Kobe Bryant killed in S76 crash
Outwest - it could just be that the data isn't as accurate or reliable in those last few moments.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Outwest - it could just be that the data isn't as accurate or reliable in those last few moments.
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.
2) From 45:08 to 45:18, there is not a "a huge ROD." There is a reduction in rate of climb, from 1800 fpm to zero (read from the scale on the left). Which is consistent with the aircraft leveling off at ~2100 MSL, as the altitude track indicates.
3) this is a rotorcraft, and within limits, it is easy to hold a constant airspeed (even zero) while creating a high ROD/ROC. It is called "raising or lowering the collective" (angle of attack of all the rotor blades). Lower the collective a bit (with perhaps a slight cyclic adjustment to hold pitch) and one can come down, or level off, with no change in AS.
The ability to disconnect ROC/D from airspeed is one of the key useful features of rotorcraft - they can go up or down with no airspeed change (or no airspeed at all).
4) now, after 45:18, things seem to go out of control (huge increase in descent rate, with corresponding increase in AS) - but I bow to the opinions of the pros as to what occurred then.
Salute!
Thanks, Devil.
I flew under those flares in 1968 over the Trail hitting supply trucks( Blindbat dropped them) and down in III Corps and IV Corps for CAS missions when Spooky dropped them. Very much a disorienting experience and a constant reference to the gauges was the key to survival.
Secondly, the straight ahead climb "plan B" is a good one. If you have super situation awareness and are very familiar with the terrain, you may want a turn, but in a split second IIMC, the straight ahead climb will work 90% or more of the time versus much less of a % that you will hit the rocks.
As others here have made clear, the transition from scud running or simply going over a ridge and entering WOXOFF requires some plan B you have burned into your bag of tricks while sitting in the line for your haircut.
Gums sends...
Thanks, Devil.
I flew under those flares in 1968 over the Trail hitting supply trucks( Blindbat dropped them) and down in III Corps and IV Corps for CAS missions when Spooky dropped them. Very much a disorienting experience and a constant reference to the gauges was the key to survival.
Secondly, the straight ahead climb "plan B" is a good one. If you have super situation awareness and are very familiar with the terrain, you may want a turn, but in a split second IIMC, the straight ahead climb will work 90% or more of the time versus much less of a % that you will hit the rocks.
As others here have made clear, the transition from scud running or simply going over a ridge and entering WOXOFF requires some plan B you have burned into your bag of tricks while sitting in the line for your haircut.
Gums sends...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose my choice of words should have been " a huge change in ROD" I have never in 42 years been able to see a helicopter increase altitude while simultaneously having a ROD at a constant AS......but then I'm constantly still learning.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
For what it’s worth, FR24 certainly can’t be treated as gospel. I was being curious and tracking a helicopter on FR24 only a day ago, the same type that I fly. I watched it flew past here on a constant heading at about 120 knots. FR24 showed a ground speed of 307 knots (!) then zero and showed it carrying out a couple of tight 360 degree turns, which it certainly never did.
This from Daily Mail Newspaper posts
I suspect that a lot of helicopter customers are going to be asking LOTS more questions about safety equipment and certifications from now on. They'll probably be telling their pilots to put the helicopter on the ground ANYWHERE so they can get out if they get into very foggy conditions. Who cares if it might hurt the pilot's EGO.
This is the point - the helicopter should have not flown in the conditions observers say existed.
If Heli is in good flying condition it should have gone for safety on the ground and waited - even a few minuets waiting for a weather change is what many pilots would do.
Going back a bit, Military flying in Canada as Duty pilot towards 2300 hrs radio burst into life asking that the Picnic Hamper could be flown out to the Ex ends location- weather grotty - decided to say NO - radios with now the Brigadier demanding I flew was given a further reply NO - a career change coming I feared - Captain stayed put until weather improved !
I suspect that a lot of helicopter customers are going to be asking LOTS more questions about safety equipment and certifications from now on. They'll probably be telling their pilots to put the helicopter on the ground ANYWHERE so they can get out if they get into very foggy conditions. Who cares if it might hurt the pilot's EGO.
This is the point - the helicopter should have not flown in the conditions observers say existed.
If Heli is in good flying condition it should have gone for safety on the ground and waited - even a few minuets waiting for a weather change is what many pilots would do.
Going back a bit, Military flying in Canada as Duty pilot towards 2300 hrs radio burst into life asking that the Picnic Hamper could be flown out to the Ex ends location- weather grotty - decided to say NO - radios with now the Brigadier demanding I flew was given a further reply NO - a career change coming I feared - Captain stayed put until weather improved !
Last edited by Michael Gee; 31st Jan 2020 at 15:48. Reason: spacing
Most fr24 readings are done via mlat which requires you to be in range of multiple ground receivers, not to mention delays in sending disparate readings back to the cloud mothership.
At low level this can be tricky so the readings can’t be taken as gospel.
At low level this can be tricky so the readings can’t be taken as gospel.
For what it’s worth, FR24 certainly can’t be treated as gospel. I was being curious and tracking a helicopter on FR24 only a day ago, the same type that I fly. I watched it flew past here on a constant heading at about 120 knots. FR24 showed a ground speed of 307 knots (!) then zero and showed it carrying out a couple of tight 360 degree turns, which it certainly never did.
If the terrain is not conducive for reliable radio transmissions, the FR24 receivers will likely have a hard time plotting it too. Particularly if they were MLAT-ing it.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I live 10 min from the crash site and work 5 min from there. If my office faced the other way I could see the site. As a local GA flyer in this area I know the terrain well and as a hiker in those hills I am very familiar with the location.
I just happened to be in my office Sunday morning about 30 min after the crash ( didn't know it at the time of course) and I can tell you that the hills that are across the 101fwy from me were blanketed in fog ( or june gloom as we call it) and they are less than 1000msl. looking out my window, I thought to myself no way to be flying in this soup this morning.
I am very curious about this pilots decision making, I suspect ( but don't know for sure) that had he continued to track along the 118 fwy on the north end of the valley, gone over the Santa Susana pass (2500 gets you over that and keeps you out of the Burbank class C shelf ), he would have been in the clear over Simi Valley and could have gone the long way round to KCMA. Coming out of VNY in low cloud days that is typically what I do , once over Simi, you are usually in clear skies and can go on your way.
People asked if he could have followed the coast, but id suspect it would have been socked in also, He chose the right route, but just took it too far.
I've driven past the crash site, and the fightradar24 location and the actual location seem a little off on the pictures I've seen. Reports that he just missed the top of the hill are a little misleading, he may have missed the top of that particular hill buy 30 ft but 100 yards beyond that hill is another one 1000ft higher. he basically plowed it in to the middle of the range.
Had he hit the top of the next one he would of wiped out some multi millon $$ homes, ( back side of "the Oaks" community)
Even being familiar with the area, and if the helicopter wasn't equipped for IFR, surely a simple iPad for foreflight would have kept him clear of the terrain
Pretty sure this is going to get blamed on the pilot, on multiple levels.
Very sad for all involved.
I just happened to be in my office Sunday morning about 30 min after the crash ( didn't know it at the time of course) and I can tell you that the hills that are across the 101fwy from me were blanketed in fog ( or june gloom as we call it) and they are less than 1000msl. looking out my window, I thought to myself no way to be flying in this soup this morning.
I am very curious about this pilots decision making, I suspect ( but don't know for sure) that had he continued to track along the 118 fwy on the north end of the valley, gone over the Santa Susana pass (2500 gets you over that and keeps you out of the Burbank class C shelf ), he would have been in the clear over Simi Valley and could have gone the long way round to KCMA. Coming out of VNY in low cloud days that is typically what I do , once over Simi, you are usually in clear skies and can go on your way.
People asked if he could have followed the coast, but id suspect it would have been socked in also, He chose the right route, but just took it too far.
I've driven past the crash site, and the fightradar24 location and the actual location seem a little off on the pictures I've seen. Reports that he just missed the top of the hill are a little misleading, he may have missed the top of that particular hill buy 30 ft but 100 yards beyond that hill is another one 1000ft higher. he basically plowed it in to the middle of the range.
Had he hit the top of the next one he would of wiped out some multi millon $$ homes, ( back side of "the Oaks" community)
Even being familiar with the area, and if the helicopter wasn't equipped for IFR, surely a simple iPad for foreflight would have kept him clear of the terrain
Pretty sure this is going to get blamed on the pilot, on multiple levels.
Very sad for all involved.
CFIT vs LOC
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Just because it didn't impact with wings level doesn't make it non-CFIT.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
cpnc - you win the prize for the most pointless post on this thread so far.
The point made here, and substantiated with supporting evidence, is that not all mechanical failures lead to in-flight breakup.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N72EX was sending full ADS-B data, MLAT was not in the equation. playback shows five different ground station FR24 radar callsigns:
F-KLGB3
T-KWHP7
F-KMSO2
T-KNSA63
F-KWJF1
If mlat were being used, the data frames would have shown 'MLAT-1' or 'MLAT-2'.
F-KLGB3
T-KWHP7
F-KMSO2
T-KNSA63
F-KWJF1
If mlat were being used, the data frames would have shown 'MLAT-1' or 'MLAT-2'.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: US
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"The clouds sat about 300 feet off the ground, witnesses near the crash scene said."
N72EX was at 2100-2115 ft altitude as per its ADS-B transmissions as the highest level of its flight path.
It may seem like semantics, but if the aircraft is going in a different direction to which you intended, then it’s LOC, no matter how firmly you are attached to the levers.
NTSB has an axe to grind?
NBC News: FAA overruled safety system that 'could have helped' in Kobe Bryant helicopter crash
It seems that the NTSB have an axe to grind with the FAA about their numerous rejected recommendations!
It is regrettable that the NTSB uses this high profile accident to attack the FAA regarding the NTSB’s TAWS recommendation.
TAWS helps an IFR flight to stay away from terrain. Here we deal with an VFR flight that went into IMC (“conditions”) but never adopted IFR (“rules”). The pilot was acutely aware of the proximity of terrain (so no further benefit of a TAWS telling him) and used his limited or otherwise abilities to get away from it.
Even more shocking I find that the NTSB, of all good people, by making this statement implies - at this early stage of the investigation - that the accident was caused by pilot error. Because the only possible way a TAWS would help is by supplying information to the unaware pilot in a presumed good aircraft, which he can then use fly a different course. If the a/c goes technical, or the pilot as a medical problem, TAWS would of course not make a difference.
Edit: fixed TAWS-related spelling error.
The NTSB has previously recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration require helicopters like the one that crashed Sunday to incorporate the technology, but the agency declined, she said. Aviation safety experts have said TAWS systems have saved countless lives."Certainly, TAWS could have helped," Homendy said, but she said she couldn't conclude that its use could have prevented the crash.
It is regrettable that the NTSB uses this high profile accident to attack the FAA regarding the NTSB’s TAWS recommendation.
TAWS helps an IFR flight to stay away from terrain. Here we deal with an VFR flight that went into IMC (“conditions”) but never adopted IFR (“rules”). The pilot was acutely aware of the proximity of terrain (so no further benefit of a TAWS telling him) and used his limited or otherwise abilities to get away from it.
Even more shocking I find that the NTSB, of all good people, by making this statement implies - at this early stage of the investigation - that the accident was caused by pilot error. Because the only possible way a TAWS would help is by supplying information to the unaware pilot in a presumed good aircraft, which he can then use fly a different course. If the a/c goes technical, or the pilot as a medical problem, TAWS would of course not make a difference.
Edit: fixed TAWS-related spelling error.
Last edited by Hot and Hi; 31st Jan 2020 at 19:22.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: US
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, Homendy also called out FAA for not requiring FDR (and CVR), which I think was more appropriate, because that certainly would have helped the NTSB investigation, which would lead to better safety in the future.
Let's fix this
Terrain awareness/avoidance/ alert warning system or TAWS. Not TWAS. Although everyone will know what you mean. With all the confusion over TCAD versus TCAS and their many derivitives, which actually are different, as defined by most, it can help to use standardized acronyms. Call me picky or worse, no issue there.
Most on this forum probably agree that TAWS would not have saved these people unless the pilot were moving much much slower, in which case if ( the assumed) loss of control due to vertigo was the cause, it might have been avoided anyway. Even with that, we all know the irritation of flying low level all day and having to mute the system if possible. Same with TCAS when approaching airports, when they are busy. Acceptance and favor of these systems is also personal. Some like them, some don't. I do think that all HEMS operators should have TAWS. I also think that any 135 IFR helicopter operation should also have both systems; if for no other reason than the safety of the clueless passengers in the rarest of rare occasions that it works with a positive outcome. The latter leads me to my point. I wonder how many instances of TAWS alerts have actually snapped someone to attention so they could make successful corrective action and live to fly again? Any there I was stories are appreciated. Deus ex machina.
Most on this forum probably agree that TAWS would not have saved these people unless the pilot were moving much much slower, in which case if ( the assumed) loss of control due to vertigo was the cause, it might have been avoided anyway. Even with that, we all know the irritation of flying low level all day and having to mute the system if possible. Same with TCAS when approaching airports, when they are busy. Acceptance and favor of these systems is also personal. Some like them, some don't. I do think that all HEMS operators should have TAWS. I also think that any 135 IFR helicopter operation should also have both systems; if for no other reason than the safety of the clueless passengers in the rarest of rare occasions that it works with a positive outcome. The latter leads me to my point. I wonder how many instances of TAWS alerts have actually snapped someone to attention so they could make successful corrective action and live to fly again? Any there I was stories are appreciated. Deus ex machina.