NTSB Final Report — Hop-A-Jet Challenger 604 crash, I-75 Naples FL (Feb 9, 2024)
Posted by oops_i@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 128 comments
TL;DR: Salt-air corrosion in the HPC variable-geometry stator vane spindle bores of both GE CF34-3B engines jammed the VGs in an off-schedule position. Power reduction for landing triggered simultaneous unrecoverable sub-idle compressor stalls in both engines. GE's hung-start troubleshooting flowchart buried the one test that could have caught it (MP 68) at block 21, so months of warning signs were missed. Coastal-based CF34-BJ operators — check your SBs.
Aircraft: Bombardier CL-600-2B16 (Challenger 604), N823KD, operated by Ace Aviation Services dba Hop-A-Jet, Part 135 on-demand. GE CF34-3B engines.
Outcome: Both pilots fatal. Cabin attendant + 2 pax minor injuries. 1 minor ground injury. Aircraft destroyed by post-crash fire after striking a highway sign and concrete sound barrier on I-75.
Probable Cause (verbatim from NTSB):
▎ Corrosion of both engines' variable geometry (VG) system components, which led to their operation in an off-schedule position and resulted in near-simultaneous sub-idle rotating compressor stalls on approach,subsequent loss of thrust in both engines, and an off-airport landing. Contributing was inadequate fault
▎ isolation guidance from the engine manufacturer, which prevented identification of corrosion buildup in VGsystem components during troubleshooting of hung start events on both engines about 1 month before theaccident.
What actually happened (the short version):
- On a shallow intercept to final for RWY 23 at KAPF, crew reduced power for landing. As N2 rolled back toward idle, both engines simultaneously entered a sub-idle, unrecoverable rotating compressor stall. ITT spiked past 889°C redline. Master warning, L+R engine oil pressure warnings, then "ENGINE" warning fired within
7 seconds.
- FDR showed behavior was NOT a fuel cutoff, combustor blowout, or flameout. It looked exactly like the hung-start rollbacks the same two engines had 25 days earlier.
- Crew declared "lost both engines" at \~1,000 ft / 122 kts. Couldn't make the runway. Touched down on southbound I-75, veered right, clipped a highway sign, hit a sound wall. Cabin attendant egressed 2 pax through the baggage door (she only knew how because she'd helped load bags before — her training did not cover that exit).
Why the engines rolled back — the root cause:
- Teardown of both engines showed extensive corrosion in the HPC case, specifically in the stage-5 statorvane spindle bores. Chemical analysis: steel corrosion + chlorine/sulfur/sodium/calcium/potassium/magnesium = classic sea salt / marine environment exposure. Aircraft had spent its life at coastal airports
(Barbados, then Fort Lauderdale Executive, \~4 nm from the Atlantic).
- Corrosion prevented the VG stage-5 stator vanes from traveling their full range and required higher-than-normal actuation pressures. That put the VGs in an off-schedule position. At low power (like power-reduction for landing), that = compressor instability = rotating stall. Unrecoverable at low altitude.
- Fuel was fine. MFCs were fine. No fuel contamination (tested for SAP, Kathon, DEF — all clean). No mechanical failure. It was purely the VG system hung up on corroded spindle bores.
The damning part — it was findable, and GE's troubleshooting flowchart missed it:
- 25 days before the crash, both engines had hung starts (Jan 15, 2024). Operator worked with GE using SM SEI-780 "Fault Isolation 07 Hung Start or Slow Start" — a 27-block YES/NO flowchart.
- The VG pressure check (MP 68) that would have caught the corrosion was Block 21 — near the end of the tree.
- Since the engines successfully started the next day and showed no other anomalies, the flowchart let them exit troubleshooting before ever reaching MP 68. GE concurred with returning the airplane to service. It flew 33 uneventful flights / 57 hours before the accident.
- History: this airframe had 7 additional hung starts in the preceding 10 years — all handled the same way.
NTSB Findings categories:
- Aircraft: Fatigue/wear/corrosion
- Aircraft: Malfunction
- Organizational: Adequacy of manufacturer policy/procedure
- Environmental: Contributed to outcome
Safety actions GE has since taken:
1. SB 72-0345 R00 (May 2024) — one-time VG functional check on any CF34-BJ engine with a hung start in the previous 24 months. As of May 2025: 34 engines inspected, 7 failed and were pulled from service (4 of the 7 were from the accident operator's fleet).
2. SB 72-0347 R00 (May 2025) — one-time borescope + VG functional check of HPC stages 5/6 on all CF34-3BJ engines within 48 months. As of Mar 2026: 1,085 inspected, 1 failed.
3. SB 71-0000 R03 (Feb 2026) — new special requirements for sea/salt environment ops or engines showing external corrosion.
4. Adding a recurring HPC case BSI + VG Functional Check (MP 68) every 48 months to the Airworthiness Limitations section of SM SEI-780.
5. Aug 2024 — revised Fault Isolation 07 to make the MP 68 VG pressure check one of the first steps instead of Block 21.
---
[Source](https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/193769/pdf)
NTSB Aviation Investigation Final Report, Accident No. ERA24FA110, adopted 4/24/2026.
Wooden-Term-5067@reddit
The scary thing is incidents like this and UPS’ show that you can do everything right and still not have a chance.
YugeWaterBottle@reddit
That's why, as the world's best pilot, I always inspect engine mounts and compressor blades, guide vanes, etc on every preflight. Keep those tools in your flight bag!
Figit090@reddit
I'm not super familiar with the parts of a turbine, were these parts actually visible to the pilot with a few panels open?
YugeWaterBottle@reddit
Not without opening up the nacelle with a ladder and tools. It is absolutely not a pilot function and would never be seen on a normal preflight.
https://fl360aero.com/ckfinder/userfiles/images/cf34engine.jpg
Figit090@reddit
Figured as much. Thank you!
Segundo-Sol@reddit
Make sure to lick both sides of every compressor blade to check for the presence of salt!
PM_MeYour_pitot_tube@reddit
I try to taste test as many aircraft components as possible for salt, but all I’v fnound sof ar is JetA adn Skydrol. mmmmm Skydrol
IndependenceStock417@reddit
Blue juice tastes the best
Effective-Scratch673@reddit
Blue flavor is always the best of all
Yams-502@reddit
The vaunted mouthfeel approach. Classy.
adamsputnik@reddit
Presumably this explains your spelling/typing issues?
PM_MeYour_pitot_tube@reddit
I dno’t no what yuor talknig abuot
CactusPete@reddit
Lick? Or just to be extra safe, cut your finger and run it along the blade - it if stings, salt!
jobhog1@reddit
And while you're at it, show up a little earlier, skip some of that traffic and just tear down the engine for a quick inspection!
black-dude-on-reddit@reddit
When its your time it's your time
More_Than_I_Can_Chew@reddit
That is a bold claim with the UPS crash since the final findings aren't out yet.
Public hearings are in May though.
latedescent@reddit
Brown pilot here - I know what you meant and you’re 100% correct. I think everyone else thought you meant the pilots though.
More_Than_I_Can_Chew@reddit
Agreed. I wrote it poorly.
Thank you.
Wooden-Term-5067@reddit
With the evidence we have now the UPS crew didn’t have a chance. I don’t they’ll find a smoking gun that they didn’t already find. If the experts at UPs, FedEx and the FAA thought it was pilot error the MD11 wouldn’t have grounded it.
More_Than_I_Can_Chew@reddit
I'm not sure why you're think I'm talking about the crew here. Especially given the context of the original post - it wasn't the crew's fault.
My comment is in relation to the maintenance side of things.
auxilary@reddit
non-ATO commercial pilot here: was everything done right, though?
in both the UPS accident and this one an inspection should have prevented both, no?
maybe the inspection wasn’t scheduled correctly to be done at the correct number of cycles/hours, but i feel like engine cores and mounts are checked in most A/B/C/D checks. i could be wrong.
FoxTrot026@reddit
I believe he’s talking about the pilots. A question, how do YOU know an aircraft is airworthy?
auxilary@reddit
yeah completely fair, i missed that he was talking about the pilots. they were absolutely heroic till the end.
and i understand your question about airworthiness, the answer is complex and varied, but certainly there is such thing as negligence.
FoxTrot026@reddit
Not very complex. How do you as the PIC know the aircraft is airworthy?
Wooden-Term-5067@reddit
If maintenance says they did the inspection then I won’t call them out unless I have some evidence. Also this wasn’t on maintenance easier as they followed the engine manufacturer’s requirements.
FoxTrot026@reddit
Exactly. You have to rely on your maintenance. You don’t know that every AD is complied with and everything is up to spec. You have to take their word, you didn’t do it, so you don’t truly know if the aircraft is airworthy
auxilary@reddit
ah, you’re one of those pilots. got it.
have a good day.
natbornk@reddit
I think the point is, you check the mx logs, right? And you just trust that your mechanics did good work. That’s how it goes
auxilary@reddit
absolutely. no disagreement here.
FoxTrot026@reddit
lol seems more like you are “one of those pilots”. You can’t answer a simple question
auxilary@reddit
k
pattern_altitude@reddit
Negligence on the part of the operator, perhaps, but not on the pilots here.
auxilary@reddit
yes, correct, my apologies for the poor wording
Beechcraft77@reddit
I believe he meant as a pilot
auxilary@reddit
yep, that’s on me. i misread. bring on the downvotes.
my apologies.
Guysmiley777@reddit
Damn salty coastal air, you scary.
Figit090@reddit
I'm glad they found the issues in other airplanes and pulled them before more happened. With how long investigation can take there was likely a decent window where similar failures could have happened.
LedgerLawFirm@reddit
Four of seven failures concentrated in one operator's fleet is the number that changes the legal story entirely. That pattern suggests something specific to how that fleet was maintained, stored, or inspected, well beyond ambient coastal corrosion. Environmental factors are shared. Systemic failures are not.
storyinmemo@reddit
Yeah, near salt water. Oceanic airport isn't a legal fault on its own. They followed manufacturer flow chart and the manufacturer flow chart let the engines return to service.
If the manufacturer flow chart were ordered differently, these would have been identified sooner.
captainklaus@reddit
Point they’re making (I believe) is this: thousands of jets are stored at hundreds of airports in coastal areas in the US. If planes stored near the coast kept having simultaneous engine failures it would be a huge deal.
Whatever is happening here isn’t “planes can’t be kept near water”
storyinmemo@reddit
The direct quote from the NTSB report was:
As compared to other operators, the difference could be as little as which side of the airport they were on, which way the engines were pointed, etc. If occasional storms aligned that sea spray blew through the turbines because they faced into the water and the wind, that might be enough to accelerate corrosion massively compared to just salty air contact.
I can't see hints from the NTSB report that the operator did anything out of line. Another direct quote regarding the operator following the manufacturer guidance:
The cause was corrosion, following the published maintenance procedures did not reveal the corrosion. I can't see innate negligence in that.
blueberrycauzez@reddit
No, they are specifically saying the operator is doing something different relative to other 3bj operators.
Effective-Scratch673@reddit
Yeah. It's like living northern US and not being aware that your car is going to get corroded by the salt in the snow.
auxilary@reddit
i have poorly attempted to make this same point, but alas, i digress.
well worded.
LedgerLawFirm@reddit
Four of seven failures from a single operator's fleet is a number that goes well beyond bad luck. That concentration points to maintenance environment, storage conditions, or inspection practices specific to that operation. The corrosion story is just getting started.
blueberrycauzez@reddit
It's four of eight inspection failures (7 from SB 72-0345 R00, 1 from SB 72-0347 R00). And without knowing how many other aircraft from other operators fly the same missions with the same aircraft in the same configuration and age in the same environment, it's impossible to calculate a failure rate or ratio.
Tuhks@reddit
How many operators did they source the 34 engines from, and how many of the engine in question does each have? Can’t make the argument of concentration without that info.
perplexedtortoise@reddit
And where were those operators with hung starts based out of?
The GE service bulletin is for any hung start in the last 2 years.
If the other 27 engines are midwest-based you aren't going to see VSVs exposed to the same environment as hop-a-jet's engines were.
Imaloserbabys@reddit
Sounds like somebody was not doing a complete 100 hour inspection.
Temporary_Report_816@reddit
According to the CVR, one pilot suggested a water landing, but the pilot flying insisted on landing on the highway. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but this event reaffirmed my bias toward a water landing over a highway landing in a dual failure emergency.
NYPuppers@reddit
Why? I dont think anyone is surviving the water landing, versus 3. There's not a bunch of smooth water around there.
Temporary_Report_816@reddit
A water landing carries its own risks, but I’d prefer to land where there are no obstacles to crash into and have to ditch, rather than risk a collision on pavement. I fly a small business jet, so that offers more emergency landing options. And in that area of Naples, there are lots of manmade lakes/lagoons, which is why the pilot monitoring suggested a water landing.
NYPuppers@reddit
Nothing like surviving a crash just to be alligator food
jettech737@reddit
There were quite a few ditchings where people survived, one was a DC-9 in an open ocean tossed by strong stork waves.
Prof_Slappopotamus@reddit
Damn. That's not at all the outcome I was expecting.
Kelvin62@reddit
Is 7 hung starts in 10 years normal?
ThatHellacopterGuy@reddit
If I were the DOM of a Part 135 aircraft, the GE rep wouldn’t be leaving my facility until something explained the reason(s) for the hung starts.
As a Part 145 QA guy with RTS, there’s no way I would approve this aircraft for RTS with a history of hung starts on both engines and nothing being done about it other than partially running a troubleshooting tree.
hawker1172@reddit
Yes
Oregon-Pilot@reddit
Not the same aircraft or engines at all, but I remember when I was flying citations a lot, that the books called for regular engine washes if the jet was based within 50nm of an ocean. Crazy.
fondlethethrottle@reddit
I operate a Challenger in the Midwest, we do comp washes every 300 hours. At a minimum, it helps with vibe numbers.
K20017@reddit
Not sure what vibe numbers means but at least you are doing the recommended wash cycle. It goes a long way
fondlethethrottle@reddit
On the Challenger CF-34 motors, both N1 and N2 (to a lesser extent than N1) vibration values are monitored. Most times, N2 vibes harmonically transfer up to N1 vibes which can be felt and heard. Whenever we do comp washes, we see and can hear the vibe numbers come down.
K20017@reddit
Oh haha, my mind was on the Gen z version of vibe, not vibrations.
K20017@reddit
It's even worse than that. This is from the Cessna service letter for the corrosion prevention program which shows a map of corrosion severities..
We did several washes and it was a pain in the ass.
KITTYONFYRE@reddit
seems crazy to put eastern upstate new york into the same bucket as florida! I'd never come close to considering my area as "coastal"... maybe I really will need to plan on a hangar and not a tie down when I get my plane lol
K20017@reddit
Unless you are in the desert, plan for corrosion. It is an insidious threat.
Strange-Ask-739@reddit
Are we not going to train flight attendants about the extra exits?
Getting them out through the baggage compartment, with the plane on fire, seems another teachable moment from this event.
ShrimpScampi1@reddit
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=18839225&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=Attachment%202%20-%20Cabin%20Attendant%20Interview%20Transcript%20with%20Addendum-Rel.pdf
See Page 21, Lines 13-25, Page 22, Lines 1-14. Interview with the Cabin Attendant regarding her take on what happened during the accident. The aforementioned pages and lines detail why she didn’t use the main doors or emergency exits.
Bunslow@reddit
Even then, it's still incredible luck that they both failed on exactly the same cycle. Normally we'd expect random variation, even under identical environmental conditions (as in this pair), would cause them to fail in different cycles.
zindustries87@reddit
That's my thought exactly. Sure there was corrosion, but the chances of two separate engines falining at the same moment from corrosion seems highly unlikely. The chances would be like winning the lottery, just not one you'd want.
Whitejesus0420@reddit
I've heard of operators keeping a mix of old and new engines on planes and staggering maintenance accordingly. Makes a lot of sense in this situation.
Bunslow@reddit
yea any "artificial variance" of the sort you describe, mixing and matching dissimilar engines, would have prevented this. hopefully this is the last we'll ever have of this sort of double-fluke failure.
xeon1@reddit
that is the part I don't understand... if they shared a single point of failure I could understand but that is not the case. how could both fail at same time??
elingeniero@reddit
I had to think about this as well, but given the history of hung starts it could make sense that both engines had had no chance of recovering from this specific flight condition for a long time, but it just didn't happen until now.
Bunslow@reddit
incredibly bad luck
LedgerLawFirm@reddit
The contributing cause language is doing a lot of work here. When a manufacturer's own troubleshooting flowchart buries the diagnostic step that would have caught a known failure mode, that is not just a design oversight, that is a documentation defect with legal consequences. Part 135 operators rely on that guidance in good faith. GE carries real exposure.
oops_i@reddit (OP)
It seems GE has a lot to account for. But the real question is how did we end up with large corporations doing this? They seem to be figuring out how many deaths their insurance will cover and then either not fixing the problems or covering them up.
Until we hold the executives of these big companies accountable, they’ll keep putting people in danger without facing consequences.
WorldlyOriginal@reddit
You’re asking for an unreasonable amount of personal criminal liability for executives. No, the CEO of GE shouldn’t go to jail for a problem like this.
If they did: no one would want the job, nothing would ever get built, and even if we could find someone willing to take on the risk, they’d request to be paid a bajillion dollars
KITTYONFYRE@reddit
get real lol. plenty of people doing WAY fucking riskier jobs for WAY fucking less
should they be held accountable personally for this? doesn't seem like it, no. but are there cases where they should be? probably.
this comment is 'just let corporations stomp on your balls bro its chill'. very american
Flimsy-Ad-858@reddit
I don't know why every non-American on Reddit feels the need to constantly reiterate that every fatal accident should result in the CEO of the appropriate company going to jail for eleventy billion years because clearly that will solve the issue, and that our failure to do so is a sign of our imminent backslide into fascism or whatever.
There are quite literally tens of thousands of CF34 engines in operation, it's a very safe and reliable platform with a defined maintenance schedule for this exact issue. And even then, turns out mechanical failures happen sometimes in systems with a lot of extremely fast moving parts.
KITTYONFYRE@reddit
I'm American, not sure why you think I'm not.
Please quote where I said the CEO should go to jail for this!?!?! you're arguing against ghosts
wizza123@reddit
You're shifting examples instead of addressing the point.
KITTYONFYRE@reddit
I directly addressed the point by saying they probably shouldn’t be prosecuted in this case lol…
skiman13579@reddit
The CF-34/TF-34 family of engines have been in operation since 1971 and is one of the most common engines in the world. Most every regional jet in the USA uses it- CRJ-200/700/900 and E170/175/190/195 all use the CF-34
So you can’t entirely blame it on anyone. Sure the GE manuals lacked, I have first hand done these inspections myself on these exact model CF-34’s….. but sometimes failure modes, especially for older components in less than ideal environments, are unknown until something happens. Engineering isn’t perfect. Sometimes conditions have to be just perfect for a defect to cause problems. The holes in the Swiss cheese lined up and killed 2 fine pilots who did an amazing job to save the lives of their passengers and those on the ground…. But this wasn’t caused by any conspiracy or intentional neglect by GE.
Now if they tried covering it up and stonewalled any changes to inspection/troubleshooting procedures…. Sure….. but GE has already MONTHS ago put out changes to address this issue, and now it make sense why those changes were made. They didn’t wait for the report. They didn’t wait for the FAA to force them. They found a problem they didn’t realize and they changed things to hopefully prevent another incident from ever happening again.
Danskerz@reddit
Shout out to the cabin attendant for knowing her aircraft well! Using the baggage door to exit no doubt saved the passengers and her life.
shaun3000@reddit
Yes, kudos to her, but we also need to bring attention to the fact that this operator was using an untrained and unlicensed “cabin attendant” instead of a properly trained and licensed flight attendant. A cabin attendant is nothing but a glorified cocktail waitress who flies along as a passenger to serve the paying customers. Like everything else in the 91/135 world, they bend rules and exploit loopholes to do everything as cheaply as possible, while minimally comply with regulations that are written in blood.
DDX1837@reddit
Citation? Is a flight attendant required for this operation? What documents can you provide which show a flight attendant is required and that this FA is “untrained and unlicensed”?
That there are two people alive and uninjured because of her actions would indicate that she is sufficiently trained.
It would seem that a lower body count makes your comment irrelevant.
KITTYONFYRE@reddit
well, no, not really. they got lucky that she'd helped the pilots load luggage through that door - she was never trained on egress procedures.
the report even remarks that she tried to open the overwing doors before realizing there was a fire and that they were better off not opening them
DDX1837@reddit
Yes, really. A passenger was unsuccessfully attempting to open the baggage door. She actually opened it. So her actions resulted in the door being opened and those passengers exiting the aircraft.
KITTYONFYRE@reddit
that does not indicate she was sufficiently trained... she was not trained on how to open that door lol.
none of this comment is about what I'm getting at: she was insufficiently trained. her actions still saved three people's lives, no doubt, but not because of training.
got_sweg@reddit
I mean Challengers aren’t required to have flight attendants or cabin attendants. This has nothing to do with a 91 or 135 bending the rules. They aren’t required
shaun3000@reddit
Yes, I’m aware. But if you’re going to have one, why not spend just a little bit more money to have a real one? Just from a liability standpoint it seems like it would be a no-brainer to use real flight attendants. As if there aren’t already enough lawsuits flying around after this accident, imagine the absolute shit storm there would’ve been had this lady panicked and not been able to get any of the doors open and then it came out that the passengers burned to death because the company was too cheap to hire a trained flight attendant.
I guarantee you that the passengers were not aware of the difference and thought cabin attendant and flight attendant were the same thing.
KITTYONFYRE@reddit
I guarantee you passengers pretty much think flight attendants are just cocktail servers anyway lol
I dunno what your solution is though. require an FA on this plane? require them to make it obvious that the cabin attendant isn't a "real" FA? I don't really see how it's gonna make a difference, unless you require anyone on board that's crew and not pilots to be an FA?
ApprehensiveVirus217@reddit
As I’m sure you’re aware, it allows them to use contractors instead of hiring full-time flight attendants, adding them to their certificate as a crew member, and maintaining a training program.
It’s far cheaper for them to do so, and in many instances, my previous operator didn’t require any previous crew member experience to be a cabin attendant.
got_sweg@reddit
Well I guess we could what if the situation until we’re blue in the face but I don’t see that getting us anywhere.
shaun3000@reddit
This attitude is why corporate aviation will continue to have such a shockingly high accident rate.
got_sweg@reddit
Yeah idk dude I’m not a legislator lol
Several-Village5814@reddit
This plane doesn’t require a flight attendant, if they choose to have a cabin attendant for customer service why does it matter to you? It has nothing to do with safety.
clear_prop@reddit
I just fly bugsmashers and I don't know if it is possible, but I've thought that jets could have an emergency mode that makes the already junk engines produce one last burst of power to maybe save the plane. My thought is dump in a ton of fuel and turn the igniters to high and make a really crappy afterburner.
Total engine failure due to bird strikes (US1549, AWACS, etc) are more common, but it could work in cases like this as well.
In almost all the cases, just a couple minutes of partial power is the difference between an accident and making the airport.
clearingmyprop@reddit
Crazy username
smoores02@reddit
It's just horrible this freak(but preventable) accident took the lives of some incredible pilots.
Ancient-Dust3077@reddit
Could they have caught the defects during preflight?
Flimsy-Ad-858@reddit
Unfortunately no. No shot you'd be able to see those stators, and even if you did 99% of pilots don't know what we're looking at. That's all mechanic territory.
Bunslow@reddit
This was deep in the heart of the engine, not possible for pilots to see that sort of thing
Zucc_me_in_the_ass@reddit
Short answer: no.
clearingmyprop@reddit
Almost certainly not. Stator vanes except the first set of them on turbine engines are not easily visible. Especially not a rear mounted fuselage engines
MyPilotInterview@reddit
100% -
auxilary@reddit
there’s ample hallmarks that this is AI-washed, I’m seeing a lot of nonstandard language.
anyway, it sounds like when they were intercepting the GS they went to flight-idle, but due to severe corrosion in the engine they essentially melted the core (or close to it at nearly 900 C) and lost thrust at 122kts.
that’s fucking terrifying. shaking my head the entire time reading this. goddamnit.
annodomini@reddit
Yeah, this post is 100% a slop summary. Totally useless; either provide a summary and context yourself, or just link to the damn report.
MrD3a7h@reddit
Rule 4 states:
/u/oops_i
KITTYONFYRE@reddit
u/x4457 is the most active mod (or at least the most active commenter that I notice). this definitely should get removed. annoying
Frothyleet@reddit
OP dropped the NTSB report into ChatGPT and then posted the result here. This post is exactly how LLMs summarize documents like that.
Appreciate bringing the report to our attention, AI summary is not the right play though.
randombrain@reddit
Yeah, the em-dashes and the bolding and the random letters that are separated from their words. Plus the fact that the AI attempted to format using markdown (the
>for initiating a blockquote, the attempt to make the URL into a hyperlink at the bottom) and somehow in the copy-paste those came through as actual text rather than markdown.It's really frustrating, actually. If it's important enough to share, it's important enough to read for yourself. Don't trust an AI to correctly summarize the information you need.
CactusPete@reddit
Both engines failed at the same time, independently?
MugsyMD@reddit
Was so said about this because I know these two that perished
Kelvin62@reddit
Im sorry for your loss.
madbarn@reddit
Guys are absolute heroes. FA is a god damn hero too
Burgershot621@reddit
Props for the cabin attendant for thinking outside the box to get the pax out
Greenbench27@reddit
I was a captain on 604 when this happened and we were all paranoid. My DOM called it; corrosion on the variable guide vanes
Recent-Day3062@reddit
I'm amazed how ntsb can sort these things so specifically
Brambleshire@reddit
Thanks for posting this summary
BrtFrkwr@reddit
How about inspecting 20+ year old jet airplanes in salt environments?
perplexedtortoise@reddit
The slide deck from GE is a bit wordy but their summary is interesting:
< During approach at 1800 ft/160 knots a decel to idle was commanded in both engines starting at ~84% N2K. Both engines followed the same decel characteristic as previous decels to idle which had occurred at 2800 ft/250 knots down to ~73% N2K; below ~73% N2K a more rapid fan decel is observed, but core speed decel and fuel flow remain similar.
< During the event when N2 reaches idle speed, a simultaneous dual engine re-accel is observed followed by a decel and roll sub-idle. The event roll sub-idle characteristic is similar to unsuccessful starts observed during January 15th while troubleshooting starting issues and is consistent with a compressor stall after starter disengagement. Analysis for Feb 9th event data indicates that both engines experienced simultaneously a compressor surge resulting in an unrecoverable rotating stall, with an estimated Ps3 drop of ~20% at surge.
More_Than_I_Can_Chew@reddit
Was there a OEM recommend compressor wash schedule? Was it followed?
Scary-Comfortable754@reddit
The dumfuk shoulda went into water
Mike-h8@reddit
Always find accidents like this one tough, get dealt as bad of a hand as you can get through no fault of your own.
Huge credit to them and the flight attendant that the passengers all survived
niklaspilot@reddit
That’s fucking terrifying!
rFlyingTower@reddit
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
TL;DR: Salt-air corrosion in the HPC variable-geometry stator vane spindle bores of both GE CF34-3B engines jammed the VGs in an off-schedule position. Power reduction for landing triggered simultaneous unrecoverable sub-idle compressor stalls in both engines. GE's hung-start troubleshooting flowchart buried the one test that could have caught it (MP 68) at block 21, so months of warning signs were missed. Coastal-based CF34-BJ operators — check your SBs.
Aircraft: Bombardier CL-600-2B16 (Challenger 604), N823KD, operated by Ace Aviation Services dba Hop-A-Jet, Part 135 on-demand. GE CF34-3B engines.
Outcome: Both pilots fatal. Cabin attendant + 2 pax minor injuries. 1 minor ground injury. Aircraft destroyed by post-crash fire after striking a highway sign and concrete sound barrier on I-75.
Probable Cause (verbatim from NTSB):
▎ Corrosion of both engines' variable geometry (VG) system components, which led to their operation in an off-schedule position and resulted in near-simultaneous sub-idle rotating compressor stalls on approach,subsequent loss of thrust in both engines, and an off-airport landing. Contributing was inadequate fault
▎ isolation guidance from the engine manufacturer, which prevented identification of corrosion buildup in VGsystem components during troubleshooting of hung start events on both engines about 1 month before theaccident.
What actually happened (the short version):
- On a shallow intercept to final for RWY 23 at KAPF, crew reduced power for landing. As N2 rolled back toward idle, both engines simultaneously entered a sub-idle, unrecoverable rotating compressor stall. ITT spiked past 889°C redline. Master warning, L+R engine oil pressure warnings, then "ENGINE" warning fired within
7 seconds.
- FDR showed behavior was NOT a fuel cutoff, combustor blowout, or flameout. It looked exactly like the hung-start rollbacks the same two engines had 25 days earlier.
- Crew declared "lost both engines" at \~1,000 ft / 122 kts. Couldn't make the runway. Touched down on southbound I-75, veered right, clipped a highway sign, hit a sound wall. Cabin attendant egressed 2 pax through the baggage door (she only knew how because she'd helped load bags before — her training did not cover that exit).
Why the engines rolled back — the root cause:
- Teardown of both engines showed extensive corrosion in the HPC case, specifically in the stage-5 statorvane spindle bores. Chemical analysis: steel corrosion + chlorine/sulfur/sodium/calcium/potassium/magnesium = classic sea salt / marine environment exposure. Aircraft had spent its life at coastal airports
(Barbados, then Fort Lauderdale Executive, \~4 nm from the Atlantic).
- Corrosion prevented the VG stage-5 stator vanes from traveling their full range and required higher-than-normal actuation pressures. That put the VGs in an off-schedule position. At low power (like power-reduction for landing), that = compressor instability = rotating stall. Unrecoverable at low altitude.
- Fuel was fine. MFCs were fine. No fuel contamination (tested for SAP, Kathon, DEF — all clean). No mechanical failure. It was purely the VG system hung up on corroded spindle bores.
The damning part — it was findable, and GE's troubleshooting flowchart missed it:
- 25 days before the crash, both engines had hung starts (Jan 15, 2024). Operator worked with GE using SM SEI-780 "Fault Isolation 07 Hung Start or Slow Start" — a 27-block YES/NO flowchart.
- The VG pressure check (MP 68) that would have caught the corrosion was Block 21 — near the end of the tree.
- Since the engines successfully started the next day and showed no other anomalies, the flowchart let them exit troubleshooting before ever reaching MP 68. GE concurred with returning the airplane to service. It flew 33 uneventful flights / 57 hours before the accident.
- History: this airframe had 7 additional hung starts in the preceding 10 years — all handled the same way.
NTSB Findings categories:
- Aircraft: Fatigue/wear/corrosion
- Aircraft: Malfunction
- Organizational: Adequacy of manufacturer policy/procedure
- Environmental: Contributed to outcome
Safety actions GE has since taken:
1. SB 72-0345 R00 (May 2024) — one-time VG functional check on any CF34-BJ engine with a hung start in the previous 24 months. As of May 2025: 34 engines inspected, 7 failed and were pulled from service (4 of the 7 were from the accident operator's fleet).
2. SB 72-0347 R00 (May 2025) — one-time borescope + VG functional check of HPC stages 5/6 on all CF34-3BJ engines within 48 months. As of Mar 2026: 1,085 inspected, 1 failed.
3. SB 71-0000 R03 (Feb 2026) — new special requirements for sea/salt environment ops or engines showing external corrosion.
4. Adding a recurring HPC case BSI + VG Functional Check (MP 68) every 48 months to the Airworthiness Limitations section of SM SEI-780.
5. Aug 2024 — revised Fault Isolation 07 to make the MP 68 VG pressure check one of the first steps instead of Block 21.
---
[Source](https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/193769/pdf)
NTSB Aviation Investigation Final Report, Accident No. ERA24FA110, adopted 4/24/2026.
Please downvote this comment until it collapses.
Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.