PDA

View Full Version : Third dual flameout raises questions about Beechjet



Midnight Mike
2006-08-09, 11:00 PM
Third dual flameout raises questions about Beechjet
By Chad Trautvetter / August 2006

The third Beechjet dual engine flameout in less than two years has left NTSB investigators, as well as aircraft manufacturer Raytheon and engine maker Pratt & Whitney Canada, scratching their heads. Meanwhile, without any answers or precise operating guidance, Beechjet pilots, owners and passengers are left to ponder
a disturbing trend.

Business aviation safety consultant Robert Breiling of Robert E. Breiling & Associates said it is unprecedented for the same business-jet type to suffer three dual flameouts. He asserted that the flameouts are no longer just a coincidence and likely point to a problem with the Beechjet itself or its operating procedures.

After the first incident in July 2004, the problem was initially perceived to center around an ultra-low concentration of fuel anti-icing additive. (The Beechjet is not equipped with fuel heaters and thus relies on the fuel additive to prevent ice crystals from forming and clogging the fuel filters. An oil cooler is installed in the jet’s fuel tanks, though its heating effectiveness is unknown.) But this theory might prove to be a wild goose chase, given the circumstances surrounding the two latest Beechjet flameouts–one on Nov. 28, 2005, and another this past June 14.

According to the NTSB, on June 14 Beechjet 400A N440DS lost power from both P&WC JT15D-5 engines while the airplane was in cruise flight at FL380 near Norfolk, Va. The pilots reported that they were in cruise flight in VMC at Mach 0.76 about 70 miles south of Norfolk when ATC issued a heading that steered the twinjet toward an upsloping cloud deck.

Unsure if they would remain clear of the clouds, the pilots decided to turn on the engine anti-ice. They then turned on the engines’ igniters and reduced the power from 101.5 percent to 89.5 percent N1, but before they could turn on the engine anti-ice both engines flamed out simultaneously. (Raytheon does not recommend activation of engine anti-ice above 90 percent N1 to “prevent transient exceedence of ITT limits.”) The pilots declared an emergency and turned toward Norfolk.

The left engine restarted on its own at about FL300 and the right engine restarted on its own at about FL240, and the pilots continued to Norfolk, where they landed without further incident. Post-incident tests confirmed that “the fuel system icing inhibitor was present and in the correct concentration and that the fuel met the requirements for jet-A.”

In the November incident, the crew of Beechjet 400A N691TA experienced a double engine flameout at FL380 on a positioning flight from Indianapolis International Airport to Marco Island Airport, Fla. An NTSB preliminary report said the Beechjet crewmembers subsequently made two restart attempts and an air-start attempt before deadsticking the twinjet to a safe landing at Jacksonville International Airport, Fla. According to information obtained recently by AIN, the fuel system icing inhibitor was found to be “slightly low” in this aircraft.

In the July 12, 2004, incident, both engines of Beechjet 400A N455CW flamed out at FL390 while the airplane was descending from FL410 over the Gulf of Mexico. The pilots were able to restart the right engine at 17,000 feet and safely divert to Sarasota, Fla.

On April 17, two months before the most recent event, Raytheon Aircraft issued Safety Communiqué No. 269, which gives details of the Jacksonville event and reminds operators about engine anti-ice procedures. The document notes that engine anti-ice should be activated “when flying in or near visible moisture in possible icing conditions.” It later adds, “No lower temperature limit exists for the operation of anti-ice systems. Operators should be aware that air moving through the engine experiences a significant temperature increase as it passes through the compressor section…[which] could bring the air temperature to a range where internal engine ice formation might occur if engine anti-ice were not operating.”

Incident Commonalities
According to the NTSB investigator in charge, the common link among the Beechjet dual flameouts is that “all three airplanes were at high altitude near convective activity and the power had just been retarded.” He further told AIN, “We are still looking at everything, including mechanical and operational factors in these incidents.”

Marc Fruchter, president of Aviation Consultants and a type-rated Beechjet pilot with 2,000 hours in type, offered some insight into these incidents. He recommends using a fuel anti-icing additive in all turbine aircraft, especially for the Beechjet since he claims that the airplane’s tanks like to collect water and sediment. In fact, he emphasized that the Beechjet must sit perfectly still for at least three hours before the tanks are drained to allow water to settle fully–otherwise the water will remain in the tanks even after draining.

Additionally, Fruchter believes that recurrent training should emphasize the smooth reduction of power. Aggressive power reductions can cause flameouts, he said, adding that this is especially true for P&WC turbofans.

“The Beechjet is a wonderful airplane, and I would be very comfortable flying it again,” Fruchter noted. “It just requires pilots to be properly trained in power management, as well as precise fuel-draining procedures.”

Neither Raytheon nor P&WC would comment for this story, citing the ongoing NTSB investigations. The NBAA Beechjet subcommittee, a liaison between Beech-jet operators and Raytheon, also declined AIN’s request for an interview about the recurring dual flameouts.

hiss srq
2006-08-10, 12:40 AM
I remember when the Beechjet from Flight Options diverted to SRQ for that incident, I worked as a Ramp Rat for Dolphin Aviation at that time in fact. As for the anti ice additive in Jet-A it is at some FBO's an option to put in and others pre blended, it is widely known as Prist in the business. Most fuel companies like Phillips 66 preblend it into the fuel but some like Exxon do not, you have to ask for it as it is not an absolutely mandetory thing to have in your jet fuel. Alot of companies put it in the policy outlines that prist is to be in the fuel at all times such as the company I fly for now. This is not isolated to the Beechjet though. The early 767-200's experinced this several times as well most notably in the 80's a United 767-200 descended through some high level clouds near LAX without engine anti ice on at idle power causeing a duel engine flameout. This stuff does occasionally happen. BeechJets are peices of crap though eitherway as far as I am concerned. They do not even have Ailerons believe it or not.

Mateo
2006-08-10, 10:23 PM
What is it with Mitsubishi and not having ailerons? The Mu-2 doesn't have 'em, the Beechjet (the Mitsubishi-designed Mu-300) doesn't have 'em - I think the last Mitsubishi to roll out of the factory with ailerons was the Zero!

hiss srq
2006-08-10, 11:07 PM
they are both death traps and both a bitch to fuel as well lol. Anyone who worked at a FBO at one time or another will tell you they dread the MU-2 and the Beech/Diamondjet Trunk Tank. I know I did for sure.

Laxgoaly
2006-08-11, 04:44 PM
they are both death traps and both a bitch to fuel as well lol. Anyone who worked at a FBO at one time or another will tell you they dread the MU-2 and the Beech/Diamondjet Trunk Tank. I know I did for sure.


Wow you read my thoughts exactly... the MU-2 ( we call her the Fu@k You Too) is hell to fuel... when you "pop" the tip tank fuel caps you get soaked in a mist of Jet-A w. prist ( ive been fueling it for 2 years now and there is NO way not to get it on you... it also is the loudest SOB on the ground while running... With the Beechjet/Diamond/Hawker 400, the trunk is the worst thing thing... you can fuel her up full blast till about 250 gallons ( its a 305 gallon tank) and then for the last 55 gallons you can maybe do 3-5 gallons a minute or else the fuel neck backs up and you end up spilling all over the ramp... Regarding prist, its a Flight Options SOP that all aircraft (except thier EMB-135BJ's and 1 GIV) to require prist...

PS... those aircraft are soo horrible to fuel, our shift has a motto because of them... "Jet Aviation Line Service... Don't Get Any On Ya..."

AndrewM
2006-08-15, 01:33 PM
Has a pilot ever gotten of a beechjet and not asked for you to "top the wings and 150 in the trunk w/ prist". I swear those friggin' things always need fuel. MU-2's are the most bizarre things around when you consider how unbelievably loud they are when they idle or taxi yet on take off rolls you barely hear them. Probably just everyone going temporarily deaf after it taxi's by.

Laxgoaly
2006-08-15, 01:37 PM
Has a pilot ever gotten of a beechjet and not asked for you to "top the wings and 150 in the trunk w/ prist". I swear those friggin' things always need fuel. MU-2's are the most bizarre things around when you consider how unbelievably loud they are when they idle or taxi yet on take off rolls you barely hear them. Probably just everyone going temporarily deaf after it taxi's by.

Well regarding the noise from the MU-2, its due to a planetary gear system which couples the tubine engine to the prop, unlike King Airs or Caravans with a gas coupling system, the MU-2 actually has a set of gears to drive the prop, so while on the ground the MU-2 is extremely loud due to the meshing of the gears and while at idle or taxi speed the small ammount of slack in the gears magnifies the noise significantly... once on takeoff roll or airborne the slack in the gears is all but taken up, which eliminates the high pitch squeal of the aircraft while on the ground...

hiss srq
2006-08-15, 05:02 PM
Oh when I woked at the FBO MU-2'a Beechjets, Dianmondjets, Turbo Commanders and the Old kingair 90's were the worst to fill. The older 90's and Queenairs with the PT6 conversion had the fuel ports mid way down the wing for the outboard tanks so you had to fill up wait refill wait etc... Sound wise though I hate anything designed by Mitsubishi, terrible ground handleing for the poor rampers. At least our lears are easy to fuel, if your fueling a 20 series or 35/36 100 gallons at a time per gravity port etc... The only thing that I get complaints from ramp rats about is that it takes forever for us to transfer fuel to the Fus. tank from the wings and tips.

Laxgoaly
2006-08-15, 11:35 PM
I dont really mind much about fueling lears... i just have to say, i love the oldies... nothing like a pure turbojet engine screaming into the sky!