Challenger crashed onto highway in Naples FL

[knot4u]

Yeah, I’m not seeing any smoking gun in that report. Maybe more information will come to light further along(?).

I agree. When the final NTSB report with all off the detailed analysis of the CVR and FDR recordings (assuming both were functional) they'll tell us what their best guess is. I'm going to hazard a guess based on the fire that they didn't run out of fuel, that doesn't mean they didn't starve the engines but that seems unlikely. That Challenger was built in 2004, it's not like it was some old school 601 tooting around with '80s tech. Trying to figure these things out accurately is extremely time consuming and tedious, especially if you have to figure out where to point the finger of blame. The NTSB is the gold standard for figuring this stuff out and I suspect the final report report will probably say something other than a couple of cowboys were trying to make tik tok content.

 

[melax]

"however, no fuel was released when the No. 2 engine main supply line was cut."

They also said that the fuel system seemed to be operating properly and not contaminated....

Also appears they added a little less than 2450 pounds of gas. Wish it said how much they had when they added that amount. About how long can 2450 pounds of gas last you in a Challenger like that?

~ 1 Hr.

 

[Seggy]

Thank you.

 

[NovemberEcho]

Yeah, I’m not seeing any smoking gun in that report. Maybe more information will come to light further along(?).

This is pretty sus

“About 16 ounces of liquid with an odor and appearance consistent with Jet-A fuel was drained from the aft tail fuel tank; the sample contained about ½ ounce of what appeared to be water. The auxiliary power unit fuel filter bowl was removed for visual inspection of the fuel and fuel filter. No debris was noted in the drained fuel and the filter appeared clean. The fuel was retained for further analysis.”

 

[knot4u]

This is pretty sus

“About 16 ounces of liquid with an odor and appearance consistent with Jet-A fuel was drained from the aft tail fuel tank; the sample contained about ½ ounce of what appeared to be water. The auxiliary power unit fuel filter bowl was removed for visual inspection of the fuel and fuel filter. No debris was noted in the drained fuel and the filter appeared clean. The fuel was retained for further analysis.”

I've never been to third base with a Challenger but from what little I do know about them I think that aft tail fuel tank (it's basically the tailcone) is the first portion of the fuel onboard to be burned off and may never have been used during this flight, also a 1/2 ounce of water wouldn't make those engines miss a beat. 16 ounces sounds like unusable fuel for that tank and can probably only be obtained from the sump, they deliberately don't allow all of the volume of liquid in a fuel tank to be delivered to an engine for this very reason.

 

[NovemberEcho]

For those unfamiliar with the accidental shutoff based on arm placement (like me) just saw this demo on insta

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C34AXJbuQ0Q/?igsh=MTJwaHZnc2VjMjlrOQ==

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

For those unfamiliar with the accidental shutoff based on arm placement (like me) just saw this demo on insta

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C34AXJbuQ0Q/?igsh=MTJwaHZnc2VjMjlrOQ==

Yikes.

Reminiscent of the Atlas 767 accident, go around switch activation and subsequent accident sequence.

 

[pwttogfk]

I've never been to third base with a Challenger but from what little I do know about them I think that aft tail fuel tank (it's basically the tailcone) is the first portion of the fuel onboard to be burned off and may never have been used during this flight, also a 1/2 ounce of water wouldn't make those engines miss a beat. 16 ounces sounds like unusable fuel for that tank and can probably only be obtained from the sump, they deliberately don't allow all of the volume of liquid in a fuel tank to be delivered to an engine for this very reason.

I had a fun engine glitch (with a fellow JC’er riding shotgun) and one of the things Textron AOG support had me do was sump gas and check for water. There was indeed some water (not surprisingly, all this happened during a rainstorm), but they told me the same thing. Takes lots of water to cause a jet engine problems. Doesn’t take much jet fuel to cause a uniform to get trashed, but I digress…

 

[GroundPilot]

Oh man, it most likely was the accidental shutdown with an arm reaching over

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

Oh man, it most likely was the accidental shutdown with an arm reaching over

I don't know anything about the Challenger, but flew the CRJ for a while. I assume the FADECs would relight the engine relatively quickly.

 

[GroundPilot]

I don't know anything about the Challenger, but flew the CRJ for a while. I assume the FADECs would relight the engine relatively quickly.

In the vid that blancolirio made he said that on the Challenger it takes a long time to re-ignite

 

[Kingairer]

For those unfamiliar with the accidental shutoff based on arm placement (like me) just saw this demo on insta

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C34AXJbuQ0Q/?igsh=MTJwaHZnc2VjMjlrOQ==

Well thats a crap design aint it

 

[KLB]

I don't know anything about the Challenger, but flew the CRJ for a while. I assume the FADECs would relight the engine relatively quickly.

Does the 604 have FADEC? I hear that the 604 engines take ridiculously long to spool up.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

Does the 604 have FADEC? I hear that the 604 engines take ridiculously long to spool up.

Yeah, I was just thinking they’re already near idle and if you pop it back into place, it shouldn’t take long, but again, I don’t know anything about the challenger.

 

[KLB]

Yeah, I was just thinking they’re already near idle and if you pop it back into place, it shouldn’t take long, but again, I don’t know anything about the challenger.

I don't fly the 600 series. But I'm going to get in my soap box for a bit:

I have had the discussion with pilots that fly on my airframe that it's not a good idea to shutdown the APU below 10000ft because a re-start is a lot more sure fire via APU bleed air. A windmilling start requires to be within a certain flight envelope where an APU assisted start is just a matter of flipping the start switch. There are pilots that would should down the APU during the before takeoff check or immediately in the climbout and all the while this being the most busiest time for the NFP. Waiting that extra 3-5 minutes to get to 10000ft will cost a little on the APU hours. But it's worth it in my book.

 

[MikeD]

I don't fly the 600 series. But I'm going to get in my soap box for a bit:

I have had the discussion with pilots that fly on my airframe that it's not a good idea to shutdown the APU below 10000ft because a re-start is a lot more sure fire via APU bleed air. A windmilling start requires to be within a certain flight envelope where an APU assisted start is just a matter of flipping the start switch. There are pilots that would should down the APU during the before takeoff check or immediately in the climbout and all the while this being the most busiest time for the NFP. Waiting that extra 3-5 minutes to get to 10000ft will cost a little on the APU hours. But it's worth it in my book.

Agreed. Even though on the jets I’ve flown, they’ve varied in the before takeoff checks from “APU-OFF” to “APU- As required” (or similar verbiage), I leave it running until 10k, securing it while doing the other 10k checks such as pressurization check, etc. There’s no penalty to do so, and many potential benefits in doing so, as you’ve mentioned.

I think the problem comes, when people see “APU-Off” before takeoff, that they read it as a must-do, rather than an option or reminder. Especially with some of the pilots I’ve flown with on one particular airframe, who are hardcore about not using the APU in the air. That’s a story in itself.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

In that scenario, what is the FO reaching for where the human arm acts as the lever that allows the cutoff switches to activate?

 

[KLB]

Agreed. Even though on the jets I’ve flown, they’ve varied in the before takeoff checks from “APU-OFF” to “APU- As required” (or similar verbiage), I leave it running until 10k, securing it while doing the other 10k checks such as pressurization check, etc. There’s no penalty to do so, and many potential benefits in doing so, as you’ve mentioned.

I think the problem comes, when people see “APU-Off” before takeoff, that they read it as a must-do, rather than an option or reminder. Especially with some of the pilots I’ve flown with on one particular airframe, who are hardcore about not using the APU in the air. That’s a story in itself.

A lot of folks around this side of the industry do it to limit wear and tear on the APU and to save fuel. They completely forget about the safety aspect of it. A large company that operates Challenger 300 paid bonuses to crews who participated in their fuel savings programs. Crews did weird things to ensure their bonuses from the program.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

In that scenario, what is the FO reaching for where the human arm acts as the lever that allows the cutoff switches to activate?

A comforting touch. Sometimes, a silent cockpit is too silent.

 

[knot4u]

For those unfamiliar with the accidental shutoff based on arm placement (like me) just saw this demo on insta

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C34AXJbuQ0Q/?igsh=MTJwaHZnc2VjMjlrOQ==

I'm going to question this video, so the fuel shutoffs (they're red) get lifted to shut the engines down? It seems counterintuitive and would be opposite of any fuel related control on the pedestal I've ever seen in a small jet. But as I've said I'm not very familiar with the 600 series Challlengers. Educate me.

Edit: I paused the video at the very end when some email or text from someone to someone is displayed, to try and decipher it is a fools errand, no type listed, no model listed and it has nothing to do with fuel cutoff switches. I suspect it's just clickbait, but I could be wrong.