"Kobe Bryant dies in helicopter crash."

[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

[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!

[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?

[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.