It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SpaceshipTwo accident pilot error?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nataylor

It could be, but then it still would be human error that they didn't see it. They should have been coordinating with the launch aircraft for release speeds, and noticed the disparity between the speed showing, and the speed being told them.
Again, that assumes whatever possible fault in the airspeed indicator was present when the ship was released. It might not have been. We just don't have enough information to say.




posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

Airspeed indicators are pretty bulletproof at this point, even for this thing. They generally don't suddenly develop a fault, barring icing. They also had a backup on the ground with the telemetry I'm sure. I'd be shocked if it was an airspeed fault that suddenly developed for no obvious reason like icing.

But if it WAS a bad indication then they wouldn't have been able to say he unlocked them at Mach 1, they would have thought that he deployed them at the normal speed. So the evidence that we have now is that it was reading right, and was unlocked early, which was human error.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MarsIsRed

It is unfortunate that in engineering, there are some variables and scenarios that even the best engineers can't possibly predict or even simulate on a computer. This kind of endeavor is inherently dangerous, and sadly a life was lost in the learning process. It's not the first time and probably won't be the last.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nataylor

Airspeed indicators are pretty bulletproof at this point, even for this thing. They generally don't suddenly develop a fault, barring icing. They also had a backup on the ground with the telemetry I'm sure. I'd be shocked if it was an airspeed fault that suddenly developed for no obvious reason like icing.

But if it WAS a bad indication then they wouldn't have been able to say he unlocked them at Mach 1, they would have thought that he deployed them at the normal speed. So the evidence that we have now is that it was reading right, and was unlocked early, which was human error.
There are all kinds of failure mechanisms that could have happened. It could have been as simple as vibration causing the airspeed dial to misread. If that were the case, any transmitted telemetry would have shown the correct airspeed. Point is, we don't know. It's to early to determine a cause and we certainly don't have all the information to come to a conclusion on the cause.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

We KNOW the pilot moved the lever to unlock them. We KNOW the pilot moved the lever to unlock them too early. This is established fact already, as it's on video. The fact that he did, is human error. Was this the ONLY cause? No. But we KNOW that this happened, so it's a fact.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58We know he moved the lever early. We don't know what *he* knew at the time. If he thought they were at the correct speed, it's not human error. If there was some other event happening that he thought unlocking the feather would mitigate, it's not human error. As the NTSB was very careful to state, that he moved the lever early is a statement of fact, not a statement of cause. To focus only on the unlock switch being moved early is to set oneself up to miss other possible problems with design, manufacturing, integration, procedures, etc. There's a reason why the NTSB says the final report may take a year.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
If you watch other videos of SpaceShip 2 flights, you'll notice that the ground gives two commands. The first is "Go to unlock the feather mechanism". After that the ground will confirm when telemetry says the mechanism is unlocked. The next is "Go for feather". This is when the crew actually commands the ship to "feather".

My question being, was it SOP that the crew would not unlatch the feather mechanism until told to do so by controllers on the ground?

Also, one cannot discount the fact that, within a weeks time, there were 3 (one, fatal) failures of commercial space flight programs. Dream Chaser, made a gear up landing on a test flight. A private cargo carrier rocket blew up seconds after launch, and, of course, the SpaceShip Two disaster.

As Ian Flemming once said, "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action".

I get the feeling somebody doesn't want to give up the governmental monopoly on manned space flight.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: VirulentLeper

Dream Chaser was in October of last year. As for the two accidents in a week, it could happen to NASA, or to private companies. Accidents happen, and getting to space is one of the hardest things that people do.

The new Spaceship Two is externally complete, and officially over halfway completed, and expected to undergo ground testing next year.
edit on 11/9/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
The surviving pilot has spoken to the NTSB, and said that he didn't know that the feathers had been unlocked by the copilot. He also said that he only survived because the aircraft broke up around him, and threw his seat out, and he separated from it before the parachute automatically deployed.

aviationweek.com...
edit on 11/12/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join