10 thoughts on “Siebold Speaks?”

1. Well, if this other Mail story is correct, it’s nice that Siebold didn’t die for the other pilot’s mistake.

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826439/Last-desperate-moments-inside-Virgin-spaceship-revealed-cockpit-video-former-project-chief-says-pilot-error-blame-fatal-crash.html

   1. My time of not caring what Will Whitehorn thinks has definitely come to a middle. Let’s see what the NTSB says.

2. Hypoxia can lead to retrograde amnesia.

   He’s apparently still on painkillers (which is why the NTSB hasn’t interviewed him), so it’s too early to know what he knows. He may remember more later on.

   And the Mail got the quote second-hand.

   1. Not only can hypoxia create retrograde amnesia, but just look at recent studies showing how unreliable “eyewitnesses” are. Which is one reason for having the video.

      None of this says that Alsbury was definitely in “error.” What of the instrument readouts? Why should the second step, actuating the feathering, not be proof by itself against activation by transonic buffeting? Which is one of the causes now being talked about.

      The Mail story sounds like it put an amplifier into the circuit on Whitehorn’s speculation. Which from my limited exposure to that publication seems pretty typical.

   2. I’m still not clear on whether the feathering was commanded to activate (after it was unlocked) or whether it just did so on its own. I’m also not clear on whether the system, once activated, has to go to full travel before retracting back, or whether the pilot can freely move it in either direction at any time regardless of which way it’s going (which is a controls question).

   3. This Discovery article cleared some things up for me. The actuator can’t overcome the aerodynamic loads until later in the flight, so the lock serves as a structural component. Perhaps a lead screw or rack driven mechanism should be considered.

3. Peter speaks to his dad, who’s name is also Siebold, who then talks to the media. So, yeah I guess technically you’re correct.

4. So, Rand, is there any evidence that the engine was the issue? All I’ve heard or seen points to Alsbury’s apparent fatal mistake.

   Perhaps the early speculation on the engine being the cause was a bit premature?

   1. No, there’s no evidence that the engine was the issue, but the fact remains that it was a new unflown engine, so it can’t be ruled out until the investigation is complete.

      1. Actually, I should say, we have seen no evidence that the engine was an issue, but we haven’t seen all the evidence.

Comments are closed.