Kobe Bryant killed in S76 crash
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
Any thoughts?
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:
- 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?
- The artificial horizon was malfunctioning or lagging, and he was unaware of his bank angle...
- 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?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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:
Possibilities:
- 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?
Looking at the terminal flight path this scenario appears highly likely.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Witness on Liveleak
As described by Expecting2fly
The description of the micro climate and the wx situation comes at the end of the video.
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 20:25. Reason: Add YouTube
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:
Any thoughts?
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:
- 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?
- The artificial horizon was malfunctioning or lagging, and he was unaware of his bank angle...
- 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?
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
"Just a pilot"
'"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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxing All Over The World
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.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Georgia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: VA
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Special VFR is only for transitioning thru controlled airspace that touches the surface.
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 01:06.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
It is plain some Crystal Balls need a bit of window cleaner sprayed on them.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Georgia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Northeast Area, USA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
It is plain some Crystal Balls need a bit of window cleaner sprayed on them.
“Super cautious, super smart,” one of the instructors said. “I can’t see him making this kind of mistake.”