Kobe Bryant killed in S76 crash
OK. But with N1's matched that #1 engine looks a bit tired. With NAV coupled to FMS I'm curious why the active leg isn't shown in green on the EHSI. Quite a bit of drift angle there too.
Chief Bottle Washer
We’re rapidly into Hamsterwheel territory; fascinating as the S76 lessons are they are becoming irrelevant to the thread. I’d rather not come and moderate posts but if you want a discussion on S76 variances and flying then maybe take them to a dedicated thread, please?
The same goes for FR24 and ADS-B rinse and repeats
Meanwhile let’s get back on topic
The same goes for FR24 and ADS-B rinse and repeats
Meanwhile let’s get back on topic
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFO
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This crash is a mystery and may remain so. There are a few things that don't add up.
Based upon the information that the NTSB has published so far, I suspect they will come out with a probable cause of "Loss of control due to spatial disorientation due to continued VFR flight into IMC" or some variant thereof. It's looking that way at the moment.
There is no indication thus far of any mechanical malfunction. Of course, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a malfunction. One thing is for sure: Having a malfunction IMC in a helicopter in close proximity to terrain would be a serious situation.
My view is that the pilot never should have taken off in the first place. But having flown traffic watch in the wee hours around the San Francisco Bay Area, the word "marginal" gets interpreted pretty loosely if you want the broadcaster to be able to get their reports in. When the sun comes over the horizon and the ceiling drops, you start hearing a lot of special VFR requests. I think chopper pilots take a few liberties with that one due to the capability of their aircraft over the limitations of fixed wing.
But IMC is IMC for all. Therein lies the question: How did the pilot figure he was going to get all the way from John Wayne to Camarillo via 101 VFR in those conditions? Hope? We all know that in flying, hope is not a strategy. And I am really surprised that such an experienced pilot hoped for that. Maybe he knew something we didn't about the weather over there that morning.
The METAR on departure was 1000 feet overcast. Marginal right there. Burbank was IFR. Van Nuys 1000 overcast and then he was heading for the mountains. My daughter goes to college in Thousand Oaks, which is just to the East of Camarillo, which I fly into to visit coming down from the Bay Area. You drive up over a mountain pass between CMA and Thousand Oaks. Definitely over 1000'. It's mountains everywhere. Sure he might have been able to skirt around LA following the freeways (Which he did), but once West of Van Nuys, he had to climb. And climb he did.
The NTSB photo taken from a mountain top in the update report show cloud tops at approx. 2400 at the time and location of the accident. He flew past VNY at 1500, right at the cloud level the tower reported. When he was with SoCal he said he was going to climb through layers to 4000. Right at that point, if you look at the photo, you know he's deliberately gone VFR into IMC. So that was the big rules violation.
But as to why he crashed, well, it is still a mystery. He followed 101, climbed to 2300, then for an unknown reason, began a left turn. Then he started descending and by the time the turn had gone through 180 degrees, he was descending at 160 knots and 4000fpm into the mountain.
Why did he turn?
a) Maybe he figured that the VFR into IMC was a bad idea, that he would later get busted for it decided to come back, pretend he never went IMC and just land back at VNY and have the passengers driven the rest of the way.
b) Maybe he became spatially disorientated and lost control.
c) Maybe he had a mechanical problem, or an instrument problem during the climb and decided to turn back and try and get back down to VMC ASAP.
d) Maybe he experienced a serious medical problem.
We may never know the answer. As I said, I suspect the NTSB will probably go for (b). But I really do wonder about this. He was an experienced pilot, an IFR instructor. The year before he completed VFR into IMC and upset training in the helicopter satisfactorily. 8000 hours total time. 1000 in that make and model. 10 years with the company. And the helicopter had a four axis autopilot. He was following 101, he had a plan to go VFR into IMC (Against the rules, yes, but it was still a plan), he climbed and came oh so close to VFR on top at 2400, but only made it to 2300 before starting that left hand turn. He was probably only IMC for a minute or two. Plenty long enough for an inexperienced non-instrument pilot (let alone helicopter pilot) to lose control, but for a pilot with his qualifications and experience? I would be surprised if that was the cause.
But again, it's a mystery. All four reasons are quite plausible. The tragic part is that the pilot and aircraft were both qualified for flight in IMC conditions, but the operator was not. So he did not have the option of filing. And the passengers were not to know that of course.
Like many have said, the biggest mistake was the decision to take off in the first place. I suspect that would have crossed his mind as he was circling outside Burbank for 15 minutes, again when he flew past Van Nuys, and almost certainly as he began the climb towards the mountains.
Very sad. A lesson for all.
Based upon the information that the NTSB has published so far, I suspect they will come out with a probable cause of "Loss of control due to spatial disorientation due to continued VFR flight into IMC" or some variant thereof. It's looking that way at the moment.
There is no indication thus far of any mechanical malfunction. Of course, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a malfunction. One thing is for sure: Having a malfunction IMC in a helicopter in close proximity to terrain would be a serious situation.
My view is that the pilot never should have taken off in the first place. But having flown traffic watch in the wee hours around the San Francisco Bay Area, the word "marginal" gets interpreted pretty loosely if you want the broadcaster to be able to get their reports in. When the sun comes over the horizon and the ceiling drops, you start hearing a lot of special VFR requests. I think chopper pilots take a few liberties with that one due to the capability of their aircraft over the limitations of fixed wing.
But IMC is IMC for all. Therein lies the question: How did the pilot figure he was going to get all the way from John Wayne to Camarillo via 101 VFR in those conditions? Hope? We all know that in flying, hope is not a strategy. And I am really surprised that such an experienced pilot hoped for that. Maybe he knew something we didn't about the weather over there that morning.
The METAR on departure was 1000 feet overcast. Marginal right there. Burbank was IFR. Van Nuys 1000 overcast and then he was heading for the mountains. My daughter goes to college in Thousand Oaks, which is just to the East of Camarillo, which I fly into to visit coming down from the Bay Area. You drive up over a mountain pass between CMA and Thousand Oaks. Definitely over 1000'. It's mountains everywhere. Sure he might have been able to skirt around LA following the freeways (Which he did), but once West of Van Nuys, he had to climb. And climb he did.
The NTSB photo taken from a mountain top in the update report show cloud tops at approx. 2400 at the time and location of the accident. He flew past VNY at 1500, right at the cloud level the tower reported. When he was with SoCal he said he was going to climb through layers to 4000. Right at that point, if you look at the photo, you know he's deliberately gone VFR into IMC. So that was the big rules violation.
But as to why he crashed, well, it is still a mystery. He followed 101, climbed to 2300, then for an unknown reason, began a left turn. Then he started descending and by the time the turn had gone through 180 degrees, he was descending at 160 knots and 4000fpm into the mountain.
Why did he turn?
a) Maybe he figured that the VFR into IMC was a bad idea, that he would later get busted for it decided to come back, pretend he never went IMC and just land back at VNY and have the passengers driven the rest of the way.
b) Maybe he became spatially disorientated and lost control.
c) Maybe he had a mechanical problem, or an instrument problem during the climb and decided to turn back and try and get back down to VMC ASAP.
d) Maybe he experienced a serious medical problem.
We may never know the answer. As I said, I suspect the NTSB will probably go for (b). But I really do wonder about this. He was an experienced pilot, an IFR instructor. The year before he completed VFR into IMC and upset training in the helicopter satisfactorily. 8000 hours total time. 1000 in that make and model. 10 years with the company. And the helicopter had a four axis autopilot. He was following 101, he had a plan to go VFR into IMC (Against the rules, yes, but it was still a plan), he climbed and came oh so close to VFR on top at 2400, but only made it to 2300 before starting that left hand turn. He was probably only IMC for a minute or two. Plenty long enough for an inexperienced non-instrument pilot (let alone helicopter pilot) to lose control, but for a pilot with his qualifications and experience? I would be surprised if that was the cause.
But again, it's a mystery. All four reasons are quite plausible. The tragic part is that the pilot and aircraft were both qualified for flight in IMC conditions, but the operator was not. So he did not have the option of filing. And the passengers were not to know that of course.
Like many have said, the biggest mistake was the decision to take off in the first place. I suspect that would have crossed his mind as he was circling outside Burbank for 15 minutes, again when he flew past Van Nuys, and almost certainly as he began the climb towards the mountains.
Very sad. A lesson for all.
Also, consideration needs to be given to any items on the MEL that could have affected LOC/UIMC. Additionally, I haven’t seen any discussion here about VFR/SVFR in terms of the allowable limits per the Company’s Operation Manual. I can't imagine a Part 135 VFR-only operator using FAR minimums. I could be wrong.
Simon,
Some questions for you.
As you look at the route flown....what Class Airspace was it along the route....plainly it changed several time?
In each Class Airspace...what was the "VFR" minima for the operation considering both FAR's and the Operator OpSpecs?
If the Weather in Controlled Airspace is 1000/3sm....that is VFR...right?
Marginal.....depends upon your definition but in general I agree with you....depending upon that the forecast is and what the actual weather is in the surrounding area along the route of flight.
If the weather plummets to 900 feet ceiling down to 2.5sm vis.....and becomes IFR in controlled airspace....and the flight is continued via SVFR.....is that not still VMC flight under IFR?
What are the weather minima for Helicopters flying in SVFR within Controlled Airspace?
As to flying from VMC into IMC....if not done intentionally....is not a rule violation.
Perhaps he realized the best option was to declare his intentions and climb to VFR on Top.....why would the FAA see that as a violation?
Some questions for you.
As you look at the route flown....what Class Airspace was it along the route....plainly it changed several time?
In each Class Airspace...what was the "VFR" minima for the operation considering both FAR's and the Operator OpSpecs?
If the Weather in Controlled Airspace is 1000/3sm....that is VFR...right?
Marginal.....depends upon your definition but in general I agree with you....depending upon that the forecast is and what the actual weather is in the surrounding area along the route of flight.
If the weather plummets to 900 feet ceiling down to 2.5sm vis.....and becomes IFR in controlled airspace....and the flight is continued via SVFR.....is that not still VMC flight under IFR?
What are the weather minima for Helicopters flying in SVFR within Controlled Airspace?
As to flying from VMC into IMC....if not done intentionally....is not a rule violation.
Perhaps he realized the best option was to declare his intentions and climb to VFR on Top.....why would the FAA see that as a violation?
I wouldn't. I see experienced instrument rated pilots crash ALL THE TIME within 20 seconds of entering cloud on their annual recurrent checks in the Level D S76 simulator. These are pilots who rarely see a cloud in their operational flying, except for their sim checks.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFO
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JimEli, you make a valid point. Based upon his qualifications, training and experience, I felt that spatial disorientation was unlikely. But I really don't know of course and the final moments of flight do point to a loss of control.
SASless, I'm going to pass on responding to your questions about airspace. I was not suggesting that the pilot was out of compliance with the FARs, if that's where you were going. Let's assume that he was in compliance, all the way up to where he left Van Nuys' airspace. Which is where I disagree with you:
The FARs do not differentiate between intentional or otherwise. The FARs specify that a pilot must fly under VFR until cleared by ATC to fly under IFR. The only intention the pilot declared was to climb to 4000. He was asked multiple times whether he was VFR. He confirmed VFR. VFR into IMC, intentionally or otherwise, is bad. And yes, it is a violation. If ATC asks you and you admit it, they will declare an emergency on your behalf immediately. If you live, you get to copy down a number when you land. I know because I've been there. And in the pilot's case, he could not have received a pop up clearance from ATC because he was below the MDA shelf for that area. The pilot, with his experience, would have known that.
I suspect he decided to climb through the marine layer to get on top. He almost made it. Almost.
My main point here is that a VFR flight from SNA to CMA that day was going to be marginal AT BEST and the pilot would have known that before departure.
gulliBell, I am fixed wing only so your comment about 76 pilots crashing within 20 seconds of going IMC on the sim was an eye opener.
SASless, I'm going to pass on responding to your questions about airspace. I was not suggesting that the pilot was out of compliance with the FARs, if that's where you were going. Let's assume that he was in compliance, all the way up to where he left Van Nuys' airspace. Which is where I disagree with you:
As to flying from VMC into IMC....if not done intentionally....is not a rule violation. Perhaps he realized the best option was to declare his intentions and climb to VFR on Top.....why would the FAA see that as a violation?
I suspect he decided to climb through the marine layer to get on top. He almost made it. Almost.
My main point here is that a VFR flight from SNA to CMA that day was going to be marginal AT BEST and the pilot would have known that before departure.
gulliBell, I am fixed wing only so your comment about 76 pilots crashing within 20 seconds of going IMC on the sim was an eye opener.
...
The FARs do not differentiate between intentional or otherwise. The FARs specify that a pilot must fly under VFR until cleared by ATC to fly under IFR. The only intention the pilot declared was to climb to 4000. He was asked multiple times whether he was VFR. He confirmed VFR. VFR into IMC, intentionally or otherwise, is bad. And yes, it is a violation. If ATC asks you and you admit it, they will declare an emergency on your behalf immediately. If you live, you get to copy down a number when you land. I know because I've been there. And in the pilot's case, he could not have received a pop up clearance from ATC because he was below the MDA shelf for that area. The pilot, with his experience, would have known that.
...
The FARs do not differentiate between intentional or otherwise. The FARs specify that a pilot must fly under VFR until cleared by ATC to fly under IFR. The only intention the pilot declared was to climb to 4000. He was asked multiple times whether he was VFR. He confirmed VFR. VFR into IMC, intentionally or otherwise, is bad. And yes, it is a violation. If ATC asks you and you admit it, they will declare an emergency on your behalf immediately. If you live, you get to copy down a number when you land. I know because I've been there. And in the pilot's case, he could not have received a pop up clearance from ATC because he was below the MDA shelf for that area. The pilot, with his experience, would have known that.
...
d. When VFR aircraft operating below the minimum altitude for IFR operations requests an IFR clearance and the pilot informs you, or you are aware, that they are unable to climb in VFR conditions to the minimum IFR altitude:
1. Before issuing a clearance, ask if the pilot is able to maintain terrain and obstruction clearance during a climb to the minimum IFR altitude.
2. If the pilot is able to maintain their own terrain and obstruction clearance, issue the appropriate IFR clearance as prescribed in Para 4-2-1, Clearance Items, and Para 4-5-6, Minimum En Route Altitudes.
What really messes people up is the transition from poor visibility but still in sight of the ground, to not insight of the ground any more. Typically practiced in the sim as a low visibility runway departure. As soon as they start the climb phase, lose sight of the runway, they do a descending left turn and crash in an unusual attitude in the grass off the runway before they've even crossed the upwind threshold. I've seen some pilots do this three times in a row! Crash. Reset. Try again. Crash. Reset. Try again. Crash. Move on to something else. These are not newly minted IFR pilots. They are guys with thousands of hours experience who only see a cloud once per year (and that is in the sim, luckily).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFO
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. Especially the three times in a row part.
Hmmm.
As soon as they start the climb phase, lose sight of the runway, they do a descending left turn and crash in an unusual attitude
Trust me. It's what happens. Exactly as I said. 40 degrees left bank. 20 degrees pitch nose down. Splatter. Having more than three goes to get it right becomes a waste of simulator time, especially when in their real world flying they never encounter those conditions. The time is better spent on other things, like working out which engine is on fire and not shutting down the wrong engine. Trust me on that one too. It happens.
Don't know. What I do know, I don't recall seeing crashing into the dirt on the right side of the runway, doesn't matter whether the pilot is flying from the left or right seat.
Trust me. It's what happens. Exactly as I said. 40 degrees left bank. 20 degrees pitch nose down. Splatter. Having more than three goes to get it right becomes a waste of simulator time, especially when in their real world flying they never encounter those conditions. The time is better spent on other things, like working out which engine is on fire and not shutting down the wrong engine. Trust me on that one too. It happens.
To clarify your setup, you are presenting a loss of visual reference while at low altitude and during acceleration phase, is that correct? it seems to be logical that is your condition that is being looked at.
If so, then the roll being to the left is understandable as a matter of control derivatives. The pitch down is itself not consistent with a control derivative, it is however consistent with a pilot input akin to the consequences of exiting a thick overcast. Your comment about observing this outcome from either seat removes visual illusion of flow over a windscreen which does occur in the real world, but not too many sims will replicate water droplet streaming over the screen.
That would be an interesting little project for the guys at Moffet to look at I would think, if it is prevalent.
For non chopper people, the dynamic effects on the rotor disk in going from a hover through transition and on to a cruise speed results in very non-linear lateral trim requirements, and a nearly linear pitch input requirement. Essentially the cyclic control input traces an S curve (that would be a russian or Euro chopper, For USA it is a mirror "S"...) to maintain level flight with increasing IAS. For reasons why that is so, read Wayne Johnson's Helicopter Theory (read Ch15), or Ray Prouty's Helicopter Aerodynamics ( 2 volumes...) or Helicopter Performance, Stability and Control, or J. Gordon Leishman's Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics. Seddon's Basic Helo Aero us a good read too.
Simon,
Some questions for you.
As you look at the route flown....what Class Airspace was it along the route....plainly it changed several time?
In each Class Airspace...what was the "VFR" minima for the operation considering both FAR's and the Operator OpSpecs?
If the Weather in Controlled Airspace is 1000/3sm....that is VFR...right?
Marginal.....depends upon your definition but in general I agree with you....depending upon that the forecast is and what the actual weather is in the surrounding area along the route of flight.
If the weather plummets to 900 feet ceiling down to 2.5sm vis.....and becomes IFR in controlled airspace....and the flight is continued via SVFR.....is that not still VMC flight under IFR?
What are the weather minima for Helicopters flying in SVFR within Controlled Airspace?
As to flying from VMC into IMC....if not done intentionally....is not a rule violation.
Perhaps he realized the best option was to declare his intentions and climb to VFR on Top.....why would the FAA see that as a violation?
Some questions for you.
As you look at the route flown....what Class Airspace was it along the route....plainly it changed several time?
In each Class Airspace...what was the "VFR" minima for the operation considering both FAR's and the Operator OpSpecs?
If the Weather in Controlled Airspace is 1000/3sm....that is VFR...right?
Marginal.....depends upon your definition but in general I agree with you....depending upon that the forecast is and what the actual weather is in the surrounding area along the route of flight.
If the weather plummets to 900 feet ceiling down to 2.5sm vis.....and becomes IFR in controlled airspace....and the flight is continued via SVFR.....is that not still VMC flight under IFR?
What are the weather minima for Helicopters flying in SVFR within Controlled Airspace?
As to flying from VMC into IMC....if not done intentionally....is not a rule violation.
Perhaps he realized the best option was to declare his intentions and climb to VFR on Top.....why would the FAA see that as a violation?
(b) Class G Airspace. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, the following operations may be conducted in Class G airspace below 1,200 feet above the surface:
(1) Helicopter. A helicopter may be operated clear of clouds if operated at a speed that allows the pilot adequate opportunity to see any air traffic or obstruction in time to avoid a collision.
§ 91.157 Special VFR weather minimums.
(b) Special VFR operations may only be conducted—
(1) With an ATC clearance;
(2) Clear of clouds;
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Thailand
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for JimEli
Do any 135 VFR operators, with aircraft that have FD's, include the use of some FD modes, such as HDG, in their written procedure, training and competency check for IIMC?
I find it perplexing that there is no apparent use of the FD during any part of this flight. The FD, when used correctly, can help to prevent SD and LOC.
I find it perplexing that there is no apparent use of the FD during any part of this flight. The FD, when used correctly, can help to prevent SD and LOC.
Helicopters need 1/2 mile day and 1 mile night now - the FARs were revised a few years ago. Class G stopped at 700 feel AGL.
(b) Class G Airspace. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, the following operations may be conducted in Class G airspace below 1,200 feet above the surface:
(1) Helicopter. A helicopter may be operated clear of clouds in an airport traffic pattern within 1/2 mile of the runway or helipad of intended landing if the flight visibility is not less than 1/2 statute mile.
(b) Class G Airspace. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, the following operations may be conducted in Class G airspace below 1,200 feet above the surface:
(1) Helicopter. A helicopter may be operated clear of clouds in an airport traffic pattern within 1/2 mile of the runway or helipad of intended landing if the flight visibility is not less than 1/2 statute mile.