NetJets crash in Laredo TX

FlyingAccountant said:
Word on the street is they ran out of gas.

Which sort of makes sense considering the crash wasn't an inferno despite the wings being ripped off.
Click to expand...

Nothing that it’s not a possibility, but the wings were in one piece and all the electrical parts were ripped away from it when the tail came off. Reference the pics I posted. That drastically decreases the chances of an inferno.
 
T/O w/FSII said:
Nothing that it’s not a possibility, but the wings were in one piece and all the electrical parts were ripped away from it when the tail came off. Reference the pics I posted. That drastically decreases the chances of an inferno.
Click to expand...
Yep. All of the fuel just got jostled and decided to stay in the wing tanks. I don't know what happened in this accident but apparently you do. I'm hoping they didn't run out of fuel but the evidence is leaning towards that conclusion so far. The wings and the aft fuselage tank carry the fuel, normally the aft tank feeds the the wings to maintain a reasonable CG and they pump the fuel up to the engines. In your mind the wings and the the aft tank broke away from the cabin and miraculously never ignited. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you're logic differs from historical evidence. Prove me wrong, when has a jet with fuel on board crashed and not turned into a fireball.
 
Boris Badenov said:
I think we can be pretty sure that it will be determined whether or not there was fuel on the airplane (and if there wasn't, why there wasn't).
Click to expand...
Can Citations dump fuel? My recollection is hazy but I don't think that's an option. Here's the sticky wicket, what if the airplane was broken and just pumping jet fuel into the atmosphere and the crew wasn't able to discern the reality of their problem. Instead of trying to place blame the focus should be on figuring out what happened. The airplane didn't make smoking hole and I'm sure it has a CVR and an FDR so the truth should be apparent relatively soon.
 
knot4u said:
Can Citations dump fuel? My recollection is hazy but I don't think that's an option. Here's the sticky wicket, what if the airplane was broken and just pumping jet fuel into the atmosphere and the crew wasn't able to discern the reality of their problem. Instead of trying to place blame the focus should be on figuring out what happened. The airplane didn't make smoking hole and I'm sure it has a CVR and an FDR so the truth should be apparent relatively soon.
Click to expand...
The latitude cannot dump fuel. It also only has wing tanks and not an aft tank. With a CVR and FDR that are most likely completely intact by the looks of it I am guessing they already know but have to go through all the hoops first.
 
Yeah, we'll know soon enough. To your question, I've never flown a Citation of any ilk, but Claude doesn't seem to think the Latitude can fuel-dump in flight, and that's consistent with the bizjets sorta in that class that I'm familiar with.
 
Skåning said:
Fuel leak maybe? Unknown burn rate and thought the could make LRD?
Click to expand...

Could be. I'd like to think a professional air crew wouldn't run a plane out of gas, but it's happened before.

They reported low fuel and a possible(?) flame out to ATC, so that isn't conjecture on my part. It's anyone's guess at this point as to how they got to that status though.
 
knot4u said:
Yep. All of the fuel just got jostled and decided to stay in the wing tanks. I don't know what happened in this accident but apparently you do. I'm hoping they didn't run out of fuel but the evidence is leaning towards that conclusion so far. The wings and the aft fuselage tank carry the fuel, normally the aft tank feeds the the wings to maintain a reasonable CG and they pump the fuel up to the engines. In your mind the wings and the the aft tank broke away from the cabin and miraculously never ignited. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you're logic differs from historical evidence. Prove me wrong, when has a jet with fuel on board crashed and not turned into a fireball.
Click to expand...

I’m not saying I’m wrong, but I did stop reading when you said aft fuselage tank.
 
Boris Badenov said:
I think we can be pretty sure that it will be determined whether or not there was fuel on the airplane (and if there wasn't, why there wasn't).
Click to expand...
Why wait? Steeeeeeeeeve will tell me I need to know.
IMG_5192.jpeg
 
FlyingAccountant said:
Word on the street is they ran out of gas.

Which sort of makes sense considering the crash wasn't an inferno despite the wings being ripped off.
Click to expand...

What about the burn damage to the lower cowling of the right engine?

Definitely not being an internet influencer investigator but the images clearly show discoloring in that area.
 
knot4u said:
There was smoke and fire. I've heard a myth that the guy that invented Skydrol would demonstrate it by swallowing a cup of it. I've never been able to verify it but I can say Skydrol is no ones friend and gulping down a shot of the most inhumane liquid we've invented seems impossible. I used to work in a hydraulic shop and I got a friend a job there, I told him his hands were rugged enough but his eyes and nether regions weren't, wear safety glasses and wash your hands before you visit the mens room. He didn't listen and I just laughed. Skydrol will burn, it just has a higher ignition point than 5606.
Click to expand...
Is there a point to this story that's relevant to this accident?
 
milleR said:
Is there a point to this story that's relevant to this accident?
Click to expand...

"We can't bust heads like we used to. But we have our ways. One trick is to tell stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."

Onionst.png
 
DeltaAlphaNovember said:
I spoke to my stepdaughter recently who is a captain at NetJets and she mentioned the possibility of contaminated fuel. But I don't know •. So I'll let the investigations do their job and wait to see.
Click to expand...

As long as this flight was, contaminated fuel usually begins causing problems not very long after takeoff, vice late/later into the flight. Certainly an avenue to investigate and rule in or rule out though.
 
flyingpotato said:

Crash That Killed In-N-Out Officers Is Investigated​

“In-N-Out President Richard A. Snyder of Newport Beach and Executive Vice President Philip R. West of Irvine apparently had broken a longstanding rule about not flying together and were both aboard the chartered jet.”—LA Times, 1993.

Even with these policies in place they’re sometimes broken. More disciplined entities will launch multiple AC. There are more tailored security/privacy aspects that interpret aviation safety into a very unique blend, that 121 op specs alone wouldn’t necessarily be an improvement upon. The unfortunate fact are the facts that would correct the misperception of “91 cowboys” are very well protected under the strict adherence of “private aviation”. But that facts that don’t are very much in abundance. Often with glaring results.
Click to expand...
This is one of the reasons our flight department gets sent to upset training biannually. Definitely much better realism than in the sims when you’re hanging from the straps of a Saberliner.
 
If you manually enter a fuel value and never sync it with the actual FOB, is there anything that would tell you the numbers don’t match?

Just thinking out loud here, but I could see a scenario where someone manually entered the fuel, never verified it against the actual fuel onboard, and then the briefing only covered predicted landing fuel. If nobody was really looking at the actual starting fuel, I can see how a mistake like that could snowball into a much bigger problem. Total speculation on my part, though.
 
ive seen one photo of the aft section on the lower off ramp(?) with a lot of kitty litter looking stuff on the ground, so perhaps the fuel just wasn’t leaking near the fuselage
 
bp said:
ive seen one photo of the aft section on the lower off ramp(?) with a lot of kitty litter looking stuff on the ground, so perhaps the fuel just wasn’t leaking near the fuselage
Click to expand...
it was discussed in here earlier, unusable fuel is, unusable.

MikeOH58 said:
If you manually enter a fuel value and never sync it with the actual FOB, is there anything that would tell you the numbers don’t match?

Just thinking out loud here, but I could see a scenario where someone manually entered the fuel, never verified it against the actual fuel onboard, and then the briefing only covered predicted landing fuel. If nobody was really looking at the actual starting fuel, I can see how a mistake like that could snowball into a much bigger problem. Total speculation on my part, though.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair scenario. Anyone know the avionics they are running these? Garmin is reliant on FOB sync but you can force a number you think is in there without it being accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top