Kobe Bryant Helo Incident

[fc2spyguy]

I’d be interested to know what this guys actual IMC time was. You can be an experienced CFII and have crap for actual imc time. The blinders don’t truly replicate the IMC environment. I also know plenty of guys with special instrument cards in the navy that had 99% of their “instrument” time on goggles. Helo guys in general tend away from going IMC. At least that was my experience, and it doesn’t lend to good actual IMC abilities.

 

[Austin-Powers]

So you think he didn't do it? I suppose you also believe that Jeff Epstein killed himself...

I didn't say anything dude, and thanks for jumping to conclusions referring to that pedo scum.

I know he raped some girl, but if you want to talk politics, then meet me in the thunderdome, otherwise, you're just being a dick for no reason to me.

But fuck it, I don't care.

 

[jmcquate]

Just an observation. You all are militant (and rightly so) about speculation on military type 1 mishaps, why not the same for civilian?

 

[Brett327]

Just an observation. You all are militant (and rightly so) about speculation on military type 1 mishaps, why not the same for civilian?

Here's my take, others may or may not agree. As a military officer, discussions, speculation or other information can rightly be taken/interpreted as official Navy information. Second, discussions, speculation or other non-public information runs the risk of tainting or unduly influencing the SIR process.

Neither of these things are true for a civilian GA mishap. Nobody will confuse me for an expert, and I will not be viewed as a representative/authority of the FAA/NTSB/law enforcement or the company that owns/operates the mishap aircraft. I'm just another dude on the internet with a hare-brained theory.

 

[Gatordev]

...or other non-public information runs the risk of tainting or unduly influencing the SIR process.

Most specifically protecting the concept of privilege, which isn't attached to NTSB reports, as far as I know. Maybe Safety Chuck can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Gatordev]

Some interesting tidbits in here, specifically that the aircraft had a 4-axis autopilot...though I'm not sure what that really means.

https://ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA20MA059-Investigative-Update.pdf

Also looks like he did climb and there was a possibility of clearer weather above.

 

[Jim123]

... the aircraft had a 4-axis autopilot...though I'm not sure what that really means.

Yep, (and as you know), 3-axis could be just pitch/roll/yaw stability augmentation, using only rate gyros, or it could be an advanced digital autopilot that you can couple to the raw data needles and and an FMS flight plan, or it could be anything in between. The 4th axis (collective) could be just something that moves the collective to maintain pressure altitude or it could also be functions that are integrated with the other control axes (and FMS).

As the aircraft was built in 1991 and a Sikorsky product, I bet the autopilot was very closely related to, but somewhat more advanced than, the one in the vintage 60Bs that you and I grew up on- which is to say fairly capable IFR equipment.

 

[Gatordev]

As I mentioned earlier, a co-worker flew for PHI previously and they had these. I wasn't clear if he was flying them or if they were just co-located with him, but it sounded like they didn't have much at the time. I'll have to ask him more details. It does say the aircraft was recently upgraded, but again, who knows what that means.

I wonder if a stock 1991 S76 would truly have the capabilities of our Bravos (relatively speaking). As silly as it seems now, that AFCS was still pretty impressive (despite the lack of an instrument coupler). Then again, it was designed in 1980, so...

 

[ChuckMK23]

Sue ATC?

Bryant’s Helicopter Operator Sues FAA Air Traffic Controllers - FLYING Magazine

Aircraft accident investigations often take years as the players sift through the physical evidence, voice and radar recordings and interview witnesses trying to piece together the cause. The ongoing investigation into last January’s crash of the helicopter (N72EX) carrying basketball legend...

www.flyingmag.com

 

[JTS11]

I read that a few days ago. Seems like weak sauce.

I always thought VFR flight following was a nice-to-have service provided by ATC (workload permitting).

Since the pilot never declared an emergency or requested IFR clearance, I don't understand how the company could blame ATC. ATC is assuming the VFR helo is operating according to VFR rules. Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Griz882]

I read that a few days ago. Seems like weak sauce.

I always thought VFR flight following was a nice-to-have service provided by ATC (workload permitting).

Since the pilot never declared an emergency or requested IFR clearance, I don't understand how the company could blame ATC. ATC is assuming the VFR helo is operating according to VFR rules. Maybe I'm missing something?

I believe you are correct. I have been denied flight following many times. Here in the relatively busy DC SFRA ATC does what it can, but the rules make it clear that “seeing” is my responsibility.

 

[sevenhelmet]

It's sad, but under VFR flight following, terrain clearance is still 100% the responsibility of the PIC. It is the pilot's job to maintain VMC conditions, or request an IFR pickup and climb to minimum vectoring altitude. Speculation aside, I don't think that lawsuit as described should have a leg to stand on. But it's 2020, so...

 

[ChuckMK23]

VFR flight following in these days of ADS-B getting less of a thing. Honestly the biggest reason to use it is real time avoidance of precip - which ATC radar does quite well and controllers are usually very skilled at. Ultimately SA of terrain, position, and traffic is the job of the PIC. Even the least complex of GA aircraft have the tools readily available.

 

[ChuckMK23]

As I mentioned earlier, a co-worker flew for PHI previously and they had these. I wasn't clear if he was flying them or if they were just co-located with him, but it sounded like they didn't have much at the time. I'll have to ask him more details. It does say the aircraft was recently upgraded, but again, who knows what that means.

I wonder if a stock 1991 S76 would truly have the capabilities of our Bravos (relatively speaking). As silly as it seems now, that AFCS was still pretty impressive (despite the lack of an instrument coupler). Then again, it was designed in 1980, so...

When I worked for PHI in the late 90's the dual piloted IFR aircraft that I saw all were without AP - S-76 was 2 channel AFCS/SAS. But no AP - my regional manager at the time flew as S-76 CA up in Cleveland and Lexington KY. Steam gauge cockpit. KNS-81 RNAV and Garmin GPS 155 was standard on the S-76 HAA fleet.

 

[bubblehead]

Sue ATC?

Bryant’s Helicopter Operator Sues FAA Air Traffic Controllers - FLYING Magazine

Aircraft accident investigations often take years as the players sift through the physical evidence, voice and radar recordings and interview witnesses trying to piece together the cause. The ongoing investigation into last January’s crash of the helicopter (N72EX) carrying basketball legend...

www.flyingmag.com

This whole thing is disgusting. These turds named the controllers by name in the lawsuit.

The helicopter was operated by Island Express Helicopters Inc. under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR)Part 135 as an on-demand passenger visual flight rule flight.

The current Burbank weather observation reported instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions. In response to the pilot’s request, the air traffic controller advised that cloud tops were reported at 2,400 feet msl and queried the pilot’s intentions; the pilot then requested a special VFR clearance (an ATC authorization to proceed in controlled airspace at less than VFR weather minima).

At 0939, as N72EX was passing west of Van Nuys at 1,500 feet msl, the VNY controller asked the pilot if he was in VFR conditions. The pilot replied “VFR conditions, one thousand five hundred "

Well, it's pretty clear cut. The pilot was flying VFR and claimed to be in VMC. He chose to fly in to cloud, in clear contradiction to the FARs. As a VFR flight, he is responsible for his own terrain clearance.