Back to Squawk list
  • 21

Hop-a-Jet Challenger 600 Crashes and explodes on i75 in Naples, FL

Five Pax-FAA Confirmed crashed at 1515 EST FAA Reg #N823KD ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Scott Mcilvoy 23
The plane was 250’ in the air when if crashed? Who writes this stuff. They crashed while they were still in the air impressive.
John Taylor 5
And this one: "The jet reportedly lost an engine and was scheduled to leave Naples and head to Fort Lauderdale, the Naples Airport said."
btweston 7
Gotta admit, I kinda liked that one.
Torsten Hoff 13

I think they were incredibly close to walking away from the emergency if they could have lined up a bit better with the road and not hit the sound barrier wall on the right.

Derek Vaughn 6
Accidental fuel shutoff?
srobak 2
No accident about it
Derek Vaughn 1
What happened?
Michael Wise 9
"The jet was approximately 250 feet in the air when it crashed." I'm going to have to see this to believe it.
It’s been a week now!! Could we have some updated info soon? Past 604 Mx here, and like all here really hard to believe both engines out. Not ice in the fuel filters, but a huge slug of water ingested by the landing attitude? It’s happened yes, but not instantly, unexpected in approach. A lot of cockpit action going on in that flight mode. Photos don’t show smoke, so not a fumbled fire Push on both engines! Don’t see birds but could be before that photo. CVR / FDR recovered yet?
Ken Riehl 4
Sounds like a single engine problem tunrned into an inadvertent shutdown of the good engine…
Kikutwo 3
Is landing on I75 not feasible? Or was it just because they hit the truck?
Doug Parker 3
Dashcam video shows too many cars on their emergency runway:

I'm imagining the PIC's last moments thinking and having to decide

1. land on pavement but endanger a motorist
2. or aim for the grassy patch but rip off a wing and ensuing explosion

Here's a tough, grey area training question: the tradeoff between a (safer, arguably) pavement landing putting random motorists' lives at risk versus the (arguably) riskier “get everyone to survive” outcome.

Geez oh Pete's…
Chris Bryant 3
Origin was KOSU in Columbus, OH.
First call at 8:58
David Lee 2
"The jet was approximately 250 feet in the air when it crashed."

??? crashed 250 feet in the air?
What would make both engines go out?
“Okay, Challenger, ah, Hop-A-Jet 823, lost both engines, emergency, making an emergency landing." After being cleared to land on Runway 23, the pilot radioed, "Ah, we're cleared to land but we're not going to make the runway, we've lost both engines."
*All speculation**

Based on the accident site footage, it is not likely a flameout due to a lack of fuel.

Other things I can think of, all unlikely for various reasons:(I've never flown a Challenger 604)
-fuel contamination.
-simultaneous breakage of the throttle linkage.
-inadvertent shutdown by the pilots.
Duane Mader 4
Possibly DEF contamination , ice breaking loose as they descended?
Peter Fuller 6
*More speculation*

-fuel starvation ie fuel on board not getting to engines due to mechanical malfunction and/or pilot error
linbb 1
Well glad to see speculation going so well as videos of it show a trail of fuel leading right up to the aircraft dont see any sign of the car involved and the way its burning says it most likely had fuel on board.
srobak 3
Don't let a thing like facts get in the way of speculation, now.
Kilocharlie 1
Flock of birds
srobak 4
or.... seagulls?

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

I'm not sure what that means. I've been flying for 10 years. I've got a little over 2500 hrs split between the K35R, B400, B762.

I also did about 2 minutes worth of research on the Challenger fuel system before starting to type.
Tim Dyck 7
Why do you feel the need to insult someone? If you cannot resist the urge to be a jerk could you please do it on Facebook or Twitter were the rest of the jerks hang out?
Randy Marco -2
Typical reply from the a $$hole that you are!
-Birdstrike (like Sully)
Phillip Soltan 3
I know this will not be a popular answer but I'm guessing that "pilot error" was to blame.
Someone accidentally flipped a switch that they shouldn't have. The odds of losing both engines when there was still plenty of fuel are incredibly unlikely.
rob strong 3
Is there not a redundancy type event that would confirm your choice to shut down engines (second switch/lift a separate part of switch), or is it that simple? Oops. Shut down both engines, see ya.
Phillip Soltan 2
I have never flown that specific aircraft but there is usually a pre-landing checklist that involves changing the aircraft configuration to prepare for landing. It's possible that they manually switched to an empty tank, turned off a fuel boost pump, shutdown an electrical system that controlled the engines, etc. Landing is obviously the most stressful part of flying and it could have taken a couple minutes for them to realize the engines were just windmilling. After that there wouldn't be much time to review all the aircraft settings.
j smith 1
Torsten Hoff 1
j smith 0
stuart bloom 7
On Dan Gryder’s Probable Cause YouTube channel, he points out that the crew took on 350 gal of Jet A in Ohio but without Prist. They then flew for over two hours in temperatures around -50 degrees Celsius. Dan believes the most likely cause of the dual flameout is that ice crystals formed in the fuel and starved both engines at the worst possible time. This is the same scenario that caused a Boeing 777 to have a dual engine flameout and crash just sort of the runway at London Heathrow in 2008. I suspect that will be high on the list of the NTSB examination. So far, that’s the best suggestion I’ve seen.
Did they actually say both out at the same time? Not sure about that now.
Iced up Fuel filters can do it, but they are quite large. It did exactly that to a Challenger over Nebraska no moon after midnight about mid-80s. Dual flame out but not both at once, and they did get Impending bypass warning warning on the 1st flame out. Not on he second flame out. No APU start either. Quite a hair raising story, both crew lived!
The operator had purchased discount fuel which was loaded with water. Even so, it took quite a cold soak to cause the issue.
Gregory Jarrett 2
Well said. The runway change from 5 to 23 may have had last-minute confusion while reconfiguration in a busy pre-landing checklist twice in 4 minutes
Nearly CAVU, no birds
Also, 40 feet more to the left in the median and all may have walked away. He did not have the airspeed for that steep of a turn. I flew the approach yesterday
Dr Stephen Vadas 2
A very likely scenario.
Glenn Roark 1
But to have a simultaneous dual flameout due to icing is highly improbable.
Dr Stephen Vadas 3
It's not really icing, just fuel that's like sludge and doesn't flow well.
Tim Dyck 1
I thought Jet Fuel had antigelling agents in it.
stuart bloom 1
Improbable but not impossible. See British Airways Flight 38 in 2008.
Gerry Devenpeck 1
Any 600 type pilots that can say whether it has fuel/ oil heat exchangers. The only planes I have flown that required priest were KingAirs and CE500 series.
bentwing60 1
got a cl60 type in my wallet and there is no e in Prist! No cogent 'Lear freight dog' in the 80's and 90's left the base without a 12 pack of Prist in the back and Phillips premix was a gift early on.

As for your direct question,


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.