Gulfstream G650, Gulfstream Aerospace, N652GD: Accident occurred April 02, 2011 in Roswell, New Mexico

http://www.gulfstream.com

NTSB Identification: DCA11MA076
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, April 02, 2011 in Roswell, NM
Aircraft: GULFSTREAM GVI, registration: N652GD
Injuries: 4 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators traveled in support of this investigation and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On April 2, 2011, about 0934 mountain daylight time, a Gulfstream GVI (G650) airplane, N652GD, was substantially damaged after impact with terrain during takeoff at Roswell International Air Center Airport (ROW), Roswell, New Mexico. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 flight. The two flight crewmembers and the two technical crewmembers were fatally injured. The flight had originated from ROW about 0700 for a local area flight.

The airplane was operating under a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Experimental Certificate of Airworthiness and was performing a take off with a simulated engine failure to determine take-off distance requirements at minimum flap setting.

Wingtip scrape marks beginning on the runway approximately 5,300 feet from the end of the runway lead toward the final resting spot about 3,800 feet from the first marks on the runway. Witnesses close to the scene saw the airplane sliding on the ground with sparks and smoke coming from the bottom of the wing, and described the airplane being fully involved in fire while still moving across the ground. The airplane struck several obstructions and came to rest upright about 200 feet from the base of the airport control tower. Several airport rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) units responded quickly and fought the fire.

 Opinion/Editorial

SavannahNow/Savannah Morning News
Gulfstream crash: The right approach
Posted: October 12, 2012 - 12:02am

FEDERAL SAFETY officials scolded Gulfstream’s management this week for actions they say contributed to last year’s crash of a new business jet that killed four company employees.

American businesses have a responsibility to protect their workers from harm. That’s a major challenge in some endeavors, such as testing expensive new aircraft in a highly competitive industry.

But it’s important to know what the limits are and to respect them, as opposed to pushing them too far. That’s when people can get hurt.

In the case of the fatal Gulfstream accident on April 2, 2011, experts with the National Transportation Safety Board said Wednesday that Gulfstream officials failed to properly evaluate warning signs from previous test flights of the company’s ultra-high-speed G650 business jet.

That’s the new $64 million aircraft, manufactured in Savannah, that received certification from the Federal Aviation Administration in September last year. The company said it expects to deliver its first G650s to customers later this year.

Deborah Hersman, NTSB chairwoman, chided Gulfstream’s management for decisions it made during the flight testing process and prior to the crash of the G650 during takeoff trials in New Mexico.

Killed in the accident were all four Gulfstream employees on board: experimental test pilots Kent Crenshaw and Vivan Ragusa and technical specialists David McCollum and Reece Ollenburg.

“Two prior close calls should have prompted a yellow flag, but instead of slowing down to analyze what had happened, the program continued full speed ahead,” Ms. Hersman said in her opening comments.

“In this investigation, we saw an aggressive flight test schedule and pressure to get the aircraft certified,” she said. “Assumptions and errors were made, but they were neither reviewed nor evaluated when review data was collected.”

That’s troubling. While mistakes happen and people make incorrect assumptions when pushing new aircraft to the limit, it’s important to look back and not rush things too quickly, especially when lives are on the line.

To its credit, Gulstream has taken full responsibility for the accident. Even better, according to Ms. Hersman, the company recognized that many changes needed to be made in its testing process. It has started to implement them, including the appointment of an aviation safety official who reports directly to the firm’s president.

“Safety is Gulfstream’s first priority,” the company said in a prepared statement Wednesday. “Since this accident, we have redoubled our efforts to strengthen the safety culture in flight test and throughout the rest of the company. We are committed to continuous safety improvement.”

That’s not just good business. It’s responsible management from one of this area’s largest, most valued and community-minded employers.

Improving safety is easier said than done in this line of work. Testing new aircraft involves pushing the envelope. It’s inherently risky. The test pilot’s job is to find the limits of an aircraft’s performance. At the same time, it’s the company’s job not to push their test pilots too hard in the competitive desire to bring a new product to market against fierce rivals.

Ms. Hersman is correct. She said no one can change what happened in New Mexico last year. “But we owe it to the four flight test professionals who lost their lives to make sure we learn from it,” she added.

Exactly. The NTSB is taking the right approach here, and so is Gulfstream, The entire aircraft industry should pay attention and become better educated.

Source:   http://savannahnow.com