Kobe Bryant killed in S76 crash
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Age: 59
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know whose version that is, but it sounds a bit like how I would describe it if I was his lawyer. 
The 110 Harbor Freeway is about 5 miles off the east end of the runways, not 10. The weather could have been as described, but if it was 'clear and blue' I don't know why he would have asked for SVFR. As far as ATC 'thinking his orbit put him north', I'd assume they'll have an exact track--it won't be a matter of opinion. And that boundary is clearly visible on the ground as the Imperial Highway, so there's really no excuse for crossing it if the weather is 'clear and blue'. As for the rest of it, I just couldn't tell you.
The 110 Harbor Freeway is about 5 miles off the east end of the runways, not 10. The weather could have been as described, but if it was 'clear and blue' I don't know why he would have asked for SVFR. As far as ATC 'thinking his orbit put him north', I'd assume they'll have an exact track--it won't be a matter of opinion. And that boundary is clearly visible on the ground as the Imperial Highway, so there's really no excuse for crossing it if the weather is 'clear and blue'. As for the rest of it, I just couldn't tell you.
You can’t be “in VFR”. The met conditions are either VMC or IMC. If LAX was IMC and he wanted a clearance to transit controlled airspace, then VFR would not be an option. It’s IFR or SVFR or fly around.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Age: 59
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, operating under VFR in VMC, requesting to continue on a VFR clearance. However, I'm not sure about your other statement and I've heard differing opinions on whether ATC can allow you to transit one area of their airspace under VFR, assuming that your entire transit route will be VMC, whilst the airport itself is reporting IMC. It doesn't really matter here because the issue is that he entered without a clearance at all, but I'm just wondering if this is clearly defined somewhere. I found a discussion of this on a controllers forum and even they were not in agreement.
The weather requirements for flying VFR in various classes of airspace are codified in 14 CFR 91.155, which states in part:
"§ 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and § 91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table: ..."
Notice the reg says "...flight visibility is ..." and "distance from clouds that is..." In the context of a pilot, "is" has only one meaning: that flight visibility experienced by the pilot at the time of observation. Likewise, in promulgating Amendment 91-262 to Part 91 in 2000, the FAA said:(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and § 91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table: ..."
"Flight visibility is also defined in 14 CFR section 1.1 and must be determined by a pilot from the cockpit while an aircraft is airborne." (65FR16113: Part 91 Amdt; No. 91-262, March 24, 2000)
In order for ATC to not require a SVFR, they need to know that you can maintain VFR (and thereby lessening their load and providing most of your own separation). Therefore, when you call for your transition, you need to advise them that you are, and can maintain VFR throughout your transition.
I do this on certain routes flying power lines in Northern California, and the first time I tried, I had to call the tower and explain this. If you know Barry Lloyd, he has a presentation on this very subject.
Great video Sandblaster
Back to Kobe Bryant's crash and ISTR the only reason the aircraft went North and was offered SVFR was because of the volume of traffic departing South from the airport - this seems to have been the controller trying to be helpful because the alternative was a long hold before crossing South under the departure lane.
Faced with a ,long hold and the inevitable desire to get his pax to their destination on time, I'm sure most pilots would have taken this option.
Trouble is, once clear of the controlled airspace, he can't be SVFR and must declare he is in VFR weather limits to legally continue flight. This seems to have coincided with the weather actually being worse - and now he has painted himself into a bit of a corner and convinces himself the best option is to carry on since the weather MUST get better as he gets down towards the highway.
So when it doesn't, he is royally screwed - then leaves one of his options too late (turn round or climb) and then as he hits the marine layer, tries to do both at once - the rest is sadly history.
If you go back to an earlier time in the flight, there were plenty of opportunities to take a safer (if more time consuming) option (hold, land, return to base etc) but once committed to the North routing, SVFR into VFR, worsening weather and tricky terrain, the holes in the swiss cheese really started to line up.
Until he entered cloud, he always had the option of slowdown, go down turn round or land and this is the message that still fails to be understood by pilots.
Back to Kobe Bryant's crash and ISTR the only reason the aircraft went North and was offered SVFR was because of the volume of traffic departing South from the airport - this seems to have been the controller trying to be helpful because the alternative was a long hold before crossing South under the departure lane.
Faced with a ,long hold and the inevitable desire to get his pax to their destination on time, I'm sure most pilots would have taken this option.
Trouble is, once clear of the controlled airspace, he can't be SVFR and must declare he is in VFR weather limits to legally continue flight. This seems to have coincided with the weather actually being worse - and now he has painted himself into a bit of a corner and convinces himself the best option is to carry on since the weather MUST get better as he gets down towards the highway.
So when it doesn't, he is royally screwed - then leaves one of his options too late (turn round or climb) and then as he hits the marine layer, tries to do both at once - the rest is sadly history.
If you go back to an earlier time in the flight, there were plenty of opportunities to take a safer (if more time consuming) option (hold, land, return to base etc) but once committed to the North routing, SVFR into VFR, worsening weather and tricky terrain, the holes in the swiss cheese really started to line up.
Until he entered cloud, he always had the option of slowdown, go down turn round or land and this is the message that still fails to be understood by pilots.
If you, as a pilot, believe you won't become a statistic because of your experience, skill or knowledge the you are very likely to be be closer to becoming one.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a Class B surface area to boot, where air carrier aircraft are in landing configuration, and most vulnerable to unauthorized aircraft infringing on their approach path. That is what Class B is all about: positive separation at low altitude.
Extract from LA Times article - a sick or witty pun?
”That’s not how it works. It shows that perhaps his understanding of special VFR as opposed to VFR was cloudy.”
LA Times article
”That’s not how it works. It shows that perhaps his understanding of special VFR as opposed to VFR was cloudy.”
LA Times article
Commenting in general here, I do it all the time.
The weather requirements for flying VFR in various classes of airspace are codified in 14 CFR 91.155, which states in part:
"Flight visibility is also defined in 14 CFR section 1.1 and must be determined by a pilot from the cockpit while an aircraft is airborne." (65FR16113: Part 91 Amdt; No. 91-262, March 24, 2000)
In order for ATC to not require a SVFR, they need to know that you can maintain VFR (and thereby lessening their load and providing most of your own separation). Therefore, when you call for your transition, you need to advise them that you are, and can maintain VFR throughout your transition.
I do this on certain routes flying power lines in Northern California, and the first time I tried, I had to call the tower and explain this. If you know Barry Lloyd, he has a presentation on this very subject.
The weather requirements for flying VFR in various classes of airspace are codified in 14 CFR 91.155, which states in part:
"§ 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and § 91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table: ..."
Notice the reg says "...flight visibility is ..." and "distance from clouds that is..." In the context of a pilot, "is" has only one meaning: that flight visibility experienced by the pilot at the time of observation. Likewise, in promulgating Amendment 91-262 to Part 91 in 2000, the FAA said:(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and § 91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table: ..."
"Flight visibility is also defined in 14 CFR section 1.1 and must be determined by a pilot from the cockpit while an aircraft is airborne." (65FR16113: Part 91 Amdt; No. 91-262, March 24, 2000)
In order for ATC to not require a SVFR, they need to know that you can maintain VFR (and thereby lessening their load and providing most of your own separation). Therefore, when you call for your transition, you need to advise them that you are, and can maintain VFR throughout your transition.
I do this on certain routes flying power lines in Northern California, and the first time I tried, I had to call the tower and explain this. If you know Barry Lloyd, he has a presentation on this very subject.
Gordy,
The more relevant FAR is:
§ 135.205 VFR: Visibility requirements.
(b) No person may operate a helicopter under VFR in Class G airspace at an altitude of 1,200 feet or less above the surface or within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport unless the visibility is at least -
(1) During the day - 1/2 mile; or
(2) At night - 1 mile.
Gordy,
The more relevant FAR is:
§ 135.205 VFR: Visibility requirements.
(b) No person may operate a helicopter under VFR in Class G airspace at an altitude of 1,200 feet or less above the surface or within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport unless the visibility is at least -
(1) During the day - 1/2 mile; or
(2) At night - 1 mile.
The more relevant FAR is:
§ 135.205 VFR: Visibility requirements.
(b) No person may operate a helicopter under VFR in Class G airspace at an altitude of 1,200 feet or less above the surface or within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport unless the visibility is at least -
(1) During the day - 1/2 mile; or
(2) At night - 1 mile.
I fly power lines all the time, and can fly in airports that are reporting conditions less than VFR, yet if I can maintain VFR, I can fly through it. A good example is Napa County airport, (KAPC), where a marine layer will sit on the Southern side of their airspace, where the lower one third of the class delta is 2nm visibilty. I fly a line on the North side where the "flight visibility" is 10nm. I can legally fly East to West through that airspace without requesting a SVFR. Obviously I would not fly below 1/2 mile vis. What am I missing?
In related news: a wrongful death suit has been filed.
(Predictable outcome of an accident with fatalities)
While that does not have anything to do with how to fly the S-76, and what is or isn't SVFR ...
... it does pertain to the overall environment in which professional pilots operate.
@gulibell:
apologies for the tone I took there.
I could have said what I had to say better than I did.
(Predictable outcome of an accident with fatalities)
While that does not have anything to do with how to fly the S-76, and what is or isn't SVFR ...
... it does pertain to the overall environment in which professional pilots operate.
@gulibell:
apologies for the tone I took there.
I could have said what I had to say better than I did.
In related news: a wrongful death suit has been filed.
(Predictable outcome of an accident with fatalities)
While that does not have anything to do with how to fly the S-76, and what is or isnt' SVFR ...
... it does pertain to the overall environment in which professional pilots operate.
(Predictable outcome of an accident with fatalities)
While that does not have anything to do with how to fly the S-76, and what is or isnt' SVFR ...
... it does pertain to the overall environment in which professional pilots operate.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA ex-pat
Age: 62
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
If you, as a pilot, believe you won't become a statistic because of your experience, skill or knowledge the you are very likely to be be closer to becoming one.
Good point - after many years flying I would often remark to non-aviation friends that regardless of experience, the more flights I performed, simply meant that I was just that little bit closer to possibly becoming a statistic
. There have always been lots of truly competent and naturally good pilots with all the skill and experience in the world - only problem is, some of the are no longer with us.
I always thought that if you go to the Well often enough you are going to hit mud at some point.
An old helicopter pilot I once knew reminded me on more than one occasion....."Just because you jump into a Well the Good Lord is not bound to fetch you out!".
I tried to follow that old Pelican's advice.
An old helicopter pilot I once knew reminded me on more than one occasion....."Just because you jump into a Well the Good Lord is not bound to fetch you out!".
I tried to follow that old Pelican's advice.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if this has been uncovered yet-
$20K is a pretty hefty fine. No doubt the victim attorneys already have this. I don't think any IEX pilots tested positive. Probably some kind of drug testing compliance problem.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...edia/q3-18.pdf
$20K is a pretty hefty fine. No doubt the victim attorneys already have this. I don't think any IEX pilots tested positive. Probably some kind of drug testing compliance problem.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...edia/q3-18.pdf
Don't know if this has been uncovered yet-
$20K is a pretty hefty fine. No doubt the victim attorneys already have this. I don't think any IEX pilots tested positive. Probably some kind of drug testing compliance problem.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...edia/q3-18.pdf
$20K is a pretty hefty fine. No doubt the victim attorneys already have this. I don't think any IEX pilots tested positive. Probably some kind of drug testing compliance problem.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...edia/q3-18.pdf
Is that the final result or what was assessed before any kind of arbitration or negotiation?
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Law Suits begin.....one suit against the Operator and the Pilot has been filed.
As I have said many times in the past.....it is a tragedy when something like this happens.
The loss of life in the crash, the loss of an aircraft, the harm to the Operator....and then the family of the dead Pilot find themselves in Civil Court facing financial ruin as well.
Young folks....remember one day you. might survive a crash and find yourself in court explaining your actions to a Jury that will be quite happy to give away everything you have gained over your life and leave you burdened with a huge debt.
Store that away in the back of your Mind and always act in such a. manner that even a Jury will see you did your best, followed the Rules, exercised unquestionable professional judgement, and did the "right" thing.
That way you might avoid an accident and not even face the need to hire a lawyer.....much less pay damages to the Plaintiffs.
The other thing to remember....the Operator' Lawyer represents the Operator...not the Pilot.
Not only is it your Life and License...but also you fortune which is at risk.
https://www.breitbart.com/sports/202...company-pilot/
As I have said many times in the past.....it is a tragedy when something like this happens.
The loss of life in the crash, the loss of an aircraft, the harm to the Operator....and then the family of the dead Pilot find themselves in Civil Court facing financial ruin as well.
Young folks....remember one day you. might survive a crash and find yourself in court explaining your actions to a Jury that will be quite happy to give away everything you have gained over your life and leave you burdened with a huge debt.
Store that away in the back of your Mind and always act in such a. manner that even a Jury will see you did your best, followed the Rules, exercised unquestionable professional judgement, and did the "right" thing.
That way you might avoid an accident and not even face the need to hire a lawyer.....much less pay damages to the Plaintiffs.
The other thing to remember....the Operator' Lawyer represents the Operator...not the Pilot.
Not only is it your Life and License...but also you fortune which is at risk.
https://www.breitbart.com/sports/202...company-pilot/