Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Kobe Bryant killed in S76 crash

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Kobe Bryant killed in S76 crash

Old 23rd Feb 2020, 19:31
  #701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Age: 55
Posts: 13
I don't know whose version that is, but it sounds a bit like how I would describe it if I was his lawyer.

The 110 Harbor Freeway is about 5 miles off the east end of the runways, not 10. The weather could have been as described, but if it was 'clear and blue' I don't know why he would have asked for SVFR. As far as ATC 'thinking his orbit put him north', I'd assume they'll have an exact track--it won't be a matter of opinion. And that boundary is clearly visible on the ground as the Imperial Highway, so there's really no excuse for crossing it if the weather is 'clear and blue'. As for the rest of it, I just couldn't tell you.
BrogulT is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2020, 20:51
  #702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 396
You can’t be “in VFR”. The met conditions are either VMC or IMC. If LAX was IMC and he wanted a clearance to transit controlled airspace, then VFR would not be an option. It’s IFR or SVFR or fly around.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2020, 21:51
  #703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Age: 55
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Torquetalk View Post
You can’t be “in VFR”. The met conditions are either VMC or IMC. If LAX was IMC and he wanted a clearance to transit controlled airspace, then VFR would not be an option. It’s IFR or SVFR or fly around.
Yes, operating under VFR in VMC, requesting to continue on a VFR clearance. However, I'm not sure about your other statement and I've heard differing opinions on whether ATC can allow you to transit one area of their airspace under VFR, assuming that your entire transit route will be VMC, whilst the airport itself is reporting IMC. It doesn't really matter here because the issue is that he entered without a clearance at all, but I'm just wondering if this is clearly defined somewhere. I found a discussion of this on a controllers forum and even they were not in agreement.
BrogulT is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 00:21
  #704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Redding CA, or on a fire somewhere
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by BrogulT View Post
However, I'm not sure about your other statement and I've heard differing opinions on whether ATC can allow you to transit one area of their airspace under VFR, assuming that your entire transit route will be VMC, whilst the airport itself is reporting IMC.
Commenting in general here, I do it all the time.

The weather requirements for flying VFR in various classes of airspace are codified in 14 CFR 91.155, which states in part:
"§ 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and § 91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table: ..."
Notice the reg says "...flight visibility is ..." and "distance from clouds that is..." In the context of a pilot, "is" has only one meaning: that flight visibility experienced by the pilot at the time of observation. Likewise, in promulgating Amendment 91-262 to Part 91 in 2000, the FAA said:

"Flight visibility is also defined in 14 CFR section 1.1 and must be determined by a pilot from the cockpit while an aircraft is airborne." (65FR16113: Part 91 Amdt; No. 91-262, March 24, 2000)

In order for ATC to not require a SVFR, they need to know that you can maintain VFR (and thereby lessening their load and providing most of your own separation). Therefore, when you call for your transition, you need to advise them that you are, and can maintain VFR throughout your transition.

I do this on certain routes flying power lines in Northern California, and the first time I tried, I had to call the tower and explain this. If you know Barry Lloyd, he has a presentation on this very subject.
Gordy is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 08:36
  #705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,782
Great video Sandblaster

Back to Kobe Bryant's crash and ISTR the only reason the aircraft went North and was offered SVFR was because of the volume of traffic departing South from the airport - this seems to have been the controller trying to be helpful because the alternative was a long hold before crossing South under the departure lane.

Faced with a ,long hold and the inevitable desire to get his pax to their destination on time, I'm sure most pilots would have taken this option.

Trouble is, once clear of the controlled airspace, he can't be SVFR and must declare he is in VFR weather limits to legally continue flight. This seems to have coincided with the weather actually being worse - and now he has painted himself into a bit of a corner and convinces himself the best option is to carry on since the weather MUST get better as he gets down towards the highway.

So when it doesn't, he is royally screwed - then leaves one of his options too late (turn round or climb) and then as he hits the marine layer, tries to do both at once - the rest is sadly history.

If you go back to an earlier time in the flight, there were plenty of opportunities to take a safer (if more time consuming) option (hold, land, return to base etc) but once committed to the North routing, SVFR into VFR, worsening weather and tricky terrain, the holes in the swiss cheese really started to line up.

Until he entered cloud, he always had the option of slowdown, go down turn round or land and this is the message that still fails to be understood by pilots.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 08:52
  #706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,782
If you, as a pilot, believe you won't become a statistic because of your experience, skill or knowledge the you are very likely to be be closer to becoming one.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 12:25
  #707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,279
Originally Posted by Torquetalk View Post
You can’t be “in VFR”. The met conditions are either VMC or IMC. If LAX was IMC and he wanted a clearance to transit controlled airspace, then VFR would not be an option. It’s IFR or SVFR or fly around.
And a Class B surface area to boot, where air carrier aircraft are in landing configuration, and most vulnerable to unauthorized aircraft infringing on their approach path. That is what Class B is all about: positive separation at low altitude.
aterpster is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 14:36
  #708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,576
Extract from LA Times article - a sick or witty pun?
”That’s not how it works. It shows that perhaps his understanding of special VFR as opposed to VFR was cloudy.”

LA Times article
EESDL is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 15:01
  #709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 317
Originally Posted by Gordy View Post
Commenting in general here, I do it all the time.

The weather requirements for flying VFR in various classes of airspace are codified in 14 CFR 91.155, which states in part:
"§ 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and § 91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table: ..."
Notice the reg says "...flight visibility is ..." and "distance from clouds that is..." In the context of a pilot, "is" has only one meaning: that flight visibility experienced by the pilot at the time of observation. Likewise, in promulgating Amendment 91-262 to Part 91 in 2000, the FAA said:

"Flight visibility is also defined in 14 CFR section 1.1 and must be determined by a pilot from the cockpit while an aircraft is airborne." (65FR16113: Part 91 Amdt; No. 91-262, March 24, 2000)

In order for ATC to not require a SVFR, they need to know that you can maintain VFR (and thereby lessening their load and providing most of your own separation). Therefore, when you call for your transition, you need to advise them that you are, and can maintain VFR throughout your transition.

I do this on certain routes flying power lines in Northern California, and the first time I tried, I had to call the tower and explain this. If you know Barry Lloyd, he has a presentation on this very subject.

Gordy,

The more relevant FAR is:

§ 135.205 VFR: Visibility requirements.
(b) No person may operate a helicopter under VFR in Class G airspace at an altitude of 1,200 feet or less above the surface or within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport unless the visibility is at least -
(1) During the day - 1/2 mile; or
(2) At night - 1 mile.
MikeNYC is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 15:48
  #710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Redding CA, or on a fire somewhere
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by MikeNYC View Post
Gordy,
The more relevant FAR is:
§ 135.205 VFR: Visibility requirements.
(b) No person may operate a helicopter under VFR in Class G airspace at an altitude of 1,200 feet or less above the surface or within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport unless the visibility is at least -
(1) During the day - 1/2 mile; or
(2) At night - 1 mile.
Not really. We are not talking about going that low in the example I am referring to. Commenting in general here:

I fly power lines all the time, and can fly in airports that are reporting conditions less than VFR, yet if I can maintain VFR, I can fly through it. A good example is Napa County airport, (KAPC), where a marine layer will sit on the Southern side of their airspace, where the lower one third of the class delta is 2nm visibilty. I fly a line on the North side where the "flight visibility" is 10nm. I can legally fly East to West through that airspace without requesting a SVFR. Obviously I would not fly below 1/2 mile vis. What am I missing?
Gordy is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 17:29
  #711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,509
In related news: a wrongful death suit has been filed.
(Predictable outcome of an accident with fatalities)
While that does not have anything to do with how to fly the S-76, and what is or isn't SVFR ...
... it does pertain to the overall environment in which professional pilots operate.

@gulibell:
apologies for the tone I took there.
I could have said what I had to say better than I did.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 17:31
  #712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Brantisvogan
Posts: 608
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
In related news: a wrongful death suit has been filed.
(Predictable outcome of an accident with fatalities)
While that does not have anything to do with how to fly the S-76, and what is or isnt' SVFR ...
... it does pertain to the overall environment in which professional pilots operate.
I half expected the operator to close their doors and take the money and run. It was always going this route and they are unlikely to survive the process and outcome.
Bell_ringer is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 19:09
  #713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA ex-pat
Age: 58
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
If you, as a pilot, believe you won't become a statistic because of your experience, skill or knowledge the you are very likely to be be closer to becoming one.

Good point - after many years flying I would often remark to non-aviation friends that regardless of experience, the more flights I performed, simply meant that I was just that little bit closer to possibly becoming a statistic . There have always been lots of truly competent and naturally good pilots with all the skill and experience in the world - only problem is, some of the are no longer with us.
crunchingnumbers is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 19:37
  #714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
I always thought that if you go to the Well often enough you are going to hit mud at some point.

An old helicopter pilot I once knew reminded me on more than one occasion....."Just because you jump into a Well the Good Lord is not bound to fetch you out!".

I tried to follow that old Pelican's advice.
SASless is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 19:49
  #715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 17
Don't know if this has been uncovered yet-

$20K is a pretty hefty fine. No doubt the victim attorneys already have this. I don't think any IEX pilots tested positive. Probably some kind of drug testing compliance problem.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...edia/q3-18.pdf
377 Pete is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 22:02
  #716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by 377 Pete View Post
Don't know if this has been uncovered yet-




$20K is a pretty hefty fine. No doubt the victim attorneys already have this. I don't think any IEX pilots tested positive. Probably some kind of drug testing compliance problem.


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...edia/q3-18.pdf
That says a lot more about the company than you would think.
havick is online now  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 22:53
  #717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
Is that the final result or what was assessed before any kind of arbitration or negotiation?

SASless is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2020, 23:48
  #718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Is that the final result or what was assessed before any kind of arbitration or negotiation?
Twenty years ago I was fined $1K for 'missing/incomplete' records. Nothing was missing or incomplete, I tried to appeal, the FMCSA basically said 'pay the fine or have your operating authority suspended'. No arbitration, no negotiation. (This was a trucking company not an air carrier, btw).
377 Pete is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2020, 06:20
  #719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Africa
Posts: 360
Yes, this is the way it works in the ‘free‘ world. Makes you wonder how it works the other parts of the world.
Hot and Hi is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2020, 13:13
  #720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
The Law Suits begin.....one suit against the Operator and the Pilot has been filed.

As I have said many times in the past.....it is a tragedy when something like this happens.

The loss of life in the crash, the loss of an aircraft, the harm to the Operator....and then the family of the dead Pilot find themselves in Civil Court facing financial ruin as well.

Young folks....remember one day you. might survive a crash and find yourself in court explaining your actions to a Jury that will be quite happy to give away everything you have gained over your life and leave you burdened with a huge debt.

Store that away in the back of your Mind and always act in such a. manner that even a Jury will see you did your best, followed the Rules, exercised unquestionable professional judgement, and did the "right" thing.

That way you might avoid an accident and not even face the need to hire a lawyer.....much less pay damages to the Plaintiffs.

The other thing to remember....the Operator' Lawyer represents the Operator...not the Pilot.

Not only is it your Life and License...but also you fortune which is at risk.


https://www.breitbart.com/sports/202...company-pilot/
SASless is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.