It was a Part 135 operator and they did not have authorization to conduct IFR operations.
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.
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.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 02-07-2020 at 10:11 AM.
"...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.