28 May 2025, 13:14 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX Posted: 01 Feb 2021, 11:59 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 03/23/08 Posts: 7357 Post Likes: +4086 Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx. Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I bet the contingent part is 'SpaceX may not proceed with flight operations until receiving written correspondence from the FAA' and somebody up there acting up and sitting on the 'written response' to be delivered Attachment: TPS.jpg
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Tom Johnson-Az/Wy AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com C: 602-628-2701
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX Posted: 01 Feb 2021, 12:15 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20186 Post Likes: +25309 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Since there is no “ prior flight of the vehicle “ (SN9): no action required. Generally speaking, when an anomaly occurs, there are no subsequent flights of the vehicle because, generally, there is no vehicle any more. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX Posted: 01 Feb 2021, 15:20 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 04/26/13 Posts: 21663 Post Likes: +22220 Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
|
|
I don't think the issue is with SN9.
Nobody is willing to say what the issue is, but as usual I'm willing to take a guess.
The license refers to Starship as "the prototype" and "Starship prototype", always in the singular. This is either intentional to indicate that only one vehicle (now disassembled) was authorized by that license, or that they consider all Starship prototypes to be covered under the license.
In the case of the former interpretation, then a new license would have to be obtained for SN9 before it could fly. Assuming SpaceX knew the requirements and had made the application, then the delay may be due to FAA concerns in the wake of SN8's hard landing. OTOH, if they were required to, but failed to apply for a second license, then that would bring things to a halt as well.
On the other hand, if the latter interpretation is correct, then Paragraph 4 (i) must be met: "4. Special Reporting Requirements: In addition to all applicable reporting requirements under 14 C.F.R. Ch. III: (i) SpaceX must identify and report any anomaly to the FAA occurring on a prior flight of the vehicle or during any pre-flight processing of the vehicle that could be material to public safety. SpaceX may not proceed with flight operations until receiving written correspondence from the FAA that the identified anomalies have been adequately addressed."
In this interpretation, "the vehicle" is any "Starship prototype", and if this is the issue, then the failure of SN8 to land successfully was required to be reported to OKC, which I would assume it was. However they would then have to wait for "written correspondence... that the identified anomalies have been adequately addressed." which would require a FAA safety review (words that have been tossed around) and that may well be what's holding the process up.
I have no idea which of these, if either, is correct, but I'd bet it's one or a combination of the two.
_________________ My last name rhymes with 'geese'.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX Posted: 01 Feb 2021, 17:59 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/03/08 Posts: 16171 Post Likes: +27147 Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What a picture. Can't have that sort of thing going on. Especially in a privately owned shed in nowhere texas. Bring on the government to save us from this madness.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX Posted: 01 Feb 2021, 19:16 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/30/10 Posts: 4403 Post Likes: +3975
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I bet the contingent part is 'SpaceX may not proceed with flight operations until receiving written correspondence from the FAA' and somebody up there acting up and sitting on the 'written response' to be delivered It used to be the purview of NASA to oversee and approve space flight operations. Since, NASA isnt in the picture, it fell to the FAA to create the liaison position and oversee flight ops. The same wold apply to any 'non-NASA' organization. I wonder if any of the operations in Mojave (Virgin Atlanic??) were overseen by FAA. I would think they may have.
_________________ An Engineer's job is to say No. Until the check clears, then make a mountain from a molehill.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|