Tutti
← Back to Squawk list
NTSB blames Tamarack winglet malfunction for 2018 crash
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) says that a 2018 accident that killed three was caused by Tamarack Aerospace’s Atlas active winglet system. In a final report released on 1 November, the safety regulator says that the “Tamarack Active Camber Surface”, or TACS in short, on the left wing was deployed asymmetrically, and led to the the Cessna Citation jet crash. TACS are active aerodynamic control surfaces mounted on the wing-tip extensions that either hold their position in trail… (www.flightglobal.com) Altro...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
It's important to note that this is an ACTIVE system, unlike other winglets that are stationary. Like runaway trim, these winglets could activate at the wrong time. Also consider that the last words of the pilot were that he could not gain control of the aircraft. There have been other instances of these winglets malfunctioning but the pilots were able to wrestle the airplane to the ground.
it seams similar to the issues with Boeing's MCAS, to much power given to computer software, without ability to shut it off easily.
Interesting read on the Tamarack website. Many specifics here: https://www.tamarackaero.com/news/tamarack-ntsb-report-statement
"He saved $1000 in fuel in just that year alone" was written on his tombstone.
Unfortunately, I took part once in an NTSB investigation involving a fatal biz-jet accident that killed two colleagues at the time. What I will say is that it seemed the NTSB arrived on the scene with a predetermined cause. I saw them hammer square pegs into round holes and vice-versa in order to prove their theory. Any information "inconsistencies" coming to light that did not fit their narrative was either mentioned casually in the report or not included all together. That was long ago and they have done nothing since to gain my respect back.
Recently, my boss wanted to put Tamaracks on our jet during a major inspection and P&I. I said no. I'm just not sure about a system with such control that I have no control over. I'm not a fan of Tamarack but they may have been a handy excuse to button up the investigation for the NTSB and have every right to dispute the findings.
Recently, my boss wanted to put Tamaracks on our jet during a major inspection and P&I. I said no. I'm just not sure about a system with such control that I have no control over. I'm not a fan of Tamarack but they may have been a handy excuse to button up the investigation for the NTSB and have every right to dispute the findings.
I'm a lawyer, not a pilot, but when somebody, like Tamarack, says there are inconsistencies in a report and doesn't say what they are, when it's in their interest to do so, I think they're blowing smoke.
Objection overruled. Tamarack didn't write the article, so what they said and what was written might very well be two different things.