"Kobe Bryant dies in helicopter crash."

[JaneDoe]

American basketball star Kobe Bryant died on Sunday after a helicopter crash in Calabasas, California. The 41-year-old former Los Angeles Lakers player was traveling with his daughter Gianna, who also passed away, and seven other people. Nobody survived.

[Livinlean]

4:30 PM PT -- L.A. weather was extremely foggy Sunday morning, and law enforcement sources tell us even LAPD air support was grounded because of it. Flight tracker data shows Kobe's chopper appeared to first encounter weather issues as it was above the L.A. Zoo. It circled that area at least 6 times at a very low altitude -- around 875 feet -- perhaps waiting for the fog to clear.
We know the pilot contacted the control tower at Burbank Airport around 9:30 AM PT, and the tower was aware the pilot had been circling for about 15 minutes. The pilot eventually headed north along the 118 freeway before turning to the west, and started following above the 101 freeway around Woodland Hills, CA.
At around 9:40 AM they encounter more weather -- as in seriously heavy fog -- and the chopper turned south. This was critical, because they turned toward a mountainous area. The pilot suddenly and rapidly climbed from about 1200 feet up to 2000 feet.
However, moments later -- around 9:45 AM -- they flew into a mountain at 1700 feet. Flight tracker data shows they were flying at about 161 knots.

[Ashop]

Horrible tragedy. So many families lost loved ones. Prayers go out to everyone.

[Proximal]

It is, but still can’t resist the Kobe jokes (despite living in Los Angeles).

[Beetlegeuse]

Here's the latest investigative update from the FAA. It's mostly aviation mumbo-jumbo and it's difficult to pick out the salient bits if you aren't fluent in in FAA-ese.


Be careful what you glean from news stories about this or any other aircraft crash because the idiots in the press covering this stuff don't know enough about what's significant to be able to separate the pepper from the fly shit. So they print anything that sounds like it damns somebody without regard for whether it even remotely could have been a factor in the crash because bad news sells more than good news.

Also be careful reading the FAA's interim investigate reports because you're probably reading it with the same lack of institutional knowledge as the jackals in the MSM are.

Me, OTOH, I have been flying for longer than most members of this forum have been alive. I built a hang glider when I was in high school. No, I'm not kidding. Yes, it flew. Yes, I crashed it. No, it didn't kill me. Much.

And I have held a commercial helicopter rating for the most of that time (I also have an advanced degree in journalism, but that's beside the point). So when the press reports that the flight operation that owned the helicopter N72NX was certificated for "VFR-only operations" (meaning they could not deliberately schedule a flight into the clouds ... or fog) I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that that had exactly fuck-all to do with this accident occurring. Same with every other quibble the MSM has brought up to try to fix blame.

Regardless of how it was being operated, every Sikorsky S76 that ever has left the factory was at least minimally equipped for instrument flight. And the pilot was not only instrument-rated, he was an FAA-certified instrument instructor pilot!!! Which trumps all to hell whatever the company's certificate of operation said. The a/c was capable and the pilot was more than capable.

And there's also something called "inadvertent IMC," Accidentally flying into instrument meteorological conditions. And all pilots are trained in this procedure. Rule #1 is get the hell away from the ground because that's the thing that's most likely to kill you.

This is something that is near and dear to the heart of all helicopter operators because helicopters tend to spend a lot more time close to (but not in) the clouds while not on an instrument flight plan. Why do helicopters do it more than airplanes? Because 'copters can stop in mid-air without falling out of the sky. Or they can climb at a walking speed. Or just go straight up at a hover (but if you're in the clouds it's difficult or impossible to tell if you're going straight up). So they can safely be operated in much closer proximity to clouds or fog than airplanes can (presuming the latter is not on an instrument flight plan).

I see three things that stick out to me about that interim report, that sound possibly relevant to the cause of the crash. First, the verbiage used by ATC. Air traffic controllers fear crashes, if anything more than pilots, because they know they'll have to live with the aftermath. The pilot, not so much. So if he thought the pilot was doing something unduly risky, ATC probably would have given him a verbal advisory. This is not uncommon because a controller looks at the same screen day-in and day-out so he knows he has a situational awareness that a pilot entering his airspace for the first time wouldn't. The only thing I read in this report that might indicate some concern on the part of ATC was when he asked him the pilot his intentions.

This might have been a gentle nudge in the ribs from the controller -- are you sure you know what you're doing? -- or it might just have been him asking for his own knowledge to ward off potential future conflicts with other traffic wherever he's headed. From this remove it's impossible to tell what his intentions might have been.

The second noteworthy bit is this passage:

"...The SCT controller then asked the pilot his intentions, to which he replied he was climbing to 4,000 feet. There were no further transmissions.

Radar/ADS-B data indicate the aircraft was climbing along a course aligned with Highway 101 just east of the Las Virgenes exit. Between Las Virgenes and Lost Hills Road, the aircraft reached 2,300 feet msl (approximately 1,500 feet above the highway, which lies below the surrounding terrain) and began a left turn...."

Got that? He starts out flying over a roadway. There's an aviation term called IFR, which stands for "Instrument Flight Rules." Which means you're flying on an instrument flight plan. Which, oddly, you can do even if there's not a cloud in the sky. Most commercial airlines are required to file IFR every flight, regardless of the weather.

As a humorous twist on the IFR acronym, pilots refer to navigating by "I Follow Roads," which is what this pilot appears to have been doing. It's harder to get lost that way but it also precludes any possibility of flying into anything big. Like a mountain. Unless the road goes into a tunnel. Flying low over a road can get you into trouble, too, because of power lines. Nothing that a few hundred feet of altitude won't fix.

He's following a road, which is the perfect place to be if he accidentally flies into a cloud. So far, so good. Then something in the prevailing situation prompted him to want to get away from the ground. While he was out of radar contact (too low) he had told ATC he intended continuing to Camarillo at 1500 ft. Then for some reason he started climbing -- destined for 4000 feet -- until he shows up on radar again. The he starts a left-hand turn. At which point he probably knew he was leaving the safety of the airspace over the roadway.

Then this.

...Eight seconds later, the aircraft began descending and the left turn continued. The descent rate increased to over 4,000 feet per minute (fpm), ground speed reached 160 knots. The last ADS-B target was received at 1,200 feet msl approximately 400 feet southwest of the accident site....

At 2300 feet he's probably only 1500 feet above the terrain so there is no rational reason to be descending at 4000 fps. I've come down way faster than that when flying an airplane (not that close to the ground, though) but not in a helicopter, not even half that fast, not even when practicing autorotations (simulated engine failure).

Which, combined with having left the safety of the airspace over the roadway, gives me to believe something broke. Just a guess, but it makes all the parts fit.

Then there's the witness's account.

...The witness stated that the area was surrounded by mist. He said he began to hear the sound of a helicopter, which he described as appropriate for a helicopter flying while in a powered condition. He perceived the sound getting louder and saw a blue and white helicopter emerge from the clouds passing from left to right directly to his left. He judged it to be moving fast, travelling on a forward and descending trajectory. It started to roll to the left such that he caught a glimpse of its belly. He observed it for 1 to 2 seconds, before it impacted terrain about 50 feet below his position....

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to aviation (most people don't have a clue how planes fly, much less helicopters) but there's a couple of bits from his account I think you can take to the bank.

... [He] saw a blue and white helicopter emerge from the clouds ...
... He judged it to be moving fast, travelling on a forward and descending trajectory...
... He observed it for 1 to 2 seconds, before it impacted terrain about 50 feet below his position....

You don't have to know much about aviation to know that you're suddenly seeing something that had been concealed in the clouds. So I trust him there. It came out of the clouds.

I do not trust this guy's ability to judge that the a/c was "moving fast," or that it was "travelling on a forward and descending trajectory," but those facts aren't really relevant. Because if you've punched into the clouds and are in inadvertent IMC, and you're descending (makes no difference whether you're descending deliberately or because the a/c can't maintain altitude), it behooves you slow the fuck down. So what's significant is what the witness didn't report. He didn't report that the 'copter was moving slowly. Which by rights he should have been.

And he saw it fly into the ground. It doesn't take a lot of specialized training to recognize that an a/c has flown into the ground. And any time you fly into the ground, you're too low. So regardless whether he was descending at the time, he was too low.

Radar shows that the pilot deviated from his stated course of action, then did a couple of (seemingly) inexplicable things. Then a witness eyeballs him popping out of the clouds flying in what sounds to me like like he's out of control.


Most every news report I've read/heard seems to have been going out of their way to incriminate the pilot. But I've been where he was and I can't see a thing he did that I haven't done before. Nothing posing an undue risk ... until the inexplicable stuff starts And from the details I see the potential that there's a mechanical failure to blame.

Pilots like to joke that if the pilot dies in the crash, the FAA investigator's opening move is to blame the pilot unless and until they find evidence to the contrary. Which isn't far from the truth. But the crash debris never lies, so we can hope that if it was something mechanical, that evidence wasn't destroyed in the crash.

No, there was no cockpit voice recorder and no "black box," and neither was required by FAA regulation.


Sorry for the long-winded post but it pisses me off to see a dead pilot's reputation besmirched by people who think Newton's laws have something to do with fig-filled pastry. And yes, I'm sure there's some confirmation bias in my analysis, but it's more consistent with the known facts than anything I've read in the MSM. Who are only looking to crucify the man they want held responsible for killing a sports icon.

And I close with a quote from some guy named Orville Wright, who it must be admitted knew a thing or three about aviation.

If you are looking for perfect safety you will do well to sit on a fence and watch the birds.

[The road]

And I close with a quote from some guy named Orville Wright, who it must be admitted knew a thing or three about aviation.

I did not know Orville said that. Thats awesome.
I reference him when I see people telling someone that something is unsafe in my industry. Usually I am that "someone" and explain that if we all abide by safety and seek safety, we will never advance in anything. Every goddamn thing I have I got taking chances. Its not much but I get more every day and risk more.

All being "safe" ever got anyone was a mediocre boring life.

"Too many times we stand aside
And let the waters slip away
'Til what we put off 'til tomorrow
Has now become today
So don't you sit upon the shoreline
And say you're satisfied
Choose to chance the rapids
And dare to dance the tide" -Garth Brooks (sail my vessel) not that I listen to country music really ever

[Proximal]

Well after all this time Kobe proved his doubters wrong. Turns out he really could pass.

[Beetlegeuse]

I did not know Orville said that. Thats awesome.
I reference him when I see people telling someone that something is unsafe in my industry. Usually I am that "someone" and explain that if we all abide by safety and seek safety, we will never advance in anything. Every goddamn thing I have I got taking chances. Its not much but I get more every day and risk more.

All being "safe" ever got anyone was a mediocre boring life....

The first aviator worthy of the title was a German/Prussian named Otto Lilienthal. He built and flew what today would be called "hang gliders" in the latter 19th Century. Everything he did was by intuition. Intuition and trial and error. So naturally he crashed a lot. He died from injuries received in his final flight. His last words were "Opfer müssen gebracht werden!"

Sacrifices must be made!



If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much goddam room!

[AwareXx]

American basketball star Kobe Bryant died on Sunday after a helicopter crash in Calabasas, California. The 41-year-old former Los Angeles Lakers player was traveling with his daughter Gianna, who also passed away, and seven other people. Nobody survived.

So sad! So sudden!

[Proximal]

So sad! So sudden!

Really is. Now if Kobe were really more like MJ, he’d still be with us.

MJ really could fly.

[Beetlegeuse]

No recent updates on the NTSB's accident report. These almost always take years. They just released the report on MLB pitcher Roy Halladay's crash and that happened two and a half years ago.

[almostgone]

Here's the latest investigative update from the FAA. It's mostly aviation mumbo-jumbo and it's difficult to pick out the salient bits if you aren't fluent in in FAA-ese.


Be careful what you glean from news stories about this or any other aircraft crash because the idiots in the press covering this stuff don't know enough about what's significant to be able to separate the pepper from the fly shit. So they print anything that sounds like it damns somebody without regard for whether it even remotely could have been a factor in the crash because bad news sells more than good news.

Also be careful reading the FAA's interim investigate reports because you're probably reading it with the same lack of institutional knowledge as the jackals in the MSM are.

Me, OTOH, I have been flying for longer than most members of this forum have been alive. I built a hang glider when I was in high school. No, I'm not kidding. Yes, it flew. Yes, I crashed it. No, it didn't kill me. Much.

And I have held a commercial helicopter rating for the most of that time (I also have an advanced degree in journalism, but that's beside the point). So when the press reports that the flight operation that owned the helicopter N72NX was certificated for "VFR-only operations" (meaning they could not deliberately schedule a flight into the clouds ... or fog) I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that that had exactly fuck-all to do with this accident occurring. Same with every other quibble the MSM has brought up to try to fix blame.

Regardless of how it was being operated, every Sikorsky S76 that ever has left the factory was at least minimally equipped for instrument flight. And the pilot was not only instrument-rated, he was an FAA-certified instrument instructor pilot!!! Which trumps all to hell whatever the company's certificate of operation said. The a/c was capable and the pilot was more than capable.

And there's also something called "inadvertent IMC," Accidentally flying into instrument meteorological conditions. And all pilots are trained in this procedure. Rule #1 is get the hell away from the ground because that's the thing that's most likely to kill you.

This is something that is near and dear to the heart of all helicopter operators because helicopters tend to spend a lot more time close to (but not in) the clouds while not on an instrument flight plan. Why do helicopters do it more than airplanes? Because 'copters can stop in mid-air without falling out of the sky. Or they can climb at a walking speed. Or just go straight up at a hover (but if you're in the clouds it's difficult or impossible to tell if you're going straight up). So they can safely be operated in much closer proximity to clouds or fog than airplanes can (presuming the latter is not on an instrument flight plan).

I see three things that stick out to me about that interim report, that sound possibly relevant to the cause of the crash. First, the verbiage used by ATC. Air traffic controllers fear crashes, if anything more than pilots, because they know they'll have to live with the aftermath. The pilot, not so much. So if he thought the pilot was doing something unduly risky, ATC probably would have given him a verbal advisory. This is not uncommon because a controller looks at the same screen day-in and day-out so he knows he has a situational awareness that a pilot entering his airspace for the first time wouldn't. The only thing I read in this report that might indicate some concern on the part of ATC was when he asked him the pilot his intentions.

This might have been a gentle nudge in the ribs from the controller -- are you sure you know what you're doing? -- or it might just have been him asking for his own knowledge to ward off potential future conflicts with other traffic wherever he's headed. From this remove it's impossible to tell what his intentions might have been.

The second noteworthy bit is this passage:



Got that? He starts out flying over a roadway. There's an aviation term called IFR, which stands for "Instrument Flight Rules." Which means you're flying on an instrument flight plan. Which, oddly, you can do even if there's not a cloud in the sky. Most commercial airlines are required to file IFR every flight, regardless of the weather.

As a humorous twist on the IFR acronym, pilots refer to navigating by "I Follow Roads," which is what this pilot appears to have been doing. It's harder to get lost that way but it also precludes any possibility of flying into anything big. Like a mountain. Unless the road goes into a tunnel. Flying low over a road can get you into trouble, too, because of power lines. Nothing that a few hundred feet of altitude won't fix.

He's following a road, which is the perfect place to be if he accidentally flies into a cloud. So far, so good. Then something in the prevailing situation prompted him to want to get away from the ground. While he was out of radar contact (too low) he had told ATC he intended continuing to Camarillo at 1500 ft. Then for some reason he started climbing -- destined for 4000 feet -- until he shows up on radar again. The he starts a left-hand turn. At which point he probably knew he was leaving the safety of the airspace over the roadway.

Then this.



At 2300 feet he's probably only 1500 feet above the terrain so there is no rational reason to be descending at 4000 fps. I've come down way faster than that when flying an airplane (not that close to the ground, though) but not in a helicopter, not even half that fast, not even when practicing autorotations (simulated engine failure).

Which, combined with having left the safety of the airspace over the roadway, gives me to believe something broke. Just a guess, but it makes all the parts fit.

Then there's the witness's account.



Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to aviation (most people don't have a clue how planes fly, much less helicopters) but there's a couple of bits from his account I think you can take to the bank.

... [He] saw a blue and white helicopter emerge from the clouds ...
... He judged it to be moving fast, travelling on a forward and descending trajectory...
... He observed it for 1 to 2 seconds, before it impacted terrain about 50 feet below his position....

You don't have to know much about aviation to know that you're suddenly seeing something that had been concealed in the clouds. So I trust him there. It came out of the clouds.

I do not trust this guy's ability to judge that the a/c was "moving fast," or that it was "travelling on a forward and descending trajectory," but those facts aren't really relevant. Because if you've punched into the clouds and are in inadvertent IMC, and you're descending (makes no difference whether you're descending deliberately or because the a/c can't maintain altitude), it behooves you slow the fuck down. So what's significant is what the witness didn't report. He didn't report that the 'copter was moving slowly. Which by rights he should have been.

And he saw it fly into the ground. It doesn't take a lot of specialized training to recognize that an a/c has flown into the ground. And any time you fly into the ground, you're too low. So regardless whether he was descending at the time, he was too low.

Radar shows that the pilot deviated from his stated course of action, then did a couple of (seemingly) inexplicable things. Then a witness eyeballs him popping out of the clouds flying in what sounds to me like like he's out of control.


Most every news report I've read/heard seems to have been going out of their way to incriminate the pilot. But I've been where he was and I can't see a thing he did that I haven't done before. Nothing posing an undue risk ... until the inexplicable stuff starts And from the details I see the potential that there's a mechanical failure to blame.

Pilots like to joke that if the pilot dies in the crash, the FAA investigator's opening move is to blame the pilot unless and until they find evidence to the contrary. Which isn't far from the truth. But the crash debris never lies, so we can hope that if it was something mechanical, that evidence wasn't destroyed in the crash.

No, there was no cockpit voice recorder and no "black box," and neither was required by FAA regulation.


Sorry for the long-winded post but it pisses me off to see a dead pilot's reputation besmirched by people who think Newton's laws have something to do with fig-filled pastry. And yes, I'm sure there's some confirmation bias in my analysis, but it's more consistent with the known facts than anything I've read in the MSM. Who are only looking to crucify the man they want held responsible for killing a sports icon.

And I close with a quote from some guy named Orville Wright, who it must be admitted knew a thing or three about aviation.

They put out some squirrely numbers. 4000 fps would be over 2,700 miler per hour or 2,370 knots. 180- 220 knots in a helo is screaming along pretty good in stable flight.

Maybe they made a typo and meant 400 fps, that would put you around 40 knots on the rough?

[kelkel]

Fascinating stuff.

[Beetlegeuse]

They put out some squirrely numbers. 4000 fps would be over 2,700 miler per hour or 2,370 knots. 180- 220 knots in a helo is screaming along pretty good in stable flight.

Maybe they made a typo and meant 400 fps, that would put you around 40 knots on the rough?

Ooops.


My bad, that should have been FPM (Aye knead in editer). The read-out is in FPM. Should have been 4000 fpm.

[almostgone]

Ooops.


My bad, that should have been FPM (Aye knead in editer). The read-out is in FPM. Should have been 4000 fpm.

That sounds more like it. I'm notorious for thinking on reloading and then switch to a different subject but keep the ammo unit of measure in my mind. Makes for some interesting bloodwork discussions.

[Beetlegeuse]

4000 fps is faster than an SR-71 at 100,000 feet and full suck.

EDIT:
I just remembered. In a previous life (back when I was flying commercially) I got a simulator operator to load up an SR-71 performance profile in the box I was flying so I could try a "science experiment." So I'm heading north up the Mexifornia coastline making about Mach 3.2 at 90,000 feet. At about Monterey Bay I rolled it inverted (to keep positive Gs on the airframe) then pulled the nose up (which is down, because I'm inverted) and flew 90° nose low, throttles firewalled, straight down until I hit the water in San Francisco Bay. I love getting to do crash resets in a sim (because there's no reset button on the real thing). Anywho, it hit the water at Mach 3 (about 3500 fps @sea level). It wouldn't have been even that fast in the real world because the engines were so far over max temp they'd have come apart. But even if it would have held together, it actually would have (at least according to the performance profile on that simulator) hit the water going slower at sea level, 150,000-lb airplane producing 50,000 lbs of thrust and flying straight down, than it genuinely can go in level flight at altitude.

So 4000 fps in a helicopter -- even one that was shot out of a cannon, or dropped off the moon -- is a touch optimistic.

[Beetlegeuse]

Final report. This might be the most speculative piece of crap I've ever seen from the FAA.

Pilot’s Poor Decision Making, Spatial Disorientation, Led to Fatal Helicopter Crash

2/9/2021

WASHINGTON (Feb. 9, 2021) — The National Transportation Safety Board determined during a public meeting Tuesday, a 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, led to the fatal, Jan. 26, 2020, crash of a Sikorsky S-76B helicopter in Calabasas, California.

The pilot and eight passengers died when the helicopter, operated by Island Express Helicopters, Inc., entered a rapidly descending left turn and crashed into terrain. The flight departed from John Wayne Airport-Orange County, Santa Ana, California, and was bound for Camarillo, California.

About two minutes before the crash, while at an altitude of about 450 feet above ground level, the pilot transmitted to an air traffic control facility that he was initiating a climb to get the helicopter “above the [cloud] layers.” The helicopter climbed at a rate of about 1,500 feet per minute and began a gradual left turn. The helicopter reached an altitude of about 2,400 feet above sea level (1,600 feet above ground level) and began to descend rapidly in a left turn to the ground. While the helicopter was descending the air traffic controller asked the pilot to “say intentions,” and the pilot replied that the flight was climbing to 4,000 feet msl (about 3,200 feet above ground level). A witness first heard the helicopter and then saw it emerge from the bottom of the cloud layer in a left-banked descent about one or two seconds before impact.

Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s likely self-induced pressure and plan continuation bias, which adversely affected his decision making. The NTSB also determined Island Express Helicopters Inc.’s inadequate review and oversight of its safety management process contributed to the crash.

“Unfortunately, we continue to see these same issues influence poor decision making among otherwise experienced pilots in aviation crashes,” said NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt. “Had this pilot not succumbed to the pressures he placed on himself to continue the flight into adverse weather, it is likely this accident would not have happened. A robust safety management system can help operators like Island Express provide the support their pilots need to help them resist such very real pressures.”


(This photo illustration is from radar tracking the last minute of the flightpath of the Sikorsky S-76B helicopter. Google Earth image, NTSB graphic overlay by Bill English).

The report discussed during Tuesday’s meeting highlighted Island Express Helicopters Inc.’s inadequate review and oversight of its safety management processes. Island Express Helicopters Inc.’s lack of a documented policy and safety assurance evaluations to ensure its pilots were consistently and correctly completing the flight risk analysis forms, hindered the effectiveness of the form as a risk management tool. The NTSB concluded a fully implemented, mandatory safety management system could enhance Island Express Helicopter Inc.’s ability to manage risks.

Based upon its investigation the NTSB issued a total of four safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration and to IslandExpress Helicopters Inc. These recommendations address safety issues including preflight weather and flight risk planning, spatial disorientation, inflight decision-making, the benefits of a mandatory safety management system, and the benefits of a flight data monitoring program.

An abstract of the final report, which includes the findings, probable cause, and all safety recommendations, is available at https://go.usa.gov/xsxU8. The full final report will publish in the next few weeks.

The docket for the investigation is available at https://go.usa.gov/xAuAM.

[wango]

Was never a Kobe fan, though it was a loss in so many ways.

[wango]

Final report. This might be the most speculative piece of crap I've ever seen from the FAA.

Pilot’s Poor Decision Making, Spatial Disorientation, Led to Fatal Helicopter Crash

2/9/2021

WASHINGTON (Feb. 9, 2021) — The National Transportation Safety Board determined during a public meeting Tuesday, a 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, led to the fatal, Jan. 26, 2020, crash of a Sikorsky S-76B helicopter in Calabasas, California.

The pilot and eight passengers died when the helicopter, operated by Island Express Helicopters, Inc., entered a rapidly descending left turn and crashed into terrain. The flight departed from John Wayne Airport-Orange County, Santa Ana, California, and was bound for Camarillo, California.

About two minutes before the crash, while at an altitude of about 450 feet above ground level, the pilot transmitted to an air traffic control facility that he was initiating a climb to get the helicopter “above the [cloud] layers.” The helicopter climbed at a rate of about 1,500 feet per minute and began a gradual left turn. The helicopter reached an altitude of about 2,400 feet above sea level (1,600 feet above ground level) and began to descend rapidly in a left turn to the ground. While the helicopter was descending the air traffic controller asked the pilot to “say intentions,” and the pilot replied that the flight was climbing to 4,000 feet msl (about 3,200 feet above ground level). A witness first heard the helicopter and then saw it emerge from the bottom of the cloud layer in a left-banked descent about one or two seconds before impact.

Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s likely self-induced pressure and plan continuation bias, which adversely affected his decision making. The NTSB also determined Island Express Helicopters Inc.’s inadequate review and oversight of its safety management process contributed to the crash.

“Unfortunately, we continue to see these same issues influence poor decision making among otherwise experienced pilots in aviation crashes,” said NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt. “Had this pilot not succumbed to the pressures he placed on himself to continue the flight into adverse weather, it is likely this accident would not have happened. A robust safety management system can help operators like Island Express provide the support their pilots need to help them resist such very real pressures.”


(This photo illustration is from radar tracking the last minute of the flightpath of the Sikorsky S-76B helicopter. Google Earth image, NTSB graphic overlay by Bill English).

The report discussed during Tuesday’s meeting highlighted Island Express Helicopters Inc.’s inadequate review and oversight of its safety management processes. Island Express Helicopters Inc.’s lack of a documented policy and safety assurance evaluations to ensure its pilots were consistently and correctly completing the flight risk analysis forms, hindered the effectiveness of the form as a risk management tool. The NTSB concluded a fully implemented, mandatory safety management system could enhance Island Express Helicopter Inc.’s ability to manage risks.

Based upon its investigation the NTSB issued a total of four safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration and to IslandExpress Helicopters Inc. These recommendations address safety issues including preflight weather and flight risk planning, spatial disorientation, inflight decision-making, the benefits of a mandatory safety management system, and the benefits of a flight data monitoring program.

An abstract of the final report, which includes the findings, probable cause, and all safety recommendations, is available at https://go.usa.gov/xsxU8. The full final report will publish in the next few weeks.

The docket for the investigation is available at https://go.usa.gov/xAuAM.

If you could expand that map westward and south (to the left and down a bit, but more left), I could point out a really great seafood restaurant if you’re interested. And an incredible ice cream place, seriously, killer! Also kinda close to the mass killing/shooting by some knucklehead as well. Although, they recently leveled it.

[< <Samson> >]

I don't follow finger pointing at this point


But, to each is own - it was tragic



Why does the "good die young" really hold true? - Yet Lamar lives through a OD in a whore house

[Test Monsterone]

That pilot was a fucking idiot. Who flies 150+ mph through thick fog with zero visibility? I don't feel bad at all for his stupid ass, just the innocent people he was carrying.

[< <Samson> >]

That pilot was a fucking idiot. Who flies 150+ mph through thick fog with zero visibility? I don't feel bad at all for his stupid ass, just the innocent people he was carrying.

His carelessness that day ended a lot of people’s lives that day & changed the lives of many others - but, unfortunately - shit, like that(or any alike) can’t be changed

How long was he I pilot? I really don’t feel like looking any of this up - and, I don’t remember it mentioned anywhere - just thought of it

[Beetlegeuse]

I didn't want to get into this but ...

Here are the bits that disturb me most about this finding:

"...Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s likely self-induced pressure and plan continuation bias, which adversely affected his decision making...."

... and this ...

"...Had this pilot not succumbed to the pressures he placed on himself to continue the flight into adverse weather, it is likely this accident would not have happened..."

They weren't there. In fact, no one still alive was, so how the hell do they know what his mindset was? Did they hold a goddam séance and ask him? These statements are completely baseless, speculative at best and deliberately prejudicial to boot. It's also confirmation bias because the path of least resistance in any aviation accident in which the pilot dies is to blame him. It's always better for the aviation industry if the dead pilot is found to be responsible because then it becomes a problem that already has self-corrected. He sure as hell won't do that again.

Everybody has pressures to deal with on the job. What these nimrods conveniently omit is that pilots in particular are taught "compartmentalization" from day one, and the only people who excel at flying either came to aviation already with the tendency to compartmentalize or they picked it up in short order. It is an indespensible skill because when you're on short final, low on fuel and there's lightning flashing all around, the turbulence already made half the passengers airsick, you're staring down a short runway with a windsock stiffer than Peter North's pole and pointing perpendicular your path of flight, the only thing that keeps you and your passengers alive is your ability to tune out everything else in the world -- to include the danger to your own life -- except what those little dials on the console are telling you.

The simple fact is that if you want to stretch the definition, every aviation mishap that ever occurred can be laid at the feet of the pilot's judgement. If Max Pruss had shown better judgement and just not got out of bed on the morning of the 6th of May, 1937, then the Hindenberg would not have crashed in Lakehurst, NJ.

Ara Zobayan had logged more than 8200 flight hours. That's 94% of an entire 365-day year spent puttering around in the sky in a big aluminum and carbon fiber thing defying the law of gravity. If you can't compartmentalize you won't endure in aviation, and his experience vouches for his ability to compartmentalize. So it likely would not have mattered if he were hauling Kobe Bryant, the Queen of Sheba or Adolph Hitler.

One thing about accruing that much flight time is it gives you a very finely-honed sense for the degree of danger you're exposing yourself and your passengers to. I'm comfortable that he wouldn't have risen to the position of chief pilot with Island Express if he had not without exception displayed a sensible level of risk acceptance.


Very few people who aren't pilots have a clue about what the act of operating an aircraft in flight involves, mechanically, procedurally or intellectually, and the press who covered this crash (and who didn't know shit about aviation) did a great job of creating unwarranted doubt and suspicion as to the cause. For instance just about every "news" story hammered home the "facts" that the company that operated the helicopter in this crash wasn't certified for flying into instrument conditions (i.e., in the clouds). And also that the helicopter itself was not certified for flight into instrument conditions.

The problem with those two facts is that I can state to an ontological certainty that neither one had sweet-fuck-all to do with causing this crash.

To the contrary, there are two facts that render the both of those quibbles utterly irrelevant. First, the helicopter was fully instrument equipped. Point of fact, every S-76 that Sikorsky ever has built left the factory fully instrument equipped. And second, Ara Zobayan held an "instrument helicopter" rating.*

When you put those two together, what you get is a pilot who had successfully demonstrated the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to earn an instrument flight rating, at the controls of an aircraft that was fully instrument equipped. Which is hardly what the press intended that you to take away from the facts as they presented them. In truth the details they were carping about were purely procedural and financial considerations that in the end had ZERO impact on the potential for that pilot to fly that aircraft safely into Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC).

*Island Express operates under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regs (FARs). Part 135 requires that pilots operating under that chapter receive recurrent training and a check-ride (test of flying skills) including flight under Instrument Flight Rules and the procedure for inadvertent IMC (accidentally flying into the clouds) at least once every 12 months:

14 CFR § 135.293 - Initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements.

(c) Each competency check given in a rotorcraft must include a demonstration of the pilot's ability to maneuver the rotorcraft solely by reference to instruments. The check must determine the pilot's ability to safely maneuver the rotorcraft into visual meteorological conditions following an inadvertent encounter with instrument meteorological conditions.
(emphasis added)

Recovery from inadvertent IMC is arguably the most important emergency procedure taught to commercial helicopter pilots because the 'copter's special flight characteristics result in them frequently being used in close proximity to clouds and fog while still operating under Visual Flight Rules. So it behooves the pilot to be prepared for the potentiality of accidentally punching into the clouds. Because shit happens.


Zobayan earned his instrument rating in 2007. And he had been working for Island Express for more than 10 years, meaning he had had a checkride in which he successfully demonstrated his "ability to safely maneuver the rotorcraft into visual meteorological conditions following an inadvertent encounter with instrument meteorological conditions" no fewer than eleven times (once at hiring and again at each anniversary). And that's exclusive of whatever instrument training/testing he might have received prior to being hired by Island Express, which there obviously was some of, as is attested to by the fact that he got his instrument ticket in 2007.

So, clearly, there was nothing overtly suspicious about the fact that a helicopter pilot "punched in" and accidentally flew into the clouds (or fog).

In fact it happens pretty commonly and it's not a particularly big deal, because the pilot and 'copter usually survive the incident. And it's little more than a trifle to the FAA ... provided you followed the procedures. One of the procedures is you that must confess your sins. Inadvertent IMC is one of those "violations" that the FAA will give you complete absolution for, so long as you got out of it without 'dinging' the aircraft, and performed the act of contrition (which customarily waits until you're back on the ground). The penalty is almost always lighter if you turn yourself in before the FAA comes looking for you.

Inadvertent IMC (accidentally flying into the clouds) ain't no big thang, if you're prepared to deal with it. But success has a thousand fathers and failure is an orphan. If you screw it up, you're not likely to catch any sympathy from anybody but other pilots.


Nobody living knows exactly what took place, what was on Zobayan's mind, or what exactly caused the crash. The simple fact is that these desk jockeys from the NTSB are arguing to "facts" they are not in possession of. Which lets them tie up the case in a pretty blue ribbon and stamp "Closed" on it.

Let me give you a little "inside baseball." If a commercial scheduled airline pilot is involved in an incident of a serious nature (such as a crash that he manages to survive), the first person he'll contact after reaching safety probably will be his union rep. The union rep will notify his alert roster and the union will send people to spirit the pilot away to an undisclosed location. And the pilot will remain in seclusion while union attorneys negotiate with the airline and the FAA over the terms under which their client -- the pilot --- will cooperate.

Because history has shown that the first "airplane cops" (as pilots refer to FAA investigators) to be put on the case tend to be under YUGE pressure to assign blame and close the case as soon as possible. Which puts a big red bulls-eye on the chest of the pilot in question. And his career depends on his entering into that discussion after the brouhaha has settled a bit and once it has been established that he has no intention of rolling over for the benefit of the FAA's public image.

So first and foremost, disabuse yourself of any belief that an FAA/NTSB investigation is free from any personal ambitions or political subtexts.


Although it's equally true that I don't know what happened, I do know that there occasionally are crashes that are unique. That have no precedent, no cause that anyone has ever seen evidence of before. And I'll give you an example.

In 1975, Eastern Airlines Flight 66 crashed (for no apparent reason) about half a mile short of runway 22L at JFK. Which was big news because at that time it was the deadliest air crash in US history.

Shortly after, some Japanese wackadoodle named Fujita studied the crash and proclaimed it was caused by a "microburst," a term he had invented for the occasion. Everybody (and particularly the meteorology "establishment") mocked him and thought he was trying to create a monster from a garden variety downdraft. Except the evidence Fujita had gathered gave him to conclude that these were smaller, briefer and vastly more powerful than any 'normal' downdrafts.

Fujita was vindicated three years later when Doppler radars in Illinois captured the first images of a microburst. Which could not have happened at the time of the Eastern 66 crash because Doppler radar hadn't yet been invented. All told they recorded more than 50 that summer and there since have been hundreds more recorded. The obvious implication is that microbursts are fairly common and probably have been with us since the beginning of time. We just lacked the technology to observe them.

And yes, this was the same Fujita who created (and named) the 'F-scale' for rating tornadoes. Tornadoes were his day job and he only did microbursts for shits and giggles.


I have been flying since some guy named Nixon was the president. And in those five decades I've read my share of aviation accident investigations. This one has more of a "personal" ring to it than any I can recall, even accident reports were it was no-shit, caught-on-camera pilot error weren't this overtly prejudicial.

The only conclusions I can draw from this is that they're determined not to let a crisis go to waste (bad news makes for worse law). And the NTSB's investigators not only consider themselves clairvoyant, they think they can read the minds of dead people.

[wango]

It’s a shit show out here with the lawsuits involving Kobe’s wife and now his mother in law. I don’t think it’s helping matters that they are so litigious. And it’s just a tragedy of the other lives lost besides Kobe. Then on top of that those investigating it leaked photos of the crash site. What a cluster-f.

[< <Samson> >]

It’s a shit show out here with the lawsuits involving Kobe’s wife and now his mother in law. I don’t think it’s helping matters that they are so litigious. And it’s just a tragedy of the other lives lost besides Kobe. Then on top of that those investigating it leaked photos of the crash site. What a cluster-f.

Totally

The lady lost her husband & a daughter - I’d go through another brain hemorrhage & surgery or whatever before I want to see my kid go