14 ms·

Pilot Who Survived Space Crash Says Parachute Opened Itself

165 points by chdir 12y ago

jobu 12y ago
After all the speculation about engine failure, it sounds like the culprit is a combination of poor design and pilot error. The "Feather System" was unlocked by a pilot too early in the flight, then air currents caused it to activate in atmosphere instead of near vacuum - likely tearing the ship apart.
- joezydeco 12y ago
  But part of the flight procedure is to actually unlock the feathers slightly later in the flight - at Mach 1.4. The article states this is to make sure the feathers are operational before heading upward, but that seems like a really narrow margin of time to execute this test.
  - malandrew 12y ago
    While speed is a factor, it isn't the only factor. The altitude at which they are unlocked matters as well. Moving at Mach 1.0 at a lower altitude could subject the plane to far greater forces than at Mach 1.4 at a much higher altitude, where the air is thinner. Furthermore, where the force is coming from probably also plays a role. The angle of the force applied to the feathers may change when the force is not coming from a fall, but is instead the result of the engines provide force from behind the fuselage.
- osivertsson 12y ago
  10-11 years ago I followed the Ansari X Prize a lot. I have a fuzzy recollection that Peter Siebold, the surviving pilot, actually designed and, at least in part, programmed almost everything related to pilot controls (and lots lots more!) on the SpaceShipOne. If pilot controls are similar on SpaceShipTwo and poor design of them is blamed in the final NTSB report, then I hope Peter doesn't put too much blame on himself. Peter Siebold has given and achieved so much on this project, definitely a hero of mine together with Burt Rutan.
- hga 12y ago
  Not poor design, the Feather System has to be unlocked at some point. And testing it early, at Mach 1.4 might be a really good idea before you (I assume) commit to needing it. And there's a good possibility removing its contribution to the center of pressure too early is what caused the destruction.
  - thrill 12y ago
    Hard to say if poor design is a contributing factor or not - if the release mechanism is easily confused because it's a tiny little switch that looks just like all the other tiny little switches, then yeah, it may be poor design. In new endeavors, especially the often unforgiving aviation arena, frequent and focused training often makes up for poor design, or less-than-wonderful human factors engineering, or other recognized-after-the-event shortcomings - until it doesn't.
    - dfox 12y ago
      I would assume that in typical aircraft cockpit, most of the prominently placed tiny little switches are actually important and unimportant tiny little switches are the exception.
001sky 12y ago
This was by design, not magic.
- vuldin 12y ago
  :D I know, the title is just a little misleading. And the article doesn't seem to make any mention of the automated parachute system.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Did the copilot's chute also deploy?
  - Implicated 12y ago
    If I remember correctly he was still strapped into his seat when found.
    - neurotech1 12y ago
      According to reports, the co-pilot was still in the cockpit section (seated and strapped in) on impact with the ground.
  - teleclimber 12y ago
    Apparently yes. He was found in the wreckage, strapped in his seat, with the chute partially deployed. It probably deployed automatically during the fall and shot out between the pilot and the seat.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      Perhaps NTSB will have some thoughts about how to coordinate seat separation and chute deployment.
      - teleclimber 12y ago
        If you don't have an ejection seat, getting kicked out of your seat inside a cockpit doesn't sound terribly helpful. Inflight breakup situations where the pilot breaks free in their seat are so rare that this would probably would cause more accidents than it would save lives. Ejection seats do kick you out of the seat automatically sometime after ejection so that the automatic parachute deployment can work.
chdir 12y ago
Crash investigation (Source - NTSB : http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141112.html http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141112.html) According to the pilot, he was unaware that the feather system had been unlocked early by the copilot. His description of the vehicle motion was consistent with other data sources in the investigation. He stated that he was extracted from the vehicle as a result of the break-up sequence and unbuckled from his seat at some point before the parachute deployed automatically. Recorded information from telemetry, non-volatile memory, and videos are being processed and validated to assist the investigative groups. ... The investigation is ongoing. Any future updates will be issued as events warrant.
- smackfu 12y ago
  Yes, that's actually the only source of new info.
  - TrevorJ 12y ago
    I was also interested in the fast that they weren't in pressure suits. Apparently the ingress/egress hatch is so small as to preclude them wearing basic safety equipment. I'm becoming less and less sympathetic to Virgin Galactic the more I hear.
    - jostmey 12y ago
      Cut the company some slack. Space flight is hard. There are physical constraints imposed by the laws of Nature that have to be carefully weighed. It is easy to forget this fact when all you ever do is software design or whatever.
      - bunderbunder 12y ago
        Not too much slack. It's true that space flight is hard. But it's also true that Virgin Galactic is a company based entirely around sub-orbital space tourism. The level of risk we should consider acceptable for what's essentially an ultra-high-priced amusement park ride is rather lower than the level of risk we should consider acceptable for space exploration.
clueless123 12y ago
To survive this is absolutely incredible, the only pitty is that the article lacks so many interesting details! Was he wearing the chute on his back? (So,he had to get out of his seat to be able to open) What kind of AAD was he wearing ? (was it an off the shelf AAD like a Cypress?) What where it's settings? pass through such altitude at such vertical speed to open.. Any one knows? any links?
- smackfu 12y ago
  Good thing: NTSB will release a full report at some point with all these answers. Bad thing: Until then, they tend to not say much.
  - JshWright 12y ago
    Some might consider that to be two good things...
- smu3l 12y ago
  I couldn't find any information on who manufactured the automatic activation device, but it was almost certainly not an off the shelf model. Airtec created a specialized Cypres[1] for the Redbull Stratos project, and Cypres has had other applications in space, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what was used. [1] http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=298&Itemid=166&lang=en http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic...
- sebcat 12y ago
  AADs have barometric sensors. That works for skydivers because they zero it on the ground, they're in an unpressurized vessel and they always experience the same force vectors (with variations, belly vs. freefly &c). How would you build a CYPRES-style (barometric, integrated, cutter based) AAD for an event like this? And why would you not have it built into the seat? Speculation: they wore standard bail outs sans AAD, like regular pilots. This guy either don't remember pulling or had the forces excerted on him and/or his gear pull for him.
  - 12y ago
wil421 12y ago
>The subject’s last memory before passing out was the realization that the water on his tongue was boiling, according to NASA. That is not something I would ever want to experience. I wonder how similar this environment is the the SR71 that disintegrated [1]. Luckily the SR71 pilots wore space suits with this happened. Otherwise I dont think he would have survived. [1]http://www.916-starfighter.de/SR-71_Waever.htm http://www.916-starfighter.de/SR-71_Waever.htm
- thekingofspain 12y ago
  That doesn't mean the water was super hot, though.
  - wil421 12y ago
    The next sentence in the article is: >Water boils at lower temperatures as pressure decreases.
    - viewer5 12y ago
      So it wouldn't feel boiling-hot, just weird and bubbly?
      - Sharlin 12y ago
        Yes. Probably something like a carbonated beverage but without the acidity.
      - syncsynchalt 12y ago
        Like Pop Rocks, yes.
      - lutorm 12y ago
        Anyone who's put liquid nitrogen in their mouth (and if you haven't, you've missed out) knows the feeling.
        12y ago
kazinator 12y ago
> “I can’t imagine the forces he must have experienced being thrown out of the aircraft,” Sventek, who spent 31 years in the U.S. Air Force, said in an interview. Some initial impulse from the ejecting motion of the craft breakup, and then immediately after losing contact, the only net force should be the one from air drag due to the velocity. There is gravity, of course, but in free-fall, that force is balanced by your acceleration so you don't feel it. As you reach terminal velocity, it rises toward 1g. That air drag would be a big force, though, when you're thrown into the air at the craft's velocity.
- 3327 12y ago
  >> True, however air density at 70K feet is about 1/20th of sea level. source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604....
- pwnna 12y ago
  Did a little bit of a back of the envelop calculation on the subject, so this maybe completely bogus, be aware. It would seem like the temperature that the pilot experienced upon ejection at Mach 1 at 15000m (when they broke apart) would be about -13C, which is reasonably survivable[1]. The pressure experienced is probably around 22kPa absolute, which in theory will generate anywhere between 6 - 20g[2]. Not pleasant, but survivable. Given these, it takes a lot of luck to survive those conditions (1/5th atmosphere, extreme acceleration, low temperature when he falls), but it might be more survivable than we think (this is much better than exploding and ejecting at lower altitudes) [1]: Calculation via the stagnation temperature at that speed for the standard condition at that altitude (Temperature ~= 217K, P ~= 12kPa) [2]: Stagnation pressure on him in the front of the body (23kPa), ambient at the back. Average male body surface area is about 2m^2, depending on the geometry you might be able to get down to a quarter of that. Throw in the mass of the pilot (70kg? 90kg?), you should get accelerations in those ranges. Edit: some more interpretations
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    > this maybe completely bogus, be aware Well, much over 20g is not very survivable, so I'd say you're in the ballpark at least.
spb 12y ago
Warning: link plays loud video shortly after opening.
callesgg 12y ago
Are they seriously going to blame the dead pilot for the crash. Even if he might have caused it, playing the blame game does not feel very professional. I would be very careful before making such a statement.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - thrill 12y ago
    If the pilot was at fault then the only unprofessional act would be to not state so. But likewise with any other deficiencies, from material sourcing to engineering process to flight operation.
  - 205guy 12y ago
    This. At first, I wondered why the NTSB was getting all the design data from the company, much of which must be proprietary and, as a one-off custom design craft, not useful to the NTSB. I mean, wouldn't the company want to do its own research and find out what happened so it can fix it and resume flights? But then I realized that it's better for everyone if an outside party learns all it can and essentially debugs their design, like Feynman did with the space shuttle. One might even wonder if they aren't getting some highly expert aerospace consulting done for free.
- ars 12y ago
  How do you manage to say both of those things at once? He caused it, but he's not to blame? I mean if you want to talk about other systemic factors then fine. But otherwise your request is nonsensical.
  - callesgg 12y ago
    It could be cause they did not train him properly, or other factors out of his control. Who knows....
    - 12y ago
popeshoe 12y ago
Does anybody know if it's common that an aircraft can be structurally compromised like that due to user error? I can easily imagine the stress on the airframe doing manoeuvres like this, if I were a pilot I'd be absolutely terrified that it were possible for me to flip a switch and just have the vehicle I'm in disintegrate around me. edit: whoops, commented on a day old thread, what a dingus

165 points by chdir 12y ago

jobu 12y ago

After all the speculation about engine failure, it sounds like the culprit is a combination of poor design and pilot error. The "Feather System" was unlocked by a pilot too early in the flight, then air currents caused it to activate in atmosphere instead of near vacuum - likely tearing the ship apart.

joezydeco 12y ago
But part of the flight procedure is to actually unlock the feathers slightly later in the flight - at Mach 1.4. The article states this is to make sure the feathers are operational before heading upward, but that seems like a really narrow margin of time to execute this test.
- malandrew 12y ago
  While speed is a factor, it isn't the only factor. The altitude at which they are unlocked matters as well. Moving at Mach 1.0 at a lower altitude could subject the plane to far greater forces than at Mach 1.4 at a much higher altitude, where the air is thinner. Furthermore, where the force is coming from probably also plays a role. The angle of the force applied to the feathers may change when the force is not coming from a fall, but is instead the result of the engines provide force from behind the fuselage.
osivertsson 12y ago
10-11 years ago I followed the Ansari X Prize a lot. I have a fuzzy recollection that Peter Siebold, the surviving pilot, actually designed and, at least in part, programmed almost everything related to pilot controls (and lots lots more!) on the SpaceShipOne. If pilot controls are similar on SpaceShipTwo and poor design of them is blamed in the final NTSB report, then I hope Peter doesn't put too much blame on himself. Peter Siebold has given and achieved so much on this project, definitely a hero of mine together with Burt Rutan.
hga 12y ago
Not poor design, the Feather System has to be unlocked at some point. And testing it early, at Mach 1.4 might be a really good idea before you (I assume) commit to needing it. And there's a good possibility removing its contribution to the center of pressure too early is what caused the destruction.
- thrill 12y ago
  Hard to say if poor design is a contributing factor or not - if the release mechanism is easily confused because it's a tiny little switch that looks just like all the other tiny little switches, then yeah, it may be poor design. In new endeavors, especially the often unforgiving aviation arena, frequent and focused training often makes up for poor design, or less-than-wonderful human factors engineering, or other recognized-after-the-event shortcomings - until it doesn't.
  - dfox 12y ago
    I would assume that in typical aircraft cockpit, most of the prominently placed tiny little switches are actually important and unimportant tiny little switches are the exception.

001sky 12y ago

This was by design, not magic.

vuldin 12y ago
:D I know, the title is just a little misleading. And the article doesn't seem to make any mention of the automated parachute system.
jessaustin 12y ago
Did the copilot's chute also deploy?
- Implicated 12y ago
  If I remember correctly he was still strapped into his seat when found.
  - neurotech1 12y ago
    According to reports, the co-pilot was still in the cockpit section (seated and strapped in) on impact with the ground.
- teleclimber 12y ago
  Apparently yes. He was found in the wreckage, strapped in his seat, with the chute partially deployed. It probably deployed automatically during the fall and shot out between the pilot and the seat.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    Perhaps NTSB will have some thoughts about how to coordinate seat separation and chute deployment.
    - teleclimber 12y ago
      If you don't have an ejection seat, getting kicked out of your seat inside a cockpit doesn't sound terribly helpful. Inflight breakup situations where the pilot breaks free in their seat are so rare that this would probably would cause more accidents than it would save lives. Ejection seats do kick you out of the seat automatically sometime after ejection so that the automatic parachute deployment can work.

chdir 12y ago

Crash investigation (Source - NTSB : http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141112.html http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141112.html) According to the pilot, he was unaware that the feather system had been unlocked early by the copilot. His description of the vehicle motion was consistent with other data sources in the investigation. He stated that he was extracted from the vehicle as a result of the break-up sequence and unbuckled from his seat at some point before the parachute deployed automatically. Recorded information from telemetry, non-volatile memory, and videos are being processed and validated to assist the investigative groups. ... The investigation is ongoing. Any future updates will be issued as events warrant.

smackfu 12y ago
Yes, that's actually the only source of new info.
- TrevorJ 12y ago
  I was also interested in the fast that they weren't in pressure suits. Apparently the ingress/egress hatch is so small as to preclude them wearing basic safety equipment. I'm becoming less and less sympathetic to Virgin Galactic the more I hear.
  - jostmey 12y ago
    Cut the company some slack. Space flight is hard. There are physical constraints imposed by the laws of Nature that have to be carefully weighed. It is easy to forget this fact when all you ever do is software design or whatever.
    - bunderbunder 12y ago
      Not too much slack. It's true that space flight is hard. But it's also true that Virgin Galactic is a company based entirely around sub-orbital space tourism. The level of risk we should consider acceptable for what's essentially an ultra-high-priced amusement park ride is rather lower than the level of risk we should consider acceptable for space exploration.

clueless123 12y ago

To survive this is absolutely incredible, the only pitty is that the article lacks so many interesting details! Was he wearing the chute on his back? (So,he had to get out of his seat to be able to open) What kind of AAD was he wearing ? (was it an off the shelf AAD like a Cypress?) What where it's settings? pass through such altitude at such vertical speed to open.. Any one knows? any links?

smackfu 12y ago
Good thing: NTSB will release a full report at some point with all these answers. Bad thing: Until then, they tend to not say much.
- JshWright 12y ago
  Some might consider that to be two good things...
smu3l 12y ago
I couldn't find any information on who manufactured the automatic activation device, but it was almost certainly not an off the shelf model. Airtec created a specialized Cypres[1] for the Redbull Stratos project, and Cypres has had other applications in space, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what was used. [1] http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=298&Itemid=166&lang=en http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic...
sebcat 12y ago
AADs have barometric sensors. That works for skydivers because they zero it on the ground, they're in an unpressurized vessel and they always experience the same force vectors (with variations, belly vs. freefly &c). How would you build a CYPRES-style (barometric, integrated, cutter based) AAD for an event like this? And why would you not have it built into the seat? Speculation: they wore standard bail outs sans AAD, like regular pilots. This guy either don't remember pulling or had the forces excerted on him and/or his gear pull for him.
- 12y ago

wil421 12y ago

>The subject’s last memory before passing out was the realization that the water on his tongue was boiling, according to NASA. That is not something I would ever want to experience. I wonder how similar this environment is the the SR71 that disintegrated [1]. Luckily the SR71 pilots wore space suits with this happened. Otherwise I dont think he would have survived. [1]http://www.916-starfighter.de/SR-71_Waever.htm http://www.916-starfighter.de/SR-71_Waever.htm

thekingofspain 12y ago
That doesn't mean the water was super hot, though.
- wil421 12y ago
  The next sentence in the article is: >Water boils at lower temperatures as pressure decreases.
  - viewer5 12y ago
    So it wouldn't feel boiling-hot, just weird and bubbly?
    - Sharlin 12y ago
      Yes. Probably something like a carbonated beverage but without the acidity.
    - syncsynchalt 12y ago
      Like Pop Rocks, yes.
    - lutorm 12y ago
      Anyone who's put liquid nitrogen in their mouth (and if you haven't, you've missed out) knows the feeling.
      - 12y ago

kazinator 12y ago

> “I can’t imagine the forces he must have experienced being thrown out of the aircraft,” Sventek, who spent 31 years in the U.S. Air Force, said in an interview. Some initial impulse from the ejecting motion of the craft breakup, and then immediately after losing contact, the only net force should be the one from air drag due to the velocity. There is gravity, of course, but in free-fall, that force is balanced by your acceleration so you don't feel it. As you reach terminal velocity, it rises toward 1g. That air drag would be a big force, though, when you're thrown into the air at the craft's velocity.

3327 12y ago
>> True, however air density at 70K feet is about 1/20th of sea level. source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604....
pwnna 12y ago
Did a little bit of a back of the envelop calculation on the subject, so this maybe completely bogus, be aware. It would seem like the temperature that the pilot experienced upon ejection at Mach 1 at 15000m (when they broke apart) would be about -13C, which is reasonably survivable[1]. The pressure experienced is probably around 22kPa absolute, which in theory will generate anywhere between 6 - 20g[2]. Not pleasant, but survivable. Given these, it takes a lot of luck to survive those conditions (1/5th atmosphere, extreme acceleration, low temperature when he falls), but it might be more survivable than we think (this is much better than exploding and ejecting at lower altitudes) [1]: Calculation via the stagnation temperature at that speed for the standard condition at that altitude (Temperature ~= 217K, P ~= 12kPa) [2]: Stagnation pressure on him in the front of the body (23kPa), ambient at the back. Average male body surface area is about 2m^2, depending on the geometry you might be able to get down to a quarter of that. Throw in the mass of the pilot (70kg? 90kg?), you should get accelerations in those ranges. Edit: some more interpretations
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  > this maybe completely bogus, be aware Well, much over 20g is not very survivable, so I'd say you're in the ballpark at least.

spb 12y ago

Warning: link plays loud video shortly after opening.

callesgg 12y ago

Are they seriously going to blame the dead pilot for the crash. Even if he might have caused it, playing the blame game does not feel very professional. I would be very careful before making such a statement.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- thrill 12y ago
  If the pilot was at fault then the only unprofessional act would be to not state so. But likewise with any other deficiencies, from material sourcing to engineering process to flight operation.
- 205guy 12y ago
  This. At first, I wondered why the NTSB was getting all the design data from the company, much of which must be proprietary and, as a one-off custom design craft, not useful to the NTSB. I mean, wouldn't the company want to do its own research and find out what happened so it can fix it and resume flights? But then I realized that it's better for everyone if an outside party learns all it can and essentially debugs their design, like Feynman did with the space shuttle. One might even wonder if they aren't getting some highly expert aerospace consulting done for free.
ars 12y ago
How do you manage to say both of those things at once? He caused it, but he's not to blame? I mean if you want to talk about other systemic factors then fine. But otherwise your request is nonsensical.
- callesgg 12y ago
  It could be cause they did not train him properly, or other factors out of his control. Who knows....
  - 12y ago

popeshoe 12y ago

Does anybody know if it's common that an aircraft can be structurally compromised like that due to user error? I can easily imagine the stress on the airframe doing manoeuvres like this, if I were a pilot I'd be absolutely terrified that it were possible for me to flip a switch and just have the vehicle I'm in disintegrate around me. edit: whoops, commented on a day old thread, what a dingus