Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

N72EX (Kobe Bryant) Crash Reconstruction with new ATC Audio

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

N72EX (Kobe Bryant) Crash Reconstruction with new ATC Audio

Old 30th Aug 2020, 17:35
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Europe
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by MikeNYC View Post
Relevant that even IFR approaches are sometimes flawed:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-wont-get-hurt
Thankfully I believe here in EASA land instrument procedures are flight checked before being published. I'm blown away that the FAA let that approach incident slip, even by their standards.
ApolloHeli is online now  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 01:37
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,547
My post which has received comment was merely to point out a PIC's responsibilities, not intimating anything specific to the accident, other than even under positive control the controller is not responsible for the ultimate safety of an aircraft. In some jurisdictions a GCA is not now permitted, other than in an emergency, because it's not a pilot interpreted aid, although it was standard airline fare in the piston days.
Except that for an aircraft under radar vectors the controller is responsible for ensuring terrain and obstacle clearance. Mistakes may happen and you might be forgotten about so it's still good to be alert after being given a vector, but if a controller uses the standard phraseology "radar vectors", this indicates they take over responsibility for your terrain/obstacle clearance.
Beg to differ, ultimate responsibility rests in the cockpit, always, it behooves the cockpit to understand where the controller is directing them, accidents have happened where aircraft have hit terrain while under radar control. Controllers are human and make mistakes. We've had such systems as TAWS and TCAS introduced to provide protection against the unthinkable.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/...ced_Situations
megan is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 08:59
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 437
Much discussion about the pilot’s responsibilities when receiving a radar service from ATC. But this pilot was chomping along at low level, and even if identified by radar, it is not likely that they could be under radar control. In fact, it’s not clear that they were receiving any service at all, having been refused flight following due to coverage limitations.

If you can see, separation and obstacle clearance remain an obligation on the pilot, even if IFR and under radar control. In this case, this flight was certainly not IFR and the whole point was that he was supposed to stay clear of cloud by own navigation.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 10:30
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,194
I think pretty much every pilot in the 'room' agrees what the cause of this accident was and that the law suit is just lawyers skullduggery to try and deflect the blame.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 12:03
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Europe
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
I think pretty much every pilot in the 'room' agrees what the cause of this accident was and that the law suit is just lawyers skullduggery to try and deflect the blame.
Agreed. I'm just curious from any Americans familiar with the matter; could the findings of an NTSB report be used as evidence in a legal case?
ApolloHeli is online now  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 02:37
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: yes
Posts: 258
Originally Posted by ApolloHeli View Post
Agreed. I'm just curious from any Americans familiar with the matter; could the findings of an NTSB report be used as evidence in a legal case?
A jury needs to form its own opinion. No part of an NTSB Final Accident report can be used in civil litigation (by law 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b)). Broadly speaking, this means opinions and the NTSB’s probable cause determination, while evidence and investigative testimony usually is admissible. However, lawyers have sneaky ways of getting as much of the report as possible interjected.
JimEli is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.