Kobe Bryant killed in S76 crash
So true. The problem is, when the pilot who did all his IR training avoiding clouds, who was probably taught by a CFII who had done all of his training and instructing also avoiding clouds, one day finds himself in a cloud by himself only to discover the experience is now a much higher level of seriousness than expected. If it turns out the accident pilot found himself in a cloud for the first time, and he was by himself, not-with-standing his thousands of hours of experience, he was under a lot of pressure in an unfamiliar environment backed into a corner with no other way out.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Alaska
Age: 74
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From personal inflight 'learning'' experiences in airplanes: 1) A 180 degree turn can involve actually going IFR into the turn. It doesn't result in 'course reversal and it takes time to come back out of the cloud and then fly back into good conditions. If this is done in the vicinity of terrain (not recommended), then it takes a lot of concentration not to be distracted by the ground that can come into view below (even while on the guages) & 2) As a 'green' co-pilot, while gliding through the clouds (a longer story), I witnessed the captain looking outside for a 'hole' while he was allowing the airplane bank to steepen (to the left!). (I remember my knee bumping the yoke to prevent going more than 45 degrees. The point being, it's either VFR or IFR and avoid situations of trying to do both. First rule is to fly the aircraft!
In the S76 that is what you do. Feet on the floor. Hands off the controls. Control inputs come via pushing buttons or trim switches or turning knobs. Or, as SAS correctly pointed out, you can bump the cyclic flight control against the force trim spring pressure to make small adjustments on a precision approach. There is nothing that can go so wrong with the system or the aircraft where you need to be guarding the controls. Hands are sufficiently within reach to respond to any system disturbance that would require hands to go back on the controls. That is how you do it.
When you are a single pilot, 'George' is not your co-pilot.
George is a part of the machine that is trying to kill you.
You guard the controls when you select AP, or, you choose to be a passenger, which means that you are no longer The Pilot, you are just one more poor bastard along for the ride.
If you can't teach that to your students,then you are part of the problem.
The crash in question had One Pilot.
When you have a co-pilot, the context changes.
But at least one of you needs to behave like a friggin' pilot.
This message was brought to you by a helicopter pilot who was taught that the pilot flies the machine, and is a master of the machine's systems ... or is ******* dead along with every other poor bastard along for the ride.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 20th Feb 2020 at 02:46.
Lone.....when the other human pilot is flying the aircraft do you "guard" the controls in case he does something dangerous?
Climb down off that lofty steed you seem to be sat astride for a moment and consider what GB was really saying....not what you appear to have perceived.
He is not saying you lean back, and drag out a Kool, kick yer dancing pumps off, and prop yer hole filled sock on the center console and tune up your fav raggae music channel......he is talking about letting the Auto Pilot do exactly what it was designed to do....under the direct supervision of a human pilot
That for damn sure is what I am describing....which is not at all what you are describing.
You can attend to other duties in the cockpit while keeping a weather eye on George's performance.
You do understand we do this stuff single pilot in many of these machines don't you?
At some point you have to take your hands off the controls and divert your attention for short intervals out of necessity.
Think not....drop something. you need....and try to hold onto the controls while you fetch it off the cockpit floor....or look up a new. approach plate....or any number of tasks....like figure out a new routing ATC gives you that requires you to look at a paper chart.
Autopilots are pretty reliable these days....as long as you punch the right button or twist the right knob.
Climb down off that lofty steed you seem to be sat astride for a moment and consider what GB was really saying....not what you appear to have perceived.
He is not saying you lean back, and drag out a Kool, kick yer dancing pumps off, and prop yer hole filled sock on the center console and tune up your fav raggae music channel......he is talking about letting the Auto Pilot do exactly what it was designed to do....under the direct supervision of a human pilot
That for damn sure is what I am describing....which is not at all what you are describing.
You can attend to other duties in the cockpit while keeping a weather eye on George's performance.
You do understand we do this stuff single pilot in many of these machines don't you?
At some point you have to take your hands off the controls and divert your attention for short intervals out of necessity.
Think not....drop something. you need....and try to hold onto the controls while you fetch it off the cockpit floor....or look up a new. approach plate....or any number of tasks....like figure out a new routing ATC gives you that requires you to look at a paper chart.
Autopilots are pretty reliable these days....as long as you punch the right button or twist the right knob.
For an experienced pilot/sim instructor to be teaching pilots to "get their hands off of the controls" makes my skin crawl......do not become a passenger if you are the pilot
SAS, just saw your post, we did in fact fly single pilot prior to having co-pilots employed, and it complicated the job by having to make work, which brought about its own pitfalls. Had it been an IFR operation two crew would have been ideal, but it was VFR (tongue in cheek). To fly at night or IMC we had to crew with two captains, how fraught was that, two people who both thought they were in command, even though one had been designated.
Climb down off that lofty steed you seem to be sat astride for a moment and consider what GB was really saying....not what you appear to have perceived.
he is talking about letting the Auto Pilot do exactly what it was designed to do....under the direct supervision of a human pilot
That for damn sure is what I am describing....
You can attend to other duties in the cockpit while keeping a weather eye on George's performance.
You do understand we do this stuff single pilot in many of these machines don't you?
At some point you have to take your hands off the controls and divert your attention for short intervals out of necessity.
Autopilots are pretty reliable these days....as long as you punch the right button or twist the right knob.
SASless, how about we bring our attention back to the case in point, OK?
We must teach our children (the pilots that we train) well:
We are the pilot, not a passenger.
Megan,
You are describing the helicopter industry....where standards are flexible as one allows them to be.
I spent most of my time in the more backward locals known to Man....and the Industry.
The thing I noticed was professional standards followed the decline of personal standards.
That was as true of the customer as it was the operator and the staff of both.
Just as the only person who can cause you to lose your integrity is you yourself........so it is with your professional standards.
When you accept a lowered standard....that becomes the new standard....and in time follow that path and there are no standards.
I am still searching to see where this perception that anyone has said an Autopilot was a Co-Pilot that could be left alone to take care of business all by its lonesome.
No where have I seen a comment that described an Autopilot as being autonomous and is anything but a system that is to be used by a Pilot to ease the workload of mechanical tasks assigned to it by the Pilot.
As to redundant humans in the cockpit....that is not relevant to the tragedy under discussion.
Nor is the issue of confusion between humans as to who is actually in command.
As far as we know....perhaps even use or abuse of the Autopilot system may not apply.
You are describing the helicopter industry....where standards are flexible as one allows them to be.
I spent most of my time in the more backward locals known to Man....and the Industry.
The thing I noticed was professional standards followed the decline of personal standards.
That was as true of the customer as it was the operator and the staff of both.
Just as the only person who can cause you to lose your integrity is you yourself........so it is with your professional standards.
When you accept a lowered standard....that becomes the new standard....and in time follow that path and there are no standards.
I am still searching to see where this perception that anyone has said an Autopilot was a Co-Pilot that could be left alone to take care of business all by its lonesome.
No where have I seen a comment that described an Autopilot as being autonomous and is anything but a system that is to be used by a Pilot to ease the workload of mechanical tasks assigned to it by the Pilot.
As to redundant humans in the cockpit....that is not relevant to the tragedy under discussion.
Nor is the issue of confusion between humans as to who is actually in command.
As far as we know....perhaps even use or abuse of the Autopilot system may not apply.
Last edited by SASless; 20th Feb 2020 at 04:33.
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Pembroke
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice in the airplane world they have been talking about the issue of automation being so ubiquitous pilots lose their hand flying abilities. The first time I had an auto-pilot it took some getting used to. Eventually I learned to trust it, and in my opinion it made operations safer.
I think it will always come with some skill erosion but it’s probably less than airplane pilot’s experience. Much of my flight time required hands on the sticks, but I suppose that’s job dependent.
When the visibility was low or the weather was looking questionable it was pretty comforting to know I had it. And I fully intended to engage it if I lost the horizon. Then I monitored to make sure me and it agreed on which way is up. But I certainly saw some people who were reluctant to use it and saw it as something like a crutch for less skilled pilots. I know of two accidents that could have been avoided simply by engaging it. I suspect when this investigation is through that will be the case as well.
As far as the building skill vs losing it through automation stuff. I know that despite the skill erosion in many airplane pilots, they don’t seem to smack themselves into the ground as much when they hit clouds.
I think it will always come with some skill erosion but it’s probably less than airplane pilot’s experience. Much of my flight time required hands on the sticks, but I suppose that’s job dependent.
When the visibility was low or the weather was looking questionable it was pretty comforting to know I had it. And I fully intended to engage it if I lost the horizon. Then I monitored to make sure me and it agreed on which way is up. But I certainly saw some people who were reluctant to use it and saw it as something like a crutch for less skilled pilots. I know of two accidents that could have been avoided simply by engaging it. I suspect when this investigation is through that will be the case as well.
As far as the building skill vs losing it through automation stuff. I know that despite the skill erosion in many airplane pilots, they don’t seem to smack themselves into the ground as much when they hit clouds.
Listen close, boy.
When you are a single pilot, 'George' is not your co-pilot.
George is a part of the machine that is trying to kill you.
You guard the controls when you select AP, or, you choose to be a passenger, which means that you are no longer The Pilot, you are just one more poor bastard along for the ride.
If you can't teach that to your students,then you are part of the problem.
The crash in question had One Pilot.
When you have a co-pilot, the context changes.
But at least one of you needs to behave like a friggin' pilot.
This message was brought to you by a helicopter pilot who was taught that the pilot flies the machine, and is a master of the machine's systems ... or is ******* dead along with every other poor bastard along for the ride.
When you are a single pilot, 'George' is not your co-pilot.
George is a part of the machine that is trying to kill you.
You guard the controls when you select AP, or, you choose to be a passenger, which means that you are no longer The Pilot, you are just one more poor bastard along for the ride.
If you can't teach that to your students,then you are part of the problem.
The crash in question had One Pilot.
When you have a co-pilot, the context changes.
But at least one of you needs to behave like a friggin' pilot.
This message was brought to you by a helicopter pilot who was taught that the pilot flies the machine, and is a master of the machine's systems ... or is ******* dead along with every other poor bastard along for the ride.
Ive read some garbage on this thread and some very interesting useful stuff. Unfortunately with your comments, I have to agree with SASless. The AP is there to make the machine easier to fly. Switch the AP’s off and the ride becomes hard work in an S76. Not impossible by any stretch, but once the AP’s are engaged, the 76 is very stable with no FD modes engaged.
If you now engage the FD modes for say ALT and HDG, you then monitor what it does and can intervene easily if you don’t agree with the inputs. Any machine or system can fail, but from every single instructor or examiner that I’ve flown with in the S76 for 15 years, all over the world, they all say if the sh*t starts to hit the fan, engage the FD modes to help you out and reduce workload a little if you can. Not one of them has ever said ‘oh just disengage the autopilot because its trying to kill you’
Now you come along and spout crap about George is trying to kill you? I have to say I disagree very strongly with your statements. I wouldn’t be surprised if the press pick up your comments and use them for Sensationalist Headlines. “Autopilots, The Killers In The Aircraft!”
Chief Bottle Washer
We’re rapidly into Hamsterwheel territory; fascinating as the S76 lessons are they are becoming irrelevant to the thread. I’d rather not come and moderate posts but if you want a discussion on S76 variances and flying then maybe take them to a dedicated thread, please?
The same goes for FR24 and ADS-B rinse and repeats
Meanwhile let’s get back on topic
The same goes for FR24 and ADS-B rinse and repeats
Meanwhile let’s get back on topic
Time to close the thread until there’s something new about the accident
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Age: 59
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SVFR at LAX
This is a question for those that fly the LAX-area helicopter routes. Various news outlets are reporting that Ari Zobayan had incurred a violation in 2015 and part of the circumstances were that he had requested to transit LAX Class B airspace using SVFR. I don't have a helicopter route chart, but the terminal area chart (and, I believe, the sectional) show that the LAX Class B is "NO SVFR". As a non-commercial fixed wing pilot it would never even occur to me to try to ask for something like that--the message seems clear! So two questions--was this marking in place on the charts back in 2015? And, is this a hard and fast rule or is it something you can still request and have granted if circumstances permit?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The notation on the chart isn't clear as the no SVFR restriction comes from Part 91, Appendix D, Section 3 which says "Locations at which fixed-wing Special VFR operations are prohibited."
FOX had an article on this.
The FAA said it was a one time event, did not indicate a continuing problem, took no action beyond a counseling session, the Operator conducted Remedial Training, and that was the end of it.
Had there been a serious violation the FAA would have taken Certificate Action.....they did not.
Since that event the Pilot had no violation record of any kind.
Shawn Coyle, well known around these parts, says pretty much what I just have.
Shawn notes that it is not uncommon for a Pilot to have violated a Rule sometime in their career.....I agree and plead guilty.
I once found myself inside a control zone under IFR, confessed my Sin, received a SVFR Clearance "OUT of...." the Control Zone.
Upon landing...called the Tower....apologized....and received forgiveness.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/pilot...-flying-report
Move on folks.....old news of no importance.
The FAA said it was a one time event, did not indicate a continuing problem, took no action beyond a counseling session, the Operator conducted Remedial Training, and that was the end of it.
Had there been a serious violation the FAA would have taken Certificate Action.....they did not.
Since that event the Pilot had no violation record of any kind.
Shawn Coyle, well known around these parts, says pretty much what I just have.
Shawn notes that it is not uncommon for a Pilot to have violated a Rule sometime in their career.....I agree and plead guilty.
I once found myself inside a control zone under IFR, confessed my Sin, received a SVFR Clearance "OUT of...." the Control Zone.
Upon landing...called the Tower....apologized....and received forgiveness.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/pilot...-flying-report
Move on folks.....old news of no importance.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 59
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not how SVFR works here. It doesn't matter what you "report". The airspace is VFR or it isn't, decided by official weather reporting, not the pilot.
Gulli also overlooks the fact that the weather could be clear, blue, and 22 where the pilot is....and IFR where the Tower or weather measurement equipment is located.
Despite the runways being visible for a full half of their length....due to the way fog formed/dissipated.....several places I have worked out of had that as a common occurrence.
The Official weather controls of course....but blanket statements fail to consider reality sometimes.
In Olympia Washington the Tower Cab used to be in the sunshine looking out to Mt. Rainier but the airfield was IFR due to ground fog.
Even if they could see half the runway....they were still IFR.
Despite the runways being visible for a full half of their length....due to the way fog formed/dissipated.....several places I have worked out of had that as a common occurrence.
The Official weather controls of course....but blanket statements fail to consider reality sometimes.
In Olympia Washington the Tower Cab used to be in the sunshine looking out to Mt. Rainier but the airfield was IFR due to ground fog.
Even if they could see half the runway....they were still IFR.
it’s easy to get fixated on rules vs met definitions. All below are lawful possibilities:
VFR in VMC
VFR in IMC (uncontrolled airspace)
SVFR in IMC (controlled airspace)
IFR in VMC
IFR in IMC
Depends on the airspace. What is suitable and safe depends on a whole load of things.
What is not lawful is flying VFR in cloud.
VFR in VMC
VFR in IMC (uncontrolled airspace)
SVFR in IMC (controlled airspace)
IFR in VMC
IFR in IMC
Depends on the airspace. What is suitable and safe depends on a whole load of things.
What is not lawful is flying VFR in cloud.
Last edited by Torquetalk; 23rd Feb 2020 at 14:12.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The Great Sovereign State of Texas
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I happened to stumble across this short clip a few days ago. I tried to page back to see if I was posting a redundant link and couldn't locate it, so here goes. Personally, I thought it was rather well spoken and, although it doesn't bring any real "new" discussion points to the thread, it does bring out a few new talking points regarding current industry standards vs. type of operation and a few thought provoking analogies and other comparisons that point toward this accident. Like several others here, I've been flying these things for a while (45+ years), and I've worked both sides; "line" pilot and "Kool-Aid" drinking "manager" pilot and from my seat, find this thread has quite a bit of excellent commentary on the accident, speculation/ supposition of cause and effect, as well as educational commentaries aimed at future risk mitigation and avoidance.
I hope we can keep the thread alive for those safety/ educational considerations it has and hopefully will continue to generate. Look, I'm just an old West Texas ****-kicker and probably not smart enough to enter into the actual foray, as compared to a lot of folks here, but if this ongoing discussion causes one pilot to take note and re-analyze his current or planned situation so to avoid such an outcome, that's our end goal. I glad to see it's been re-opened and I say; "let's keep 'er going". Y'all please, be safe.
I hope we can keep the thread alive for those safety/ educational considerations it has and hopefully will continue to generate. Look, I'm just an old West Texas ****-kicker and probably not smart enough to enter into the actual foray, as compared to a lot of folks here, but if this ongoing discussion causes one pilot to take note and re-analyze his current or planned situation so to avoid such an outcome, that's our end goal. I glad to see it's been re-opened and I say; "let's keep 'er going". Y'all please, be safe.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Age: 59
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOX had an article on this.
The FAA said it was a one time event, did not indicate a continuing problem, took no action beyond a counseling session, the Operator conducted Remedial Training, and that was the end of it.
Had there been a serious violation the FAA would have taken Certificate Action.....they did not.
Since that event the Pilot had no violation record of any kind.
Shawn Coyle, well known around these parts, says pretty much what I just have.
Shawn notes that it is not uncommon for a Pilot to have violated a Rule sometime in their career.....I agree and plead guilty.
I once found myself inside a control zone under IFR, confessed my Sin, received a SVFR Clearance "OUT of...." the Control Zone.
Upon landing...called the Tower....apologized....and received forgiveness.
Move on folks.....old news of no importance.
The FAA said it was a one time event, did not indicate a continuing problem, took no action beyond a counseling session, the Operator conducted Remedial Training, and that was the end of it.
Had there been a serious violation the FAA would have taken Certificate Action.....they did not.
Since that event the Pilot had no violation record of any kind.
Shawn Coyle, well known around these parts, says pretty much what I just have.
Shawn notes that it is not uncommon for a Pilot to have violated a Rule sometime in their career.....I agree and plead guilty.
I once found myself inside a control zone under IFR, confessed my Sin, received a SVFR Clearance "OUT of...." the Control Zone.
Upon landing...called the Tower....apologized....and received forgiveness.
Move on folks.....old news of no importance.
First, this happened on the south side of LAX right where the boundary where Class B airspace goes directly from 100/50 to 100/SFC. To allow operations at Hawthorne and various helipads, including the LA Sheriff's Dept, they've pushed this 100/SFC boundary very close to LAX. At one point this boundary is only a few hundred feet away from the runway of one of the busiest airports in the world. This boundary matches a clearly visible highway and everyone that flies this area knows never to cross over it. I'm sure the local ATC takes incursions across this wall very seriously.
Second, there is the SVFR request itself and the subsequent statement that he was in VFR. Given the specifics of the area, I'd be shocked if they did allow SVFR transits given the other traffic and the potential consequences of popping up. I don't know the pilots destination on that day, but unless there's a landing spot right inside the boundary, I just can't see it being allowed. I found a helicopter chart and it also lists the area as 'NO SVFR'. I'd post a picture if I could, but I'd really like to know from a local if that 'NO SVFR' is actually a hard and fast rule that applies to helicopters. If it is, then perhaps it reflects poorly on the pilot that he even asked for it.
I have heard the event happened like the following.......
How does that compare to what you are describing?
The transition he requested was north on the 110 freeway which was clear and blue. The field was IFR with marine layer extending to the 405 freeway. He was VFR 10 miles east of that. Hawthorn cleared him. He orbited over the 105/110 freeway while waiting for LAX to clear him. Which is 1/10th of a mile north of the Hawthorn center-line and on the edge of the bravo. The LAX controller thought his orbit put him north of the intersection and called him out on the radio. He was not violated but counseled instead. He was not scud running.