On 11/3/2014 12:21 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:45:29 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/3/2014 7:27 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 20:38:54 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:44:09 PM UTC-8, Wayne. B wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 19:18:55 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 5:57:59 PM UTC-7, KC wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...ry.html#page=1

Kinda took the wink out of Sir Richard Branson, and Burt Rutan's sails. Or is it 'sales?'

===

Apparently people have been telling him for a while that it was a
dangerous design. They had already had a nasty explosion on an
engine test pad. No fault of Rutan's as far as I can see unless he
was the one advocating for the nitrous oxide engine that others were
taking exception to.

True Wayne, but Besides Branson, I'm sure that Rutan had a lot at stake in this project as well..

Today I heard that they are blaming this on the retro rocket.


I thought I heard the words, "pilot error"...

Teach me to trust a news reader. AvWeb has the story this morning that
this was a aerodynamic brake, not a retro rocket and someone on the
flight deck did enable the braking tail member but he did not engage
it (a 2 step process). They are working with the assumption that this
was a structural failure, not an engine explosion.

They are still picking up the pieces and I have not heard if they have
any voice recordings from the pilots.

It would ne interesting to know if they enabled the brake because they
knew they were in trouble for some other problem and they were
thinking about a bail out plan or if that was accidental and caused
the problem.



The story I caught was the same as what you just said.. "pilot error"
and "aerodynamic brake" were mentioned. I wasn't paying much attention
though, just caught it walking by the tube..