Gulfstream G650 Crash - Roswell - 4 Dead
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am no guru, but I strongly doubt that 10kts X-wind is enough reason to scribble a whole airframe.
Horses for courses though, but there is nothing wrong with G4/G5/G450/G550 ability to handle crosswinds - technique is fairly simple. Recently had 27 kts at 90 degrees, no problems.
Even less problem for test pilots - lets face the facts. I dont think this accident had much to do with the prevailing met - - or else this program is doomed from the get-go.
Horses for courses though, but there is nothing wrong with G4/G5/G450/G550 ability to handle crosswinds - technique is fairly simple. Recently had 27 kts at 90 degrees, no problems.
Even less problem for test pilots - lets face the facts. I dont think this accident had much to do with the prevailing met - - or else this program is doomed from the get-go.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In The Ether
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perspective
We all know that despite best efforts, skill, training this industry can be fraught with risk.
Despite all the conjecture and comment everyone spares a thought for all those and their families throughout this period.
I hope a great deal can be learnt from this be it conditions or engineering to make this industry asnsafe as the standards we all strive to achieve.
My condolences to all involved on this sad day and the loss of I am positive some great peers and colleagues in the industry.
Despite all the conjecture and comment everyone spares a thought for all those and their families throughout this period.
I hope a great deal can be learnt from this be it conditions or engineering to make this industry asnsafe as the standards we all strive to achieve.
My condolences to all involved on this sad day and the loss of I am positive some great peers and colleagues in the industry.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would there be additional Flight Data Recording going on during this phase of testing?
Just might give a clue as to what in the world happened.
VFD
Just might give a clue as to what in the world happened.
VFD
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too true Nordstrom. This may have been a sad first for Gulfstream but the Challenger 604 certification program suffered a fatal crash back in 2000 when
2 pilots perished at Wichita.
ASN Aircraft accident Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604 C-FTBZ Wichita-Mid-Continent Airport, KS (ICT)
2 pilots perished at Wichita.
ASN Aircraft accident Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604 C-FTBZ Wichita-Mid-Continent Airport, KS (ICT)
In the CL-604 JAR-OPS testing mishap at ICT, three people actually perished - the co-pilot, who was on an orientation flight, died from massive burns 36 days later. It's the nature of burns that you generally succumb to them, normally from a secondary infection. His family put up a website for him while he was alive - I visited it daily. While the mishap occurred because of aftward fuel migration in a test article already ballasted to its rear C.G. limit (the test was to begin at 41,000 feet, the Brits had questioned the CL-604's high altitude longitudinal stability), the real culprit was Bombardier's deficient test program. Neither pilot was a graduate of a recognized test pilot school, adequate risk assessments were not being accomplished, there was no "build-up" to the test being performed and the test had a higher level of complexity than the pilot flying had ever attempted.
Last edited by GVFlyer; 3rd Apr 2011 at 20:32.
Then the clients are deluded, as this tragedy has illustrated.
I have a few guesses and speculations in my head but I'll keep them to myself; other than to say that the goals for high speed flight and TO and landing at low speed tend to be diametrically opposed-aerodynamically and that certain aspects of that program seemed very optimistic---no LE devices etc...I know
I totally agree an unrelated red-herring!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what the risk assesment for this testing concluded.
NTSB recommended risk assesments for flight testing after that Canadair accident a few years back.
IF a testpilot needs a risk assessment to know a test flight is risky, then....
Lets assume the risk assessment said: very risky, so what then, should the testpilots stop testing airplanes or at least high risk tests, even though they are most likely prescribed by FAA/EASA ?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Mostly Western hemisphere
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, I didn't attend any course/training at the National Test Pilot School, however I believe they do a risk assessment before every flight. Everything's even online: NTPS Test Hazard Analyses.
Enough said, I guess...
Enough said, I guess...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what the risk assesment for this testing concluded.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kent
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
had to refresh the page when i saw this thread title, didn't believe it upon seeing it and didn't want to either. Very tragic indeed and not looking forward to seeing the names on manifest when released.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You´re obsessed with that ****e aren´t you?
IF a testpilot needs a risk assessment to know a test flight is risky, then....
Lets assume the risk assessment said: very risky, so what then, should the testpilots stop testing airplanes or at least high risk tests, even though they are most likely prescribed by FAA/EASA ?
IF a testpilot needs a risk assessment to know a test flight is risky, then....
Lets assume the risk assessment said: very risky, so what then, should the testpilots stop testing airplanes or at least high risk tests, even though they are most likely prescribed by FAA/EASA ?
Neither a pilot, nor an engineer, needs to do a risk assessment to understand that test flying is inherently risky. That is not the point of a risk assessment process. The point is to understand what the risks are, specifically, and to identify what actions you are going to take to mitigate the risk or address the consequences.
Concluding that a test is "high risk" doesn't lead to the conclusion "scrub the test" - it leads to the question, "what can we do to reduce this high risk to an acceptable level?" The risk assessment is the first step in achieving the goal of exposing the test crew, and test vehicle, to no unnecessary risks and to no unidentified risks. Thus making the testing process, while inherently risky, as low risk as can be reasonably achieved.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red usually means an experimental part.
I'd guess it's either;
1. A replacement installation for a window that incorproated a controllable port the simulated a hole in the fuselage of a defined size, so that you can do cabin depressurizzation assessments by opening the hole, retaining the ability to close it again to continue flying or in the event the test goes badly; or
2. A window replacement being used to mount something in that location - perhaps a camera installation to observe the wing LE.
If I had to pick one, I'd say #1. Usually you wouldn't need to go to that extent to mount a camera.
I'd guess it's either;
1. A replacement installation for a window that incorproated a controllable port the simulated a hole in the fuselage of a defined size, so that you can do cabin depressurizzation assessments by opening the hole, retaining the ability to close it again to continue flying or in the event the test goes badly; or
2. A window replacement being used to mount something in that location - perhaps a camera installation to observe the wing LE.
If I had to pick one, I'd say #1. Usually you wouldn't need to go to that extent to mount a camera.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red usually means an experimental part
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: earth
Age: 68
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Learjet has COVERS not experimental parts. Covers are RED for visibility to ensure they are seen when installed.
The Gulfstream window is actually "Flight Test Orange" not RED and is used for external probes to my recollection.
Unairworthy parts are marked RED such as when unairworthy but on-ground useable landing gear or wheels are used for moving aircraft
The Gulfstream window is actually "Flight Test Orange" not RED and is used for external probes to my recollection.
Unairworthy parts are marked RED such as when unairworthy but on-ground useable landing gear or wheels are used for moving aircraft
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gulfstream Identifies Employees Killed in G650 Crash -- SAVANNAH, Ga., April 3, 2011 /PRNewswire/ --
"We mourn the loss of our colleagues and friends and extend our deepest sympathies to their families," said Joe Lombardo, president, Gulfstream. "The Gulfstream team has already rallied to support the people these men left behind, and we know that the local and aviation communities will do the same. On their behalf, we ask for your kindness, support and understanding as they, and the rest of the Gulfstream family, grieve the passing of these fine professionals."
"We mourn the loss of our colleagues and friends and extend our deepest sympathies to their families," said Joe Lombardo, president, Gulfstream. "The Gulfstream team has already rallied to support the people these men left behind, and we know that the local and aviation communities will do the same. On their behalf, we ask for your kindness, support and understanding as they, and the rest of the Gulfstream family, grieve the passing of these fine professionals."