Virgin Galactic’s Former Flight Test Director Disputes Company’s Version of Off Course Flight with Richard Branson Aboard

by Douglas Messier
Managing Editor
Virgin Galactic’s recently fired flight test director claims that pilot error, not upper-level winds, resulted in the company’s SpaceShipTwo vehicle flying outside of its assigned airspace during a July 11 suborbital flight test that carried the company’s billionaire founder, Richard Branson. He suggested an independent investigation instead of a company-led one might be required to address the mishap.
Mark Stucky, who Virgin Galactic fired eight days after Branson’s flight, said his former employer put out an inaccurate statement about why VSS Unity flew unauthorized into Class A airspace for 1 minute 41 seconds during its descent. Class A airspace is primarily used by airlines, cargo operators and higher performance aircraft.
“The most misleading statement today was @virgingalactic’s,” Stucky tweeted. “The facts are the pilots failed to trim to achieve the proper pitch rate, the winds were well within limits, they did nothing of substance to address the trajectory error, & entered Class A airspace without authorization.”
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said it began in investigation of the incident on July 23. On Aug. 11, the agency declared a mishap had occurred, grounded VSS Unity and ordered Virgin Galactic to begin an investigation with FAA oversight. The company’s only operating space plane remains grounded pending the completion of the investigation and FAA’s sign off on it.
Following Branson’s flight, Virgin Galactic President of President of Space Missions and Safety Michael Moses said the only problem during the flight had been intermittent loss of live video from the passenger cabin where Branson and three company employees were evaluating the customer experience. The loss of video downlink would not have affected VSS Unity‘s trajectory.
The airspace violation was only publicly revealed in a story published by The New Yorker on Sept. 1. The story said pilots David Mackay and Mike Masucci got a red light in the SpaceShipTwo VSS Unity cockpit during powered ascent indicating the vehicle was off course. The pilots let the engine continue to burn to completion instead of shutting down the engine and aborting the flight as the story’s unnamed sources said they should have done.
VSS Unity veered into Class A airspace where it was not authorized to fly during descent. There is no evidence the spaceship flew close to any other aircraft during its descent to a landing back at Spaceport America in New Mexico.
Following public disclosure of the incident, Virgin Galactic released a statement disputing what it called “misleading characterizations and conclusions” in The New Yorker story and defending the actions of the two pilots during the Unity 22 flight.
“Unity 22 was a safe and successful test flight that adhered to our flight procedures and training protocols. When the vehicle encountered high altitude winds which changed the trajectory, the pilots and systems monitored the trajectory to ensure it remained within mission parameters. Our pilots responded appropriately to these changing flight conditions exactly as they were trained and in strict accordance with our established procedures. Although the flights ultimate trajectory deviated from our initial plan, it was a controlled and intentional flight path that allowed Unity 22 to successfully reach space and land safely at our Spaceport in New Mexico. At no time were passengers and crew put in any danger as a result of this change in trajectory,” the company said.
Stucky said Mackay and Masucci should have declared an emergency so controllers could have cleared the airspace below them.
“The predicted reentry point was known for minutes prior. Just because you blindly merged onto a 6 lane highway and didn’t hit anybody before jumping the curb on the other side doesn’t mean it was safe,” Stucky tweeted.
The New Yorker story raised the possibility that the pilots didn’t shut off the engine and abort the flight because they had Branson aboard. The British ex-pat billionaire had been scheduled to take a later test flight; however, he joined the earlier one on July 11.
The decision ensured Branson would reach space nine days before rival Jeff Bezos, who flew aboard Blue Origin’s suborbital New Shepard rocket on July 20. Branson denied he moved his flight up for this reason. However, a source told Parabolic Arc that’s exactly why it was done.
Virgin Galactic is conducting the mishap investigation with FAA oversight.
“The FAA requires all licensed commercial space transportation operators to have an FAA-approved mishap plan containing processes and procedures for reporting, responding to, and investigating mishaps. Based on the nature and consequences of the mishap, the FAA may elect to conduct an investigation into the event, or authorize the operator to perform the investigation in accordance with its approved mishap plan. During an investigation conducted by the operator, the FAA will provide oversight to ensure the operator complies with its mishap investigation plan and other regulatory requirements,” a FAA spokesman said.
Stucky said the company-led investigation might be insufficient to address the mishap.
“Even after @FAANews of grounding @virgingalactic following #unity22, there continues to be a huge disconnect between company statements & my take on what went wrong, why, & the pilots’ failures to follow procedures & take appropriate actions. Time for an independent review?” Stucky tweeted.
The New Yorker story said that Stucky was stripped of his responsibilities as director of flight test in May after the publication in May of Schmidle’s book, “Test Gods.” The book is an inside look at Virgin Galactic, with Stucky as the main character. It is believed the pilot may have been too candid about problems at Branson’s space tourism company.
Schmidle’s story said Stucky was excluded from planning sessions for the July flight and was standing on the flight line, not directing the flight in the control room, as Branson flew to space. A human resources representative fired him eight days later.
It is not clear when VSS Unity will return to the air.
“The type of launch or reentry vehicle involved in the mishap may not return to flight until the FAA approves the final mishap investigation report or determines the issues related to the mishap do not affect public safety. This is standard procedure for all mishap investigations,” the spokesman said.
“Depending on circumstances, some mishap investigations might conclude in a matter of weeks. Other more complex investigations might take several months. The FAA will not speculate as to how long this specific mishap investigation will take,” he added.
11 responses to “Virgin Galactic’s Former Flight Test Director Disputes Company’s Version of Off Course Flight with Richard Branson Aboard”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
with all due respect to Stucky, Mark is just fanning the flames. there is an independent investigation going on…its being done by the FAA which has the final word on how this ends and where this goes in terms of the company and the pilots
its hard for “me” and I’ve been in the mix of a few investigations like this (not for myself nor for a space vehicle, but airspace violations), to see this ending well for the pilots…so far the explanations are not convincing…high X winds are almost as bad as “bad trim” (although that is an operational safety issue as well…you cannot violate airspace restrictions
as for the company? a guess is that at least the chairs are going to change in the pilot management and probably a few others…and they are going to have a hard time flying until they figure out how to assure the FAA it wont happen again.
there are rumors as to why Mark left the property 🙂 but who knows what really happen (and no I have not read the book) . if he was canned by HR, thats pretty lame. he was senior management and they should have treated him better than this.
what at least to me this bespeaks of is some issues in the operational wing of the shop…which makes one wonder about the test flying wing.
I am a VG booster but well this is very sad and to me disappointing. people are jacking around here with an operational system that they seemingly have no idea how to operate.
it will be a bit before they fly.
It’s all good. They can use this extra time to try to glue VMS Eve back together.
yes so many images so little time still remembering some of my first serious composite part building
Especially as what he is say could have legal consequences if the FAA fails to support him in the outcome of the investigation. Libel comes to mind as well as possibly SEC questions about influencing the stock price. This is the time for ALL those involved to be quiet and just talk to the investigators.
having spent a day filling out (or doing it with my attorney) my SEC report for my new employer…
I would argue that its time for everyone to be quiet talk to their lawyer snad then talk to investigators…
but I would say this
after they do all this at Virgin, in my view and its only my personal view is that the main folks need to go into a secure conference room and ask a basic question “where the heck are we” followed by “where are we going”
SEC issues aside, the main thing that they have to deal with is that the FAA is likely to lower the boom on them. this is a very serious event, and how the folks handled it “in flight” either speaks to carelessness or some need to complete the mission which speaks of massive internal pressures to “accomplish this or that regardless” and that is a safety issue a rather big one
in my view (and really I am not the guy to talk to about the SEC) all of the human spaceflight things are mostly hype and overrated sales things…but thats simply what it is.
what isnt is the safety thing…this is the most serious space issue I have seen in human flight since Columbia…
I agree, this investigation is likely to have a major impact on how the industry is regulated going forward.
I also think that not only Virgin Galactic needs to do a safety reset, but also the folks at Spaceport America. Taking off on a flight path that passed only a few hundred feet over a road lined with spectators and then doing the power burn over that same road is a tragedy looking to happen.
I think I would rate destroying a vehicle and killing a co-pilot a bit above violating some controlled airspace on the seriousness scale.
I dont that is test flying it was pilot error that lost the vehicle
Depends on whether one is results or process oriented. The patient died during the successful operation is an all too common attitude among regulators. As long as they can blame it on someone else, it’s all good. A bit tough on the pilot/scapegoats though, being stuck with responsibility for operating defective equipment safely.
Wake me up when they fail to return to base . . .
Have to backdate that wake up call about 7 years. Hope you haven’t been asleep that long.