FLIGHT FINDINGSAVIATION OCCURRENCE MAP
Back to map

Planet 9 Private Air Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV incident

17 Jun 2023 · Sioux City, IA, United States

Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV · Incident: powerplant system/component malfunction/failure en route

From Philadelphia International Airport (KPHL) to KSUS · Sonoma, CA

Report a problem

Event

NTSB case
ENG23LA030
Event typeAccident: someone killed or seriously injured, or the aircraft substantially damaged (NTSB definition). Incident: an occurrence that affected or could have affected safety, short of that. Glossary
Incident
InvestigationHow far the investigation had got when the record was published: preliminary, ongoing, final or completed. Unknown where the source does not say. Glossary
Completed
Event fatalities
Unknown
Ground fatalities
Unknown
OperationWhat kind of flying it was, grouped by the rules it flew under: airline (US Part 121), air taxi and commuter (Part 135), general aviation (Part 91 and similar), military or government. Glossary
Charter & commuter
WeatherVisual meteorological conditions (VMC): good enough to fly by looking outside. Instrument conditions (IMC): cloud or low visibility, flying by instruments. Glossary
Visual Meteorological Cond

Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV

Aircraft type
Gulfstream G-IV
Category
Airplane
RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
N926TT
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From Philadelphia International Airport (KPHL), Philadelphia, PATo KSUS · Sonoma, CA
Aircraft age
About 24 years (built 1999)
Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
En route · change of cruise level
Defining eventThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
Powerplant system/component malfunction/failure
DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
Minor

Cause areas

  • Aircraft › Aircraft handling/service
  • Aircraft › Aircraft power plant

Approximate · Coordinates as recorded by the NTSB; no uncertainty radius is established.

NTSB narrative

The No. 2 (right) engine failure was caused by a spinner fairing separation due to fatigue cracks that originated from the heat affected zone of a tack weld that secured a spacer to the aft side of the fairing. The separated fairing impacted the leading edge of the fan blades and the inner barrel of the fan case and inlet cowl and fractured one fan blade (position 7) at the midspan. The subsequent fan imbalance resulted in severe vibrations that caused an anti-ice air line b-nut connector to back off, the P3 limiter to separate from the fuel flow regulator (FFR) at the mating flange, and a fuel line fracture at the acceleration reset solenoid. The fuel line fracture at the acceleration reset solenoid resulted in a fuel leak that persisted until the airplane landed. There was no evidence of undercowl fire or thermal damage on the engine or nacelle.

The flight crew reported temporary difficulty moving the No. 2 engine fuel shutoff cock (SOC) to the closed position and advancing the No. 1 (left) engine throttle from the idle position following the engine failure. The No. 2 engine fuel SOC and No. 1 engine throttle were cycled multiple times, and the associated linkages to the engine were inspected with no indications of binding, deformation, or other anomalies. Rolls-Royce and Gulfstream reviewed their system designs and did not identify an interlock or other mechanism that would have prevented normal operation during the incident flight. The operator was in compliance with the regular spinner fairing inspection interval in accordance with the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) and the last inspection was performed in October 2022, 542.2 hours before the incident flight. The AMM procedures at the time of the inspection did not include a step to remove the spinner fairing from the nose cone to perform a 360 degree visual inspection. The origin of all Rolls-Royce Tay model spinner fairing crack findings to date has been the heat affected zone of the tack welds that secure spacers to the aft side of the fairing, and therefore, early crack detection would have only been possible if the spinner fairing was removed to inspect the aft side. It is unknown if the crack on the incident spinner fairing had grown to where it was visible on the forward side of the fairing during the October 2022 inspection. The inspection procedures were revised in October 2023 to incorporate removal of the spinner fairing in response to this incident.

Probable cause

A No. 2 (right) engine failure due to a spinner fairing separation and subsequent impact with the fan blades that resulted in a midspan fracture of one fan blade. The spinner fairing separated as a result of a fatigue crack that originated from the heat affected zone of a tack weld that secured a spacer to the aft side of the fairing. Contributing to the incident was inadequate spinner fairing inspection procedures that did not require removal of the spinner fairing to inspect the aft side for earlier detection of crack indications.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset

Sources

NTSB record ENG23LA030
Event ID
20230623192429
Case number
ENG23LA030
Dataset
full-current
Source SHA-256
5cf380f0061817c0331a6b2d8cc7e0ee3a79bea469a1001dc5c10e56f35f5ab3
Source notes (4)
  • Unreviewed is an editorial label, not an investigation status. API-sourced is not report-checked or human-reviewed. Explicit event totals are used without summing aircraft injury tables; onboard allocation is withheld. Unknown values remain unknown. The operation category is mapped from the NTSB-reported FAR part and has not been reviewed.
  • Filled from the NTSB case API where the bulk record had no value: investigation status, cause areas. Values present in the bulk record are kept.
  • The date is the local date, which is the same as the UTC date the NTSB stores.
  • API snapshot SHA-256: a9587528600d211ba0f42ce06c73591f12a932e20d0e99e8640d781dfee9bc32; retrieved 2026-09-16T17:45:36.767Z.