In a press conference at the Mojave Air and Sport Port Sunday evening, acting NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart revealed preliminary findings in the investigation of the Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo test flight accident. According to Hart, review of cockpit video during the flight showed that the co-pilot Michael Alsbury turned the tail feathering lock-unlock lever to the unlocked position too early. But Hart was quick to add that the NTSB has not concluded that this represents a cause and effect, and more analysis is necessary.
“I am not stating this was the cause of this mishap,” he said. “We have months and months of investigation to determine what the cause was.”
Feathering of the tail is an action taken during re-entry at high altitude in order to increase drag and accelerate the space vehicle’s descent. The apparently unscripted action by Alsbury was taken just seconds into the flight of SpaceShipTwo when the suborbital space vehicle had reached the speed of sound, Mach 1 in the denser atmosphere at roughly 50,000 feet. However, unlocking the feathering mechanism was not followed by the second step – moving of another lever which actually rotates the twin tail sections relative to the fuselage to increase the drag for the feathering, which is like a shuttlecock effect. Two seconds after Alsbury’s action and the feathering, SpaceShipTwo experienced a catastrophic breakup.
Feathering of the twin tail section of SpaceShiptTwo requires the pilots to execute two steps. The co-pilot Alsbury executed the first step — unlocking. According to the NTSB investigators, the unlocking of the mechanism should not have been enough to cause the feathering during the ill-fated test flight. The lock-unlock mechanism represents a safety feature. The feathering should only occur after the pilot moves a second lever which is not unlike the lever in a conventional aircraft that lowers the landing flaps to increase lift, but as with feathering, at the expense of adding more drag.
Clearly this discovery by the NTSB is turning their focus away from the rocket engine which has posed so much difficulty for Scaled Composites project life cycle of SpaceShipTwo. The propulsion system has been primarily to blame for the delays which Virgin Group founder, Richard Branson has stated stands at five years; the project development now at the 10 year mark.
Discussions in the blogosphere involving aeronautic and propulsion experts and average citizens had quickly turned to criticism of the SpaceShipTwo rocket motor. However, review of the debris appeared to show the rocket motor intact. With this NTSB finding, there is likely to be a pause and change in the focus. However, if the NTSB investigation concludes that the feathering is the cause of the accident, this may not discharge the many concerns about safety of the SpaceShipTwo propulsion system design.
Virgin Galactic CEO Richard Branson responded harshly to the criticism of the propulsion system. “I’ve never seen such irresponsible innuendo and damaging innuendo,” he told Sky News television in the UK. “The fuel tanks and the engine were intact, showing there was no explosion, despite a lot of self-proclaimed experts saying that was the cause,” he said.
The SpaceShipTwo test flight accident occurred at 10:12 AM PDT on October 31st. One day later, NTSB agents had arrived in the Mojave desert to begin the investigation. During the first press conference, Hart stated that while the investigation is expected to last most of a year, he emphasized that the telemetry recorded during the flight was comprehensive and would be instrumental to uncovering a cause and effect.
The telemetry included several video recordings from the carrier aircraft WhiteKnightTwo, from ground video cameras, and also from inside the cockpit. It is a review of the latter that showed the releasing of the feathering safety lock mechanism by Alsbury. Co-pilot Alsbury died as a result of vehicle’s breakup while the pilot, Peter Siebold, escaped or was thrown from the vehicle and parachuted to the ground. Siebold is in serious condition but conscious and speaking to family and attending physicians.
Another point of comparison between the feathering of the SpaceShipTwo tail section with conventional aircraft flaps is that flaps are given a maximum speed at which they can be safely deployed. Deployment at beyond the maximum speed risks severe mechanical stress to the airframe. The feathering that occurred during the test flight at Mach 1 and at the low altitude of the early phase of powered flight by SpaceShipTwo would also have caused sudden and severe stress and potentially the breakup of the vehicle.
NTSB’s Christopher Hart stated that a follow-up press conference would be held on Monday, November 3rd, and will provide more details regarding the NTSB discovery. Hart, during the Sunday press conference, reiterated that despite this early discovery, the investigation is still expected to take a year to conclude. Universe Today will follow with an update after the completion of the Monday press conference.
You should probably change your headline. Hart of NTSB never specifically called the lever action a pilot error, merely that it occurred at a time that is not normal for the flight plan. Perhaps the action was a deliberate reaction to some other issue the pilot saw? Do we know that it was an error and not a deliberate action?
mach 1 is an ugly beast. If something starts oscillating, then unlocking it won’t help to reduce the oscillations. No matter than the flaring mechanism still holds it in place, as it no doubt has slightly more slack than the lock had. Even if its a fraction of a gear tooth.
But lets wait the result. No doubt they’ll try to figure it out rather sooner than later.
Yes Tim Reyes, please correct this mis-statement.
Spaceguy87 and VaxHeadroom. The comments are appreciated. After consulting with U.T. senior editor, I have revised the title to include “possible”. The content of this article never stated that the NTSB said “pilot error” and did state how Hart emphasized that they had not concluded this is the cause. In the upcoming press conference, they might state a high degree of certainty. We will see. Hopefully, this accident doesn’t get more complicated than what appears to be a single point failure. As other commenters eluded to, it is very difficult to imagine any reason for releasing the locking mechanism during this time in the flight.
The design of the feathering mechanism on spaceship 2 has been a matter of concern to me since I first saw it. Unlike Spaceship 1 there is a leading edge gap occurring at the wing end just as it begins to feather. I understand the aerodynamic control balance this section provides when feathering, but when accelerating, if it should begin to open just a little bit, such a gap is an invitation to unstable aerodynamic drag where it is not welcome.
Has SpaceShip 2 ever broken the sound barrier in the previous test flights?
Yes, SS2 reached a speed of mach 1.4 in a previous powered test flight.
Readers should take note that as this story unfolds, discussion might include reference to “Human Factors”. The field involves designing, for example, the cockpit panel display for efficient use by a human. It is possible that the design has a human factors-type flaw that caused Alsbury to make a fatal mistake. Even flying a simple single-prop aircraft, one has to pay attention not to flip a wrong toggle switch or turn a knob in the wrong direction.
Further investigation will begin speculating why Michael turned the lever. It’s just such a shame he paid for it with his life. Here’s hoping Peter Siebold will be able to spread some light on the situation, and soon!
I’d speculate Michael merely misjudged something and turned the lever accordingly. Hate to jump while they’re down, but I’m curious to what VirginGalactic & Scaled Composites are going to do next…
Whatever the cause this is still a major set-back for commercial space. But, set-back’s CAN generate innovation and actually accelerate progress. Unfortunately, this is what test flights are all about…