N72EX (Kobe Bryant) Crash Reconstruction with new ATC Audio
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: US
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts exactly after waiting over two years for the report on an accident that claimed two lives, one of which was my fiance. The final report consisted of a single sentence...the same one that appeared in the NTSB Prelim issued over two years earlier! Of course, there was no investigation because there was "no one of importance" on board.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
no-one is going to report that they screwed up and scared themselves but didn't actually crash or break the aircraft.
"no one"? No one!!!! Where Professionals come from reports like that are the norm...
Hadn't you noticed aviation safety (leave alone Professionalism) has progressed somewhat since the gung-ho days of 1950s RAF fast-jet hooliganism?
Last edited by meleagertoo; 19th Jun 2020 at 21:49.
meleagertoo - Crab has said it and and he is so right. Your little silly rant adds nothing. Disorientation is a quick killer and only complete trust in your instruments and a competent scan will save you.We have all frightened ourselves fartless on many occasions and only talked about it to our closest.
I remember stories from my father who was a B17 IP before he went to war. Needle, ball and airspeed. All you need to stay upright and fly around a bit until you can get either better conditions or climb out of it. I got my instrument ticket in a Cessna 182 with a guy who was an F111B simulator instructor and he would never have signed me off for a check ride if my partial panel skills were below his standards. That was an expensive rating even in 1982, it took me a long time to make par with him. He was an SOB but the words " Don't fu@k with the raidios.....fly the damn airplane" have helped me out more than once. All the new stuff is great and I think all 135 helicopters should have all the bells and whistles, plus fdr and cvr if flying passengers for hire. That being said, you shouldn't need it to stay alive. Clear and simple, training and currency on basic flying skills might have prevented this whole thing. Now the lawsuits and congressional hearings will be the "solution". We'll see I guess.
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So very sad.
WuW
Roscoe1 - have you flown instruments in a helicopter? FW is soooo much easier since the platform is inherently unstable. Rely on needle ball and airspeed (most helos don't have a turn needle anyway) and you are dead in an unstabilised helicopter in cloud.
Meleagertoo - UK Mil flying is pretty professional and very discplined but Georgina gets the reality of life as a pilot, you seem to have some fantasy about pilots and admitting mistakes..
Meleagertoo - UK Mil flying is pretty professional and very discplined but Georgina gets the reality of life as a pilot, you seem to have some fantasy about pilots and admitting mistakes..
Yes, I've flown helicopter IFR and of course it pushes the flying skills of most folks to go iimc in a helicopter with no SAS or autopilot. If you think going inadvertant in an unstabilized machine has to have a bad outcome beyond needing a change of underware then that is your opinion. Not saying aany particular person including me would survive but with all the attitude info available in an IFR certified helicopter it should not matter if there is not a turn and bank gyro. Unstabilized? SAS, autopilot, even force trim...this was not an unstabilized ship and my point was that he should have seen it coming, flipped some switches, made a stabilized climb and confessed. You don't need that much to survive unless bad calls have already piled up.
I had to ask because you made the idea of instrument flying in a helicopter seems very straightforward, even without a decent instrument fit - I wouldn't want less experienced pilots to think it is easy and chance their arm in marginal conditions.
I have flown IFR in a completely unstabilised single (military) and a number of full IFR twins - as much as the automatics will help you, they will only do so if you press the right buttons at the right time and know what to expect from the aircraft when you do press those buttons.
There is no substitute for a good IF scan and that has to be learned and practised regularly.
I have flown IFR in a completely unstabilised single (military) and a number of full IFR twins - as much as the automatics will help you, they will only do so if you press the right buttons at the right time and know what to expect from the aircraft when you do press those buttons.
There is no substitute for a good IF scan and that has to be learned and practised regularly.
Is a 'big screen' of synthetic vision a substitute
Originally Posted by [email protected]
There is no substitute for a good IF scan and that has to be learned and practised regularly.
I know I have asked this question here twice already, and nobody is biting. Can it be that the factually correct answer would be seen as 'politiically' incorrect? It seems obvious on the other hand that none of the measures that media and populistic politicians (is that a a tautology?) are demanding would have prevented this accident:
- Stricter legal limits (while the problem is the non-observance of existing limits)
- TAWS: Terrain Awareness (while the pilot knows they are close to terrain, as they are dodging clouds and can't go any higher without losing visual reference to the ground), and
- TAWS: Traffic Warning (which screams "PULL UP, PULL UP" while the pilot is already spatially disoriented and doesn't know anymore where "up" is)
- CVFDR (that in the best case could help with the accident investigation in explaining the mishap but not in preventing it)
By definition, there is almost no overlap between the group of pilots who are at risk of inadvertently entering IMC, and those pilots who do not only have and maintain an IF rating (like our mishap pilot) but also regulary practise IF in their daily operations, in real IMC conditions.
So what is the solution? Good advice not to get into trouble won't crack it, as we know that there will be situations where people find themselves in trouble.
Last edited by Hot and Hi; 18th Jul 2021 at 09:32. Reason: Spelling
The really sad part of this discussion has been left in the dust. All the experts, all the opinions, all the legislation to come and the NTSB throwing up their hands when the FAA doesn't take their advice (again) fails to mention that this all happened in order to get a teenager to a basketball game. Granted, business is business and if people are willing to pay, there is not too much I can say that makes it wrong to conduct that business in this case. However, there was zero, or if possible less than zero, risk/benefit analysis going on here. Bear in mind I'm talking about passenger 135 operations, not all types of helicopter operations. I cut a lot more slack if prople want to risk their lives and machines by themselves or with others who understand what they are doing. That process should have started long before this flight. The primary question should have been, how important is it to complete this mission? It was a convenience, not very important at all, but it was treated as if it were a mission of mercy or disaster response. I am not at all saying helicopters shouldn't be used like this. I'm just saying that perhaps it should have been given serious consideration by the pilot before he pulled pitch, and certainly as things got dicey with ATC and the weather.
Last edited by roscoe1; 21st Jun 2020 at 16:37.
Good advice not to get into trouble won't crack it
People need to be damn sure they understand that IIMC more often than not is equivalent to flying into the ground if you are not qualified to do it.
"Training" should be limited to showing just how "unsuccessful" you will be.
Giving pilots a few hours on "foggles" to teach them how to save them from their own shortcomings is actually misguided and has never made sense to me.
I think the basic problem could be just ego. Back in the days of training guys to line you had to make them aware of it and batter it out of them.
Ego makes you overestimate your abilities and is known as a "hazardous attitude" - pun intended. The trick is knowing it exists and how to handle it.
H&H wrote: “Good advise not to get into trouble won't crack it, as we know that there will be situations where people find themselves in trouble.”
Concur. It is then up to the leader of the operation to ensure that when the inevitable occurs, his folks are ready and able, and the equipment is the same. From what I’ve read from some experienced posters here, there seems to be agreement that meeting the bare minimum legal requirements does not insure the status extant in that first sentence. So, really two issues: 1) denier population that think you can always get away with VFR only; 2) leadership and funding to provide the needed skills/currency thereof.
This basic issue once existed at SA. Military rules required IFR currency but allowed it to be done in FW aircraft and thats what we did. Cheaper by far of course. It took some hard work by one of my predecessors to change that situation. Translate “hard work” into leadership.
Concur. It is then up to the leader of the operation to ensure that when the inevitable occurs, his folks are ready and able, and the equipment is the same. From what I’ve read from some experienced posters here, there seems to be agreement that meeting the bare minimum legal requirements does not insure the status extant in that first sentence. So, really two issues: 1) denier population that think you can always get away with VFR only; 2) leadership and funding to provide the needed skills/currency thereof.
This basic issue once existed at SA. Military rules required IFR currency but allowed it to be done in FW aircraft and thats what we did. Cheaper by far of course. It took some hard work by one of my predecessors to change that situation. Translate “hard work” into leadership.
- Stricter legal limits (while the problem is the non-observance of existing limits)
- TAWS: Terrain Awareness (while the pilot knows they are close to terrain, as they are dodging clouds and can't go any higher without losing visual reference to the ground), and
- TAWS: Traffic Warning (which screams "PULL UP, PULL UP" while the pilot is already spatially disoriented and doesn't know anymore where "up" is)
- CVFDR (that in the best case could help with the accident investigation in explaining the mishap but not in preventing it)
So what is the solution? Good advise not to get into trouble won't crack it, as we know that there will be situations where people find themselves in trouble.
Two Pilots.
Is a 'big screen' of synthetic vision a substitute for a good IF scan (which will only save your bacon if it was learned and practised regularly)?
Synthetic Vision
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Nope - it is just an invitation to push on into conditions that are not suitable for VFR flight.
It is unfortunate that the urge to give a politically correct answer defocusses the discussion. With your logic one should also disallow the attitude indicator in VFR-only aircraft, as indeed it is an invitation to push on into conditions that can become sketchy.
My question to the forum of experts was however a technical one:
- We all agree that good real visibility (=VMC) allows any reasonably proficient pilot (even if trained VFR-only) to successfully reject the illusions that cause spatial disorientation.
- We know that with degrading visibility, the illusions can become overpowering.
- We however also know that under 'foggles' the little remaining peripheral vision still allows the student pilot quite well to cope with the illusions (in all generality, peripheral vision would still give accurate perception of bank and of rate of turn).
The question therefore is: What properties and qualities does synthetic reality need to have in order to be sufficiently trusted by the pilot's brain to then reject the wrong illusions?
As stated before: From experience of less than proficient IF pilots (like in this mishap), we know the 6-pack isn't suitable. And it is self-evident that replacing all cockpit windows with HD TV screens showing what the pilot could see in VMC through the windscreen would do the trick. But where is the tipping point? What is the minimum 'instrumentation' needed that would give the pilot's brains sufficient visual clues to be able to reject the illusions even without owning proficient IF scan skills?
I myself haven't made up my mind in this question yet. I am not yet convinced that embedding synthetic vision into the EFIS glass panel is the solution. I fear that solely increasing the AI presentation from a 3.5 inch round instrument to a 7 or 10 inch screen, and maybe adding some synthetic terrain, might not be sufficient to trick the brain into not succumbing to the other illusions. My hunch is that the 'balance' information is gleaned by the brain from peripheral vision, not from the central, in-focus view. The 'foggle' experience that we spoke about several times in this discussion, is a good support for this theory.
What do you experts think?
It wasn't a politically correct answer - just the truth based on years of experience. When NVG were introduced we saw them used by some to push on in worse weather at night than they might have done in non-NVG flight - if you can see more you will go further.
As much information as you present to the pilot in the cockpit, if they are not trained to use it properly and believe in it then it won't prevent somatogravic or visual illusions fooling their brain.
I would always have an AI in a VFR aircraft for that just in case moment - better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
A standard instrument fit is more than enough to prevent or overcome the leans but you have to believe the presentation - that comes down to training, exposure to real IMC and practice.
If you push the limits and go scud running, and you don't have the skills or knowledge to execute a plan B when it goes wrong then WTF are you doing in a cockpit in the first place?
As much information as you present to the pilot in the cockpit, if they are not trained to use it properly and believe in it then it won't prevent somatogravic or visual illusions fooling their brain.
I would always have an AI in a VFR aircraft for that just in case moment - better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
A standard instrument fit is more than enough to prevent or overcome the leans but you have to believe the presentation - that comes down to training, exposure to real IMC and practice.
If you push the limits and go scud running, and you don't have the skills or knowledge to execute a plan B when it goes wrong then WTF are you doing in a cockpit in the first place?
Aircraft state is more complicated than a pretty picture. Attitude alone is not sufficient especially in a helicopter. The full picture requires airspeed, trim, yaw rate, power, altitude, etc. What does the SV picture look like for a helicopter flying straight and level, but backwards?
In spatial disorientation, the vestibular system rules. The pilot believes they are turning when they’re not and vice versa. The vestibular has overpowered the visual. A pilot makes inappropriate control inputs based upon these false sensations. It’s worth repeating that inappropriate control inputs during an upset recovery can lead to a completely different upset situation. Game over.
The contradiction between sensed orientation and visual in the pilot’s mind creates confusion, and it’s only through training and experience (and dare I say proficiency) that a pilot is able to resolve this. As straightforward as it seems, just making the attitude indicator bigger doesn’t solve the underlying problem.
A similar issue is experienced by many in a simulator, but manifested differently. Even high-end simulators have an infidelity between the motion and the visual. However, when flying a simulator, the disconnect between the senses doesn’t create full blown SD, but rather causes many to become ill. Some even violently.
While there is belief that synthetic vision technology may provide improvements in SD recovery, the real benefit from SV is improving situational awareness, workload reduction (i.e. terrain and path-in-the-sky) AND UPSET PREVENTION.
But why keep asking for meaningless opinions?
MITIGATING PILOT DISORIENTATION WITH SYNTHETIC VISION DISPLAYS
SYNTHETIC VISION SYSTEM COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FLIGHT DECK DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNUSUAL ATTITUDE RECOVERY
Evaluation of Synthetic Vision Display Concepts for Improved Awareness in Unusual Attitude Recovery Scenarios.
Airplane State Awareness - Virtual Day- VMC Displays.
Airplane Upset Recovery. Industry Solutions for Large SweptWing Turbofan Airplanes Typically Seating More than 100 Passengers.
Prevent Loss of Control in General Aviation. NTSB.
In spatial disorientation, the vestibular system rules. The pilot believes they are turning when they’re not and vice versa. The vestibular has overpowered the visual. A pilot makes inappropriate control inputs based upon these false sensations. It’s worth repeating that inappropriate control inputs during an upset recovery can lead to a completely different upset situation. Game over.
The contradiction between sensed orientation and visual in the pilot’s mind creates confusion, and it’s only through training and experience (and dare I say proficiency) that a pilot is able to resolve this. As straightforward as it seems, just making the attitude indicator bigger doesn’t solve the underlying problem.
A similar issue is experienced by many in a simulator, but manifested differently. Even high-end simulators have an infidelity between the motion and the visual. However, when flying a simulator, the disconnect between the senses doesn’t create full blown SD, but rather causes many to become ill. Some even violently.
While there is belief that synthetic vision technology may provide improvements in SD recovery, the real benefit from SV is improving situational awareness, workload reduction (i.e. terrain and path-in-the-sky) AND UPSET PREVENTION.
But why keep asking for meaningless opinions?
MITIGATING PILOT DISORIENTATION WITH SYNTHETIC VISION DISPLAYS
SYNTHETIC VISION SYSTEM COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FLIGHT DECK DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNUSUAL ATTITUDE RECOVERY
Evaluation of Synthetic Vision Display Concepts for Improved Awareness in Unusual Attitude Recovery Scenarios.
Airplane State Awareness - Virtual Day- VMC Displays.
Airplane Upset Recovery. Industry Solutions for Large SweptWing Turbofan Airplanes Typically Seating More than 100 Passengers.
Prevent Loss of Control in General Aviation. NTSB.
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 6th Jul 2020 at 09:33. Reason: Further fixing links: “Source” is the key 👍
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MITIGATING PILOT DISORIENTATION WITH SYNTHETIC VISION DISPLAYS
SYNTHETIC VISION SYSTEM COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FLIGHT DECK DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNUSUAL ATTITUDE RECOVERY
Evaluation of Synthetic Vision Display Concepts for Improved Awareness in Unusual Attitude Recovery Scenarios.
Airplane State Awareness - Virtual Day- VMC Displays.
Airplane Upset Recovery. Industry Solutions for Large SweptWing Turbofan Airplanes Typically Seating More than 100 Passengers.
Prevent Loss of Control in General Aviation. NTSB.
That's a great body of work. For the TLDR crowd it basically says synthetic vision is of little to no value compared to normal EFIS type attitude information.
Sorry, the forum software routinely scrambles my links, requiring successive edits to fix. I'm not sure why. I think I have fixed them now...