Kobe Bryant killed in S76 crash

[aterpster]

Is there an air traffic controller type who might be able to answer. I am not familiar with the Los Angeles area, but looking at the terminal chart; it seems that the area in which the pilot was flying was Class G to 700' AGL overlain by Class C airspace (thick magenta line) which goes to 4000'. That would imply equipment needed, visibility and cloud separation required, and communication. What would be the intent to climb specifically to 4000' ? (why not 3500' or 4500'?). Standard ops would imply communication with the company to describe a deviation from original dispatched flight and a communication with ATC to outline intended plan upon reaching stated altitude. What woiuld a controller be expecting in such circumstances.
I'm not a controller but I am familiar with the airspace. He was still speaking with SoCal TRACON (SCT) but he was close to or past the boundary of Point Mugu TRACON's eastern boundary. As he was climbing he would have reappeared on SCT's radar and probably appeared on Point Mugu's radar. Depending what he said to SCT they would likely then have asked him whether he was declaring an emergency. If so, then they would request his intentions. I have no idea what those intentions were. His destination was KCMA, which is handled by Point Mugu TRACON. If those intentions were for an instrument approach to either KCMA or KOXR (which has an ILS whereas KCMA only has RNAV and one VOR approach), SCT would have handed him off to Point Mugu and advised of the emergency status on the handoff.

[Paul Lupp]

What beats me is that if he lost visual references etc, one option you have in a helo is just to stop where you are and hover whilst seeking assistance over the radio... such as can you see me on radar, where am I, how close to terrain am I ? In which direction should I proceed and do I need to climb? etc etc

[Bell_ringer]

What beats me is that if he lost visual references etc, one option you have in a helo is just to stop where you are and hover whilst seeking assistance over the radio... such as can you see me on radar, where am I, how close to terrain am I ? In which direction should I proceed and do I need to climb? etc etc

Ey? Enter a hover without visual reference?
That sounds like a recipe for success.

[tottigol]

What beats me is that if he lost visual references etc, one option you have in a helo is just to stop where you are and hover whilst seeking assistance over the radio... such as can you see me on radar, where am I, how close to terrain am I ? In which direction should I proceed and do I need to climb? etc etc
For God sake, if you have nothing intelligent to say, please go back to your videogames.

[tottigol]

Refer to 8driver's point. If you're not competent or capable of flying on instruments then what matters is the visual cues available to you to allow you to determine your attitude and the rate of change so that your brain gets to complete that pesky hand-eye feedback loop. In flight visibility rules are only a regulatory tool to try to ensure visual references can be maintained, and generally at the pre-flight planning stage. It's a means, not an end. Try to accurately estimate visibility in flight.

Lose the ability to comprehend your attitude and take appropriate action then catastrophy occurs (see the recent Coulson C130 accident).

In control but not thinking about the terrain? Loss of situational awareness leading to CFIT.

Lose control because you can't maintain attitude? Loss of control in flight leading to UFIT.

Personally, I think that the balance of probably lies with CFIT. The only LOC indication is 'powered rotation'. Maybe he red-lined the torque when he saw terrain and ran out of tail rotor, maybe he tried to turn-away at last minute and used a bootfull of pedal. It draws a fine line between CFIT and UFIT but doesn't change the cause, which was his being there in the first place. What-​​​If's about technical failures by lawyers might make this another Mull of Kintyre, which I doubt it is.
​​
I agree with you on everything you wrote.
If you ain't current or proficient you should not go paint yourself in a corner with limited options.
This thread should have been over 600 posts ago.

Things we've learnt:
You can't fix stupid unless you severely punish them, and then maybe not (just look at the EMS industry people killing themselves the same way for year).
ANY aircraft operating under CFR 14 Part 135 or for hire should have a CVR and FDR.
When operating for hire, pilots should be current and proficient for IFR operations and flight in IMC conditions.

[Glacier pilot]

Thanks. Your explanation was straight forward. One of the 'buzzwords' with the NTSB is "operational control". The mystery of this accident is why the pilot initiated a deviation from the original VFR flight plan, a climb to get on top, that would, de facto, generate a lot of undesireable scruitiny in and of itself, even if the manuever had been 'sucessfull'. In hill country, if one can, it's best to forsee and avoid situations that leave 'emergency actions' as the best and only remaining option.

[Senior Pilot]

What beats me is that if he lost visual references etc, one option you have in a helo is just to stop where you are and hover whilst seeking assistance over the radio... such as can you see me on radar, where am I, how close to terrain am I ? In which direction should I proceed and do I need to climb? etc etc



(Snip)

This thread should have been over 600 posts ago.

(Snip)




The Hamsterwheel has come full circle: time to close this thread again until there is something relevant to discuss.