NO CALL OUT? THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE.

Ir's TRAINING . . . 💀

But the lockout could also fail... So not being able to unlock the feathering unlock lever would be an issues as well... Keep in mind a plane crashed partially because of icing on the engines around 2017 - makes you wonder how the fuck icing cannot be detected with today's technology!

I belive that after this crash, a system to prevent that was implemented in the other one.

Thank you! This really was a terrible design flaw...

@@AirspaceVideos Yes, leaving humans in control is a terrible design flaw. That action should have been totally automated - like the captain's parachute was.

@@millomweb Automation is just humans in control with extra layers. Advantageous? Often. Infallible? Never.

@@Amanda-C. If fallible automation is better than fallible humans, then automation is better. Automatic systems can be redesigned. Humans can't.

@@millomweb Actually, we can re-design humans, to an extent. It's called training. But, for automation, the more complex the tasks we're asking automation to do, the harder it is to verify that it's doing what we think it's doing. Automation in the cockpit has an amazing potential to protect against human error and reduce the human workload, but we're nowhere near ready to have computers flying planes. If there is a conceivable reason a human might need to do something against the inclination of the automation, then a human should be able to do it. Safeguard against errors, yes. Take the routine workload off the humans, yes. Given such drastic consequences, it was irresponsible not to do it in this case. But if people are going to be given responsibility for the outcome, they should have every avenue at their disposal to improve that outcome.

you'd think that they automate such a complex vehicle but no..

One person died on an experimental flight in a suborbital spacecraft. On that same day, many people died in automobile accidents. When you drop the "nut" and replace it with "engineer," maybe then you will be qualified to judge and give advice regarding how the spacecraft should be designed and operate.

@@lachlanhempell Like the Boeing 737 Max??? Yeah, thanks for playing.

@@HangTimeDeluxe well that's one way to look at it, I was more thinking about spacex's dragon, that's fully autonomous and hasn't had a single hiccup. even the shuttle which was made ages ago was partially autonomous and for good reason.

@@HangTimeDeluxe Wow are you serious?. You should really get your head examined. How the hell do you even compare a death rate of people in cars which there is millions of cars and one spacecraft flying maybe twice a year?. And don't tell me what I can and cannot say, just because I am not an engineer doesn't mean I can't say something about the safety of the spacecraft. Stop pretending like you're some sort of an engineer telling people what they can and cannot say, because you're too dumb for your own good. It's called freedom of speech you should really look it up. I really thought I seen stupid people on the internet, but you truly have to be the dumbest, comparing car deaths to spacecraft deaths.🤦

Yeah, but some basic ones like "don't jump off your 10th floor balcony" are so hardcoded into your brain that you won't do it because you know it will result in your death. No matter how stressed you are. Unless he was suicidal.

@@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 - similar to how babies hold their breath if they are submerged in water. The reptilian brain will stop you, if it has been told x action will kill you enough times over.

"We've all made..." ? If you had made such a huge mistake you wouldn't be here to tell us the story.

@@AlainNaigeon I didn't specify the mistake or specified the severity of mistake we've all made lol

@@Alex632 gosh people act like they've never done something after telling themselves NOT to. Smh

I wonder about that, too. Especially his mental state...

He became chief test pilot at the company and has gone on to test many amazing aircraft.

he flew months later

thank you so much!

I was thinking the same thing, the pilot should not have been able to unlock the wing if the speed was not reached. Simple programming could have prevented this.

The current vehicles that VG has now have a feather unlock inhibit function that will prevent pre-mature unlocking of the feather system.

@@MarcusArmstrong037 Until that fails, then what? No too many complications then results in chasing the needle. Should be 100% automated no pilots.

I turn 25 the 4th and ina start saving a lil at a time to invest to get a rental property

Right there with you. Few people have the opportunity to do something that significant in their lives

You guys would have better luck with space x. You can’t be considered an astronaut riding in a virgin aircraft, it doesn’t get nearly high enough, just enough to be in tumble upper atmosphere

That wouldn’t make you an astronaut. It would make you a passenger.

You all are nuts

thank you!

Well, the report sorta does say it was insufficient pilot training, right? I mean, technically it was the communication between engineers and pilots... But how is that not the same thing in the end?

Anyone who has worked a job knows there is a huge gulf between what you learn in training and what you actually experience on the floor.

thank you so much and welcome to the channel!

Thanks - I thought it loosely ties into aviation as well :)

I can't speak to why Scaled Composites didn't do it before, but the current vehicles that VG has now have a feather unlock inhibit function that will prevent pre-mature unlocking of the feather system.

@@MarcusArmstrong037 Safety systems in prototypes are likely to cause accidents instead of preventing them. Normally such systems are only introduced when the behavior of the vehicle has been well characterized and even then are introduced in a cautionary way. Imagine if for instance the as yet untried safety system were to prevent the feathering from being activated when it absolutely needed to. Alternatively you don't even need to imagine, just look at what Boeing did with the 737 Max - the MCAS was meant to make the plane safer by avoiding stalls but because some idiot (or criminal) decided to classify it as a non critical system, arguing that it only 'augmented' the maneuvering of the plane so they neither analysed it theoretically in enough detail nor tested it comprehensively enough. The result was that it activated when it shouldn't have, driving the plane into the ground. There is no way that would have happened if the system had been analysed and tested in the proper way that any flight critical system is.

@@listerdave1240 I feel that a safety system should be in place to prevent feathering below M1.4, but if the system prevented feathering on decent, there should be a way to shut down the feather unlock inhibit function with a switch. Same with the 737 Max, the MCAS should be shut down with one button if it were to malfunction. RIP to the lives lost in both incidents.

Reminds me of the engineer at Thiokol who was desperately trying to get people to listen about the dangers of the solid rocket boosters right before Challenger was lost.

Thank you - merci viu mau!

what I can tell you is that virgin galactic modified the craft so that the mechanism can now only be unlocked at the correct range of speed. The rest, unfortunately, is beyond me!

Many people in the space sector would not like a youtube channel on spacecraft incidents, especially in an emerging industry. It could ruin the public image.

I agree with you, Victor, on the overconfidence. I think all of us have been guilty in that respect, be it on the job, driving a car, or performing a task we‘ve performed so many times we‘re sick and tired of it. When driving my car I often like to remind myself I’m operating a potentially deadly weapon. So far I’ve dodged any bullets. But it may only take a fraction of a second to change that.

You’d hopefully think differently if you had kids. Why risk your kids calling someone else “Daddy” just so you can be a passenger on some billionaire’s ego wang.

The current vehicles that VG has now have a feather unlock inhibit function that will prevent pre-mature unlocking of the feather system.

😄

thank you!

Thanks :) I know, both show a stylized flight data recorder

They did know, its called human error. This is very old news and issue is now resovled.

Thanks! Yes they did, the mechanism now can't be unlocked prematurely.

I actually had that pun in there but I removed it, because I thought I shouldn't joke around in videos where people die 🙃

@@AirspaceVideos Yes adding a pun like that might be viewed as a slightly bad attempt at humour for a single video but a whole other channel about accidents wouldn't be as in the cheek I think.

In hindsight yes. It would also make sense to make a car with a steering wheel that will not let you jerk it so hard in one direction that would lose control and crash.

I can't really give you a number, but I bet it would be just a few seconds!

That surely would be interesting, but I have to admit my knowledge is largely in the subsonic range, as that's the range airliners fly in... if there's somebody more knowledgable than me out there (combat pilots, maybe?), let me know!

it is very complicated and needs much to know about

I don't have any numbers, but given the fact that it's a rocket propelled burn - I'd wager just a few seconds

@@AirspaceVideos What spurred my curiosity, is although we aren't looking at what his hands did in this video, I wonder if in the effort to position his hand at the unlock mechanism, the First Officer inadvertantly did it, with the vibration, shaking, and all. This makes me wonder if they even timed how long they expected it to take, during the simulator sessions.

No, he didn't do it inadvertedly. He even called out "unlocking" as he unlocked the feathering mechanism. A really classic example of human error!

A seat with SpaceX might cost like one to two orders of magnitude more. So there is having too much money and being able to swim in it ;-) .

@@robsonrobson4999 A seat with SpaceX might cost more, but it also delivers more. 1/2 million for a high flight is not value. You can charter a jet for a fraction of the cost and fly pretty high, even experience 0-g. But a couple million for an actual space trip would be worth it. If a person does not have "too much" money, then we wouldn't even be having the discussion.

@@pkz420 For the price of a house in a largish city you can get bragging rights to having been in space. There are many people that could afford the price ticket. More expensive than being herded to the top of Mount Everest, but at least at the moment more exclusive. So basically, if you were an ultra-high-net-worth individual with assets of 30 million US$ or above, the ticket would be equal to or less than 1.6% of your assets. According to wikipedia, there existed around 226,450 of these in 2017. The estimated cost of ~ 50 million US$ per ticket for the SpaceX tourist trip would even total the assets of most of these. So maybe not the best business plan ;-).

@@robsonrobson4999 Flying really high is not worth the price of a house in a largish city. You can do that much cheaper in a jet. So basically, if you were an ultra-high-net-worth individual with assets of 30 million US$ or above, you would have the clout to bargain with someone like Elon, who can get you into orbit. SpaceX can put someone in space cheaper than $50 million. For $50 million, you get door service to the space station. A far greater value than what is provided by Virgin. Nobody is talking about a business. The topic was about personal value. So maybe the best value ;-).

would be simple, yes. They did that after the crash.

@@AirspaceVideos As is usually the case :-( I work in the oil industry and it took many accidents to force operators to fit inter-locks onto such things as saturation diving habitats, that prevent hatches being opened whilst the habitat is pressurised

Thank you! Yes I noticed. I accidentially published the patreon version first. oops!

its 250k

nope, the price was raised to 450k