NetJets crash in Laredo TX

Wardogg said:
it was discussed in here earlier, unusable fuel is, unusable.


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.
Click to expand...
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...
If the difference between fms fuel calculation and measured fuel is greater than 400lbs you get a message on the fms for miscompare.
 
414driver said:
If the difference between fms fuel calculation and measured fuel is greater than 400lbs you get a message on the fms for miscompare.
Click to expand...
Only thing I could think of there is a MEL’d fuel gauge as the beginning of the error chain. Not sure what the 680A (and NetJets procedure) allows but the 525B MMEL allows a single gauge to be inop. Pretty strict conditions though and I think at a minimum a massive planning or unit conversion error would have to be stacked on top.
 
I haven't flown Latitude but flown a different Garmin aircraft. When you tap the FOB Sync button it resets the fuel totalizer to the actual fob. I'm not sure if it's possible to handjam the numbers but even if it is it would be odd for someone to bother with a few extra taps instead of hitting one sync button, and it was not an SOP back when I was there. If you forget to sync (which I've certainly done a few times) the endurance calcs use the previous lower numbers. There's no CAS alert about fuel gauges not matching the fuel totalizer but the reserve fuel ring paint based on the totalizer numbers, i.e. it will show lower endurance if you forget to sync.
pwttogfk said:
Only thing I could think of there is a MEL’d fuel gauge as the beginning of the error chain. Not sure what the 680A (and NetJets procedure) allows but the 525B MMEL allows a single gauge to be inop. Pretty strict conditions though and I think at a minimum a massive planning or unit conversion error would have to be stacked on top.
Click to expand...
 
Been a few years, but when I was flying into Cabo on the regular the fuellers/FBO were absolute professionals and would triple-check amounts on fuel orders. "Ey capitan, ju want top the wings and tree hundred pounds in the trunk?"

Sí, gracias.
 
hammerhat said:
I haven't flown Latitude but flown a different Garmin aircraft. When you tap the FOB Sync button it resets the fuel totalizer to the actual fob. I'm not sure if it's possible to handjam the numbers but even if it is it would be odd for someone to bother with a few extra taps instead of hitting one sync button, and it was not an SOP back when I was there. If you forget to sync (which I've certainly done a few times) the endurance calcs use the previous lower numbers. There's no CAS alert about fuel gauges not matching the fuel totalizer but the reserve fuel ring paint based on the totalizer numbers, i.e. it will show lower endurance if you forget to sync.
Click to expand...
This is what’s required to dispatch with a inop gauge on a G3000 CJ3+. FOB sync won’t work and I’d assume you’d have the FMS FUEL MISCOMPARE caution.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7443.jpeg
    IMG_7443.jpeg
    184.6 KB · Views: 34
Fixtur said:
Been a few years, but when I was flying into Cabo on the regular the fuellers/FBO were absolute professionals and would triple-check amounts on fuel orders. "Ey capitan, ju want top the wings and tree hundred pounds in the trunk?"

Sí, gracias.
Click to expand...

That’s been my experience there as well. Also, face time with the fueler increases the likely hood of them receiving a tip.
 
Not that I find. There's still about a week left for the 30-day preliminary report. The NTSB has been stuffing a surprising amount of data in some of the preliminaries lately, where all they're required to do is report that an accident happened and some basic contextual information.
 
Those starter/generators are heavy, I've never worked on a 680, but if memory serves the AMM for the G200 (same engine) had bold face typed warnings about supporting the starter/generator while installing the v-band clamp to ensure it or the engine gearbox wouldn't be damaged during removal and installation, trying to change one by yourself is just asking for trouble. NetJets runs a pretty tight ship, but they also use a lot of contract MX providers when the airplanes are out in the field. I'll be curious to read the final NTSB report.
 
DeltaAlphaNovember said:
Curious about the fuel system. Is it possible for the fuel to all leak out from the one side? I don't know squat about the airplane.
Click to expand...
I don't know much about the 680 either but in my experience the fuel load isn't a first come first served supply to the engines unless something enables it. If that fuel pressure switch was just dangling like that it would set off some sort of message, that's it's entire reason for being there. I'm not going to second guess the actions of the crew because I wasn't there but it seems odd that that failure led to them crashing on a highway.
 
DropTank said:
Guessing there will be mandatory inflight fuel logs in the Netjet's SOP's in the near future
Click to expand...
They probably do, but given the fact that they were going back and forth with dispatch/mx, it probably was pushed aside. Once they started getting all of the cascading failures, it was probably too late. Given the • sandwich they had to eat, they did an amazing job getting it down somewhere relatively safe in the middle of nowhere.
 
CoffeeIcePapers said:
They probably do, but given the fact that they were going back and forth with dispatch/mx, it probably was pushed aside. Once they started getting all of the cascading failures, it was probably too late. Given the • sandwich they had to eat, they did an amazing job getting it down somewhere relatively safe in the middle of nowhere.
Click to expand...

My comment was less about the crew's performance and more about management's kneejerk reaction to customers' concerns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top