N72EX (Kobe Bryant) Crash Update-
The risk of an AP failure is now close to 0 - and even so, flying a helicopter with AP of is a skill which should be trained from time to time, it is nothing which needs to be incorporated into check rides on a regular basis.
I didn't say it had to be in a check ride - many are done in simulators which don't accurately reproduce the handling characteristics of the aircraft anyway.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
so you agree that you shouldn't be flying it if you can't control it AP out?
I didn't say it had to be in a check ride - many are done in simulators which don't accurately reproduce the handling characteristics of the aircraft anyway.
I didn't say it had to be in a check ride - many are done in simulators which don't accurately reproduce the handling characteristics of the aircraft anyway.
But always put it into the whole picture.
Putting extra stress on flying AP off - like doing holdings in IMC ie isn’t the way.
But you should be able to get the helicopter back home and down without the Autopilot - and treat that whole procedure as the the emergency as it is put down in section three of the Handbook (according to helicopter type)
On EC 155 ie, easy to fly helicopter with systems on - even an untrained person could be talked through to an landing - what a difference stabilization off.
Easy overcontrolled, if not used to, astonishing how fast nearly five tons can change attitudes from one side to the other and back...
In the FM - run on landing is recommended then...
By now, the section in the FM about the Autopilot, its functions and buttons is thicker than the whole Emergency Part for the Lynx in days I flew it...
And the risk, pushing a button and wondering what the helicopter is doing as a consequence thereafter is actually higher than a failure of the AP itself...
Flying really changed from hands on to managing a flight.
If done correctly it’s really relaxing. You can stay well ahead of the aircraft, monitoring it and pushing in the values you need, having time to look ahead what’s coming next, while the helicopter flies the path you programmed, including climbs, turns and decents
Completely agree FB - the AP is only a computer and it will try to do exactly what you ask it to - the problem is that pilots often don't understand what it is they have asked it to do or how it will respond when they do.
The Lynx was great fun AP out, all display manoeuvres were flown that way because of the rapid control response.
The Lynx was great fun AP out, all display manoeuvres were flown that way because of the rapid control response.
Let the FMS handle it. Nothing can go wrong-go wrong-go wrong.
Other wiz kid pilots on this site have called me an old dinosaur. Maybe I am but when I was trained to fly we flew it to its limits and the overriding lesson thumped into me was that I WAS THE MASTER. The aeroplane did what it was told.
This attitude brought on a protective attitude so that in my long, 49 years, career, I had this rapport with those in whose cockpit I was privileged to occupy. Mechanical sympathy is the engineers term and I had plenty of that so I could stick my neck out and read how my steed was coping.
I must have been successful because I never had an unexpected problem. (They wouldn't have dared.)
Lucky? No. As soon as I started one I would know if it was unhappy and this feeling lead me to an enjoyable and easy career.
Other wiz kid pilots on this site have called me an old dinosaur. Maybe I am but when I was trained to fly we flew it to its limits and the overriding lesson thumped into me was that I WAS THE MASTER. The aeroplane did what it was told.
This attitude brought on a protective attitude so that in my long, 49 years, career, I had this rapport with those in whose cockpit I was privileged to occupy. Mechanical sympathy is the engineers term and I had plenty of that so I could stick my neck out and read how my steed was coping.
I must have been successful because I never had an unexpected problem. (They wouldn't have dared.)
Lucky? No. As soon as I started one I would know if it was unhappy and this feeling lead me to an enjoyable and easy career.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 5th Mar 2021 at 19:08.
Use the force Luke
- but you are right FED - it works. Mechanical sympathy and an understanding of what you are asking the machine to do are key.
- but you are right FED - it works. Mechanical sympathy and an understanding of what you are asking the machine to do are key.
Ref the FTR discussion - the following is from the recently published TSB Canada report into the S92 LOC incident offshore (https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r.../a19a0055.html). It tends to support what many of us have said/known......
In tests conducted by the RCAF, helicopter pilots who used ATT mode while minimizing the use of the trim release had far better control in a DVE than pilots who attempted to fly with the trim release button depressed. Pilots who flew with the trim release button depressed “often failed to interpret residual pitch or roll rates (or vertical velocities) due to the reduced cues and aircraft control suffered resulting in ineffective approaches or in the worst case ground impact.”
The RCAF’s CH146 Griffon Standard Manoeuvre Manual states that using the force trim will assist in maintaining a steadier hover and aircraft attitude during night and/or during overwater operations.
Additionally, the RCAF’s Air Mobility CH149 Cormorant Operations manual warns against using the cyclic trim release button, and states the following: In low visual cueing environments (IMC, night, boat hoist, etc.), the pilot should attempt to maintain attitude retention by avoiding the use of the cyclic Trim Release button. Small and precise attitude changes can be made using the cyclic beep trim switch only. Alternatively, the pilot can easily move the cyclic in the manoeuvre mode then use the beep trim to relieve control forces, resulting in faster trim rates.66
The RCAF’s CH146 Griffon Standard Manoeuvre Manual states that using the force trim will assist in maintaining a steadier hover and aircraft attitude during night and/or during overwater operations.
Additionally, the RCAF’s Air Mobility CH149 Cormorant Operations manual warns against using the cyclic trim release button, and states the following: In low visual cueing environments (IMC, night, boat hoist, etc.), the pilot should attempt to maintain attitude retention by avoiding the use of the cyclic Trim Release button. Small and precise attitude changes can be made using the cyclic beep trim switch only. Alternatively, the pilot can easily move the cyclic in the manoeuvre mode then use the beep trim to relieve control forces, resulting in faster trim rates.66
Turns executed with the beep trim switch may be controlled and safe, but the odds are that the pilot, flying visually day-in day-out, would have pressed the FTR switch to make turns. Do we even know if he used any of the upper modes as part of his daily flying practice? The lack of real cloud and IFR flying would be poor preparation for switching to upper AFCS modes when surprised and under stress. And alone.
There was a comment posted much earlier here somewhere, from somebody who knows the check pilot that did the accident pilot's competency checks, and he was almost sure that the pilot would have been flying in SAS. Because that is the way he was used to flying it. Which would explain why things went pear shaped so quickly after entering some real clouds.
Think you raised the question a while back as to how reliable the upper modes of the AFCS might have been if not used or properly maintained GB. I find it hard to visualize not using them in the S76B, as it is a lot easier to fly with a mode or two in than entirely by hand. The PBA changes the attitude set up if you do that (which in itself needs monitoring or it can bite you in the butt at night/IMC). Even chopping around LA, I would have thought ALT and IAS would make life easier too.
And not using all of that aircraft capability is a shame that only pales compared to the needless loss of life.j
And not using all of that aircraft capability is a shame that only pales compared to the needless loss of life.j
https://insurancenewsnet.com/innarti...ryant-lawsuits
Kobe Bryant #24 of the Los Angeles Lakers poses for a photo in front of the helicopter he took to his last game against the Utah Jazz on April 13, 2016 at Staples Center in Los Angeles, Calif. (Photo by Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE via Getty Images) By John Hilton
A California insurer claimed its coverage does not include the type of helicopter that crashed on Jan. 26, 2020, killing basketball legend Kobe Bryant and eight others.
OC Helicopters was covered by an aircraft insurance policy issued by Endurance Assurance Corp. at the time of the accident. The policy contains a single limit of $10 million for bodily injury and property damage, Endurance acknowledged in a lawsuit filed last week in the Central District of California.
OC Helicopters is among the defendants named in four lawsuits filed by Vanessa Bryant, Kobe Bryant's widow, and families of other victims. Endurance defended OC Helicopters to date, and its lawsuit asks the court for reimbursement of money spent.
The Endurance claim is simple: the Sikorsky S76B helicopter was not qualified for coverage under the policy it issued OC Helicopters. The policy had a clause for aircraft it operated but did not own. Helicopters do not fall under that clause, Endurance said.
"Because the Sikorsky is a rotorwing aircraft, it does not fall within the scope of the Non-Owned Aircraft Liability coverage provided by the Policy," the Endurance lawsuit states. "The Policy, therefore, does not provide coverage for the claims alleged against OC Helicopters in the Liability Actions."
Kobe Bryant, 41, retired in 2016 as one of the greatest NBA players of all time. The Bryants' 13-year-old daughter, Gianna, was also killed in the crash.
There has been plenty of blame to go around following the early morning crash in Calabasas, Calif.
Bryant’s widow blamed the pilot. She and families of other victims also sued the companies that owned and operated the helicopter. The brother of the pilot didn’t blame Bryant but said he knew the risks of flying. The helicopter companies said the weather was an act of God and blamed air traffic controllers.
The nine passengers were flying from Orange County to a youth basketball tournament at Bryant's Mamba Sports Academy in Ventura County when the helicopter encountered thick fog in the San Fernando Valley north of Los Angeles.
Pilot Ara Zobayan climbed sharply and had nearly broken through the clouds when the Sikorsky S-76 helicopter banked abruptly and plunged into the Calabasas hills below, killing all nine aboard instantly before flames engulfed the wreckage.
There was no sign of mechanical failure, and it was believed to be an accident, the National Transportation Safety Board has said.
InsuranceNewsNet Senior Editor John Hilton has covered business and other beats in more than 20 years of daily journalism. John may be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @INNJohnH.
Insurer Says It Won’t Cover Flight Operator In Kobe Bryant Lawsuits
Kobe Bryant #24 of the Los Angeles Lakers poses for a photo in front of the helicopter he took to his last game against the Utah Jazz on April 13, 2016 at Staples Center in Los Angeles, Calif. (Photo by Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE via Getty Images) By John Hilton
A California insurer claimed its coverage does not include the type of helicopter that crashed on Jan. 26, 2020, killing basketball legend Kobe Bryant and eight others.
OC Helicopters was covered by an aircraft insurance policy issued by Endurance Assurance Corp. at the time of the accident. The policy contains a single limit of $10 million for bodily injury and property damage, Endurance acknowledged in a lawsuit filed last week in the Central District of California.
OC Helicopters is among the defendants named in four lawsuits filed by Vanessa Bryant, Kobe Bryant's widow, and families of other victims. Endurance defended OC Helicopters to date, and its lawsuit asks the court for reimbursement of money spent.
The Endurance claim is simple: the Sikorsky S76B helicopter was not qualified for coverage under the policy it issued OC Helicopters. The policy had a clause for aircraft it operated but did not own. Helicopters do not fall under that clause, Endurance said.
"Because the Sikorsky is a rotorwing aircraft, it does not fall within the scope of the Non-Owned Aircraft Liability coverage provided by the Policy," the Endurance lawsuit states. "The Policy, therefore, does not provide coverage for the claims alleged against OC Helicopters in the Liability Actions."
Kobe Bryant, 41, retired in 2016 as one of the greatest NBA players of all time. The Bryants' 13-year-old daughter, Gianna, was also killed in the crash.There has been plenty of blame to go around following the early morning crash in Calabasas, Calif.
Bryant’s widow blamed the pilot. She and families of other victims also sued the companies that owned and operated the helicopter. The brother of the pilot didn’t blame Bryant but said he knew the risks of flying. The helicopter companies said the weather was an act of God and blamed air traffic controllers.
The nine passengers were flying from Orange County to a youth basketball tournament at Bryant's Mamba Sports Academy in Ventura County when the helicopter encountered thick fog in the San Fernando Valley north of Los Angeles.
Pilot Ara Zobayan climbed sharply and had nearly broken through the clouds when the Sikorsky S-76 helicopter banked abruptly and plunged into the Calabasas hills below, killing all nine aboard instantly before flames engulfed the wreckage.
There was no sign of mechanical failure, and it was believed to be an accident, the National Transportation Safety Board has said.
InsuranceNewsNet Senior Editor John Hilton has covered business and other beats in more than 20 years of daily journalism. John may be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @INNJohnH.
Last edited by Cyclic Hotline; 18th May 2021 at 21:22. Reason: Format
I can't see the insurer getting that argument to fly. Pilot's wreck aircraft for all sorts of reasons, running out of fuel, flying into mountains buried in cloud, etc etc, and the insurer's still pay out claims even for those accidents attributed to gross pilot negligence. For an insurer to try and wriggle out of a liability for the excuse offered here does seem a bit out of the ordinary.
I can't see the insurer getting that argument to fly. Pilot's wreck aircraft for all sorts of reasons, running out of fuel, flying into mountains buried in cloud, etc etc, and the insurer's still pay out claims even for those accidents attributed to gross pilot negligence. For an insurer to try and wriggle out of a liability for the excuse offered here does seem a bit out of the ordinary.
How does OC get a mention? The aircraft was owned by Island Express and the pilot employed by same. The only mention OC gets in the report.
Why are gun sights on OC? Lawyers scatter gun approach?
According to the broker’s operations manager, the accident client initially approached her company because he liked its work ethic, but she said that OC Helicopters did not have a helicopter big enough to suit his needs, so she began looking for an operator for him
OC was an operator, they just didn't have a large enough aircraft for this contract so they farmed the work out to Island.
Not sure exactly how that plays out under US law.
It doesn't seem like an agent role. The transcripts are quite specific about the arrangements between the various parties.
It makes complete sense why they would be named in a case, as they clearly weren't operating as a proxy, they had an active role in choosing who the pilots were and so had a duty of care to ensure the service they were selling was safe.
Not sure exactly how that plays out under US law.
It doesn't seem like an agent role. The transcripts are quite specific about the arrangements between the various parties.
It makes complete sense why they would be named in a case, as they clearly weren't operating as a proxy, they had an active role in choosing who the pilots were and so had a duty of care to ensure the service they were selling was safe.
"The policy had a clause for aircraft it operated but did not own. Helicopters do not fall under that clause, Endurance said."
Was there a clause excluding rotary wing, or are they claiming rotary wing are not aircraft? If the latter, the FAA definitions have the answer.
Was there a clause excluding rotary wing, or are they claiming rotary wing are not aircraft? If the latter, the FAA definitions have the answer.
"The policy had a clause for aircraft it operated but did not own. Helicopters do not fall under that clause, Endurance said."
Was there a clause excluding rotary wing, or are they claiming rotary wing are not aircraft? If the latter, the FAA definitions have the answer.
Was there a clause excluding rotary wing, or are they claiming rotary wing are not aircraft? If the latter, the FAA definitions have the answer.
