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.

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

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.

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?

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
 

Here is the thing: Why isn't there spatial disorientation as long as we look at the very big screen called "windscreen", with good visibility outside? We understand that illusion and contradictory (ie wrong) information from the vestibular system is very powerful and is most difficult to overcome, even by IFR trained pilots. Yet, the moment there is a good visual baseline (ie, VMC), no pilot complains about spatial disorientation.
.

• 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."?

Yet in the two above scenarios, obviously the same presumed powerful misleading information is fed by the vestibular system to the brain of the pilot (leans, and somatographic illusion respectively), which in the absence of a good visual picture would be experienced as "overpowering" and - unless very well trained and recent - would be very difficult of fight. (I am referring again to the very good article from Elan Head)

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?

We now have thousands of hours of GA aircraft flown under VFR with some sort of synthetic vision on board. Be it tablet apps like the ones from Helios Avionics, Garmin or Foreflight, getting attitude information from an external AHRS (and in same cases, directly from the sensors built into the tablet), or panel mounted EFDs, be it certified or non-certified.

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.

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 :E. 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?

The accident pilot had all the tools he needed and more to keep it upright but couldn't. Giving him even more tools probably wouldn't have changed the outcome.

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.

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.

Yes, Jim, to your point. In full support of your statement earlier in this thread, which I copied in.

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.

Understood, or rather misunderstood.😁

Isn’t it about time to put this thread to bed?

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.”

That was quick....