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 27th Jan 2020, 20:08
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 2
180 turn seems very sharp -- overbanked?

I'm no heli expert, and only a low-hour PP without any instrument rating.

I imported the flight path kml into google earth and tried flying it with the (admittedly rough) SR-22 simulation at the approximate speed. That seems like it is one very steep 180 degree turn at that speed.

I'm guessing that IMC was almost certainly anticipated by the pilot by that point and the climb into clouds and 180 turn was an expected (if not fairly routine?) manoeuvre for an IFR-rated pilot. It certainly looks like the turn was initiated with plenty of altitude to clear the hills (which the pilot would have known if he was familiar with the route). It seems like a fairly routine SVFR flight into IMC at that point (if that can ever be called "routine". I'm no expert -- can any S76 IFR pilots comment?)

The question for me is: why was the 180 turn so steep? I'm guessing that it was at near 90 degrees of bank which gives a useless (horizontal) lift vector and I'm guessing would entirely explain the descent and CFIT.

Possibilities:
  1. He didn't transition to instruments and lost attitude awareness. Seems implausible for an IFR-rated pilot. Just watch the artificial horizon, ASI and altimeter.... Is this kind of IMC transition really that hard for an IFR-rated pilot?
  2. The artificial horizon was malfunctioning or lagging, and he was unaware of his bank angle...
  3. He deliberately made an aggressive 90-degree bank turn (because now everyone is really late) without anticipating (in time) the lift-vector consequences... It has happened before (e.g. Siggi Hoffmann BO105). He probably would have realized it within a second or two, but too late to recover...

Any thoughts?
crispyking is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 20:08
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,277
Such a great equipped high tech machine ... I just reviewed the Zell am See accident, where this poor guy in his high tech equipped SR22 went beyond MAP, maybe hit the Go-around button and made a classic CFIT ... Are we over-addicted to technology? From what I heard this helicopter was IFR equipped with a lot of bells & whistles, so why did he not go up and requested an IFR pickup - only because his companies part 135 charter license was VFR-only? If this would be the case, we definitely have to discuss airmenship and safety in principle.
ChickenHouse is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 20:16
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: London
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by 172driver View Post
What I could imagine happened is that fog rolled over the Santa Monica Mountains and down the Las Virgenes valley and while scud running they flew into a fog bank with near zero viz. In fact, someone further up the thread who lives in the area alluded to some scenario like that.
There's a credible ear witness account that would support your theory I saw on Live Leak earlier. The witness mentions the area's "micro climate" and previous history of cloud settling in the bowl of the crash site.

If you go to LL and search "Witness Describes What He Heard Before Kobe Bryant Helicopter Crash". I can't post the link because I'm a noob.
Expecting2Fly is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 20:22
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 833
Originally Posted by crispyking View Post
The question for me is: why was the 180 turn so steep? I'm guessing that it was at near 90 degrees of bank which gives a useless (horizontal) lift vector and I'm guessing would entirely explain the descent and CFIT.

Possibilities:
  1. He didn't transition to instruments and lost attitude awareness. Seems implausible for an IFR-rated pilot. Just watch the artificial horizon, ASI and altimeter.... Is this kind of IMC transition really that hard for an IFR-rated pilot?
Hint: The NTSB Accident database is full of this kind of accidents. In the case of high performance aircraft (both Helo and plank) this pattern ranks very high among the top causes for fatal accidents. Also with IFR machines and pilots (especially when those were not current on instruments but also sometimes those who were).
Looking at the terminal flight path this scenario appears highly likely.
henra is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 20:35
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,865
A social media tribute to the pilot from an Island Express colleague.



.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 20:56
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 50
Posts: 667
Witness on Liveleak


As described by Expecting2fly

The description of the micro climate and the wx situation comes at the end of the video.

Last edited by Senior Pilot; 27th Jan 2020 at 21:25. Reason: Add YouTube
Spunk is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 21:05
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,640
Originally Posted by crispyking View Post
I'm no heli expert, and only a low-hour PP without any instrument rating.

I imported the flight path kml into google earth and tried flying it with the (admittedly rough) SR-22 simulation at the approximate speed. That seems like it is one very steep 180 degree turn at that speed.

I'm guessing that IMC was almost certainly anticipated by the pilot by that point and the climb into clouds and 180 turn was an expected (if not fairly routine?) manoeuvre for an IFR-rated pilot. It certainly looks like the turn was initiated with plenty of altitude to clear the hills (which the pilot would have known if he was familiar with the route). It seems like a fairly routine SVFR flight into IMC at that point (if that can ever be called "routine". I'm no expert -- can any S76 IFR pilots comment?)

The question for me is: why was the 180 turn so steep? I'm guessing that it was at near 90 degrees of bank which gives a useless (horizontal) lift vector and I'm guessing would entirely explain the descent and CFIT.

Possibilities:
  1. He didn't transition to instruments and lost attitude awareness. Seems implausible for an IFR-rated pilot. Just watch the artificial horizon, ASI and altimeter.... Is this kind of IMC transition really that hard for an IFR-rated pilot?
  2. The artificial horizon was malfunctioning or lagging, and he was unaware of his bank angle...
  3. He deliberately made an aggressive 90-degree bank turn (because now everyone is really late) without anticipating (in time) the lift-vector consequences... It has happened before (e.g. Siggi Hoffmann BO105). He probably would have realized it within a second or two, but too late to recover...

Any thoughts?
A Climb into cloud and a 180 degree turn is not the norm for an IR rated pilot, no.
as for lift vectors ? Nope

your questions?
1. He was svfr and most likely caught out by going imc low level and the turn was probably his last attempt at getting back visual. Not just a case of jumping straight on instruments in that situation at that height.
2. nope
3. nope. Siggy Hoffman was a different issue not lift vector issue if I remember correctly. More a cyclic limit factor known about in the 105.
best not to speculate and wait for the report
helimutt is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 21:09
  #148 (permalink)  
"Just a pilot"
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jefferson GA USA
Age: 71
Posts: 603
'"Too low for VFR" flight following' is what I heard on the video. It's an important difference- being to low for VFR or too low for reliable position and/or communication. I've been 'too low' for radio and radar at a 1000' and better in level terrain, mountains make it worse. It looks kinda bumpy where this flight was. I can imagine hundreds of terrifying scenarios for this flight's pilot to have encountered besides the standard IIMC assumption.

p.s. My last employer's operations manual recommended against attempting a 180 in an IIMC encounter. Flying straight and level, initiating a climb is much safer and easier than attempting visual surface reference while transitioning to instruments. The urge to descend will kill you dead, amen!- in IIMC.
Devil 49 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 21:49
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Up yer nose, again.
Age: 64
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by GarageYears View Post
Witnesses on the ground reported the engines “spluttering” before the crash
Don't they always?
Peter Fanelli is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2020, 21:58
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,679
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
A social media tribute to the pilot from an Island Express colleague.



.

Aviation is a formidable beast.
Despite our best intentions, our professionalism and even our experience, it can catch any one of us at any time.

Rated De is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 00:18
  #151 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 64
Posts: 9,333
The witness found by 'extratv' gives a credible report. He states he is a sound engineer and thus determined the speed and direction of the machine. He talks directly about the weather and that there was no abnormal noise from the machine before impact. He describes that as a short sound, not protracted - which supports the suggestion of CFIT.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 00:34
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London/Atlanta
Posts: 336
Originally Posted by PAXboy View Post
The witness found by 'extratv' gives a credible report. He states he is a sound engineer and thus determined the speed and direction of the machine.
That’s an amazing ability to have.....
nomorehelosforme is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 01:00
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Georgia
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by nomorehelosforme View Post
Originally Posted by PAXboy View Post
The witness found by 'extratv' gives a credible report. He states he is a sound engineer and thus determined the speed and direction of the machine.
That’s an amazing ability to have.....
As a teacher of the law and attorney, don't know I've ever seen a more competent, thorough eyewitness this side of a professional, such as a law enforcement officer. This guy's either the best BSer I've ever seen or the best layman eyewitness I've ever seen.
Lawprof is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 01:28
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: VA
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by Indelible Spirit View Post
I don’t know what avionics this aircraft was equipped with, but even ForeFlight for $200 per year would provide moving terrain maps, which probably would have helped more than distractions of numerous radio frequencies, while getting caught “special VFR” in the soup, near terrain. Tragic.
To be clear, he was only Special VFR while transitting the Burbank Class C and the Van Nuys Class D. Once he was west of Van Nuys and following the 101 into the mountains regular VFR applied.

Special VFR is only for transitioning thru controlled airspace that touches the surface.
dragon6172 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 01:39
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London/Atlanta
Posts: 336
Originally Posted by Lawprof View Post
As a teacher of the law and attorney, don't know I've ever seen a more competent, thorough eyewitness this side of a professional, such as a law enforcement officer. This guy's either the best BSer I've ever seen or the best layman eyewitness I've ever seen.
Lets see how competent and thorough the FAA and the NTSB think this eyewitness is during the course of their investigations, I think they may concur on the former of your potential conclusions of the (layman)eyewitness. Normally only information from an “expert witness” would be considered.

Rules about expert witnesses are set by state and federal rules of evidence, depending on whether your case is in state or federal court.

According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, a qualified expert witness is someone who has knowledge, skill, education, experience, or training in a specialized field. These qualifications are generally also required of expert witnesses in state courts.

Under federal rules, experts must base their testimony on sufficient facts or data of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in their field, in order to help the jury understand issues that typically require specialized knowledge. While non-expert witnesses can only testify about what they've seen or heard, expert witnesses are generally allowed to give their specialized or professional opinion.

States have similar rules, though there are notable differences among states when it comes to the admissibility of expert testimony.

Last edited by nomorehelosforme; 28th Jan 2020 at 02:06.
nomorehelosforme is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 01:43
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 21
Two erroneous narratives the media is pushing:

1. Because the local police helicopters were not operating due to weather, it was unsafe for any helicopter to be operating in the area. At the NTSB briefing this evening, the sheriff specifically said it was unsafe to operate his helicopters due to weather.

2. Because ATC said that N72EX’s altitude was too low for flight following, N72EX was too low to be operating safely.
BFSGrad is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 02:23
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,924
Unusually well researched and written article in the NYT (they don't get the KVNY airspace, but that's a small niggle): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/u...gtype=Homepage
172driver is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 02:24
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,612
Heck....the NTSB and FAA just need to hit this thread and it will be case solved....particularly if they listen to the clairvoyants who keep posting telling us what the Pilot was thinking and doing all through the flight.

It is plain some Crystal Balls need a bit of window cleaner sprayed on them.
SASless is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 02:40
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Georgia
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by nomorehelosforme View Post
Lets see how competent and thorough the FAA and the NTSB think this eyewitness is during the course of their investigations, I think they may concur on the former of your potential conclusions of the (layman)eyewitness. Normally only information from an “expert witness” would be considered.

Rules about expert witnesses are set by state and federal rules of evidence, depending on whether your case is in state or federal court...

Under federal rules, experts must base their testimony on sufficient facts or data of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in their field, in order to help the jury understand issues that typically require specialized knowledge. While non-expert witnesses can only testify about what they've seen or heard, expert witnesses are generally allowed to give their specialized or professional opinion.

States have similar rules, though there are notable differences among states when it comes to the admissibility of expert testimony.
Indeed he may be full of it, but he sounds so smooth doing it. : ) I wasn't suggesting the guy be qualified as an expert witness. As you point out, the standards are high in a court of law. The rule you're referring to is known as the Daubert Rule and it has tightened up the standards for expert, opinion-based evidence a good bit in the last generation. It's the law of the land.

I have no earthly clue what standards the FAA and NTSB apply in their investigations, though. Way outside my area of expertise. I'm just saying if that dude with the ball cap had some testimony that I thought favored my position in a subsequent civil trial if I were representing a surviving family member suing Sikorsky or the heli service or what have you, I'd love to have him up on the stand. Smoooth. But that's all pie in the sky because I'm not practicing anymore, just teaching university students for relative beans. Those who can't do, teach, as they say.
Lawprof is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2020, 03:14
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Northeast Area, USA
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Heck....the NTSB and FAA just need to hit this thread and it will be case solved....particularly if they listen to the clairvoyants who keep posting telling us what the Pilot was thinking and doing all through the flight.

It is plain some Crystal Balls need a bit of window cleaner sprayed on them.
Well, here are positive quotes from those who knew the pilot, per NYT article:“Pilots who gathered at the school on Monday declined to give their names but described [PILOT] as an experienced and meticulous operator. They said they were perplexed by the accident.

“Super cautious, super smart,” one of the instructors said. “I can’t see him making this kind of mistake.”
Indelible Spirit 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 © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.