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

N72EX (Kobe Bryant) Crash Update-

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

N72EX (Kobe Bryant) Crash Update-

Old 19th Feb 2021, 17:24
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by ApolloHeli View Post
Until he crashed and died IIMC.
Exactly...
Robbiee is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 18:22
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,343
I think it was Mike Tyson who said 'Everyone has a plan, right up until they get punched in the face' - well IIMC is the aviation equivalent of getting punched in the face.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 20:20
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 56
Posts: 208
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
I think FED has more than enough real-world experience of IMC, I believe his point was that you don't necessarily need an AI/AH to recover from a UA - however that was in a FW not RW.
I would imagine he has plenty of experience which makes it all the more surprising he would say something that ridiculous.
helonorth is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 05:54
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,866
NTSB Final Accident Report issued.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR2101.pdf
Airbubba is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 13:46
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 60
Posts: 1,399
Makes very sobering reading. And the conclusion:

"3.2 Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot’s decision to continue flight under visual flight rules into instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in the pilot’s spatial disorientation and loss of control. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s likely self-induced pressure and the pilot’s plan continuation bias, which adversely affected his decision-making, and Island Express Helicopters Inc.’s inadequate review and oversight of its safety management processes."
John R81 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 15:49
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by John R81 View Post
Makes very sobering reading. And the conclusion:

"3.2 Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilotís decision to continue flight under visual flight rules into instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in the pilotís spatial disorientation and loss of control. Contributing to the accident was the pilotís likely self-induced pressure and the pilotís plan continuation bias, which adversely affected his decision-making, and Island Express Helicopters Inc.ís inadequate review and oversight of its safety management processes."
Nothing sobering about the conclusion though, just the textbook step by step list of how to get into IIMC and what happens next.
Robbiee is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 15:55
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 41
From the report Executive Summary

Weather conditions reported to the pilot by air traffic controllers during the flight included an overcast ceiling at
1,100 ft agl, visibility of 2.5 miles with haze, and cloud tops at 2,400 ft msl.
...
The helicopter reached an altitude of about 2,370 ft msl (about 1,600 ft agl) at 0945:15,
then it began to descend rapidly in a left turn to the ground.
Not so far from getting away with it...
netstruggler is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 18:34
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
I'm a little surprised that there was no mention of TAWS and the investigators' conclusion that it wouldn't have helped in this situation. Some armchair pundits thought that it would have helped, and I thought perhaps the NTSB might have disabused pilots of that notion. Here is the lead investigator from the NTSB board meeting talking about TAWS.: NTSB Board Meeting
airplanecrazy is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 19:55
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by airplanecrazy View Post
I'm a little surprised that there was no mention of TAWS and the investigators' conclusion that it wouldn't have helped in this situation. Some armchair pundits thought that it would have helped, and I thought perhaps the NTSB might have disabused pilots of that notion. Here is the lead investigator from the NTSB board meeting talking about TAWS.: NTSB Board Meeting
HTAWS would only have helped if the pilot knew how to keep the aircraft the right way up in the first place.
havick is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2021, 00:14
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,316
HTAWS wouldn't have changed the outcome, be 100% sure about that. A second pilot is what was required, or better decision making from the first pilot.
gulliBell is online now  
Old 27th Feb 2021, 03:11
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: All over
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by gulliBell View Post
HTAWS wouldn't have changed the outcome, be 100% sure about that. A second pilot is what was required, or better decision making from the first pilot.
Spot on Gulli, assumption being a competent pilot (crew) taking appropriate action to an EGPWS command. The pilot was sadly not IFR proficient or current and apparently not proficient in acft system management. HTAWS/EGPWS would not have helped in this situation.
donner89 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2021, 10:22
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,343
Not so far from getting away with it...
And therein lies the problem - pilots thinking they can get away with it, chancing their arm with no credible plan B.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2021, 12:09
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 520
Gulli

Can’t agree ref second pilot being needed I’m afraid - two AW139 accidents in Norfolk UK and Grand Cay Bahamas prove that. What was needed was a pilot that knew and respected his limitations.
rotorspeed is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2021, 18:13
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,316
Yeah, I know. I've seen so many second pilots arriving at the scene of the accident on recurrent sim checks, sitting on their hands saying and doing nothing whilst the other pilot drives it into the dirt upside down. A second pilot might have saved the day here, or might not.
gulliBell is online now  
Old 27th Feb 2021, 22:52
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 701
What bothers me so much about this accident is that it wasn't just some goober 135-pilot in a VFR-only Bell 206 who punched-in and lost it. No, it was the *Chief Goober*...an Instrument Rated Chief Goober...in an all-singing, all-dancing S-76, a helicopter fully capable of IFR flight with a big ol' attitude indicator positioned right in front of him...unlike the aforementioned 206 in which the flight instrument group are skewed off to the left. And yet this Chief Goober punched-in and then somehow lost control while in the process of climbing through a relatively thin layer/deck. (We can assume that he knew that it was a thin layer - I mean, there were probably enough breaks for him to have seen up through it. And so climbing up on top and continuing on VFR to Camarillo was probably his exact plan.)

Two pilots might have helped! Oh really? Tell that to the passengers of that two-pilot AW-139 that crashed in the Bahamas when those two goobers couldn't even make a (basically) ITO at night.

Or how's about back in 2019 when that Instrument Rated girl in the EMS 407 that snowy day in Ohio, U.S. who arrived at the base before sunrise and jumped into the ship with it already running, and then blasted off without doing a proper (and required) weather check or risk-assessment..

And those are just three. There are others - I'm sure you can come up with some right off the top of your head. So here's the thing: What does this say about us as a group? To me, it says that we're pretty crappy pilots when it comes to decision-making and skills. We need to stop thinking that we're all heroes and that none of these accidents would ever happen to us, because we're so much better than them dead goobers.

And then maybe there'd be a few less dead goobers.
FH1100 Pilot is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2021, 23:26
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot View Post
Two pilots might have helped! Oh really? Tell that to the passengers of that two-pilot AW-139 that crashed in the Bahamas when those two goobers couldn't even make a (basically) ITO at night.
IMHO two experienced pilots, trained in multicrew VFR & IFR operations, would have made this accident less likely because the workload could be shared and they could have used the aircraft to its full capability when ending up in IMC. The Bahamas accident wasn't a proper "two crew" setup and the Norfolk pilots weren't very experienced & properly trained in two crew operations or using the aircraft to it's full capability so you can't conclude out of these accidents that 2 pilots couldn't make a difference.

finalchecksplease is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 05:53
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
Posts: 1,576
IMHO two experienced pilots, trained in multicrew VFR & IFR operations, would have made this accident less likely because the workload could be shared and they could have used the aircraft to its full capability when ending up in IMC
?????? Would probably have been IFR in the first place so your point is..................?
RVDT is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 09:32
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by RVDT View Post
?????? Would probably have been IFR in the first place so your point is..................?
When I was flying for a VVIP, quite a while back, I flew IFR when required but would always try to drop off my boss at his destination, weather permitting. So there were times after breaking off IFR, I flew very marginal VFR to achieve this but always had an out by climbing up and fly back to the nearest suitable IFR destination. I haven't looked at this trip specifically so not saying it is the case here, being California there probably is an airport with a suitable approach a 15 min drive of their destination but that wasn't always the case for me, more like a 1.5 hr drive at one of his holiday homes for instance.
Looking back at that, with now a lot of two crew experience, I know that it would have been a lot safer to have another trained pilot with me. And what is another pilot salary in the grand scheme of things for a multi millionaire?
finalchecksplease is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 18:46
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 168
and therein lies the problem - I wonder how many HNW individuals are under the illusion that they have 2 properly-trained (MCC/CRM/Sim/checklists/Sops/Ops Manuals etc) pilots up front? They see the gold bars and assume we, the industry, would not be allowed to just stick a costume on anyone in the front
JulieAndrews is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 19:25
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,087
This one had two pilots; directly employed.

AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk

Fareastdriver is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.