Kobe Bryant dead in helicopter crash

Can't vouch for California, in MD the State Police kind of had an awakening after a couple of crashes (we lost the pilot and the ATT in 1985 or so, my Lieutenant was the one that found the wreckage), classic VFR into IMC.... in the middle of Baltimore City no less. They also had a maintenance-related crash that was due to them exploiting the fact that public aircraft aren't subject to FAA rules.
 
Everskyward said:
News organizations make their money based on readership, number of people watching, and clicks. I think this explains a lot.
Click to expand...
Journalism 101:
Q—What is the primary purpose of a newspaper?
A—To make a profit.
That's not made-up or snarky; that's actually how it was taught 'back in the day'.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Journalism 101:
Q—What is the primary purpose of a newspaper?
A—To make a profit.
That's not made-up or snarky; that's actually how it was taught 'back in the day'.
Click to expand...
And the reporter’s job is to grab the audience with the first sentence. I took Journalism 101 too, when I was considering it as a career.
 
If reporting the news as accurately as humanly possible and without any trace of bias and without sensational headlines was a sustainable and profitable business model, that is exactly the news we would have.
 
Doc Holliday said:
They were going to an off airport site.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is accurate. If you listen to the ATC comms, when they were in the north San Fernando Valley the controller makes reference to "Camarillo." My guess is that when they left KSNA, the pilot asked for flight following to KCMA. Otherwise, there's no reason for the controller to have made reference to "Camarillo." KCMA is about 15 minutes from the Mamba Academy.
 
SToL said:
This is a very viable option, if the aircraft has the power to perform it. Power to perform is, just like an airplane. It's going to depend on fuel load, pax load, baggage, temp, alt, humidity and winds.

In this particular case, the aircraft was way above, speed wise, what it should have been for the conditions.

When the visibility goes down, so should your airspeed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but...if the pilot is in IMC, with no reference to the horizon or ground, pulling into a quick hover could be difficult.
 
Geosync said:
Beginning to sound like get-there-its and VFR into IMC. Kobe freaking Bryant in the back, we’re late to Mamba camp, HIS camp, due to a long hold for a BUR go around and approaches. Throttle up, scud run through the mountains and lose sight of the highway. Certainly the pilot would be IFR rated, but current and proficient is another story. But even if he was like Pete Maverick Mitchell with 1000 night traps, maybe he entered the soup so quickly he panicked and pulled the 180 climb out of pure panic/reaction.
Click to expand...

^^THIS^^

I've read interviews from other pilots who have flown with Bryant, and they said he never pressured them. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that they got delayed outside KBUR's airspace and were running late. Then they had to go to the north part of the San Fernando Valley to avoid low clouds/fog near the 134/5 interchange, rather than just heading west along the 134/101. This took more time. While in the north San Fernando Valley, ATC asks if he's going to follow the 118 out to KCMA. This would have added another five minutes to the flight time to KCMA. The pilot declined, and he headed southwest across the Valley toward Calabasas. The rest is history. It sure sounds to me that the pilot was thinking, "I've got Kobe Bryant in the back, and two girls and a coach who need to get to their game on time. If I go through Calabasas I can save time and get them to the game." No pressure from Bryant, but a lot of self-imposed pressure by the pilot, who flew Bryant regularly. Get-there-itis. Mother Nature wins every time.
 
Last edited:
dreyna14 said:
Based on my own flight observations 20 miles to the west that morning, the ground observations were optinmistic at best. One I was 500ft agl the visibility dropped to 1 mile or so. By 800 agl it was half that. And that was in an area not surrounded by close mountains.
Click to expand...

I was running errands that morning near the 101 not far from the crash site, maybe 30 minutes before the crash. As a VFR pilot (helicopter and fixed-wing) and an IFR student, I always look at cloud decks and analyze whether I could fly VFR, or muse that I wish I'd finally get my IFR ticket so I could punch through the clouds. That morning, a little west of the crash site, it was definitely an IFR day. The clouds were low and there was a lot of moisture in the air. I had to use my wiper blades a couple of times to wipe the mist off my windshield.
 
SToL said:
Jesus Christ I wish you people would pay attention. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT IMC or IIMC. We're talking about VFR.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry...did I miss the NTSB report that came out and said he was not in IMC, or did not have spatial disorientation? (Snark intended.) We're all speculating and sharing ideas and comments. Chill out...
 
mryan75 said:
No worries, I’m leaving the board. Victory is yours.
Click to expand...

well-bye-28028501.png
 
Never let a crisis go to waste. A congress critter is working on a bill to outlaw helicopter crashes. And of course, to make it impossible for anyone to vote against it, its called the 'Kobe Bryant and Gianna Bryant Helicopter Safety Act' and it would command the FAA to place a HTAWS into 'every operational helicopter in US skies'. Because, every R22 that flies the pattern for a a heli school in Arizona needs to have an HTAWs and we know that its the absence of that system that caused the crash, right ?
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
I'm sorry...did I miss the NTSB report that came out and said he was not in IMC, or did not have spatial disorientation? (Snark intended.) We're all speculating and sharing ideas and comments. Chill out...
Click to expand...

Your apology is accepted. Now lets try this another way.

You said this...
"Yeah, but...if the pilot is in IMC, with no reference to the horizon or ground, pulling into a quick hover could be difficult."

No one here suggested anyone should try to hover in IMC, so why would you make a statement like that? It makes no sense at all. And to be clear, it would be far worse than just 'difficult'.
 
SToL said:
Your apology is accepted. Now lets try this another way.

You said this...
"Yeah, but...if the pilot is in IMC, with no reference to the horizon or ground, pulling into a quick hover could be difficult."

No one here suggested anyone should try to hover in IMC, so why would you make a statement like that? It makes no sense at all. And to be clear, it would be far worse than just 'difficult'.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misinterpreted someone's comment (and I'm not going to waste time going back to find it), but I thought the question was asked about whether someone in inadvertent IMC could quickly pull into a hover. If my memory is correct, perhaps you should be apologizing... (yeah, right...)
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Maybe I misinterpreted someone's comment (and I'm not going to waste time going back to find it), but I thought the question was asked about whether someone in inadvertent IMC could quickly pull into a hover. If my memory is correct, perhaps you should be apologizing... (yeah, right...)
Click to expand...

No, no one here has suggested to pull the aircraft to a hover if they went IMC. Let’s move on.
 
The-Flying-Lawyer said:
Fixed-wing ignoramus here - if a helicopter is in a canyon, runs into a problem, and wants to turn around, why doesn't it just slow to a hover, spin 180 degrees, and leave the way it came? I'd envy that choice.
Click to expand...

Velocity173 said:
No, no one here has suggested to pull the aircraft to a hover if they went IMC. Let’s move on.
Click to expand...

Given the circumstances of this crash, when making my post about hovering, my interpretation was that The-Flying-Lawyer was referring to IMC conditions. Under VMC, what is being asked is simple. Under IMC, very, very difficult, if not impossible.

Yes, let's move on.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
If that iPad is recoverable, the Foreflight tracklog may give them the best possible record of the actual track, speeds and altitudes leading up to the impact.
Click to expand...

Side question, but does FF collect user data in real time?
 
In the last NTSB presser last week, after chiding FAA for not implementing NTSB's TAWS recommendation for 6+-pax turbine helicopters, this was said:

“We issued a recommendation to require all rotorcraft operating under Parts 91 and 135 to be equipped with a CVR and FDR. The FAA failed to implement that recommendation. So we closed that as unacceptable,” Homendy said.​

Did NTSB really want CVRs and FDRs for all Part 91 rotorcraft?? R-22s in the local pattern? Gyrocopters in the boonies? Or did the lady misspeak? o_O

If NTSB really does want all rotorcraft so equipped, will all fixed-wing aircraft be next?! :eek:
 
Last edited:
woodchucker said:
Side question, but does FF collect user data in real time?
Click to expand...
"User data" is a broad term that covers many things. I will assume you are asking about whether it stores track information, and it can as long as it is actively running. I think that the user needs to enable this feature as part of the electronic logbook.
 
Pilawt said:
In the last NTSB presser last week, after chiding FAA for not implementing NTSB's TAWS recommendation for 6+-pax turbine helicopters, this was said:

“We issued a recommendation to require all rotorcraft operating under Parts 91 and 135 to be equipped with a CVR and FDR. The FAA failed to implement that recommendation. So we closed that as unacceptable,” Homendy said.​

Did NTSB really want CVRs and FDRs for all Part 91 rotorcraft?? R-22s in the local pattern? Gyrocopters in the boonies? Or did the lady misspeak? o_O

If NTSB really does want all rotorcraft so equipped, will all fixed-wing aircraft be next?! :eek:
Click to expand...
The NTSB is full of wants. Maybe some of the wants would increase safety. But largely they would increase costs. A voice or data recorder is, of course, inexpensive. The interface with the machine, however, could be quite expensive for the latter, beyond engine parameters that are likely already available in modern aircraft. Control input versus control response could be a can of worms.
 
Pilawt said:
In the last NTSB presser last week, after chiding FAA for not implementing NTSB's TAWS recommendation for 6+-pax turbine helicopters, this was said:

“We issued a recommendation to require all rotorcraft operating under Parts 91 and 135 to be equipped with a CVR and FDR. The FAA failed to implement that recommendation. So we closed that as unacceptable,” Homendy said.​

Did NTSB really want CVRs and FDRs for all Part 91 rotorcraft?? R-22s in the local pattern? Gyrocopters in the boonies? Or did the lady misspeak? o_O

If NTSB really does want all rotorcraft so equipped, will all fixed-wing aircraft be next?! :eek:
Click to expand...

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she and the NTSB want to have CVRs and in-flight recorders on all larger passenger carrying helicopters, not just the HAA fleet.


(I dont give the opportunistic leech of a local politician who is proposing a law for what should be controlled by regulation that benefit of the doubt.)
 
Kenny Phillips said:
The NTSB is full of wants. Maybe some of the wants would increase safety. But largely they would increase costs. A voice or data recorder is, of course, inexpensive. The interface with the machine, however, could be quite expensive for the latter, beyond engine parameters that are likely already available in modern aircraft. Control input versus control response could be a can of worms.
Click to expand...

I view it as a checks and balances system. The NTSB wants the world, the FAA keeps it real.
 
Pilawt said:
If NTSB really does want all rotorcraft so equipped, will all fixed-wing aircraft be next?! :eek:
Click to expand...

It'd be a good way to get most of the GA aircraft grounded or sold ... ADS-B seems to only be on 1 out of 3 AC at my field ...
 
Pilawt said:
In the last NTSB presser last week, after chiding FAA for not implementing NTSB's TAWS recommendation for 6+-pax turbine helicopters, this was said:

“We issued a recommendation to require all rotorcraft operating under Parts 91 and 135 to be equipped with a CVR and FDR. The FAA failed to implement that recommendation. So we closed that as unacceptable,” Homendy said.​

Did NTSB really want CVRs and FDRs for all Part 91 rotorcraft?? R-22s in the local pattern? Gyrocopters in the boonies? Or did the lady misspeak? o_O

If NTSB really does want all rotorcraft so equipped, will all fixed-wing aircraft be next?! :eek:
Click to expand...

I see this as rotorcraft operating under a Part 135 certificate and flying under Part 91, non-revenue.

This is done routinely for repositioning aircraft or for pilot training and night currency.
 
IK04 said:
I see this as rotorcraft operating under a Part 135 certificate and flying under Part 91, non-revenue.

This is done routinely for repositioning aircraft or for pilot training and night currency.
Click to expand...

The Part 91 reference would cover all helicopters operating Part 91. There would be no carve out.

Take RadAlt required for Part 135 helicopter. The regs and the MEL give them the option to MEL for Part 91 only. RadAlt is not required to be installed for Part 91 helicopter operations.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
Given the circumstances of this crash, when making my post about hovering, my interpretation was that The-Flying-Lawyer was referring to IMC conditions. Under VMC, what is being asked is simple. Under IMC, very, very difficult, if not impossible.

Yes, let's move on.
Click to expand...

Self-identified fixed wing ignoramus here. Sorry to have caused the fuss. I didn't distinguish because I was wondering about both options, i.e. whether it would be feasible to slow to a hover either when you see a line of fog coming (but are still VMC) or when you inadvertently enter IMC. I can imagine why it'd be tough to "slam on the brakes," especially in IMC, but as someone with zero helicopter I time it wasn't intuitive to me that it'd be dramatically harder to gradually slow through IMC. I imagined it as holding the wings level while bleeding airspeed until a hover, finding a path to clear sky (maybe straight up), and asking ATC for permission to go there. I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that.
 
Velocity173 said:
Like @SToL said above, there are those who won’t slow down when the WX goes to crap. I’ve been with guys in Army and I look over and say “weather is going to $**** right? Ok, why are we still doing 140 knots?”

Now, why are they still going so fast? Simple, they are so preoccupied with what’s going on externally, they won’t divert their attention “inside” by slowing down and working the problem. It’s one of the ADM things I used to evaluate in the Army if I were to put up a new pilot for PC. If they’re quiet, not working thru the problem and talking to me (CRM / ACT), they’re not ready to go out on there own and “run the show” as a PC.

Quick story. One time at night in Kosovo I was running a little low level training route with a 2Lt (copilot) in the right seat. He was actually using a route that I had planned but I was on the controls. Still running at maybe 120 indicated, I crested a ridge, almost went IIMC and nosed it over into a small valley that appeared to have us blocked in by clouds. It’s a scary sight during the day, it’s even scarier under NVGs. Anyway, my PI freaks out and starts yelling “where the F are we!!...Where in the F are we!!” I actually chuckled a bit, told him to relax and brought the aircraft swiftly to a 200 ft stationary hover. I snatched the map (yes, paper) and gave him the controls. Took about 2 minutes to find an alternate route to low ground towards Pristina, got around the ridge, hung a right and clear all the way back to base. Work the problem.

So, why do helo pilots not do anything with the controls and stay VMC? Because like my PI that night, they panic and can’t work the problem. Not saying this is what happened to the accident pilot, but I’ve seen pilots first hand panic or have a mental block. Same thing happens to some who can’t adapt and flat out call an abort. I always tell my med crew, I judge a pilot in some ways on how many times they’ve tapped out and aborted. That’s someone who hasn’t let internal / external pressure influence their ADM.
Click to expand...

This post came after the one @SoCal 182 Driver quoted above, but it answered the VMC part of my question. Thanks, @Velocity173.
 
The-Flying-Lawyer said:
Self-identified fixed wing ignoramus here. Sorry to have caused the fuss. I didn't distinguish because I was wondering about both options, i.e. whether it would be feasible to slow to a hover either when you see a line of fog coming (but are still VMC) or when you inadvertently enter IMC. I can imagine why it'd be tough to "slam on the brakes," especially in IMC, but as someone with zero helicopter I time it wasn't intuitive to me that it'd be dramatically harder to gradually slow through IMC. I imagined it as holding the wings level while bleeding airspeed until a hover, finding a path to clear sky (maybe straight up), and asking ATC for permission to go there. I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

Trying to slow up from cruise speed and decel while in the clouds would be the problem. There’s no telling how much distance it’ll take especially if you’re not sure if you’re going to hit terrain or antennas. Then, while trying to maintain a hover, you’re going to be drifting around, good way to get spatial D and if you develop a descent rate, could get into SWP. It’s not completely impossible. I’ve done in the simulator just for fun on occasion and didn’t kill myself. It’s just not the logical way to get out of IIMC. Really, outside of 0/0 brownout / whiteout takeoffs, vertical isn’t the way to go. Or, maybe if somehow you really needed to get somewhere and you were in thin fog on the pad...;)
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Trying to slow up from cruise speed and decel while in the clouds would be the problem. There’s no telling how much distance it’ll take especially if you’re not sure if you’re going to hit terrain or antennas. Then, while trying to maintain a hover, you’re going to be drifting around, good way to get spatial D and if you develop a descent rate, could get into SWP. It’s not completely impossible. I’ve done in the simulator just for fun on occasion and didn’t kill myself. It’s just not the logical way to get out of IIMC. Really, outside of 0/0 brownout / whiteout takeoffs, vertical isn’t the way to go.
Click to expand...

^^THIS^^
 
jspilot said:
That’s almost always the case with the FAA. Look how they handle medications for things like anxiety or sleeping. They’d rather have exhausted and anxious pilots in the cockpit because they think these medications cause drowsiness. Well one thing that is for sure, not sleeping will cause drowsiness way more often.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. They'd rather have you well rested than exhausted and taking drugs to mask that condition. And if you're exhausted, not fit to fly, and do so anyway, that's 100% on you, not the FAA. Literally no one at the FAA would tell you to fly when "exhausted and anxious."
 
Lindberg said:
Nonsense. They'd rather have you well rested than exhausted and taking drugs to mask that condition. And if you're exhausted, not fit to fly, and do so anyway, that's 100% on you, not the FAA. Literally no one at the FAA would tell you to fly when "exhausted and anxious."
Click to expand...
Which is why sleep apnea is a medical disqualifier.
 
mr_happyland said:
I wanted to better understand what possibly happened on this flight. Plus I've had multiple non-pilot friends asking about went wrong. I decided to download the KML data from Flight Radar 24 and build a flight path animation in Google Earth Studio. I then pulled in ATC audio and weather data from the time. The resulting video is a fly-thru of the last 5 minutes of the flight. While it's only a guesstimation based on the data available, I think it helps contribute to the discussion, especially for those unfamiliar with flying in the area.

I'm slightly uneasy posting this because of the human tragedy involved, but I thought I'd put it here because perhaps it helps paint a better picture.

Click to expand...
This definitely helps paint a better picture. Thank you for the flight path animation in Google Earth Studio.
 
If I ran a tour operation I would install video cameras in all of my helicopters just to keep pilots honest they stick to the rules. He flew right into fog eye witness's saw him You know he done it before and figured dip in and out of the fog little and find his way. He finds his plan not working he could have declared and just kept straight and level ask for vectors to VFR airport, but then has to explain to his company how he ended up in IMC with Kobe in the back seat. Then his name is tarnished in the industry how does he find a new job. Island Express has been around since 1982 is going to end up bankrupt no matter what insurance they had it will exceed the max limits based on Kobe's future calculated earnings. The owner is lost all he built up over those years because of one pilot.
 
Last edited:
kell490 said:
If I ran a tour operation I would install video cameras in all of my helicopters just to keep pilots honest they stick to the rules.
Click to expand...
Good luck finding pilots who’d work for your company. People break rules all the time in planes that have an FDR and CVR. They’re going to do it regardless of who’s watching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top