Number: ERA24FA110
 
Welwood470 said:
New to the forum. According to the rules I can't post a link, but have read all the posts and may have missed it, but have read several of the posts that there were three passengers. There were two passengers and a cabin attendant and they exited thru rear baggage door. If you want preliminary report, google Challenger
Accident Number: ERA24FA110
Click to expand...
I guess you didn’t read Post #196.
 
Anyone else seen the 604 cockpit demo of the right seat pilot reaching below the throttles to arm the T/Rs or what ever the switch is. At the same time the pilot in the left seat is pulling back to idle. The safeties engage on the right pilots forearm and allows the throttles to clear the gates into cut off. Pretty scary demo and about as good of an explanation as there is so far.
 
Would an accidental cutoff trigger the oil pressure annunciations?
 
NJP_MAN said:
Anyone else seen the 604 cockpit demo of the right seat pilot reaching below the throttles to arm the T/Rs or what ever the switch is. At the same time the pilot in the left seat is pulling back to idle. The safeties engage on the right pilots forearm and allows the throttles to clear the gates into cut off. Pretty scary demo and about as good of an explanation as there is so far.
Click to expand...

the one I saw on reddit was of the left seater acting as PNF and going for the flaps (to the right of the pedestal) with his arm behind/under the throttles, accidentally engaging (and by that I mean releasing) those gates in the process of reaching for said flaps. The right seater flying the plane moving the levers back to idle and into those released gates, clearing both power levers right through to the cutoff position (without an expectation they wouldn't be caught by the stops/gate of course).

This is the same flying role I believe the prelim said the pilots were during the sequence (left seater PNF, right seater flying).

Apparently a crappy gate design of these pedestals, also apparently shared across varying jets under the Bombardier umbrella (to include regional airliners, yikes). Guess we should count ourselves lucky more don't come down in this manner, since I haven't read of any regulatory mandate for their re-design.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Discussion on an internet forum is not going to help solve anything. But neither is it going to hurt. The investigation will find what it finds either way. In the meantime, no harm in a bunch of aviation enthusiasts educating each other and engaging in lively discussion online. If that discussion sometimes veers into wild speculation, well that's the internet for you.
Click to expand...
I think it’s useful for us to discuss - I learn even from speculation with which I disagree. Thinking about why one disagrees, can be useful.

The “sad” part is too often, when the ntsb report does come out, we don’t see and/or talk about it in the context of our prior discussions.
 
SFDukie said:
I think it’s useful for us to discuss - I learn even from speculation with which I disagree. Thinking about why one disagrees, can be useful.

The “sad” part is too often, when the ntsb report does come out, we don’t see and/or talk about it in the context of our prior discussions.
Click to expand...
Well put!

I agree ... very helpful when the final NTSB report is posted to the original thread. An example would be the Snort Snodgrass accident. I think about that event every time I take off.
 
donjohnston said:
So? I didn't realize that storage space was running low.

Do you check the entire internet for duplicate information or just here?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
My response was more for the folks asking about it…
But thank you for the highly thoughtful response.
 
SFDukie said:
The “sad” part is too often, when the ntsb report does come out, we don’t see and/or talk about it in the context of our prior discussions.
Click to expand...
It would be helpful if the NTSB website would allow folks to request e-mail notification when new documents are published on a specific accident. As it is, we must periodically search on CAROL to find out if anything has changed.
 
francisco collazos said:
I don't disagree there but what would be the reason for water there?
Click to expand...
We need to see the CVR transcript to determine if the posted power lever theory has validity. Another possibility is one engine failed and they mistakenly shut down the good one. It’s happened.
 
MauiJim said:
We need to see the CVR transcript to determine if the posted power lever theory has validity. Another possibility is one engine failed and they mistakenly shut down the good one. It’s happened.
Click to expand...

The engines shut down less than a second apart. If one failed, I doubt they could have reacted quickly enough to shut down the other in less than one second. The only way that could have happened is both levers coming to shutoff simultaneously.
 
midwestpa24 said:
The engines shut down less than a second apart. If one failed, I doubt they could have reacted quickly enough to shut down the other in less than one second. The only way that could have happened is both levers coming to shutoff simultaneously.
Click to expand...
We were home. About a mile from where the they turned south instead of proceeding to the runway extension. Too close! Awaiting NTSB final.
 
Todd82 said:
There's stuff floating around that they said no prist when fueling at OSU. Which makes sense for that aircraft as noted above, and should eliminate the DEF mix up possibilities.

As for gear up, their problem was the wing caught the sound barrier there for the adjacent cookie cutter neighborhood, gear up or down wasn't going to change that.
Click to expand...
There’s a manufacturing joint just forward of the door that connects the cockpit to the fuselage. There are 2 marks on the wall. Both are probably at least 12 ft above the ground so the aircraft was probably airborne as it impacted the wall. Huge amount of kinetic energy to absorb. The wall mostly held. Energy went into rotating the A/C. The larger spot first where the right wing snagged the wall and rotated the A/C clockwise and a smaller one where the cockpit probably impacted it, shearing the fuselage @ the mfg joint. Huge G forces.
 
Engines were examined before the preliminary NTSB report was issued. If it were birds, I would think they would have mentioned it. There would be debris. It took DOT over a year to fix the wall they hit. So close to saving it. Looks like it stalled and rolled into the wall. A couple of knots more IAS and they may have made it. An overpass was less than a mile in front of them. RIP.
 
Seems a strange explanation. How come this is not a common occurrence? Both engines flame out simultaneously. Know nothing about jet engines but seems a stretch to me.

Can any of the corrosion be attributed to post crash fire?
 
Not according to FDR data. From the report, the engines were showing signs of trouble before (hung starts, higher than normal pressure required to actuate the vanes).
It seems (to me) that both engines were commanded to idle (that might be the common trigger), and when commanded to accelerate, the stator vanes stuck causing the compressor stalls.
The report indicates corrosion products consistent with salt water.
 
Reading through the docket, appears the NTSB has already circulated a draft final report to the parties. Hop-a-Jet response to draft final report attempts to establish that operator-level maintenance IAW GE procedures was not at fault. GE comments to draft final report are redacted.

Key point for a pilot forum is that it doesn’t appear there were any improper actions by the flight crew to cause the dual-engine loss of thrust.

Airworthiness Factual Report establishes that “neither engine experienced a fuel cut off, combustor blowout, or engine flameout.”
 
AquaLand said:
Reading through the docket, appears the NTSB has already circulated a draft final report to the parties. Hop-a-Jet response to draft final report attempts to establish that operator-level maintenance IAW GE procedures was not at fault. GE comments to draft final report are redacted.

Key point for a pilot forum is that it doesn’t appear there were any improper actions by the flight crew to cause the dual-engine loss of thrust.

Airworthiness Factual Report establishes that “neither engine experienced a fuel cut off, combustor blowout, or engine flameout.”
Click to expand...
My guess was worn power lever gates that allowed levers to be pulled into fuel shut off.
I was wrong. Poor pilots.

But where did the salt come from?
 
I too know nothing about metallurgy or jet engines. This sounds extremely speculative. Given the age, cycles and flight hours on the aircraft, it probably had multiple engine changes and overhauls over its lifetime. So there’s a very low probability both engines had identical corrosion and failed within a few seconds of each-other IMHO. We need to know when each engine was last overhauled or replaced. Many of these same aircraft and engines “live in” identical salty environments. I do not recall hearing about any other dual engine failures in any aircraft type, let alone this one. Awaiting the final NTSB report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top