Virgin Galactic, I have a number for you to call.

  • A red light on the pilots' console warned that the spaceship could fly out of bounds on its descent.

  • Virgin Galactic's pilots kept flying, and the ship left its airspace clearance zone on its return.


    So they decided to keep flying. How reckless of them
 
Will he get the Harrison Ford or the Martha Lunken treatment?

What are the odds in Vegas on this?
 
Sounds like another nothing burger, but Virgin get's press so they won't be upset by it.
 
C. J. Sturckow, a former marine and nasa astronaut, said that a yellow light should “scare the **** out of you,” because “when it turns red it’s gonna be too late”
and yet it wasn’t too late and no damage was done.
 
I want to know what VG did to annoy the FAA guy. These space guys regularly bend the rules and have been doing so for decades without adverse actions.
 
2wbrdx.gif
 
I don't know anything about this situation, and it's easy to laugh at it, but if I was flying along outside of their tfr and got whacked by their spaceplane, I'd be pretty ****ed. Also dead, but you get my point. Of course there's probably nothing the pilots could have done about it, but there is a logic in making sure they are where they say they'll be.
 
It’s easy to say you should always abort when a red light turns on while you’re on the ground. But it’s not always right.
 
King Richard made the first passenger carrying flight with his spaceship. For legal reasons, all the persons on board were employees of the company, even Richard himself, is technically an employee.

Although this was described as the first passenger carrying flight, it was a final test flight, thus, there were no paying passengers on board.

Virgin Galactic negotiated a TFR for the flight, giving them exclusive use of a significant piece of the airspace, and space, to them. They did not remain within the reserved airspace, and flew in space accessible to john Q Public. In actuality, I am sure that the public was excluded from much more than the reserved space, but that is beside the point.

The Virgin Galactic pilots were either unwilling or unable to alter the flight path to remain inside the clearance terms, and they did not request a deviation. If they were unable to alter course, they should have requested a variation, and I am sure that the FAA would have issued one immediately. BUT the controller might have asked if they needed to declare an emergency! The frequencies used were monitored by many outsiders with axes to grind. That would have forced VG to admit that they were not in full control of the space ship, and since the deviation brought into question whether they were going to land on the runway, or out in the desert, further test flights would have been required to establish that the flight could be returned to the safe flight envelope.

The possibility that an emergency had occurred would have crippled the time line and cost to achieve the first paying passenger flights. Financially, even the implied possibility of an out of control period, with a possible crash landing, were to be avoided at all cost.

VG is blaming upper level winds for the deviation. They did not have technology in place to measure those winds? What if those winds were turbulent? Could that have been the real cause of the inverted spin of the earlier flight? Could similar wind from a different direction compromise the ability to return to a safe landing? What true ability do the pilots have to alter their trajectory after the rocket burn starts?

All of these questions, and more, will have to be answered to the FAA's satisfaction before the first true passenger flight occurs, and may include several flights to demonstrate that the flight CAN have the trajectory / flight path changed to compensate for those outside factors. If the path cannot be altered enough to stay within glide range of the runway, perhaps the FAA will mandate a red handle and sequential chutes of increasing size, deployed to provide a gentle landing off airport.

When the military / government research flights fail to get back to the runway out there, they eject, and the plane becomes a smoking pile of scrap metal. That is not an option if you are carrying paying passengers.

The hope to avoid any new attention from the FAA by describing the whole flight as "Within all company parameters and procedures", and instructing the pilots to downplay the computer generated yellow caution light, and red warning light, as not important, will be closely inspected but the FAA. All thjose parameters and procedures will be examined for their true safety margins.

In the airline world, there are yellow lights that make departure illegal, but continued flight legal, and if the light turns red, land at the nearest suitable airport, such as yaw damper failure. One fail, you do not take off, two, you must land. Such criteria depend on the hazard presented to the specific aircraft, and the yellow and red light logic of the VG spaceship will have to be analyzed to see what can be tolerated with passengers on board.

King Richard has set the internal biases such that the possibility of the FAA asking those questions would be averted.

No, the FAA is going to find the inconvenient answers, and future revenue flight will be delayed.

The use of the title "King Richard" comes from the manner in which he treats the Pilots and FA of Virgin Airlines. If you visit PPRUNE, you will find that is the normal terminology there. That attitude toward those who report to him is a dangerous one at the edge of the envelope. Especially at the edge of space.

VG and the King may regret the termination of two of their brightest minds for speaking to truthfully.
 
The FAA has announced the grounding of the space ship until the investigation is completed.

Elon Musk, in a disagreement with the FAA for his flights, called the protected airspace ridiculously large, when his launch was set back a day because a general aviation plane made an incursion.

Branson flew outside his reserved and protected space.

Branson, the space was smaller than they used, Musk, too big for his convenience.

The bigger issue remains, did the yellow/red light sequence give warning of a real danger, if so, why did the crew not take corrective action. If not, why was it incorrectly programed, sending a worthless warning. Both, serious failures, with ongoing implications of danger to passengers, an important responsibility of the FAA. Future passengers are unable to determine what went wrong, and if it was important.
 
You’re descending from space on your way to land…what action would you expect a pilot to take in response to a generic warning light?

Should wait to see what the actual indicator was saying.
 
They didn't leave protected airspace until gliding home on the descent. Upon seeing the risk, the pilot should have performed an immediate split-S to head back into protected airspace. The maneuver would have also been useful for identifying any passengers that ignored the requirement to buckle back in after their period of weightlessness.

:D
 
The warning light came on during the rocket burn, and changed to red before the end of the burn. Their problem was to low an angle of climb, meaning insufficient altitude for the filed flight plan route. Getting rid of altitude was not an aid, it would have increased the danger of failing to reach the runway.

Fortunately, they programmed in enough excess altitude to allow for just this type of issue.
 
Why not just let them rent space from the army at Kwajalein? More or less they could have whatever airspace they wanted, and if it crashes it most likely won't hurt anyone on the ground.
 
More or less they could have whatever airspace they wanted, and if it crashes it most likely won't hurt anyone on the ground.

I think they already get that in NM. And if they land short at least they’re dry.

Plus the Mexican food there is better than Kwaj. (I assume; never been to Kwaj)
 
and yet it wasn’t too late and no damage was done.
Hey, if I fly unannounced, with no transponder, through JFK's airspace, and don't hit anyone, can I say "no damage was done"? Or at least fly under that bridge that's only a few miles away, I heard some old lady did it, with no damage done.
 
The answer is that this is not like someone blasting into a class B unannounced. These things were tracked. While you had a filed plan and limits, there's not really an argument that safety was compromised. Again, space launches are such rare things and there is sufficient notice required to be given, that these limits are bent all the time. I agree that the fact that this is now "space tourism" may have influenced things, but I still think someone's got something up his craw on this more so than legitimate oversite.
 
They also fired their flight test director. Reading between the lines, it sounds like he told management some stuff they did not want to hear.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-red-warning-light-on-richard-bransons-space-flight

Didn’t appear anything was “between the lines”.

Yeah, agreed. Seemed pretty stark. From the linked article:

Some of Stucky’s criticisms appeared in the book I wrote about him and Virgin Galactic’s rocket ship-program, “Test Gods: Virgin Galactic and the Making of a Modern Astronaut.” After the publication of my book, in May, Stucky was stripped of his flight duties and excluded from key planning meetings ahead of the July 11th event. He watched Branson’s flight from the runway; it was the first mission for which he had no responsibilities after more than a decade on the program. Eight days after Branson’s flight, an H.R. manager booked time on his calendar, and then fired Stucky over Zoom.

The Test Gods book was really good. The author was given inside access to all of Virgin Galactic's operations, and told their story, warts and all. However, my personal takeaway from the book was that Virgin Galactic triumphed over incredible challenges to build their company, and that everyone involved (Stucky, Branson, and everyone else) were a good team. I'm still puzzled why Stucky was let go.
 
The answer is that this is not like someone blasting into a class B unannounced. These things were tracked. While you had a filed plan and limits, there's not really an argument that safety was compromised. Again, space launches are such rare things and there is sufficient notice required to be given, that these limits are bent all the time. I agree that the fact that this is now "space tourism" may have influenced things, but I still think someone's got something up his craw on this more so than legitimate oversite.
I think the major point is that the vehicle had a planned flight path, but was unable to follow it. That's a huge red flag, for a space vehicle. It's the equivalent of an Airbus at cruise being unable to maintain its altitude within 500 feet. No one's endangered, but the FAA has a legitimate interest in determining *why*.

The VG folks selected an ascent trajectory, determined what the nominal deviation night be, added a cushion to that, and used it as the basis for their airspace request. Yet the vehicle flew completely outside the airspace reservation. There's something screwed up, there. Last week, the Astra rocket had one of its five motors blow up on liftoff, sending the vehicle on a skittering translation across the field before it finally burned off enough fuel to ascend. It *still* stayed inside its airspace.

My guess is that in their rush to beat Blue Origin, the VG folks dropped a stitch or two. I think the FAA has quite legitimate reasons for demanding to know what happened before the vehicle carries paying passengers.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Back
Top