N72EX (Kobe Bryant) Crash Reconstruction with new ATC Audio
Relevant that even IFR approaches are sometimes flawed:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-wont-get-hurt
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-wont-get-hurt
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.
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
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.
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/...ced_Situations
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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.
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.
Synthetic Vision
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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?
.
- Or have you ever seen *any* pilot levelling out - in VMC - after a 180 deg turn say: "Jesus, I can't believe I am wings level, it feels like I am now banking to the opposite side, my windscreen must be wrong, the horizon is not level, let me just spiral down to the ground, because it feels better."?
- Have you ever seen a pilot accelerating, with the horizon line clearly in front of them, saying: "Wow, my senses tell me I am zooming up, soon I must be stalling. The windscreen in front of me is obviously wrong. The ASI must be bugged too. Let me just push the stick further forward to avoid the stall."?
The obvious answer is that there is a tipping point at which too little vision information (read: degrading visibility) makes the brain remove the checks and balances that it normally subjects the vestibular system to. In the absence of anything else, the brain then takes the vestibular information on face value, and promotes it to "100% reality", with devastating effects (WYSIAYG - "What you see is *all* you get", Daniel Kahnemann, Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow, 2011, if you want to brush up a bit on the cognitive science behind all this).
Conversely, there is a tipping point at which feeding the brain increasing visual information will allow the brain to (effortlessly) put the 'genie back into the bottle', where the brain can demote the vestibular information to the more support function that is meant to occupy.
There is no principal reason why synthetic vision cannot achieve this. The question can only be, how realistic, how trustworthy, and how big this screen must be?
Observing pilots flying with these tools, as crude as they may still be at this time, there is no doubt in my mind that even a mini tablet-sized synthetic vision screen in front of the pilot can significantly reduce workload. It can give the pilot the confidence to reject wrong vestibular information, to remain calm and avoid the panic that leads to pilot induced upset.
To give an example: It makes a big difference when flying into a big black hole at night, to know whether the space in front of you is empty sky, a mountain, or a cloud obscuring the view on other aircraft, cultural light, terrain or the horizon lying behind it. Knowing the real world outside is still the same, even if momentarily it's all black, or all white, allows pilots to avoid giving in to illusions, such as false horizons or autokinesis, etc.
While in the mishap discussed in this thread many other things could have prevented the accident (seeing that the PIC was instrument rated, very experienced, had auto-pilot in his ship, and the operation benefited from operational oversight and safety management that comes with being a commercial charter operation), I reckon that even a much less experienced pilot could have extracted themselves out of this situation, simply by consistently using synthetic vision even in the cheapest available form.
Last edited by Hot and Hi; 18th Jul 2021 at 13:10.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that you posted in this thread, and after so long, H&H. Really a subject worthy of it's own topic. And of course a subject that has been discussed a very great deal in this forum.
Why can't Johnny read instruments? Why can't Johnny trust instruments? Why can't Johnny ignore his vestibular system?
Very much in the "for what it's worth" department, as a VFR only rated pilot with just the tiny bit of FAA mandated hood time, I actually prefer, am more comfortable with, the basic instruments by themselves. Synthetic vision does nothing for me. Perhaps it is the lack of three dimensional information. I love my tablet. I have weather and traffic on it. I use it preferentially for horizontal navigation. But when it comes to keeping the whirly bits on top it does nothing for me that way.
The other week I was flying a long, daytime cross country in very hazy conditions. Legal, but not an easy day for VFR flying. You might have called it a very UK sort of weather day
. It even had a short water crossing where the angle of the opposite shoreline was perfect for inducing leans. Just exactly the kind of conditions that, had it been night, did kill JFK, Jr. All instruments were ready, AH horizon line adjusted just so, in case a rogue cloud should reach through the haze to engulf me (none did, planned and flew with plenty of margin to the actual ceiling), but I never once thought to bring up the synthetic vision display (and it probably would have been a bad sign if I had!)
I am curious: do any "real" IFR pilots, meaning those who fly in actual IFR in actual IFR capable helicopters, not with some Foggles in training helicopter because I know you all dismiss such flying as not "real", find synthetic vision to have any value? Not just attitude information on the EFIS, which certainly does have value, but a synthetic display of the terrain ahead? Except on approach or departure one should be very far from terrain and obstacles when IFR, correct? Doesn't that make the synthetic details superfluous and distracting?
Why can't Johnny read instruments? Why can't Johnny trust instruments? Why can't Johnny ignore his vestibular system?
Very much in the "for what it's worth" department, as a VFR only rated pilot with just the tiny bit of FAA mandated hood time, I actually prefer, am more comfortable with, the basic instruments by themselves. Synthetic vision does nothing for me. Perhaps it is the lack of three dimensional information. I love my tablet. I have weather and traffic on it. I use it preferentially for horizontal navigation. But when it comes to keeping the whirly bits on top it does nothing for me that way.
The other week I was flying a long, daytime cross country in very hazy conditions. Legal, but not an easy day for VFR flying. You might have called it a very UK sort of weather day
. It even had a short water crossing where the angle of the opposite shoreline was perfect for inducing leans. Just exactly the kind of conditions that, had it been night, did kill JFK, Jr. All instruments were ready, AH horizon line adjusted just so, in case a rogue cloud should reach through the haze to engulf me (none did, planned and flew with plenty of margin to the actual ceiling), but I never once thought to bring up the synthetic vision display (and it probably would have been a bad sign if I had!)I am curious: do any "real" IFR pilots, meaning those who fly in actual IFR in actual IFR capable helicopters, not with some Foggles in training helicopter because I know you all dismiss such flying as not "real", find synthetic vision to have any value? Not just attitude information on the EFIS, which certainly does have value, but a synthetic display of the terrain ahead? Except on approach or departure one should be very far from terrain and obstacles when IFR, correct? Doesn't that make the synthetic details superfluous and distracting?
Observing pilots flying with these tools, as crude as they may still be at this time, there is no doubt in my mind that even a mini tablet-sized synthetic vision screen in front of the pilot can significantly reduce workload. It can give the pilot the confidence to reject wrong vestibular information, to remain calm and avoid the panic that leads to pilot induced upset.
To give an example: It makes a big difference when flying into a big black hole at night, to know whether the space in front of you is empty sky, a mountain, or a cloud obscuring the view on other aircraft, cultural light, terrain or the horizon lying behind it. Knowing the real world outside is still the same, even if momentarily it's all black, or all white, allows pilots to avoid giving in to illusions, such as false horizons or autokinesis, etc.
With regard to thinking that visual contact with the ground/ horizion would over ride vestibular jumbolation, I suggest that anyone who thinks that getting vertigo can be " cured" when that picture is re-established seek out the nearest Barany Chair, often associated with physiology of flight instruction. After a spin in that, a good instructor can make you feel like the world is spinning, in multiple directions, while you are looking right at it. The creepiest thing is looking at the persons eyes as they are trying to regain some semblance of normalcy. They are uncontrollably flicking back and forth like a couple of pinballs. Unusual attitude training with foggles or a paper bag over your head ain't nothing until you've seen how bad spatial disorientation can actually be.
Hmm. "reduced workload... gives pilot confidence to reject wrong information... that leads to pilot induced upset... knowing what is in front of you... knowing the real world... allows pilots to avoid illusions..." Many would argue that sounds precisely like increased situational awareness.
No, roscue, that’s not what anybody thinks. The other way round: Being visually anchored in the world around you *prevents* vertigo.
This is not about upset recovery, but about upset prevention.
This is not about upset recovery, but about upset prevention.
https://www.necn.com/news/national-i...thers/2490716/
“Vanessa Bryant has reached a settlement in her lawsuit against the company that owned and operated the helicopter that crashed in Calabasas last year, killing her husband -- Laker legend Kobe Bryant -- and their 13-year-old daughter, according to court papers filed Tuesday.The settlement with Island Express Helicopters, subsidiary OC Helicopters and the estate of the pilot, Ara George Zobayan, also includes surviving relatives of the other passengers who died in the crash.
Terms of the settlement are being kept confidential, according to the court documents.”
“Vanessa Bryant has reached a settlement in her lawsuit against the company that owned and operated the helicopter that crashed in Calabasas last year, killing her husband -- Laker legend Kobe Bryant -- and their 13-year-old daughter, according to court papers filed Tuesday.The settlement with Island Express Helicopters, subsidiary OC Helicopters and the estate of the pilot, Ara George Zobayan, also includes surviving relatives of the other passengers who died in the crash.
Terms of the settlement are being kept confidential, according to the court documents.”
