Back to Squawk list
  • 42

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… ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Greg Sergienko 13
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.
Kevin Keswick 10
This is a BIG DEAL for anyone who owns a/c with this active winglet system or any pilot or passenger planning to fly on such an equipped aircraft.

Dan Gryder identified the cause of this crash almost three years before the NTSB! In this video Dan breaks down the problems with this system. Here is a link to Dan Gryders must-see video for anyone with exposure to aircraft equipped this active winglet system.

LINK >> (copy and paste link into your browser)
linbb 3
I agree and they are trying to save the company seems that the AC was working fine without them so what was the need?
Rico van Dijk 0
Massive fuel savings?
Kevin Keswick -1
I doubt that the fuel savings were massive but lets just say that they were for sake of an argument. If I owned a jet equipped with these active winglets I would never set foot inside of it until the active winglets were removed (likewise I would not sell it until the winglets were removed if for no other reason but legal liability)
Well since you don't own a jet I guess we don't need to worry about it.
Rico van Dijk -2
I would fly them without hesitation. Just as I’d fly the MAX even without the MCAS modification.
Without regard to what the facts may be, Mr Gryder will blame it on the NTSB. One wonders what the back story is there.
If one wonders enough to seek, ye shall find.
coinflyer 7
I am curious as to what the "inconsistencies" are that Tamarac alleges exist in the NTSB report and why they disagree with the NTSB's conclusion. Regrettably, the article did not touch on any of these particulars.
I see this a lot. People who want to discredit something that is correct and negative, like an indictment or a plaintiff's complaint or an NTSB report, will claim that it has mistakes without specifying what they are. They want the reader to conclude that the mistakes are important, but they don't specify what it is. It might be a misspelling of a name. I'd only fault the journalist for not spelling out that they didn't specify it, if that's what happened.
Here's one:

"The aircraft was rolling when the autopilot automatically disconnected at a 30-degree bank angle, instead of the typical 45-degrees — which is usually what happens when Cesna Citation aircrafts go into an uncommanded roll."
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.
bbabis 2
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.
j k 1
Interesting read on the Tamarack website. Many specifics here:
it seams similar to the issues with Boeing's MCAS, to much power given to computer software, without ability to shut it off easily.
Greg S 1
"He saved $1000 in fuel in just that year alone" was written on his tombstone.
Rico van Dijk -8
So with a lack of evidence, just blame someone random. Nice work NTSB :(
Greg S 6
Lack of evidence? You mean lack of proof, there's plenty of evidence. You can't really prove much when all you have left is wheelbarrow full of postage stamp-sized pieces of the aircraft. That's why the investigations have to be so thorough and time consuming. And that's why the results are always stated as "probable cause" rather than "metaphysically certain cause".


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.