S-76 Down with Kobe Bryant, Daughter and 7 others

Words can’t describe how sad I am tonight upon learning of Kobe’s Helicopter Going Down Today. My heart goes out to his family and friends. It hurts to my core tonight. Kobe Was an elite talent and a giant in the world of sports but more importantly he was a transcendent Force and role model for all. He followed his dreams and lived his life by example. I truly hope we find answers as to what went wrong so we in the aviation community can learn from this to ensure a tragedy like this never occurs again.

Unfortunately, it seems the answer to what went wrong is simple, the pilot flew when both police and news media copters were grounded by choice and he flew into fog, perhaps trying to follow a hwy and in hilly terrain he flew into the ground. Now there is of course not an NTSB report at this time, and I wish we could change that facts or the outcome, and I am sure someone will tell me/us not to "speculate" as to cause at this time. Meanwhile 8 passengers who trusted this pilot with their lives are dead and it doesn't change no matter if we "speculate" or not.
There is a recording with ATC on the news this am where controller tells pilot he is too low to appear on radar for flight following. What should he have done at that time? Either turn back to better weather or land, any where safe. The Kobe party could have easily called an Uber limo and been driven to their destination in an hour or so.
I am not an copter pilot, don't know if they really fly ifr, but I am certain if you fly low in hilly terrain when you cant see, its foolish. Wish he had been solo if he was determined to go on, but don't take 13 year old girls with you.

One article I read on a major news site stated the ATC audio recorded the pilot as saying he was climbing above the fog. The helo then entered a very steep turning descent (4000fpm) and hit the ground at 180+ mph. Most of us will draw some conclusions from this data if it proves via the investigation to be accurate.

Very, very tragic.....and lessons to be (re)learned......

I usually don't like to speculate as to cause when it comes to aircraft accidents until more time has passed and more relevant information and supporting evidence has been gathered. However, the audio evidence to date from ATC appears to easily suggest that this crash was clearly CFIT.

This is a tragedy of immense proportion because major parts of 4 families including young children were snuffed out in an instant. And the real tragedy, IMO, is that it was totally avoidable. Because a helicopter was involved and not a fixed wing aircraft, the pilot could have made the correct decision not to fly into IMC, do a quick180 and land ANYWHERE, a road, a parking lot, a field, a COSTCO rooftop, a baseball diamond, a football or soccer field. ANYWHERE. And either wait out the WX or as Bill said call a stretch limo.

We'll never know how much gotta-get-there-itis might have been a factor in decisions made and by whom. The more I look at this crash, the more it reminds me that it has most of the hallmarks of the JFK Jr. crash in 1999.

Or unCFIT........

Just horrible news it was. The NTSB today read about the route at the end I thought they said the pilot said he was climbing to avoid a cloud, atc asked what his intentions were and no reply, radar showed it at 2300 feet then it turned left and off the scope.
So what direction does that main rotor turn? Maybe lost tail rotor?

If that aircraft did not have synthetic vision something is wrong. No excuse these days for disorientation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pjNIYm5zNo

"...could have made the correct decision not to fly into IMC, do a quick 180 and land ANYWHERE, a road, a parking lot, a field, a COSTCO rooftop, a baseball diamond, a football or soccer field. ANYWHERE."

I am a helicopter aviator. Yes, I am instrument rated and experienced and fly IFR when appropriate to the job. Some jobs the aircraft has no instruments other than the certification minimum because max payload is the moneymaker and if it ain't paying for the flight it ain't riding. Plus, there are no instrument approaches to the jobsite or most (if any) of the places listed above. On many more than one occasion I've followed telephone lines, flown to the McDonald's sign and turned right, followed a highway through mountains in snowstorms, seen unlit towers above me go past the window (fun assignment - look up the requirements for how short a tower needs a daytime beacon), climbed OVER three strand bobwhar to land on an airport in fog. It ain't easy but it can and has been done safely. All that was under the old rule for daytime, "If postflight shows no debris or missing parts, you were VFR."

Yes, absolutely the decision has to be NOT fly into IMC because one is already below minimum vectoring altitude and off charted routes. But that too ain't easy. New rule is minimum 1/2 mile vis. Min-vis visual flight is done SLOWLY and LOWLY and by the time one realizes the vis is less than a half mile there usually isn't any way to do a "quick 180" because it's a pedal turn :) and that 1/2 mile vis one had back there can drop to feet in a mini-change of a degree. Heck, I've had to key on trees and use the rotorwash energy to change the dewpoint enough to see the landing zone.

I strongly agree the emphatic "land ANYWHERE" above is the answer. Remember one is doing this in a helicopter and one can LAND THE DANG THING. RIGHT THERE! One must practice scoping out those choices listed above, and more, never fixate on finding an airport (yes there's a LOT less paperwork) or "the perfect place" instead of landing.

In order. Right side up, no damage, near a road, an occupied building, with a phone, a restaurant, a motel, with a pool, at a heliport, on an airport, with rental cars, and scheduled service. :)

I agree with Mike M 100%. Been there, done that.

I've been in similar circumstances flying helicopters in the Army and civilian.

Vietnam Vet

$13 plus million to purchase a new aircraft. So if it did not have EVS and artificial vision, huge mistake. Pilot had plenty of instrument time. If the plastic main rotor blades didn't fail, or rotor system or something else in the chopper, then the pilot
had a medical issue. If a very low hour of experience pilot can enter a cloud, use his instruments, and be able to talk about it I'm sure an instrument rated very experienced pilot will not be disoriented or lose control because of it.

Someone mentioned land on a costco roof top, that is an approximate 11,000 pound item to land.

It was a Part 135 operator and they did not have authorization to conduct IFR operations.

Saw a doorbell video camera clip today located near the crash site. The clip only had audio of the flight due to low clouds but the helo turbines sounded normal and strong up until a loud “whump”. Very troubling to hear nine lives being snuffed out......

There is at least on proposal in Congress today, by Rep Diane Deguet sp? I haven't read the actual wording, but it seems pretty sensible and straightforward, that commercial helicopters like the one the Bryants were on will be required to have ground collision warning systems. It is a shame that this one was not equipped with that.
I don't know Diane personally, but her kids when small had play dates with my lifetime best friends who also live in DC. Seems like a good rep.

That operation was part 135 and was required to be VFR. How would a ground proximity warning system work for low level VFR?
It would obviously be yelling "pull up... pull up... pull up for the entire flight. And then get turned off.
He did pull up anyway (according to tracking) before the impact and then apparently lost control.

I've flown in weather similar to that in Army and Guard helicopters. We proceeded very slowly and if it got worse did a pedal turn 180 or simply landed.

The seen or unseen pressure to fly the rich and famous has caused more than one weather related accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

There is at least on proposal in Congress today, by Rep Diane Deguet sp? I haven't read the actual wording, but it seems pretty sensible and straightforward, that commercial helicopters like the one the Bryants were on will be required to have ground collision warning systems. It is a shame that this one was not equipped with that.
I don't know Diane personally, but her kids when small had play dates with my lifetime best friends who also live in DC. Seems like a good rep.

---

He already knew he was low, which was why he pulled up into the clouds and subsequently (apparently) lost spatial orientation and crashed. A ground prox sensor wouldn't have helped.

As you can see by comments here and by comments in the press, most folks would like to apply technology to solve people problems. As noted in the previous post, its not a technology problem. Bring up the area of the crash in Google Earth and ask yourself whether you would want to be flying around those canyons at 150kts under an 1100' overcast with patchy fog. Not a technology problem.

Best of luck,

Wes

If I was going to fly that low in questionable visibility, I would certainly want to have any technology that might help. We are way past, at least 9 lives past, the point where any commercial operation can fly vulnerable passengers and it be acceptable to ignore such technology because they would not spend the few thousand $$$ cost. I have seen demos of virtual vision systems in Cirrus, and they look good. My friend has one on his Cirrus, though I have not seen it in flight. Kobe had enough money that he could have chosen first class, the best available and he probably thought he did. The problem is most passengers don't know what questions to ask relevant to their safety if they even have that bent. I doubt if there was pressure from the passengers to make the flight, they probably trusted and left it up to the pilot who was seasoned and had flown them before. I really doubt if the pilot ever said, "Hey, folks it it really foggy and low visibility today and dangerous and we shouldn't go, but if you really want me to risk your lives for a kids basketball game I"ll take the chance.
The other ways that this can happen other than govt regulations is the helicopter company to lose a $50 million lawsuit against it, and then similar companies will be out of business without insurance if they don't equip as safe as possible.
Think of an average juror I this case not you guys who know it all, when told that such technology was avaoilable and the company chose not to use it in very dangerous conditions. Case over for sure.

"...seems pretty sensible and straightforward, that commercial helicopters like the one the Bryants were on will be required to have ground collision warning systems. It is a shame that this one was not equipped..."

No. Not straight forward.

"How would a ground proximity warning system work for low level VFR?
It would obviously be yelling "pull up... pull up... pull up for the entire flight. And then get turned off."

Yes.

"He already knew he was low, which was why he pulled up into the clouds and subsequently (apparently) lost spatial orientation and crashed. A ground prox sensor wouldn't have helped."

Concur.

"As you can see by comments here and by comments in the press, most folks would like to apply technology to solve people problems. As noted in the previous post, its not a technology problem."

Concur.

"If I was going to fly that low in questionable visibility, I would certainly want to have any technology that might help."

ABSOLUTELY! ME, TOO! What I don't want is a bunch of technology that makes it WORSE. Flying around low-hanging clouds and patchy fog between buildings to land on a roof at night in busy Class D below class B with crew calls and ATC clearances and traffic sequencing being being drowned out by constant TAWS and GPWS and RADALT alerts is NOT technology helping! Yes I pulled the TAWS and GPWS breakers! And no, not just that one time. From that night on they went off before entering that environment.

"Think of an average juror in this case not you guys who know it all, when told that such technology was available and the company chose not to use it in very dangerous conditions. Case over for sure."

Very good point. When other skilled and experienced aviators disagree so cogently with my personal experiences, I realize that it will be impossible to convince a non-flying juror that what sounds good at the sales convention, sounds good at the avionics shop, sounds good on the test and certification flight, sounds good at the inquest, sounds good in the jury box, may actually have been what induced fatal pilot disorientation. I know this aircraft didn't have the full bag, but would it have helped? Along with others who have posted here, I don't believe it would have.

Therefore I believe the systems should not be mandated. And believe even having all the gear might not satisfy a jury. What if the insurance company lawyer defending against that lawsuit finds some guy with a fat logbook and gray hair and if the gear was energized, the guy says they likely distracted the pilot? Or if they weren't energized, says the pilot likely got distracted silencing them?

"I have seen demos of virtual vision systems in Cirrus, and they look good."

Synthetic vision has promise because nobody ever died from flying into a synthetic obstruction :) For me, "the jury is still out" on that one because I haven't flown it in extreme situations yet.

Kind of like in early WW I some German pilots were lost going down with their planes, even on fire, because the rigid and foolish idea, now long ago disproven that the pilots should not have parachutes as it might make them jump out too soon.

The problem with all of that logic is that the accident airplane was a helicopter. The pilot could have slowed to 50kts instead of 150kts. Every open field was a landing spot. The reports say that the pilot was instrument rated and the ship was equipped. The pilot did not take full advantage of the capabilities of the airplane so there is no reason to believe that additional technology would have improved the pilot's decision making.

Might additional technology help? Maybe. I note that glass panels were promised to reduce the accident rate. Nope.

Best of luck,

Wes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

Kind of like in early WW I some German pilots were lost going down with their planes, even on fire, because the rigid and foolish idea, now long ago disproven that the pilots should not have parachutes as it might make them jump out too soon.

---

Actually, that wasn't just the Germans...the Allied brass hats had the same opinion. See Arthur Gould Lee's book, "No Parachute."

The RAF finally relented just prior to the end of the war, but that was probably in reaction to the fact that German pilots had been authorized to wear parachutes a year earlier. They'd developed the Heinicke parachute system by 1917, and gave their pilots the option to wear it if they wished.
https://www.sciencesource.com/Doc/TR.../SS2591578.jpg

I haven't found any list of "saves", but the reports by Allied pilots increasingly mention that their foes had escaped by parachute. Again, this probably led to eventual RAF approval.

In "Ace of the Iron Cross," Ernst Udet describes his successful bail-out in combat. If you've read the book, "The Blue Max," the Heinicke harness is mentioned there (and not in a flattering light).

Parachutes had existed for balloon observers, of course, but those parachutes weren't really suited to fighter aircraft...they were heavy, bulky, and didn't have ripcords....they were designed to be pulled out of their case by the weight of a man falling.

The aversion to safety gear didn't end with the Great War. There was a lot of resistance in the early days of WWII to stuff like armor plate on the back of pilot's seats and bullet-proof glass windshields. It's said that Dowding issued a peevish memo, saying "I do not understand why the gangsters of Chicago can have bullet-proof windscreens and my pilots cannot." Tuck's biography describes his plane having a bullet-proof windscreen installed on his Spitfire just before taking off on a sortie, and coming back with two bullet scars in the middle of it.

One should note, though, that the resistance was not always from the brass. Pilots sometimes objected to the increased weight and other perceived problems. If you've read the book "Piece of Cake," the author shows one of the pilots salvaging a piece of armor plate from a BF-109 and installing it behind his own Hurricane's seat. The other pilots are aghast; it's not sporting, and doesn't it affect the way the machine handles? As the phony war ends, though, more and more start adding armor.

A lot of times, the limit of aviation safety technology is not merely the capabilities provided, it's the ACCEPTANCE of the technology by the pilots involved. The "Shut up and die like an aviator" mindset still exists.... we see it in reaction to every Cirrus CAPS save. There's a lot of pressure in the pilot community to NOT use equipment like that. "A good pilot should have been able to save the airplane!" A CAPS-type system might have saved the Bryant Sikorsky, but would the pilot have used it? It takes a swallowing of the ego, and for most pilots, that's a pretty big lump.

Ejection seats have been installed in all US tactical aircraft since WWII. Nominally, it should have practically eliminated fatalities...but of course, that's not the case. Some instances of course it didn't matter, but in too many, the pilot was unwilling to admit that the problem was beyond his capability and that he needed to turn his fate over to Martin-Baker.

The Bryant crash is likely to result in aviation rulemaking by those who know NOTHING of aviation. Like the Colgan crash, non-flying lawmakers are probably going to pass rules designed to "prevent" reoccurrence. And like the rules promulgated after the Colgan crash, there are going to be impacts far beyond what they think they're fixing.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

The Bryant crash is likely to result in aviation rulemaking by those who know NOTHING of aviation. Like the Colgan crash, non-flying lawmakers are probably going to pass rules designed to "prevent" reoccurrence. And like the rules promulgated after the Colgan crash, there are going to be impacts far beyond what they think they're fixing.

---

Cloud flying rules are merely suggestions.
Right?

Flying under Special VFR conditions can be very demanding. PICs should understand the situation and it’s ramifications before requesting. Rotor heads tend to use SVFR more than fixed wing types. It appears to be a case of spatial disorientation. Whether he tried to climb thru the layer, inadvertently flew into it, got trapped, or whatever I’m not sure we’ll ever know why.

Prelim report has been released. Prelims don’t assign a cause.....but pilots reading the report can figure it out......very sad.....

Why would the controller terminate radar service? ADS-B works where the radar doesn't.
preliminary report:https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ive-Update.pdf

Um, no. When you are down in the canyons the line-of-sight signal fails. Your onboard GPS can get a signal but the ATC antenna on the other side of the hill can not "hear" you.

Don't believe the advertising.

Best of luck,

Wes

I thought ADS-B could relay to other aircraft and then to ATC or something for mountain coverage without radar, like they did in Alaska.

Are all TRACONs ADSB equipped?? There are about 185 TRACONs. The last statistic I saw said about 100 were equipped. But that may be stale info.

For Mike and others, your idea that a ground warning system or virtual vision would distract the pilot doesn't hold much logic. Many airplanes have a warning light for a stall ( my T-34A) or a warning horn, and they may have a gear up waring horn, ( my Bonanza) and may have a low fuel warning light, just as many new cars ( my 2001 E 320) have a warning light for low fuel. I have ground warning radar in my Bonanza.
If you fly an airplane with these warnings do you loose control and crash if one goes off? Course not. If I was doing a annual review in my Bonanza and doing steep turns and stalls gear up I don't crash if the horn beeps. And I don't crash my car if a light goes on. Many new cars even have a proximity sensor that beeps if there is a conflict with a car in another lane.
I think the helicopter company did not have the sensor mostly due to human nature, we always want to ignore or at least minimize danger, save a few bucks, and take the cheap way out. Why do you think most school buses have seat belts for the driver only, not the kids?

The FAA and govt as well as ins companies will almost certainly use this accident as a spur to require the latest safety equipment to carry passengers and no more excuses.
If you disagree, fine, but want to bet $50 on which side prevails in any lawsuit over this?

I am not a lawyer, my Son is, but I have studied relative law some. I would be glad to wager $50, that the helicopter company, will if sued pay a big settlement out of court, or lose any lawsuit that actually goes to trial.
You can have a million hours of smoke and mirrors, lot of experts who will say whatever they are hired to say, but in the end a juror, likely a non pilot, will be told that these safety devices were available , have been for years and the company chose not to use them. And 8 passengers died. The main cause may be pilot error but its unlikely the case will be limited to that, and that's on the company also.

I have a ground warning radar in my Bonanza and it is a safety item for ifr approaches and it doesn't distract or make me crash.

"The Bryant crash is likely to result in aviation rulemaking by those who know NOTHING of aviation. Like the Colgan crash, non-flying lawmakers are probably going to pass rules designed to "prevent" reoccurrence. And like the rules promulgated after the Colgan crash, there are going to be impacts far beyond what they think they're fixing."

Concur.

"your idea that a ground warning system or virtual vision would distract the pilot doesn't hold much logic."

I don't care about your opinion on that, my mileage varied and I'm still converting O2 into CO2 on the green side. Bless your heart.

"I would be glad to wager $50, that the helicopter company, will if sued pay a big settlement out of court, or lose any lawsuit that actually goes to trial."

Concur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

I am not a lawyer, my Son is, but I have studied relative law some. I would be glad to wager $50, that the helicopter company, will if sued pay a big settlement out of court, or lose any lawsuit that actually goes to trial.

I have a ground warning radar in my Bonanza and it is a safety item for ifr approaches and it doesn't distract or make me crash.

---

I'm not a lawyer either but my son and daughter are both lawyers although neither one of them does litigation or torts. They say the helicopter co. is small potatoes comparatively for a civil suit and will probably declare bankruptcy in due time to avoid possible payouts. They also believe that the real huge money for a civil suit is against Mrs Bryant and/or the estate of Kobe Bryant and you can bet a lot more than $50 that once the loved ones are buried and the crying and grief have subsided, the families of the dead including the pilot will be launching suits against them. You can also bet that they have already been contacted by lawyers. It usually takes 6-12 months to put forth notices of suits to be filed.

Given the details we know so far, it's doubtful or certainly unclear whether a TAWS would have prevented this crash.

Floats, I never wrote that a TAWS would have prevented this crash, once the pilot was determined to scud run in imc conditions. It might have, but my point is the helicopter should have all available pertinent safety equiptment and this did not. Do you think the helicopter company could get away with it in court if they did not have seat belts on the premise that belts would have not saved the people anyway?
Another way that might be to add safety to these types of flights is some restriction on what conditions they can legally fly in, maybe a visibility minimum or similar. For instance a commercial airline flight is not even legally allowed to begin an instrument approach if conditions are reported below minimums. So no going down into dangerous situations and hoping. I don't know how this would work for helicopters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

Floats, I never wrote that a TAWS would have prevented this crash, once the pilot was determined to scud run in imc conditions. It might have, but my point is the helicopter should have all available pertinent safety equiptment and this did not.

---

Bill, I never said you did write that. I was merely providing an opinion. We have learned that the FAA only requires Helis engaged in air ambulance to have TAWS so the company was under no legal or regulatory obligation to be so equipped.

If you want to make the company culpable, then the FAA must also share in a big part of the blame because the TDSB recommendation to be so equipped was ignored by them years ago.

"Another way that might be to add safety to these types of flights is some restriction on what conditions they can legally fly in, maybe a visibility minimum or similar."

Good idea. Already done. 91.155, 91.157, 135.205, 135.207.

"Given the details we know so far, it's doubtful or certainly unclear whether a TAWS would have prevented this crash."

One of the prelim accident report photos shows the aircraft flying into clouds. Shortly after, a witness stated "1 to 2 seconds" before impact it emerged from clouds. The flight path description and witness statement indicate the aircraft was not in controlled flight for the last portion of the profile, by which I mean after the photo showing it went into the clouds (violation 135.207, for those who think regulations change would help) and before the witness saw it emerge from clouds just before ground impact.

Pushed weather just a bit too far? System malfunction? Material failure? Whatever caused it, unsuccessful transition to IFR, loss of control. Aircraft had a radalt, aviator knew he was low with higher terrain nearby, had been trained for proper IIMC procedures and was doing them. By the time TAWS would have given a warning this aviator was already trying to climb to 4000 ft which was the correction TAWS would have triggered.

I don't believe TAWS would have prevented this crash. I don't know what caused it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike M

One of the prelim accident report photos shows the aircraft flying into clouds. Shortly after, a witness stated "1 to 2 seconds" before impact it emerged from clouds. The flight path description and witness statement indicate the aircraft was not in controlled flight for the last portion of the profile, by which I mean after the photo showing it went into the clouds (violation 135.207, for those who think regulations change would help) and before the witness saw it emerge from clouds just before ground impact.

---

The knee jerk is to impose new regulations even though if the flight had followed the existing regulations, the helicopter wouldn't have crashed.

The politicians need to stay out of this and not be knee jerks...

I don't know what all the discussion is about. This guy flew into the fog, and killed 9 people. Pretty simple. He may have been really lucky several times in the past and figured
he might get lucky again. It just didn't work out for him this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright

The knee jerk is to impose new regulations even though if the flight had followed the existing regulations, the helicopter wouldn't have crashed.

The politicians need to stay out of this and not be knee jerks...

---

Year ago, I was running a Young Eagles event at my local field.

This was after the JFK Jr. crash. One of the parents asked me about it.

I explained how the visibility was poor, and the pilot may have become disoriented.

"But didn't the plane have instruments?"

Well, yes, but vertigo makes you confused, because your body is telling you something different from what the instruments are telling you.

"But why didn't he just follow his instruments, then?" The guy could not understand the difficulty in denying a lifetime's worth of balance to follow the gauges.

The man wasn't stupid. He just didn't have the personal basis to understand the problem.

Unfortunately, the politicians not only won't understand, they'll want to pretend they know the solution to give the impression of being great leaders.

Sigh.

Ron "Barany" Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Unfortunately, the politicians not only won't understand, they'll want to pretend they know the solution to give the impression of being great leaders.

Sigh.

Ron "Barany" Wanttaja

---

Yup! Similar to teachers who can't teach, teach gym.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

Yup! Similar to teachers who can't teach, teach gym.

---

Ouch......I had much rather teach in the classroom than deal with the challenges of the gym. Gym teachers are certified same as classroom teachers.

(retired teacher)