Ryan Graves: Whistleblow describes metal object striking Gulfstream Jet

[Mick West]

Source: https://twitter.com/uncertainvector/status/1875635552399081726

Ryan Graves 12:08 PM · Jan 4, 2025
A whistleblower came to ASA regarding a mid air collision between a Gulfstream jet and an unidentified metallic object that occurred off the coast of Florida on December 11 at approximately 27,000 feet and resulted in engine failure and an emergency landing.

There are indications that the unidentified object may have been a drone operating off the east coast with atypical characteristics.

The whistleblower is concerned because this altitude is highly regulated Class A airspace that requires flight plans and transponders, but in this instance, there were no flight plans for the object and the object was not transponding.

We can largely eliminate the possibility of common objects because:

- a weather balloon would have been transponding
- this altitude is too high for hobby drones and illegal for any drone
- there is no biological indicator of a bird strike
- video of the engine shows metal damage

I am concerned the incident is being downplayed by FAA. The report is being classified it as an "incident" and not an "accident," which would require public announcement, investigation by NTSB, and an explanation.

What is going on here?

It was described to us as the object being substantial enough to penetrate the fan blades and significantly damage the internals of the engine. There is also a report of a large circular indentation on the leading edge of the engine intake- indicative of a substantial metallic object impacting the intake.

There's an Aviation Safety Network report:
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/465804

20:45 UTC

Gulfstream G550

Private

N553RB

5056

Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 3

0

Minor

West Palm Beach, FL - United States of America

Unknown

Unknown

Fort Lauderdale-Executive Airport, FL (FXE/KFXE)

Palm Beach Airport, FL (PBI/KPBI)

Information is only available from news, social media or unofficial sources

Narrative:
The aircraft struck a bird or UAS and post flight inspection revealed damage to the right engine cowling.

ABSDx track attached.
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?ica...429&zoom=8.7&showTrace=2024-12-11&trackLabels

Not a lot that can be investigated here without access to the plane and the object fragments. But it's interesting as it's getting a lot of views on Twitter/X. Framing it as a "whistleblower" will do that. But it's not clear what whistles were blown. Is there an actual cover-up here? Why would an engine failure not be noted in the ASN report (which, admittedly, isn't an official site, and they say "
Information is only available from news, social media or unofficial sources")

Grave's second post does seem rather more significant than the ASN report:

It was described to us as the object being substantial enough to penetrate the fan blades and significantly damage the internals of the engine. There is also a report of a large circular indentation on the leading edge of the engine intake- indicative of a substantial metallic object impacting the intake.

But it's just based on one report. Some photos would be useful.

Presumably if and engine sucked in an exotic anti-gravity drone there would be far more significant consequences.

I feel this is most consistent with a balloon carrying a small payload, like a camera or some experiment. Drones are also possible, as they can actually go up to 30,000 feet.

 

[Mick West]

Wind was 50 knots from the West:

It's not inconsistent with a balloon and some kind of small payload.

You'd think the pilots would see it, but at over 500 mph things come at you quickly.

 

[Duke]

Interestingly FR24 does not show an emergency being declared (squawk 7700) for any Gulfstream on 11 Dec. Force of habit, I still have FR24 notify me anytime an IFE squawk is transmitted.

 

[Mendel]

I am concerned the incident is being downplayed by FAA. The report is being classified it as an "incident" and not an "accident," which would require public announcement, investigation by NTSB, and an explanation.

What is going on here?

It was described to us as the object being substantial enough to penetrate the fan blades and significantly damage the internals of the engine. There is also a report of a large circular indentation on the leading edge of the engine intake- indicative of a substantial metallic object impacting the intake.

The FAA has strict rules on what constitutes an "accident", and that definition is in fact standardized internationally:

Article:

An accident is defined as:
An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft [...] in which:
a) a person is fatally or seriously injured [...]; or
b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

• adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
• would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,

except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or
c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.
[...]
(ICAO Annex 13, Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation)

Source: https://skybrary.aero/articles/accident

I am not a pilot, and I know this. Ryan Graves is a pilot, and in daily contact with civil jet pilots, and ought to know this, or have someone available he can readily ask. He is the head of an organisation whose titular concern is aerospace safety, and does not know what types of events call for a mandatory safety investigation.

 

[FatPhil]

We can largely eliminate the possibility of common objects because:

- a weather balloon would have been transponding
- this altitude is too high for hobby drones and illegal for any drone
- there is no biological indicator of a bird strike
- video of the engine shows metal damage

This is pretty weak logic because it assumes:
- batteries never go flat and electronic components never fail
- nobody does anything illegal, such as firmware hacking to override altitude limits (however, you would need a fairly special drone to maintain thrust in such rarefied air)
- only one of his four points needs to be incorrect for his argument to be flawed, he can have this one
- there's no metal in common objects

 

[jimmyslippin]

ATC communication is archived by liveATC.net.

That was the first place I went to when I saw Ryan's tweet. Unfortunately their ATC recording archives are only available online for 7 days and then require payment for retrieval, so the recordings for Palm Beach International Airport (KPBI) - where they landed - on 12/11/2024 are not immediately accessible.

I did note that there was nothing that seems to correspond with this event on the "Interesting Recordings" page, which has daily additions of all kinds of incidents such as crashes, bird strikes, failed landing gear, smoke in cockpit, etc..

 

[NorCal Dave]

From the original X post in the OP (bold by me):

A whistleblower came to ASA regarding a mid air collision between a Gulfstream jet and an unidentified metallic object that occurred off the coast of Florida on December 11 at approximately 27,000 feet and resulted in engine failure and an emergency landing.

Even with a private jet, something like this usually shows up in the news somewhere. There are lots of aviation aggerating websites that report on all kinds of aviation stuff, especially emergency landings. A Bing search of "engine failure emergency landing December 2024" brings up a Swiss Air CS-300 on 12/23:

According to information The Aviation Herald received the left hand engine suffered an oil leak causing the smoke, the engine seized as result of an uncontained failure. The engine's main shaft was found fractured. The engine is being replaced.

https://avherald.com/h?article=521ec68d

The JeJu 737-800 crash in Korea on 12/29:

Nearly 180 people died after a plane crashed as it was landing in South Korea on the morning of Sunday 29 December.

Harrowing video footage shows the Jeju Air plane coming off the runway before colliding with a barrier and bursting into flames at Muan International Airport

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzprprlyeo

As well as the Azerbijan Air crash, there was a small Britten-Norman BN-2B-26 Islander that crashed in Papua New Guina. As for smaller aircraft there was Cessna 208B that crashed in Honolulu, a Bombardier BD-100-1A10 Challenger 300 that crashed in Argentina, a private plan in Scotland and 2 private planes in Brazil:

an Embraer ERJ-190AR aircraft operated by Azerbaijan Airlines crash near Aktau Airport in Kazakhstan, killing 38 out of 67 passengers.

on December 22, a Britten-Norman BN-2B-26 Islander operated by North Coast Aviation crashed in Papua New Guinea.

On December 17, a Cessna 208B Grand Caravan, operated by Kamaka Air LLC, crashed near Daniel K Inouye International Airport in Honolulu, Hawaii.

on December 17 when a Bombardier BD-100-1A10 Challenger 300 crashed near San Fernando Airport in Argentina

on December 23, a small aircraft crashed near Fife Airport in Scotland.

on December 22, a private plane crashed in Gramado, Brazil,

On December 20, a Cessna plane en route from Porto Velho to Manaus in Brazil went missing

https://www.business-standard.com/w...mber-2024-safety-concerns-124123000531_1.html

As for bigger planes that had landing problems there was a couple of issues:

On December 28, Air Canada Express Flight 2259 suffered a landing gear failure upon arriving at Halifax Stanfield International Airport.

a KLM Boeing 737-800 made an emergency landing at Sandefjord Torp Airport in Norway after a hydraulic failure.

https://www.business-standard.com/w...mber-2024-safety-concerns-124123000531_1.html

Further searching by adding "West Palm Beach" appears to bring up a hit, but alas, it seems to be AI trying to give me what I'm looking for:

The incident in question happened in May.

Bottom line, the only mention of the event is from Graves. And the updated ASN report claims a possible bird strike and some damage to the engine cowling. Nothing about engine failure:

 

[Ann K]

When a bird strike cripples an aircraft, is there always going to be a forensic-type DNA analysis of "biological indicators", or does that just mean "we didn't see any feathers"?

 

[jarlrmai]

Feathers, bone fragments and blood.

 

[Duke]

When a bird strike cripples an aircraft, is there always going to be a forensic-type DNA analysis of "biological indicators", or does that just mean "we didn't see any feathers"?

In my experience, the latter. If a bird goes through the windscreen/canopy, however, no need to wonder if it was a bird. I worked a few of those.

Spoiler: Graphic image of Birdstrike

https://aircraft.fandom.com/wiki/Bird_strike

 

[Mendel]

Feathers, bone fragments and blood.

I've been wondering if that would still be true if the aircraft flew through rain or snow afterwards?

Anyway, what seemed to have happened is
• an engine failure due to a foreign object at ~30,000 ft
• the aircraft turned back and landed
• the pilot may have hated paperwork and not declared an emergency
• this could be reported as an "incident"
• the maintainers overhauling the damaged engine could have been instructed to collect any foreign parts they found in the engine, and to document the damage

this is actually beneficial for "disclosure", as the evidence would remain in private hands

if the flight track in the OP is legit, then there was some occurrence that made the aircraft turn back, and not even to its origin airport?

 

[NorCal Dave]

Anyway, what seemed to have happened is
• an engine failure due to a foreign object at ~30,000 ft

Did it? I can't seem to find where the source is for this, besides Graves. I've obviously missed something. The ASN report just mentions damage to the engine cowl. Nothing about eternal damage to engine. Again, that seems to only come from Graves 2nd hand:

 

[Mick West]

I've been wondering if that would still be true if the aircraft flew through rain or snow afterwards?

Yeah, I've seen images of birdstrike damage with zero visible biological evidence.

Keep in mind most bird strikes happen at lower altitudes and slower speeds.

Just flying through the air at 550 mph is going to clean things up pretty well if it's just a dent.

Graves says "a report of a large circular indentation on the leading edge of the engine intake- indicative of a substantial metallic object impacting the intake" but I think again you have to consider the speed here, (550 mph!). If the object were metal, then I'd anticipate significat gouging of the cowling, not just an "indentation". Of course we don't have photos.

Maybe it was just a bird? It's unusual, not matter what, but that does not mean anti-gravity drones or aliens rise to the top of the list.

 

[Duke]

Our first B-1B mishap (Sept 1987) resulted in the loss of the a/c and three crew members. The bomber was on the deck doing 560 kts over Colorado when it collided with a large pelican. It punched through the a/c skin and took out the hydraulics, making it uncontrollably. I got to talk to one of the survivors several years later. Gut wrenching story.

The bomber from Dyess AFB was flying a low level training mission about 600 feet above the ground at a speed of 560 knots [about 645 mph] when the plane struck a 15-to-20-pound North America white pelican. The bird tore through a wing, ripping apart critical hydraulic, electrical and fuel lines. This started a fire which maded it impossible for the pilot to control the plane.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-1b-loss.htm

 

[Mick West]

Here's a Sitrec of a 1m (3.3 feet) diameter balloon just above one the right engine (assuming it's dangling an instrument package, which is what caused the damage)
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...t-2.amazonaws.com/1/N553RB/20250106_214336.js

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYlIkDsK5H4


Against a clear sky, it's visible for 3-4 seconds, so it could very easily be missed if looking at instruments or even just looking to the side.

I need to add some birds to Sitrec

 

[Calter]

It's always interesting to see the logic leaps ufologists take.

Ross Coulthart just tweeted this

Source: https://x.com/rosscoulthart/status/1876795803513033158?s=46&t=u1J5nCfN-_rhlrpzOL_Kgw

It's now official. These ongoing mystery objects aka 'drones' are a flight safety threat:
FAA Acknowledges G550 In-flight Object Strike at FL270

With a link to this article
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-.../faa-acknowledges-g550-inflight-object-strike

FAA Acknowledges G550 In-flight Object Strike at FL270
A report of engine damage claims a metallic object was involved

The FAA confirmed to AIN that a Gulfstream G550 experienced a midair collision with a mysterious object at FL270 in Miami airspace on December 11 during a flight from Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport (KFXE) to New York's Westchester County Airport (KHPN). According to the FAA statement, the twinjet diverted to, and landed safely at, Palm Beach International Airport (KPBI) "after the pilot reported striking an object in Miami airspace."

Little information is available publicly about the incident, other than an entry on Flight Safety Foundation's Aviation Safety Network website and a post on social media platform X by Ryan Graves, co-founder and executive director of Americans for Safe Aerospace, a website and nonprofit organization for reporting unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). According to Graves' post, one of the G550's engines failed after the encounter with "an unidentified metallic object…at approximately 27,000 feet."

Graves describes the reporter, who is not one of the G550's pilots, as a whistleblower. "The whistleblower is concerned because this altitude is highly regulated Class A airspace that requires flight plans and transponders, but in this instance, there were no flight plans for the object and the object was not squawking a transponder code.

"We can largely eliminate the possibility of common objects because: a weather balloon would have been transponding; this altitude is too high for hobby drones and illegal for any drone; there is no biological indicator of a bird strike; [and] video of the engine shows metal damage."

Graves, a former Navy lieutenant and F/A-18F pilot, wrote, "I am concerned the incident is being downplayed by FAA. The report is being classified as an 'incident' and not an 'accident,' which would require public announcement, investigation by NTSB, and an explanation."

An accident or serious incident must be reported to the NTSB, but in this case it's not clear whether this was reported or that it was required. An accident is defined as a situation in which "any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage." The "serious incident" list doesn't include failure of one engine on a transport-category airplane or collision with a UAP, unless, according to the NTSB, there is "failure of any internal turbine engine component that results in the escape of debris other than out the exhaust path."

As to whether a balloon and its payload could have been the UAP, not all balloons are transponder-equipped, according to the FAA: "Some operators have equipped their balloons with transponder beacons in addition to a radar reflection device or material required by 14 CFR Section 101.35, but at cruise altitude, the balloon's communications equipment and transponder, if so equipped, are operated intermittently to conserve battery energy."

Although the FAA declined to answer AIN's question about whether it planned to investigate the G550 engine failure, it may be likely because FAA Part 21 regulations (21.3(c)(10)) require the aircraft's type certificate holder to report an engine failure.

(last bolden by me)

The only mentions of the word drone are quotes from Ryan Graves, it's literally just an article that does a quick rundown of the situation (a plane struck an unknown object) and says "The FAA says it did indeed happen", yet it is somehow being taken as "There's reports of drones in New Jersey, and a plane struck something metallic in Miami, so these must be the same thing" despite there being really nothing to tie the events together.

 

[NorCal Dave]

It's always interesting to see the logic leaps ufologists take.

Yes indeed.

Interesting to see this line in the AIN article (bold by me):

Graves describes the reporter, who is not one of the G550's pilots, as a whistleblower. "The whistleblower is concerned because this altitude is highly regulated Class A airspace that requires flight plans and transponders, but in this instance, there were no flight plans for the object and the object was not squawking a transponder code.

So, who is this whistleblower? A passenger? Or just some guy on the ground? Or just some guy that heard a bit about this incident and passed it on to Graves when they thought the FAA wasn't taking it "seriously enough"?

The article makes no mention of "engine failure" an "emergency landing" or anything that "penetrat(ed) the fan blades and significantly damag(ed) the internals of the engine". All claims Graves either made or at least passed on from his "whistleblowing" informant.

It kinda makes the idea of a "whistleblower" make a bit more sense. If the pilots or maybe the ATC folks had reported this incident happening as described by Graves, it would be just that, the pilot describing what happened. But they didn't and it appears others in the know didn't either. So, instead an anonymous "whistleblower" brought this to Graves attention.

Details are still missing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this "whistleblower" got wind of this incident, and reported to Graves his own somewhat sensationalized version of what he thought happened, without really knowing the details. And Graves ran with it.

At this point all we, and Couthart, know is that a Gulfstream jet hit something after departing Ft. Lauderdale executive airport and re-routed to West Palm Beach airport. It appears it had some damage to an engine cowling. Still no confirmation of "engine failure", "emergency landing" and "significant damage" to the engine as reported by the whistleblower, whoever they are.

 

[MapperGuy]

Yes indeed.

Interesting to see this line in the AIN article (bold by me):

Graves describes the reporter, who is not one of the G550's pilots, as a whistleblower. "The whistleblower is concerned because this altitude is highly regulated Class A airspace that requires flight plans and transponders, but in this instance, there were no flight plans for the object and the object was not squawking a transponder code.

So, who is this whistleblower? A passenger? Or just some guy on the ground? Or just some guy that heard a bit about this incident and passed it on to Graves when they thought the FAA wasn't taking it "seriously enough"?

The article makes no mention of "engine failure" an "emergency landing" or anything that "penetrat(ed) the fan blades and significantly damag(ed) the internals of the engine". All claims Graves either made or at least passed on from his "whistleblowing" informant.

It kinda makes the idea of a "whistleblower" make a bit more sense. If the pilots or maybe the ATC folks had reported this incident happening as described by Graves, it would be just that, the pilot describing what happened. But they didn't and it appears others in the know didn't either. So, instead an anonymous "whistleblower" brought this to Graves attention.

Details are still missing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this "whistleblower" got wind of this incident, and reported to Graves his own somewhat sensationalized version of what he thought happened, without really knowing the details. And Graves ran with it.

At this point all we, and Couthart, know is that a Gulfstream jet hit something after departing Ft. Lauderdale executive airport and re-routed to West Palm Beach airport. It appears it had some damage to an engine cowling. Still no confirmation of "engine failure", "emergency landing" and "significant damage" to the engine as reported by the whistleblower, whoever they are.

The term "whistleblower" is now being used in a very generalized way. It's just someone who told the public about something that was not widely known before. Shouts it from the rooftops, (or the internet).
In the long run this is going to make describing someone as a whistleblower less attention-grabbing, and make being one less brag worthy.
Unless you are under indictment for being it of course.

 

[Mendel]

At this point all we, and Couthart, know is that a Gulfstream jet hit something after departing Ft. Lauderdale executive airport and re-routed to West Palm Beach airport. It appears it had some damage to an engine cowling. Still no confirmation of "engine failure", "emergency landing" and "significant damage" to the engine as reported by the whistleblower, whoever they are.

You don't interrupt your flight and divert to the closest airport for a dinged cowling. It's reasonable to assume there was some engine damage.

The aircraft was still controllable. If a liveatc recording is found, I would expect it to show the pilot declaring a "pan pan pan", which basically means "there's something wrong with my aircraft, but I'm not in trouble yet"; but it's ultimately the pilot's decision. I also expect the pilot reported the incident to the FAA, because a) it was an engine failure, and b) it was a probable bird strike, and c) if you declare "pan pan" or an emergency, the FAA wants to know why.

I read the FAA Part 21 regulations (21.3(c)(10)) to say that the manufacturer must report if a parts defect caused the engine failure, and that wasn't the case here; but I grant that AIN is probably better informed than I am.

I believe there's a website tracking weather balloons that we could check.

 

[Mendel]

The term "whistleblower" is now being used in a very generalized way. It's just someone who told the public about something that was not widely known before.

• The witness is the only one who says it was a UAP.
• Therefore, everyone else is covering it up
• The witness is blowing the whistle on the coverup.

This assumes two things:
• The witness's take on events is correct.
• The people accused of a coverup have evidence that confirms this.

Since the witness shared no evidence, that's jumping to conclusions.

People who want to believe need no evidence.