Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kobe Bryant Killed in Helicopter Crash

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Thought this was interesting. FWIW. (seems legit)

    We know that it was foggy......Here is a photo of the fog at Lookout Point on Stunt Road, Calabasas at 9:22 AM, about 23 minutes or so before the crash. The location is fairly close to the crash site.

    https://twitter.com/ChristianDMejia/sta ... 2973858816

    Comment


    • #47
      The truth is, we are all caught in a great economic system which is heartless. Woodrow WIlson said that. And yet we still embrace it, even when we lose lives as a result of it. This accident probably comes down to callous economics.

      IEX Helicopters did not have an IFR certification. They didn't want to invest in one. That is why no IFR flight plan was filed despite the weather conditions. The dynamic conditions that day resulted in VFR flight into IMC. The probability of that was probably quite clear to the pilot but the pressures of business must have overwhelmed caution. IEX did not have an IFR certification because they are very expensive, because the insurance is privatized and the training and equipment is not subsidized. Most operators in the area, including the LAPD, do not see the sense in investing in an IFR certificate when IMC is so rare. So this is what we get. You get what you don't pay for.

      It's especially frustrating because both the pilot and the machine were perfectly IFR capable.

      Originally posted by NYTimes
      Island Express Helicopters, which owned the Sikorsky S-76B, had a Federal Aviation Administration operating certification that limited its pilots to flying under what are known as visual flight rules, or V.F.R., with at least three miles of visibility and a cloud ceiling no lower than 1,000 feet above the ground. The company did not have certification for its pilots to fly with instruments, said Kurt Deetz, a pilot and former safety manager at the company.
      Within the hour after the news came out, I tried to access IEX's website but it was taken down. IEX has suspended operations, citing 'operational reasons'. I doubt they would be liable for operating in IMC if it was unavoidable and not not entered intentionally, but we still don't know if that was the case.

      The other avoidable expense is a second pilot. Many clients don't want to pay for one and there is no requirement preventing single-pilot operations in potential IMC conditions where workload can overwhelm a single pilot.

      Things need to be fixed in the wild west. But first we need the will.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Things need to be fixed in the wild west. But first we need the will.
        Noted.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          The truth is, we are all caught in a great economic system which is heartless. Woodrow WIlson said that. And yet we still embrace it, even when we lose lives as a result of it. This accident probably comes down to callous economics.

          IEX Helicopters did not have an IFR certification. They didn't want to invest in one. That is why no IFR flight plan was filed despite the weather conditions. The dynamic conditions that day resulted in VFR flight into IMC. The probability of that was probably quite clear to the pilot but the pressures of business must have overwhelmed caution. IEX did not have an IFR certification because they are very expensive, because the insurance is privatized and the training and equipment is not subsidized. Most operators in the area, including the LAPD, do not see the sense in investing in an IFR certificate when IMC is so rare. So this is what we get. You get what you don't pay for.

          It's especially frustrating because both the pilot and the machine were perfectly IFR capable.



          Within the hour after the news came out, I tried to access IEX's website but it was taken down. IEX has suspended operations, citing 'operational reasons'. I doubt they would be liable for operating in IMC if it was unavoidable and not not entered intentionally, but we still don't know if that was the case.

          The other avoidable expense is a second pilot. Many clients don't want to pay for one and there is no requirement preventing single-pilot operations in potential IMC conditions where workload can overwhelm a single pilot.

          Things need to be fixed in the wild west. But first we need the will.
          I believe you are quite correct. "Will" typically comes from one of two places: unusual social pressure (very rare) or in most cases, bottom line $$$. If the frequency of crashes combined with the cost of such events (due to these causes) exceeds the investment required, then something will be done. Otherwise, it's just a calculated risk that is low enough for everyone to tolerate.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Schwartz View Post

            I believe you are quite correct. "Will" typically comes from one of two places: unusual social pressure (very rare) or in most cases, bottom line $$$. If the frequency of crashes combined with the cost of such events (due to these causes) exceeds the investment required, then something will be done. Otherwise, it's just a calculated risk that is low enough for everyone to tolerate.
            You are describing the callous aspect but if “the frequency of crashes combined with the cost of such events exceeding the investment required in preventing them” were the criteria in commercial aviation it would be just as unsafe as this. You could argue whether it comes from a moral prerogative or a practical one, but, in transport category, in monetary terms, the regulations and provisions made in the name of safety are definitely exceeding the costs of the accidents they might prevent. But how do we value human life in this comparison? Much higher, and that is why we do it.

            But there is a grey area between transport category and general aviation and that is where this crash occurred. I think aircraft with over, let’s say, six passengers should be held to requirements similar to transport category operations, such as requiring a second pilot and an IFR certification.

            Comment


            • #51
              Don't know what the rules are for Whirlybirds. Fixed wing depends on weight, if it's a jet engined a/c and if it's rated for single pilot IFR.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                Don't know what the rules are for Whirlybirds. Fixed wing depends on weight, if it's a jet engined a/c and if it's rated for single pilot IFR.
                Well I think the S-76 is rated for single-pilot IFR. I just don't think it ought to be.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post

                  Well I think the S-76 is rated for single-pilot IFR. I just don't think it ought to be.
                  But you have been known to have a lot of strange thoughts.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Interesting: The mountains seen in the opening of the TV Show "M.A.S.H." are located just over 2 miles from the location of Kobe's Helicopter crash.

                    https://youtu.be/N4hzRHuDZ4I

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ymcG-YKOCM This link provides the views of a professional helicopter pilot .

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by YELLOW_TOAD View Post
                        Interesting: The mountains seen in the opening of the TV Show "M.A.S.H." are located just over 2 miles from the location of Kobe's Helicopter crash.

                        https://youtu.be/N4hzRHuDZ4I
                        Very pertinent information

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                          Yeah, well... Not like if hoovering in IMC out of ground effect at max weight is the easiest thing to do, even if IFR rated.
                          Corrected.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post

                            You are describing the callous aspect but if “the frequency of crashes combined with the cost of such events exceeding the investment required in preventing them” were the criteria in commercial aviation it would be just as unsafe as this. You could argue whether it comes from a moral prerogative or a practical one, but, in transport category, in monetary terms, the regulations and provisions made in the name of safety are definitely exceeding the costs of the accidents they might prevent. But how do we value human life in this comparison? Much higher, and that is why we do it.

                            But there is a grey area between transport category and general aviation and that is where this crash occurred. I think aircraft with over, let’s say, six passengers should be held to requirements similar to transport category operations, such as requiring a second pilot and an IFR certification.
                            I don't think so Evan, the extra care of passenger safety for airlines is not motivated by the high value of human life, but of self preservation. People would stop flying if their perception of safety was shattered. Case in point is the massive number of fume events and the ridiculous designs that perpetuate them. These are probably shortening the life or severely degrading the life of hundreds of regular airline passengers. Not a peep is being done because right now, there is no public perception of risk. The risk is quite real and yet, we hear crickets. If we really valued human life, something would have been done long ago.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Schwartz View Post

                              I don't think so Evan, the extra care of passenger safety for airlines is not motivated by the high value of human life, but of self preservation. People would stop flying if their perception of safety was shattered.
                              Don't make me laugh. People did not stop flying in the 70s / 80s when the number of deaths per million flights was 20 times higher than now. Rather the opposite.

                              But accidents have a huge cost for airlines in terms of lawyers, sanctions, containment and corrective actions, liability and increased insurance costs.

                              Thee is where the saying comes from: If you think that safety is expensive, try with an accident.
                              And accident was the last nail in the coffin of several airlines, and not because people stopped flying with them.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Schwartz View Post

                                I don't think so Evan, the extra care of passenger safety for airlines is not motivated by the high value of human life, but of self preservation. People would stop flying if their perception of safety was shattered. Case in point is the massive number of fume events and the ridiculous designs that perpetuate them. These are probably shortening the life or severely degrading the life of hundreds of regular airline passengers. Not a peep is being done because right now, there is no public perception of risk. The risk is quite real and yet, we hear crickets. If we really valued human life, something would have been done long ago.
                                Point taken. The fumes issue is clearly swept under the carpet.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X