Kobe Bryant killed in S76 crash
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Devil 49 - the AW139 RFM specifically prohibits the use of polarised sunglasses in the cockpit because of the blanking effect they have on the MFDs/PFDs so it is clearly aircraft and display specific. I don't know what the S76 displays are like or if there are similar limitations.
Airbubba, you pointed out that the NTSB document was
and indeed it is so titled. I seem to have seen various versions of it, with minor differences, such as having page numbers or not. That sort of thing is minor, but it makes you wonder whether you're looking at the same document.
But the thing that puzzles me about it is that it has no date on it, no reference number to identify it, and no signature or other indication of who wrote it. It's been described as a 'preliminary report' - but it doesn't seem to be the kind of formal preliminary report that accident investigation bodies usually publish within a month or so. Which is presumably why NTSB describes it as an investigative update.
Does this matter? I don't know - but I do know that I'd rather like my official documents to have some indication on them of when they were written and some way of identifying them.
airsound
labeled as an 'Aircraft Accident Investigative Update'.
But the thing that puzzles me about it is that it has no date on it, no reference number to identify it, and no signature or other indication of who wrote it. It's been described as a 'preliminary report' - but it doesn't seem to be the kind of formal preliminary report that accident investigation bodies usually publish within a month or so. Which is presumably why NTSB describes it as an investigative update.
Does this matter? I don't know - but I do know that I'd rather like my official documents to have some indication on them of when they were written and some way of identifying them.
airsound
Ah....we are back to the "What If'ing" againl
Now we are being told the climb to 4,000 feet was intended to complete the flight to the destination.
Then there is supposition about a "Hole".
Folks....you do not know what the Pilot's thinking was or what his intentions were.....beyond he reported making a climb to 4,000 feet to ATC.
A fair assumption is he was going to get to VFR On Top conditions.
After that.....you are just guessing what he had in mind upon getting back to VFR conditions.
Now we are being told the climb to 4,000 feet was intended to complete the flight to the destination.
Then there is supposition about a "Hole".
Folks....you do not know what the Pilot's thinking was or what his intentions were.....beyond he reported making a climb to 4,000 feet to ATC.
A fair assumption is he was going to get to VFR On Top conditions.
After that.....you are just guessing what he had in mind upon getting back to VFR conditions.
Hello. I'm a new time poster with no flight experience, so please be gentle. I'm here to ask a question of the experts. Are there any disciplinarily actions a pilot faces for inadvertent VFR flight into IMC? If so, do such potentially "punitive" actions disincentivize some pilots from taking actions such as declaring an emergency or "confessing" their predicament to ATC?
FAR 91.25 Prohibitis the use of ASRS reports for enforcement purposes: The Administrator of the FAA will not use reports submitted to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Aviation Safety Reporting Program (or information derived therefrom) in any enforcement action except information concerning accidents or criminal offenses which are wholly excluded from the Program.
ASRS Enforcement Restrictions. The FAA considers the filing of a report with NASA concerning an incident or occurrence involving a violation of 14 CFR to be indicative of a constructive attitude. Such an attitude will tend to prevent future violations. Accordingly, although a finding of violation may be made, neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be imposed if:
1. The violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;
2. The violation did not involve a criminal offense, accident, or action under 49 U.S.C. § 44709, which discloses a lack of qualification or competency, which is wholly excluded from this policy;
3. The person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have committed a violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII, or any regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the date of occurrence; and
4. The person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, or date when the person became aware or should have been aware of the violation, he or she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the incident or occurrence to NASA.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger in front
I posted earlier (#301) that iexhelicopters advertised this type of helicopter for 9 passengers on their website. That makes me conclude that having a passenger up front was not unusual for their operations. I can imagine the pilot asking, "which one of you wants to ride up front today?" But there were 8 seats in the back, so possibly nobody was in the front besides the pilot.
The NTSB will have found evidence: a seat that was empty post-crash with its harness intact may have been unoccupied, if the post-crash fire allows that determination to be made. It is possible that the "the passenger did it" scenario can be ruled out based on that.
If a passenger was in a front seat, then they'd have control if they touched the stick, since this is not a fly-by-wire aircraft, right? All of the passengers are old enough to know not to do that, so the person would have to have been panicking. But the flight path does not look how I'd expect a panicked person to fly (but then I don't know how they would).
Ever since SASless posted that sensibly, the pilot would have activated the autopilot for the climb, I had been wondering if it is possible on the S76B to disengage the autopilot accidentally. The famous predecessor accident for this is Eastern Air Lines Flight 401: the crew had put their passenger jet on "altitude hold" at 2000 feet while they tried to figure out why the gear down indicator wouldn't come on, and then someone jostled the yoke and the autopilot changed over to "attitude hold" and slowly descended into the Everglades. The common factor besides the low altitude is that looking out of the window didn't help, as it was dark; and here, they probably were in cloud.
It seems unlikely to me that the pilot would have accidentally disabled the autopilot and not noticed, even if he was distracted talking to the passengers or plotting a course, but could a passenger have done it? What would it take on that helicopter with these avionics, is it even possible to do accidentally?
To be very clear, I am assuming:
- a passenger was up front
- autopilot was active
- the passenger used a control
There is no evidence that any of these happened, and there are plenty of alternate explanations.
Last edited by Musician; 10th Feb 2020 at 15:21.
In the picture of the aircraft's cockpit is possible to see both Flight Directors' Mode Select Panels (I don't remember the nomenclature on the 76) and AL 300 displays on the front panel, instead of in the center console. So, I don't think a passenger could have decoupled without pilot notice, considering the other way to do so is pressing a button on the cyclic.
Last edited by Jimmy.; 10th Feb 2020 at 16:12.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been reading through this:
Somatogravic and Somatogyral Illusions
"Somatogravic and Somatogyral illusions are the two most common forms of vestibular or 'false sensation illusion' which may be encountered when no clear horizon is present and flying wholly or partly by visual external reference is attempted."skybraryDOTaero/index.php/Somatogravic_and_Somatogyral_Illusions (replace 'DOT' with '.')
I have experienced this while driving at night through light to moderate snowfall. Any visual reference to a fixed point is masked by weather, your brain tells you that YOU are the fixed point which creates the odd, unnerving sensation that you are standing still. You look at your tach and speedo, all is normal. I would imagine that as a pilot, with a third axis to deal with, the sensation is several times worse...
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somatogravic and Somatogyral Illusions
I have experienced this while driving at night through light to moderate snowfall. Any visual reference to a fixed point is masked by weather, your brain tells you that YOU are the fixed point which creates the odd, unnerving sensation that you are standing still. You look at your tach and speedo, all is normal. I would imagine that as a pilot, with a third axis to deal with, the sensation is several times worse...
I have experienced this while driving at night through light to moderate snowfall. Any visual reference to a fixed point is masked by weather, your brain tells you that YOU are the fixed point which creates the odd, unnerving sensation that you are standing still. You look at your tach and speedo, all is normal. I would imagine that as a pilot, with a third axis to deal with, the sensation is several times worse...
I would imagine that as a pilot, with a third axis to deal with, the sensation is several times worse...
That lack of movement cue that we normally get from our peripheral vision is the reason pilots on NVG are taught to scan to the side - your peripheral vision is removed when looking down the tubes, along with your stereoscopic depth of field.
The vection feeling is best seen on a train if you are stationary and looking out of the window at another train which then sets off - this will give you the sensation of movement because your only external visual cue is moving even though you have no proprioceptive feedback to confirm that your train has moved.
Musician posted a photo of the crash site rotated by 20 degrees which shows how the brain can be fooled by a powerful illusion - suddenly catching a glimpse of terrain in between layers of cloud could easily cause disorientation unless you cross check with your instruments (not easy to make yourself do at low level).
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the picture of the aircraft's cockpit is possible to see both Flight Directors' Mode Select Panels (I don't remember the nomenclature on the 76) and AL 300 displays on the front panel, instead of in the center console. So, I don't think a passenger could have decoupled without pilot notice, considering the other way to do so is pressing a button on the cyclic.
The big question is, how do you miss a rapid descent of over 1000 feet in 20 seconds?
Possible answers:
-- pilot looking outside (for traffic? terrain?)
-- pilot working with iPad (thought FD was coupled when it wasn't?)
-- pilot incapacitated
-- ...?
Where is the point when you say to yourself, "no use looking outside any more, time to go on instruments"? And not having flight following means you need to look out for traffic, right?
Musician wrote
With each passing day, the speculation and theories become ever wilder.
It seems unlikely to me that the pilot would have accidentally disabled the autopilot and not noticed, even if he was distracted talking to the passengers or plotting a course, but could a passenger have done it? What would it take on that helicopter with these avionics, is it even possible to do accidentally?
To be very clear, I am assuming:
- a passenger was up front
- autopilot was active
- the passenger used a control
There is no evidence that any of these happened, and there are plenty of alternate explanations.
To be very clear, I am assuming:
- a passenger was up front
- autopilot was active
- the passenger used a control
There is no evidence that any of these happened, and there are plenty of alternate explanations.
There have been a number of posts in this thread where pilots have shared their experiences with Inadvertent IMC/Unintentional IMC.
Even if you get on the gages immediately, it is easy to be/get behind the aircraft and be catching up if you enter IMC before you expect to.
Jim Eli a few pages back cited some FAA material on that topic.
According to the FAA Helicopter Flying Handbook, at the onset of IIMC:
“…pick a heading known to be free of obstacles and maintain it. This will likely be the heading you were already on, which was planned and briefed.”
“Try to avoid immediately turning 180°. Turning around is not always the safest route and executing a turn immediately after UIMC may lead to spatial disorientation.
If a 180° turn is the safest option, first note the heading you are on then begin the turn to the reciprocal heading, but only after stable flight is achieved…”
“Try to avoid immediately turning 180°. Turning around is not always the safest route and executing a turn immediately after UIMC may lead to spatial disorientation.
If a 180° turn is the safest option, first note the heading you are on then begin the turn to the reciprocal heading, but only after stable flight is achieved…”
If you just flew into the goo, just how much traffic do you expect to see, Musician?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 11th Feb 2020 at 12:52.
The Gospel extant is to use the Autopilot to the maximum extent possible if installed and serviceable.
@SASless: yeah, that too.
Maybe I need to rephrase that point for Musician's benefit: one needs to be on the gages Now (even with autopilot engaged) not Later.
Given Musician's posted location - Bremen - and me remembering German folk lore, - I cannot help but have this mental picture.
Maybe I need to rephrase that point for Musician's benefit: one needs to be on the gages Now (even with autopilot engaged) not Later.
Given Musician's posted location - Bremen - and me remembering German folk lore, - I cannot help but have this mental picture.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It had a SPZ 7000 when it was sold to Island Express in 2015, see the equipment list at https://ibid.illinois.gov/item.php?id=123331 .
Good point.
I still had that mental image of them being between the low cloud/fog layer in the valley and the higher cloud layer in the area, which means no horizon outside, but some horizontal visibility. Except that's not where they were any more.
(Yep, those are the original town musicians from Bremen!
)
I still had that mental image of them being between the low cloud/fog layer in the valley and the higher cloud layer in the area, which means no horizon outside, but some horizontal visibility. Except that's not where they were any more.
(Yep, those are the original town musicians from Bremen!
)
The 180 turn can be a problem, even in a fixed wing - My SAR crew and I were called out one day to look for a a missing Cessna with 3 on board which had departed Swansea and was heading through the Welsh hills to Halfpenny Green ISTR.
We tracked a 121.5 beacon up the Neath valley underneath the cloudbase and realised the signal was in or above the cloud so we followed it upslope in the gloop (hovertaxiing) and got a sufficient increase in visibility at the top to see a wood with 3 guys at the edge of it.
After landing on to let the winch op question them, it turned out they were the ones we were looking for and their Cessna was parked 45 degrees nose down in the middle of the wood.
If the pilot had executed a good 180, they would have smashed into the hillside - instead he pulled back on the stick, washed off the speed but gained enough altitude that when the aircraft stalled, they were about 20' from the top of the wood and it plopped in - no injuries.
Apologies as I have recounted this tale before but it seems pertinent here.
We tracked a 121.5 beacon up the Neath valley underneath the cloudbase and realised the signal was in or above the cloud so we followed it upslope in the gloop (hovertaxiing) and got a sufficient increase in visibility at the top to see a wood with 3 guys at the edge of it.
After landing on to let the winch op question them, it turned out they were the ones we were looking for and their Cessna was parked 45 degrees nose down in the middle of the wood.
If the pilot had executed a good 180, they would have smashed into the hillside - instead he pulled back on the stick, washed off the speed but gained enough altitude that when the aircraft stalled, they were about 20' from the top of the wood and it plopped in - no injuries.
Apologies as I have recounted this tale before but it seems pertinent here.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
The 180 turn can be a problem, ... their Cessna was parked 45 degrees nose down in the middle of the wood.
If the pilot had executed a good 180, they would have smashed into the hillside - instead he pulled back on the stick, washed off the speed but gained enough altitude that when the aircraft stalled, they were about 20' from the top of the wood and it plopped in - no injuries.
Apologies as I have recounted this tale before but it seems pertinent here.
If the pilot had executed a good 180, they would have smashed into the hillside - instead he pulled back on the stick, washed off the speed but gained enough altitude that when the aircraft stalled, they were about 20' from the top of the wood and it plopped in - no injuries.
Apologies as I have recounted this tale before but it seems pertinent here.
.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 11th Feb 2020 at 16:33.