Kobe Bryant killed in S76 crash
It seems the plan was to drive from Camarillo
They Heard Kobe Bryant’s Helicopter Go Down. Then They Prayed.
Soon she saw a black SUV pull in. The driver got out, wearing a dress shirt with dark pants and dark jacket, she said. Visibly upset, he walked across the street, spoke with the authorities, and came back to the church lot. He had been at Camarillo Airport, Howland Forrest said the man told her, waiting for a helicopter from Orange County. He planned to drive Bryant, his daughter and seven others to Mamba Sports Academy in Thousand Oaks.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calabasas, CA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. There is an almost circular pattern evident (to me anyway) at the site of the initial impact point. If looking at the NTSB B-Roll of the site (Post #206), the tail fin is out of the above photo, just below the bottom edge of the photograph. It appears that the bulk of the wreckage (fuselage etc.) traveled (possibly rolling) from right-to-left in the above photo, with the fuselage winding up on its left side. This could indicate that the helicopter was in a side slip as well as being inverted. In my opinion, this was not a CFIT.
While having flown quite a bit in helicopters, I'm not a helicopter pilot - just a relatively low time fixed wing; consequently, this is just a bunch of relatively ignorant speculation on my part. In my defense, I do have more a little experience in aircraft crash investigation.
Cheers,
Grog
While having flown quite a bit in helicopters, I'm not a helicopter pilot - just a relatively low time fixed wing; consequently, this is just a bunch of relatively ignorant speculation on my part. In my defense, I do have more a little experience in aircraft crash investigation.
Cheers,
Grog
Last edited by Bravo Delta; 31st Jan 2020 at 06:19. Reason: Spelling
Just because it didn't impact with wings level doesn't make it non-CFIT.
It’s all very well trying to exonerate the pilot. It’s all very well for pilots to hope that it was an equipment failure rather than a fellow pilots shortcomings, which in turn could mean they could also mess up in the same manner. But, and remember no-one knows what happened yet, the flight was perfectly normal until it wasn’t. By that I mean we have a vfr flight. Single pilot. Held and routed due to weather. Everything is pretty much fine until they reach the point where many witnesses state that the weather was foggy. The aircraft was most likely IMC in a hilly area. Now it would have to be such a massive and unlikely coincidence if this turns out to be a mechanical failure, where it also happens that all of the aircraft arrives at one crash site. Nothing apparently departed the aircraft in flight. It was heard flying and sounding normal right up to the part where there is an increase in blade noise due to probable abrupt manouvering. Then a thud. So is it likely that something failed just as they happened to be in fog/low cloud, in a rising ground situation, or is it more likely that the pilot just got it wrong and was disorientated? I know where my gut feeling is leaning. But we don’t know, and will probably never know exactly what happened but im
certain the NTSB will do their best and provide best investigated answers.
the autopilot on an s76 does have the ability to ‘go-around’ at the press of a button
watch out for reports of a large passenger aircraft very nearly doing the same very very recently in the UK. IIMC is not good in any sense.
certain the NTSB will do their best and provide best investigated answers.
the autopilot on an s76 does have the ability to ‘go-around’ at the press of a button
watch out for reports of a large passenger aircraft very nearly doing the same very very recently in the UK. IIMC is not good in any sense.
Last edited by helimutt; 31st Jan 2020 at 07:49.
You will notice that this aircraft all arrives at the crash site. Must have been pilot error.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kXUZQYFu18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kXUZQYFu18
I can’t see the fog and high ground? Or am I missing something? But I guess there’s always one. If you read my post correctly you’ll see I also stated that we don’t know the cause. We all have opinions.
i also notice cncpc, that you often comment on many accident posts and basically look to argue the toss, and you’ve had so many aviation adventures, flown so many types and commented on so many other accident threads, you’re pretty much an expert on Cessnas to the 737 max and also helicopters of various types. Your cv must be very impressive.
Last edited by helimutt; 31st Jan 2020 at 08:03.
If he didn't intend for the wings not to be level, then it's still LOC.
It is semantics anyway, they all died for no apparent reason and without a definite technical failure or any CVFDR data, we won't know for sure.
cpnc - you win the prize for the most pointless post on this thread so far.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Warwick
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recovery action probably would have saved them IF they had enough clearance to carry it out, it’s obvious they didn’t.
Inadvertant IMC is a killer close to terrain you don’t get time to react
Inadvertant IMC is a killer close to terrain you don’t get time to react
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What we need to consider is that our perception of the cause of the accident depends on the dangers we have identified, and that depends on the information we have, and our background.
Discussion is focused on the weather conditions, or rather speculation about them; the NTSB have asked for and apparently received photographs from the public, so we'll likely learn facts as the preliminary report comes out. For the record, KVNY is at 800ft and reported an overcast cloud deck at 1300 ft AGL at 9:51, which would make the ceiling ~2100 ft MSL; from 9:45:11 to 9:45:21, N72EX was at 2100-2115 ft altitude as per its ADS-B transmissions as the highest level of its flight path. SoCal TRACON also heard the pilot announce that he was climbing to avoid a cloud layer, and we know that people on the ground reported foggy conditions. So the dangers we think likely are that the pilot might have been in clear air, but lost sight of the fogged-in ground and hills, and thus lost visual reference to a horizon; or that he broke into the cloud deck above inadvertantly. I haven't looked at satellite imagery, so I don't know if there were any holes in that cloud deck that he could have wanted to climb through, but it feels improbable.
But helicopters can crash in any weather. In 1999, Island Express Helicopters crashed N3593S because a loose pneumatic fitting caused the engine to go to flight idle power at a low altitude, which resulted in a forced landing in hilly terrain. The pilot autorotated successfully, and everyone survived. In 2008, Island Express crashed N67GE when its turbine failed unexpectedly (it was properly maintained); the helicopter was low and had to travel to avoid powerlines and buildings, and half of its occupants did not survive the subsequent hard landing. In this case, too, even the cracked fan blades that caused the accident made it to the crash site, because they remained attached. Knowing this, we see the danger that something essential in the 30-year-old helicopter broke, even if it was well maintained.
Or the pilot could've had a medical event, but we have no information on that at all, so it seems very far-fetched simply for that reason.
So it could've been "pilot error", and it makes sense to discuss this scenario because that is what we have the most information on, and also what most affects "lessons learned". But I feel that it's premature to outright dismiss the other scenarios as "too much of a coincidence" when we don't have enough information to judge the odds.
P.S.: Van Nuys also reported 2.5 sm visibility, so a helicopter traveling at 120 kts would be able to look ahead more than a minute of flight time. We don't yet have information on what the visibility was in the hills, at altitude. Looking down through a thin fog layer is easier than being in it, so ground witnesses may not tell the whole story.
Discussion is focused on the weather conditions, or rather speculation about them; the NTSB have asked for and apparently received photographs from the public, so we'll likely learn facts as the preliminary report comes out. For the record, KVNY is at 800ft and reported an overcast cloud deck at 1300 ft AGL at 9:51, which would make the ceiling ~2100 ft MSL; from 9:45:11 to 9:45:21, N72EX was at 2100-2115 ft altitude as per its ADS-B transmissions as the highest level of its flight path. SoCal TRACON also heard the pilot announce that he was climbing to avoid a cloud layer, and we know that people on the ground reported foggy conditions. So the dangers we think likely are that the pilot might have been in clear air, but lost sight of the fogged-in ground and hills, and thus lost visual reference to a horizon; or that he broke into the cloud deck above inadvertantly. I haven't looked at satellite imagery, so I don't know if there were any holes in that cloud deck that he could have wanted to climb through, but it feels improbable.
But helicopters can crash in any weather. In 1999, Island Express Helicopters crashed N3593S because a loose pneumatic fitting caused the engine to go to flight idle power at a low altitude, which resulted in a forced landing in hilly terrain. The pilot autorotated successfully, and everyone survived. In 2008, Island Express crashed N67GE when its turbine failed unexpectedly (it was properly maintained); the helicopter was low and had to travel to avoid powerlines and buildings, and half of its occupants did not survive the subsequent hard landing. In this case, too, even the cracked fan blades that caused the accident made it to the crash site, because they remained attached. Knowing this, we see the danger that something essential in the 30-year-old helicopter broke, even if it was well maintained.
Or the pilot could've had a medical event, but we have no information on that at all, so it seems very far-fetched simply for that reason.
So it could've been "pilot error", and it makes sense to discuss this scenario because that is what we have the most information on, and also what most affects "lessons learned". But I feel that it's premature to outright dismiss the other scenarios as "too much of a coincidence" when we don't have enough information to judge the odds.
P.S.: Van Nuys also reported 2.5 sm visibility, so a helicopter traveling at 120 kts would be able to look ahead more than a minute of flight time. We don't yet have information on what the visibility was in the hills, at altitude. Looking down through a thin fog layer is easier than being in it, so ground witnesses may not tell the whole story.
Last edited by Musician; 31st Jan 2020 at 10:41.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Northeast Area, USA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, of course I know all about declaring emergencies. When I was flying in the Navy I was taught to declare an emergency when necessary and I did so a number of times with great success. Suddenly you stop asking and start telling. However, I personally know a number of civilian trained pilots who think that the last thing in the world they might do is declare an emergency and one or two of them are no longer with us because of it. In at least one instance, I lost a good friend for the very reason that he failed to use his instrument rating and the IFR instruments in his aircraft when push came to shove when he ran out of airspace suitable for his VFR flight plan. The accident being discussed in this thread has a lot of similarities; i.e. deteriorating weather conditions with a sad ending.
(Then explain to your charter passengers the “Emergency” was a procedure to stay safe.)
Hopefully, you’re running ADS-B IN/OUT and clear your own traffic.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regards,
Grog
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Forbes:
"The helicopter that crashed Sunday killing basketball star Kobe Bryant and eight others was owned by a charter company that only operated under visual flight rules, and its pilots were not permitted to fly solely based on their cockpit gauges if they encountered weather that limited visibility, a former pilot for the company told Forbes."
...
...
I don't know if the pilot was current for IFR or not and I suspect that although the helicopter may have been suitably equipped, I'm guessing that the maintenance required for IFR flight was not up to date. So it's certain that more than one person would have to do an unpleasant rug-dance and somebody would be paying fines and/or be forced to deal with licensing problems some place down the line. But almost anything is better than slamming into a hillside.
"The helicopter that crashed Sunday killing basketball star Kobe Bryant and eight others was owned by a charter company that only operated under visual flight rules, and its pilots were not permitted to fly solely based on their cockpit gauges if they encountered weather that limited visibility, a former pilot for the company told Forbes."
...
...
I don't know if the pilot was current for IFR or not and I suspect that although the helicopter may have been suitably equipped, I'm guessing that the maintenance required for IFR flight was not up to date. So it's certain that more than one person would have to do an unpleasant rug-dance and somebody would be paying fines and/or be forced to deal with licensing problems some place down the line. But almost anything is better than slamming into a hillside.
A misleading indicator at the wrong time 'could' partly explain the final seconds of the flight. I suspect the answer is no but I have no knowledge of this so thought I would ask.
Another thought was triggered by Gums comment about passengers needing a bucket after the circling hold, is it possible that a passenger did something very distracting all over the pilot or instruments at just the wrong time. (Trying to avoid graphic image here but not possible I guess.)
Last edited by MurphyWasRight; 31st Jan 2020 at 14:07. Reason: typo now > no, added instruments
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post #336 is very interesting. I'm trying to understand what power setting, what pitch and roll attitude would have you maintaining a fairly constant AS, a slight climb but have a huge ROD that starts around 45:11 and last until about 45:21 where the AS does start to increase.
..is it possible..
it is possible they were distracted by a UFO, it is however very unlikely.
There is rarely anything out of the ordinary that causes these accidents. Not impossible, just statistically improbable.
"Just a pilot"
Almost all my civilian career was spent in VFR only Part 135 (charter) operations. I'm retired now.
The last 20 of those 48 years, even the VFR single engine aircraft had basic IFR gauges.
I worked single-engine VFR HEMS day/night for the last 16 years. The ops manual insisted that an IIMC event would be handled by a straight ahead climb to a safe altitude. It's completely contrary to one's strong initial impulse to crank around in a 180 or descend to visual. But the policy works, if you think rationally, get your instrument scan going and accept the situation. I think the mnemonic was recognize, admit and accept, climb, confess and comply. Or something like that.
In the 48 years, I flew about half my Vietnam tour year flying nights, providing illumination with aerial flares. You want a vivid spatial orientation demonstration? Fly over an aerial flare at night, in and out of the clouds- the Sun is underneath you. Trusting the gauges was empahtically reinforced early in my career.
But I digress, I flew "light twins", AS355s in the Gulf of Mexico on contracts with minimums of 300' ceiling and 2 miles. 130 knots in those conditions is idiotic, at best you have a minute to visually acquire, recognize and divert around an obstruction. The 355 I flew cruised at 120 or so, and a key cue that the conditions were dropping below minimums was the urge to slow down. Even a 120 in perfectly flat terrain is pretty fast.
I never had to complete any of the IIMC flights under IFR, offshore or HEMS. The climb and a short IFR flight to VFR conditions every time. I did land en route for weather, precautionary weather landings, including the occasional overnight dozens of times. The property owners, neighbors might be surprised, local law enforcement might show up to offer assistance, but I was never ever officially questioned, investigated.
I am curious about the last few minutes of the accident flight in which no, or very little communication between the pilot and ATC were reported. Was that to low for radio or was the pilot task saturated? If so, with what challenge? An iPad running Foreflight is a great tool, but it's also a distraction, diversion of attention at what I suspect was the critical point of the flight. Had he engaged the autopilot while he "Foreflighted"? Was there a discussion as to continuing, the passengers had a schedule, were expecting the service they hired? Were there other aircraft issues? If the pilot did not fully understand the autopilot's operation, was he trying to get that under control so he could have that assistance? Was the final climb and the descent the point at which an autopilot operational issue used up the last of the flight's time? Or, did whatever other issue running the last 4, 5 minutes finally cause a loss of control?
The last 20 of those 48 years, even the VFR single engine aircraft had basic IFR gauges.
I worked single-engine VFR HEMS day/night for the last 16 years. The ops manual insisted that an IIMC event would be handled by a straight ahead climb to a safe altitude. It's completely contrary to one's strong initial impulse to crank around in a 180 or descend to visual. But the policy works, if you think rationally, get your instrument scan going and accept the situation. I think the mnemonic was recognize, admit and accept, climb, confess and comply. Or something like that.
In the 48 years, I flew about half my Vietnam tour year flying nights, providing illumination with aerial flares. You want a vivid spatial orientation demonstration? Fly over an aerial flare at night, in and out of the clouds- the Sun is underneath you. Trusting the gauges was empahtically reinforced early in my career.
But I digress, I flew "light twins", AS355s in the Gulf of Mexico on contracts with minimums of 300' ceiling and 2 miles. 130 knots in those conditions is idiotic, at best you have a minute to visually acquire, recognize and divert around an obstruction. The 355 I flew cruised at 120 or so, and a key cue that the conditions were dropping below minimums was the urge to slow down. Even a 120 in perfectly flat terrain is pretty fast.
I never had to complete any of the IIMC flights under IFR, offshore or HEMS. The climb and a short IFR flight to VFR conditions every time. I did land en route for weather, precautionary weather landings, including the occasional overnight dozens of times. The property owners, neighbors might be surprised, local law enforcement might show up to offer assistance, but I was never ever officially questioned, investigated.
I am curious about the last few minutes of the accident flight in which no, or very little communication between the pilot and ATC were reported. Was that to low for radio or was the pilot task saturated? If so, with what challenge? An iPad running Foreflight is a great tool, but it's also a distraction, diversion of attention at what I suspect was the critical point of the flight. Had he engaged the autopilot while he "Foreflighted"? Was there a discussion as to continuing, the passengers had a schedule, were expecting the service they hired? Were there other aircraft issues? If the pilot did not fully understand the autopilot's operation, was he trying to get that under control so he could have that assistance? Was the final climb and the descent the point at which an autopilot operational issue used up the last of the flight's time? Or, did whatever other issue running the last 4, 5 minutes finally cause a loss of control?