Safety Board Cites Improper Pilot Command in Virgin Galactic Crash

[bananas]

Source: Wall Street Journal

An improper co-pilot command preceded Friday’s in-flight breakup of Virgin Galactic LLC’s rocket, according to investigators, when movable tail surfaces deployed prematurely.

Two seconds after the surfaces moved—with SpaceShip Two traveling faster than the speed of sound—“we saw disintegration” of the 60-foot-long experimental craft, according to Christopher Hart, acting chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.

The co-pilot died in the accident, and the other pilot was severely injured.

The sequence of events released by the NTSB indicates that the rocket ship separated normally from its carrier and the propulsion system worked normally until the tail surfaces, called feathers, deployed.

<snip>

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/articles/virgin-galactic-crash-probe-focuses-on-possible-structural-failure-1414972644

[Major Nikon]

1. Another source...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29876154

[bananas]

3. Here's another

http://www.wfsb.com/story/27189066/spaceship-lock-mechanism-moved-early-early-ntsb-findings-indicate

Spaceship 'feathering' mechanism moved early, preliminary findings indicate
Posted: Nov 02, 2014 10:06 PM PST Updated: Nov 02, 2014 10:19 PM PST

MOJAVE, CA (CNN) - A lock-unlock lever on the doomed Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo was moved earlier than it should have been, the National Transportation Safety Board stated in its latest update on the investigation.

<snip>

"Now, in order for feathering - this action to be commanded by the pilots, two actions must occur. One is the lock-unlock handle must be moved from 'lock' to 'unlock,' and No. 2 is, the feathering handle must be moved to the feather position," he said.

"Approximately two seconds after the feathering parameters indicated that the lock-unlock lever was moved from 'lock' to 'unlock,' the feathers moved toward the extended position, the deployed position, even though the feather handle itself had not been moved. And this occurred at a speed just above approximately Mach 1.0. Shortly after the feathering occurred, the telemetry data terminated and the video data terminated."

<snip>

[bananas]

2. It's always pilot error. nt

[malthaussen]

7. Ya beat me to it.

Because nothing could be wrong with the plane. Oh, no.

-- Mal

[Adrahil]

10. ummm.....

What kind of nonsense is this? Many accidents ARE related to material or engineering failures, but the number one cause of aviation accidents (by a long shot) is operator error. I don't get WTF you're getting at? How would it be better than an engineer fucked up, instead of the pilot? We engineers fuck up plenty, but we are not responsible for every failure!

[brooklynite]

13. Please enlighten us...

You clearly know more than the NTSB investigators, so tell us what was wrong with the aircraft?

[GliderGuider]

14. The uncommanded feathering of the tail surfaces suggests a mechanical or design problem. nt

[GliderGuider]

11. This one appears to have been a combination problem.

Pilot error: the premature unlock
Mechanical or design problem: uncommanded feathering.

It's rarely just one factor that causes an accident - it's usually a convergence of several issues.

[LanternWaste]

17. And here I thought it was always mechanical failure as humans never err.

And here I thought it was always mechanical failure as humans never err.

[trusty elf]

4. How did the pilot survive disintegration of the vehicle at mach 1?

That's quite remarkable.

[blackcrowflies]

5. ejected.

[trusty elf]

6. thanks

[groundloop]

9. NO... there are no ejection seats per se

They have a means to bail out, but not the same as ejecting.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. Acting Chairman Christopher A. Hart's Third Media Briefing on Crash of SpaceShipTwo, Mojave, Calif.

I'm on a few NTSB listservs, so I get email from them all the time.

[csziggy]

12. The WSJ story has a different take than the story NBC ran

I can't read the entire WSJ article since it is subscription, but here is what NBC had on the feather deployment yesterday:

SpaceShipTwo 'Feather' Tail System Deployed Prematurely: NTSB
By M. Alex Johnson

SpaceShipTwo's unique tail section, which can "feather" at an angle to help the Virgin Galactic spacecraft make a safe descent, unfurled as it was ascending during the flight that ended in a fatal breakup Friday and without being ordered to do so, federal investigators said Sunday night.

The "feathering" mechanism isn't supposed to be unlocked until the spacecraft reaches 1.4 times the speed of sound, Christopher Hart, the NTSB's acting chairman, said at a news conference. But on the flight that crashed Friday, co-pilot Michael Alsbury moved the mechanism's lock-unlock lever into the unlocked position earlier, at just slightly above Mach 1, Hart said.

The feathering procedure is supposed to require two separate steps to engage: First, the pilots must unlock the feather mechanism; then they must move a separate feather handle into position. SpaceShipTwo's feather mechanism began moving almost immediately — even though neither pilot took that second step, Hart said. That would have increased the plane's atmospheric drag at just the wrong moment.

"Two seconds later, we saw disintegration," Hart said. Almost immediately, telemetry and video data "terminated," he said.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/virgin-voyage/spaceshiptwo-feather-tail-system-deployed-prematurely-ntsb-n239721

(Bold added by me)

Edited to clarify this is in response to the OP not the NTSB briefing.

[Plucketeer]

15. These two pilots

had likely PRACTICED procedural routine many, many times prior to EVER leaving the ground. Heck - even a novice pilot would know NOT to go into something call "feathering" while at full throttle. Something went wrong - just like the booster engine O-rings on Challenger, something was askew. Sadly - in the Challenger tragedy - there were folks that KNEW there would be a problem with the seals being shrunken by the cold ambient air. But under pressure to launch - NASA powers chose to ignore their warnings. The ultimate failure had nothing to do with Challenger's crew or its pilot(s).

[csziggy]

16. Often the pilots are blamed when it's really a design flaw in the plane or instruments

That makes the pilots' jobs more difficult.

I'm not a pilot, but I've watched a lot of the shows about airplane disasters. Far too often the idea that "pilot error" means pilot stupidity is set in the public's minds. When planes have badly designed instrumentation or not enough training, it is NOT the fault of the pilots who are trying their best to get the plane down safely with all aboard alive.

[GeorgeGist]

18. Thanks St. Ronnie.

What a ride!