Kobe Bryant killed in S76 crash
I am sure Crab didn't mean it, but I am afraid that some will misunderstand his post of saying that the actual conditions when given a Special VFR clearance are neccessarily worse than the VFR limits for helicopters operating outside of a control zone (CTR). Or to rephrase, that once exited the control zone in which you were operating under SVFR, in order to continue under VFR the visibility needs to have improved, else you can't proceed.
So, while he was in Class B - IF the visibility was poor, he would have to have an improvement in vis to 1SM as he crossed B to G in order to claim VFR.
It could well be that he had more than 1 SM all the way through B and out into G but he seemed hesitant to confirm VFR when asked which could have been visibility related or cloud related.
We are pretty sure that soon afterwards he entered cloud (definitely not VFR) where it all went wrong.
Unless I am mistaken the aircraft did not get into Class B airspace..
Burbank is class C, Van Nuys is D, and from there the track would have taken him into Class G airspace.
SVFR in both the C and D is legal with an ATC Clearance which he had for each Control Zone.
Once in Class G airspace, 91.155(a) visibility minima is one half statute mile and clear of cloud.
Burbank is class C, Van Nuys is D, and from there the track would have taken him into Class G airspace.
SVFR in both the C and D is legal with an ATC Clearance which he had for each Control Zone.
Once in Class G airspace, 91.155(a) visibility minima is one half statute mile and clear of cloud.
Y'all sure do like to pick the flysh** out of the pepper. The airspace doesn't matter. The regs don't matter, not a bit. The man made a choice to continue VFR into IMC and it appears he lost control. Now it may well be that a mechanical failure caused the loss of control. Perhaps there was a sudden incapacitation. But barring those things, it's pretty clear he continued VFR into IMC and screwed the pooch. No changing of the regs would prevent this accident, not even a requirement for GPWS because it appears control was lost. It comes down to judgement and experience and you cannot legislate those. The weather conditions on that day were apparently pretty unusual as far as the maritime layer was concerned. But if you are instrument rated you should be able to climb out of it.
So it seems the rules for helicopter minima outside CTR are basically the same across the world (with 1 statute mile roughly being 1,500 metres).
Other than that we must not confuse actual flying conditions with minimum permitted conditions. We fly in actual visibility, not in "minima". Actual conditions can be said to get worse if (for example) viz drops from 2,000m to 1,500m.
But what are "worse limits"? If, say, the ceiling limit in a control zone is 600ft, and then outside that control zone the limit is "clear of clouds", are we saying the limit got "worse", or are we saying the limit got "better"? That's ambiguous.
In reality, when flying from a zone with higher (= stricter) limits, into a zone with lower (= more lenient) limits, our options (degree of freedom) improve.
At the same (= unchanged) actual conditions, the only way the pilot - on existing SFVR - should be hesitant to confirm to be within VFR limits applicable to helicopters would be if he had been using the maximum extend of the SVFR clearance down to viz 800m. Then yes, upon exiting the CTR he would have to continue under IFR, as now the min required viz is 1,500m.
But that was not necessarily the case: Inside the CTR he could have had viz 2,000m (which in Class C and D airspace still would have required him to obtain SVFR clearance). Now upon exiting that CTR, with the same viz of 2,000m, he would have been well above helicopter VFR limits.
It would be wrong to assume (for the proverbial layman) that by definition the actual conditions would need to have improved to legally continue from SVFR (inside a CTR) into uncontrolled airspace. What could be though is that - due to approaching marine layer and/or rising terrain - the actual conditions (here: ceiling) got worse as he proceeded.
Other than that we must not confuse actual flying conditions with minimum permitted conditions. We fly in actual visibility, not in "minima". Actual conditions can be said to get worse if (for example) viz drops from 2,000m to 1,500m.
you could be going from worse visibility limits to higher ones.
In reality, when flying from a zone with higher (= stricter) limits, into a zone with lower (= more lenient) limits, our options (degree of freedom) improve.
At the same (= unchanged) actual conditions, the only way the pilot - on existing SFVR - should be hesitant to confirm to be within VFR limits applicable to helicopters would be if he had been using the maximum extend of the SVFR clearance down to viz 800m. Then yes, upon exiting the CTR he would have to continue under IFR, as now the min required viz is 1,500m.
But that was not necessarily the case: Inside the CTR he could have had viz 2,000m (which in Class C and D airspace still would have required him to obtain SVFR clearance). Now upon exiting that CTR, with the same viz of 2,000m, he would have been well above helicopter VFR limits.
It would be wrong to assume (for the proverbial layman) that by definition the actual conditions would need to have improved to legally continue from SVFR (inside a CTR) into uncontrolled airspace. What could be though is that - due to approaching marine layer and/or rising terrain - the actual conditions (here: ceiling) got worse as he proceeded.
Unless I am mistaken the aircraft did not get into Class B airspace..
Burbank is class C, Van Nuys is D, and from there the track would have taken him into Class G airspace.
SVFR in both the C and D is legal with an ATC Clearance which he had for each Control Zone.
Once in Class G airspace, 91.155(a) visibility minima is one half statute mile and clear of cloud.
Burbank is class C, Van Nuys is D, and from there the track would have taken him into Class G airspace.
SVFR in both the C and D is legal with an ATC Clearance which he had for each Control Zone.
Once in Class G airspace, 91.155(a) visibility minima is one half statute mile and clear of cloud.
Last edited by JimEli; 28th Feb 2020 at 14:30.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Fl
Age: 62
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and gentlemen there’s has been a lot of discussion on the VFR minimums, /Special VFR Visibility and cloud separation legally required for this flight in various air spaces under Far 135 and 91. However, this been a great review, it doesn’t indicate what the pilots flight visibility was from the cockpit.
One of the many pieces of information the investigation are using to determine flight visibility is the security camera footage of the aircraft above Moreau Road and Highway 101. Without knowing the focal strength of this camera, it would be a guess, but I would say he was in legal flight visibility.
Figure 6 in the updated briefing is labeled still frame security video showing N72EX flying into clouds. The remainder of the video may show the aircraft fading into the background. But with the camera angle from the ground it would be difficult to tell whether he was climbing above the marine layer or flying into it.
One of the many pieces of information the investigation are using to determine flight visibility is the security camera footage of the aircraft above Moreau Road and Highway 101. Without knowing the focal strength of this camera, it would be a guess, but I would say he was in legal flight visibility.
Figure 6 in the updated briefing is labeled still frame security video showing N72EX flying into clouds. The remainder of the video may show the aircraft fading into the background. But with the camera angle from the ground it would be difficult to tell whether he was climbing above the marine layer or flying into it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lose the ability to comprehend your attitude and take appropriate action then catastrophy occurs (see the recent Coulson C130 accident).
In control but not thinking about the terrain? Loss of situational awareness leading to CFIT.
Lose control because you can't maintain attitude? Loss of control in flight leading to UFIT.
Personally, I think that the balance of probably lies with CFIT. The only LOC indication is 'powered rotation'. Maybe he red-lined the torque when he saw terrain and ran out of tail rotor, maybe he tried to turn-away at last minute and used a bootfull of pedal. It draws a fine line between CFIT and UFIT but doesn't change the cause, which was his being there in the first place. What-If's about technical failures by lawyers might make this another Mull of Kintyre, which I doubt it is.
Last edited by reader8; 29th Feb 2020 at 03:05.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Out there somewhere
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seen many mention that he should have coupled up (if he wasn't already) but could there be a chance that he was below the speed needed and couldn't, got fixated trying to figure out why, or actually punched it all in thinking it was then coupled up? I don't fly the 76 so not sure on how the AP works but assuming it's similar to other types re speed needed to engage.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Alaska
Age: 74
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there an air traffic controller type who might be able to answer. I am not familiar with the Los Angeles area, but looking at the terminal chart; it seems that the area in which the pilot was flying was Class G to 700' AGL overlain by Class C airspace (thick magenta line) which goes to 4000'. That would imply equipment needed, visibility and cloud separation required, and communication. What would be the intent to climb specifically to 4000' ? (why not 3500' or 4500'?). Standard ops would imply communication with the company to describe a deviation from original dispatched flight and a communication with ATC to outline intended plan upon reaching stated altitude. What woiuld a controller be expecting in such circumstances.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there an air traffic controller type who might be able to answer. I am not familiar with the Los Angeles area, but looking at the terminal chart; it seems that the area in which the pilot was flying was Class G to 700' AGL overlain by Class C airspace (thick magenta line) which goes to 4000'. That would imply equipment needed, visibility and cloud separation required, and communication. What would be the intent to climb specifically to 4000' ? (why not 3500' or 4500'?). Standard ops would imply communication with the company to describe a deviation from original dispatched flight and a communication with ATC to outline intended plan upon reaching stated altitude. What woiuld a controller be expecting in such circumstances.
Last edited by aterpster; 29th Feb 2020 at 17:51.
What beats me is that if he lost visual references etc, one option you have in a helo is just to stop where you are and hover whilst seeking assistance over the radio... such as can you see me on radar, where am I, how close to terrain am I ? In which direction should I proceed and do I need to climb? etc etc
What beats me is that if he lost visual references etc, one option you have in a helo is just to stop where you are and hover whilst seeking assistance over the radio... such as can you see me on radar, where am I, how close to terrain am I ? In which direction should I proceed and do I need to climb? etc etc
That sounds like a recipe for success.
What beats me is that if he lost visual references etc, one option you have in a helo is just to stop where you are and hover whilst seeking assistance over the radio... such as can you see me on radar, where am I, how close to terrain am I ? In which direction should I proceed and do I need to climb? etc etc
Refer to 8driver's point. If you're not competent or capable of flying on instruments then what matters is the visual cues available to you to allow you to determine your attitude and the rate of change so that your brain gets to complete that pesky hand-eye feedback loop. In flight visibility rules are only a regulatory tool to try to ensure visual references can be maintained, and generally at the pre-flight planning stage. It's a means, not an end. Try to accurately estimate visibility in flight.
Lose the ability to comprehend your attitude and take appropriate action then catastrophy occurs (see the recent Coulson C130 accident).
In control but not thinking about the terrain? Loss of situational awareness leading to CFIT.
Lose control because you can't maintain attitude? Loss of control in flight leading to UFIT.
Personally, I think that the balance of probably lies with CFIT. The only LOC indication is 'powered rotation'. Maybe he red-lined the torque when he saw terrain and ran out of tail rotor, maybe he tried to turn-away at last minute and used a bootfull of pedal. It draws a fine line between CFIT and UFIT but doesn't change the cause, which was his being there in the first place. What-If's about technical failures by lawyers might make this another Mull of Kintyre, which I doubt it is.
Lose the ability to comprehend your attitude and take appropriate action then catastrophy occurs (see the recent Coulson C130 accident).
In control but not thinking about the terrain? Loss of situational awareness leading to CFIT.
Lose control because you can't maintain attitude? Loss of control in flight leading to UFIT.
Personally, I think that the balance of probably lies with CFIT. The only LOC indication is 'powered rotation'. Maybe he red-lined the torque when he saw terrain and ran out of tail rotor, maybe he tried to turn-away at last minute and used a bootfull of pedal. It draws a fine line between CFIT and UFIT but doesn't change the cause, which was his being there in the first place. What-If's about technical failures by lawyers might make this another Mull of Kintyre, which I doubt it is.
If you ain't current or proficient you should not go paint yourself in a corner with limited options.
This thread should have been over 600 posts ago.
Things we've learnt:
You can't fix stupid unless you severely punish them, and then maybe not (just look at the EMS industry people killing themselves the same way for year).
ANY aircraft operating under CFR 14 Part 135 or for hire should have a CVR and FDR.
When operating for hire, pilots should be current and proficient for IFR operations and flight in IMC conditions.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Alaska
Age: 74
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks. Your explanation was straight forward. One of the 'buzzwords' with the NTSB is "operational control". The mystery of this accident is why the pilot initiated a deviation from the original VFR flight plan, a climb to get on top, that would, de facto, generate a lot of undesireable scruitiny in and of itself, even if the manuever had been 'sucessfull'. In hill country, if one can, it's best to forsee and avoid situations that leave 'emergency actions' as the best and only remaining option.
Chief Bottle Washer
What beats me is that if he lost visual references etc, one option you have in a helo is just to stop where you are and hover whilst seeking assistance over the radio... such as can you see me on radar, where am I, how close to terrain am I ? In which direction should I proceed and do I need to climb? etc etc
The Hamsterwheel has come full circle: time to close this thread again until there is something relevant to discuss.