Accident Update: G650 was simulating single-engine take off

FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis: Archives FlightGlobal.com HomePremiumArchiveVideoImagesForumBlogsJobsShop Follow This Blog Meet Jon Ostrower

Contact Jon

(Always Confidential)

flightblogger@gmail.com

Recent Entries Boeing "evaluating the potential impacts" of US government shutdown (Update1) Accident Update: G650 was simulating single-engine take off Nine facts about Boeing's 737 Classic inspection Service Bulletin How did the FAA and Boeing identify the 175 737 Classics? Movie Monday - April 4 - Qantas Flight 32 in focus Breaking: FAA confirms Gulfstream G650 Roswell test accident (Update8) Many questions surround Bombardier/Comac partnership Exclusive: IndiGo selects PW1100G to power A320neo order Ten years after Sonic Cruiser, slow is still green Movie Monday - March 28 - The Birth of the Whittle Engine Lijit Search Archives Select a Month... April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 Lastest USA Aerospace JobsERJ 170 Sheet Metal, Structural Mechanic Job in Columbus, OhioTool Coordinator Job in Charleston, South CarolinaField Team Support for Sikorsky S-61 Helicopter Job in Moyock, North CarolinaEmbraer 145 A&P Mechanic Job in Louisville, KentuckyEmbraer 145 Sheet Metal, Structural Mechanic Job in Louisville, Kentucky April 2011 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat           1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Tag Cloud 737 737RS 747 757 767 777 777F 787 A320 A330 A340 A350 A380 Air France Air India Airbus All Nippon Airways American Airlines Boeing Bombardier British Airways CFM China China Southern Continental Airlines CSeries Delta E-Jets Embraer Emirates Flight Test FlightBlogger Feature G650 Geared Turbofan General Electric Gulfstream IAM JAL KC-X Leap-X Lufthansa Pratt & Whitney QANTAS Qatar Airways RC001 RC501 Rolls-Royce Singapore Airlines Spirit AeroSystems Trent 1000 United Airlines Vought ZA001 ZA002 ZA003 ZA004 ZA005 ZA006 ZA100 ZY997 Categories Aerodynamics (5) AirVenture 2008 (16) AirVenture 2009 (11) AirVenture 2010 (5) Airbus (165) Aircraft Interiors 2010 (3) Airlines (94) Airports (1) Avionics (8) Awkward Airplanes (5) Boeing (640) Bombardier (45) CFM (1) COMAC (10) Cessna (5) Cirrus (2) Dassault (1) Dubai Air Show 2007 (10) Dubai Air Show 2009 (11) EBACE 2009 (11) EBACE 2010 (6) Embraer (29) Engines (25) FB On The Web (3) Farnborough Air Show 2008 (23) Farnborough Air Show 2010 (29) Fokker (1) General Electric (1) Global Economy (13) Gulfstream (27) Hawker Beechcraft (4) Honeywell ISTAT 2011 (3) Irkut (3) Liberty Aerospace (1) Liveblog (8) MEBA 2010 (3) Mailbag (1) Mitsubishi (2) Mooney (2) Movie Monday (65) NBAA 2008 (13) NBAA 2009 (4) NBAA 2010 (15) Open Thread (72) Paris Air Show 2009 (20) Photos of Note (38) Pilatus (1) Pratt & Whitney (7) Raytheon (1) Rockwell Collins (2) Rolls-Royce (8) Singapore Air Show 2008 (16) Singapore Air Show 2010 (9) Suhkoi (10) Trains (1) US Air Force (1) WAEA 2009 (3) Zhuhai 2010 (7) Recent Comments cabu1 commented on Accident Update: G650 was simulating single-engine take off: A truly sa iamlucky13 commented on Accident Update: G650 was simulating single-engine take off: Been there Been there Done That commented on Accident Update: G650 was simulating single-engine take off: Jerry and Tim Raetzloff commented on Boeing "evaluating the potential impacts" of US government shutdown (Update1): First, the ASI commented on Accident Update: G650 was simulating single-engine take off: Starting t Scentsy commented on Accident Update: G650 was simulating single-engine take off: To echo wh Anonymous commented on Boeing "evaluating the potential impacts" of US government shutdown (Update1): All Boeing Steve commented on Boeing "evaluating the potential impacts" of US government shutdown (Update1): If cert ac Torre commented on Accident Update: G650 was simulating single-engine take off: I remember Dave commented on Accident Update: G650 was simulating single-engine take off: Test Pilot



Accident Update: G650 was simulating single-engine take off By

Jon Ostrower  on April 7, 2011 5:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (0) |
The National Transportation Safety Board issued its preliminary summary of events of Saturday's Gulfstream G650 accident in Roswell, New Mexco. Much of the information had already been shared by both the Federal Aviation Administration and the NTSB, though the  important fact that the crew was conducting a simulated engine-out takeoff - presumably post-V1 speed - was confirmed by the safety agency that had been floating amongst the aviation community since just after the accident occurred. 

On April 2, 2011, about 0934 mountain daylight time, a Gulfstream GVI (G650) airplane, N652GD, wassubstantially damaged after impact with terrain during takeoff at Roswell International Air CenterAirport (ROW), Roswell, New Mexico. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flightplan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 flight. The two flight crewmembersand the two technical crewmembers were fatally injured. The flight had originated from ROW about0700 for a local area flight. 
The airplane was operating under a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Experimental Certificateof Airworthiness and was performing a take off with a simulated engine failure to determinetake-off distance requirements at minimum flap setting. 
Wingtip scrape marks beginning on the runway approximately 5,300 feet from the end of the runwaylead toward the final resting spot about 3,800 feet from the first marks on the runway. Witnessesclose to the scene saw the airplane sliding on the ground with sparks and smoke coming from thebottom of the wing, and described the airplane being fully involved in fire while still movingacross the ground. The airplane struck several obstructions and came to rest upright about 200 feetfrom the base of the airport control tower. Several airport rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) unitsresponded quickly and fought the fire.

Coupled with what witnesses say was a unusually high angle of attack seen just before the right wingtip struck the runway, begins to paints a clearer picture of the events. Categories: Gulfstream Tags: G650, Gulfstream 0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Accident Update: G650 was simulating single-engine take off.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.flightglobal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/197647

15 Comments By 2Phast4Rocket
on April 7, 2011 8:24 PM | Reply

So what does it mean the G650 was at an unusual angle of attack. Should it take off at the same AoA as if two engines are running? Could it be the single engine was not producing sufficient thrust for V1 and end of runway threshold was fast approaching thus the sharp increased in attitude to clear the possible obstruction. Not likely from the initial crash photograph. The aircraft was still within the confine of the airfield. Very strange take off behaviour indeed.

By Trebuchet
on April 7, 2011 9:16 PM | Reply

Didn't an A330 in flight test crash under similar circumstances some years ago?

By Been there Done That
on April 7, 2011 10:11 PM | Reply

A single engine takeoff will have a shallower climb as the aircraft has less thrust to maintain airspeed. It is beginning to sound like they may have stalled the aircraft and in "pancaked" in. When Airbus lost an A330 in a crash they were doing engine out takeoffs and got low on airspeed during the climb out. I'm sure John can dig out the particulars of that one.

By Jim
on April 7, 2011 10:36 PM | Reply

As a retired Douglas engineer, my prayers and best wishes go out to all the Gulfstream Team, in this time of confusion and stress.

You and your team are strong and have deep roots. Best of luck with a quick recovery and continuing success.

By Jerry O'Brien
on April 7, 2011 10:38 PM | Reply

Something doesn't smell right. Your testing the limits of an aircraft using a dangerous maneuver and you have FOUR people on board?

By akayemm
on April 8, 2011 4:28 AM | Reply

I am a non Aviator . And I wonder if it is normal to determine take off distance at " minimum flap setting " straight away , instead of progressively reducing flap setting in each sortie ? Also , is it not normal to determine take off distances with gradually reduced thrust , with two engines at first , and then at full thrust with one engine "killed" ?

By Hep
on April 8, 2011 7:31 AM | Reply

More importantly, my prayers go out to the families of this dedicated and courageous team. This is evidence that, even with the most advanced technologies, there are risks that are taken.

By Thomas M. Bakos
on April 8, 2011 9:25 AM | Reply

How was the "single engine" condition simulated? (I.E. was one engine actually shut down OR were both egines operating, but with EPR readings reduced to to the equivalent thrust of one engine operating at maximum thrust?) Is this model Gulfstream equipped with an AOA indicator? Angle of Attack readout is incredibly useful when operating high performance aircraft.

By Dave
on April 8, 2011 9:54 AM | Reply

Test Pilot or not...V1 maneuvers should only be performed in a simulator. Having said that, the two techs in the back should not have been on board either...flight data recorder and CVR is all that should be required for such flights. The book gets thicker. God bless.

By Torre
on April 8, 2011 10:54 AM | Reply

I remember reading about the specs on G650 and the landing gear is shorter than other models. In Flying magazine it mentioned easier and lower baggage door to put on or take off luggage. Given the larger wingspan combined with a lower landing gear even giving consideration to dihedral a few degrees of roll could put wing tips perilously close to ground. It's the same problem DC-8s had when going to CFM-56 fans scraping nacelles on outboard engines on liftoff & just prior to touchdown. I have been flying Gulfstream Jets for years and appreciate the taller landing gear giving you added clearance for inadvertent wind gust during T/O or LNDG. Also the better visibility from a higher ramp presence.

By Scentsy
on April 8, 2011 12:28 PM | Reply

To echo what Jim stated,now is the time most challenging for the engineering team and analysts to sort all of this out. All of that aside though, the very best to Gulfstream and the families!

By ASI
on April 8, 2011 1:16 PM | Reply

Starting to look like a classic wing tip stall event, which swept wing jets are prone to experiencing. The crosswind was not any help and may have negated the benefit of running that test from the inception.

If true, the good news for Gulfstream is their easy path around the problem via limits incorporated in the fly by wire programming. The bad news for Gulstream is their management of this program which had engineers on board for a very risky maneuver. Yes, this accident scenario has been repeated over and over again both during flight test and during normal operations. The CL65 had three or four losses.

By Been there Done That
on April 8, 2011 1:53 PM | Reply

Jerry and Dave,

Maneuvers like this are done all the time with much larger crews than this. On a certain other manufacturer's aircraft (one that makes large transports) it would be not uncommon to have almost a dozen folks aboard. The conditions are flown in the sim first so the pilots are experienced with what is expected. The engine "failure" is accomplished by pulling a throttle back to idle at the prescribed speed. The maneuver entails some risk but not a huge amount. If one is exploring the edge of the envelope one does "buildup" to gradually get to the point desired. The test crews are well aware of the risks involved. Yes....Been there done that.

By iamlucky13
on April 8, 2011 3:41 PM | Reply

Been there Done that's speculation sounds very much compatible with the FAA's and NTSB reports so far.

As far as I know, the proper takeoff AOA and rate of climb are calculated by the engineers before tests like this. You don't run tests that aerodynamic calculations say are impossible, and in general, you don't do flight tests by the seat of your pants like in the movies.

However, it does indeed sound like they may have had a stall of the starboard wing, leading it to hit. I'm guessing that yawed the aircraft slightly, which combined with a high vertical rate would explain the gear collapse. I suppose the wind from the left may have been a minor factor in starboard wing stalling, as that would have increased outboard spanwise airflow on that wing, but I can't imagine the margins for this kind of test are low enough for that alone to explain it.

I don't put much faith in witness reports on the high angle of attack, because they may merely have convinced themselves that was the explanation. However, they could be right and it could very well be that the pilots mistakenly tried to climb harder than the procedure for the test called for.

Related to that, they were doing two different types of tests back-to-back here. The first was the single engine takeoffs during which the accident occurred. The second was to almost immediately loop around 270 degrees to land facing downwind on the perpendicular runway for brake testing. Both of these are more challenging than normal conditions, and I wonder if in repeating them multiple times and immediately preparing for the next over 2.5 hours if they might have gotten mixed up on some of the parameters for each sequence...ie - task saturation.

2Phast4Rocket - The runway they were on is 13,000 feet long, and they had over 5000 feet left at the point the touched. Clearance should not have been any kind of issue.

By cabu1
on April 8, 2011 3:49 PM | Reply

A truly sad event, and our prayers are with the family.

It is a profound loss, as is that of every single test flight that fails, taking crew. We must all remember these brave souls every time we strap in.

are there any reports on how this will affect the roll out delivery date on this series of jet?

Leave a comment Name Email Address URL Remember personal info? Comments (You may use HTML tags for style) ADVERTISEMENT FlightBlogger FriendfeedFlightglobal Blogroll Runway GirlThe Flight blogLearmountAsian SkiesThe DEW LineEditor's blogUnusual AttitudeHyperbolaLeft FieldImage of the Day blogAviation and the Environment Terminal QAs The Cro(ft) FliesAirline BusinessThe Networker Aviation News and Opinion FlightglobalAeroturbopowerAirline Industry ReviewAirline ReporterAutopia - Wired.comAv8rDan's World of FlyingBangalore AviationThe Cranky FlierEvan SparksIAG BlogJames FallowsJetwhineJourneys Across ContinentsLeeham.netMolly McMillinMSNBC AviationmyTransponder Ask a PilotPlaneBuzzPlane Talking Randy's JournalRichard AboulafiaScott HamiltonSeattle Post-IntelligencerSeattle TimesSimpliFlyingThings With WingsThings in the skyToday in the skyUresh Sheth Aircraft Makers and Information Airbus SAS Airbus A380 Orders from WikipediaBoeing 787 Orders from Wikipedia Boeing Company Boeing Orders and Deliveries Boeing's New AirplaneBombardierCessnaCirrus DesignCommercial Aircraft CensusEclipseEmbraerGulfstreamPilatusAviation Creativity Airliners.netAirplane Photo ZoneAir Fighters Aviation Corner (Spanish) JetPhotos.net Just PlanesLila DesignMatt Cawby - Skyline PhotographyPictAeroPlanePictures Travel Tools AirNav Airport ButlerDelta Blog FlightAware Flight MemoryGreat Circle Mapper Kayak.com LiveATC.netPilotOutlook.comSouthwest Blog Dreamlifter MovementsBOE501 filed a flight plan KEDW -> KSMFBOE501 filed a flight plan KSMF -> KPMDBOE1 filed a flight plan KBFI -> KMWHBOE1 filed a flight plan KMWH -> KBFIGTI4351 filed a flight plan KCHS -> KPAERandy's JournalTurning twoOur commitment to excellenceCreative marketingBehind the scenes story on naming the DreamlinerHere comes the sun Sign up toFlight Digital MagazineFlight Print MagazineAirline Business MagazineE-newslettersRSSEvents DisclaimerTerms & ConditionsPrivacy PolicySubscriptionsFlight NewsletterAbout UsMedia CentreContact usSite MapRBI media jobs UK© Reed Business Information 2009

View the original article here