Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aviation Mishaps' started by jallen0, Jan 26, 2020.
He sure likes to hear himself talk.
I'm curious what you think it means that the operator was VFR Only certificated. I'm also curious what regs you think he was busting?
I never hinted, suggested or implied that he busted any regs. All I've ever said was, he was flying too damn fast for the conditions.
He could easily, and probably did, the entire flight, up until the IIMC at the end, without busting any regs.
For all we know, maybe one of the passengers was videoing the flight on their phone. Perhaps the NTSB will get lucky.
Ugh, you're going to make me look this up? Okay, if he 'intentionally' flew into IMC (even at the end), then he would be in violation of 14 CFR 91.155 (VFR weather minimums). And 'flying too damn fast for the conditions' is pretty much the definition of CFR 14 91.13 (careless and reckless operation).
As for the VFR Only Cert - I'm pretty sure it means the company wasn't permitted to operate revenue flights IFR.
Juan is a great resource and very knowledgable about aviation-related issues. You should see his discussions about the 737MAX.
The helicopter industry refers to this as "IIMC" (inadvertent instrument meteorological conditions).
Arguing regulation violations when the aircraft is destroyed and the PIC is dead is moot at this point.
So your entire argument is based on what I already said.
Pay attention, I said "He could easily, and probably did, the entire flight, up until the IIMC at the end, without busting any regs." Remember that? You then took that comment and said; Well he broke the regs when he went IIMC.
Now as for that being a violation of the FARS, here ya go. I don't know whether he went IIMC intentionally or accidentally. But it's really moot because either way, I'm pretty sure it wasn't in his plans. Had he lived through it, I'm also pretty sure the conversation with ATC would have included either him declaring and emergency, or ATC asking if he was declaring an emergency.
91.3(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
I happen to agree with you, BUT, that's only my opinion. What do I know? There's lots of pilots out there who think I'm wrong and think you'd be wrong if you agree with me. What if he had made it through just fine? Would you say it was careless and reckless then? You should know, that reg is a very subjective, catch-all reg. It can cover pretty much anything the FAA decides they want it too.
That's the best you can come up with? This whole post started because I questioned your comment "For most people the news about the VFR only cert does mean something" as if that fact had some merit to this accident. So I ask you again, what does it mean to you?
Do you know that the vast majority of helicopter operators out there are VFR Only Certificated? As for this accident, that is irrelevant be cause he wasn't flying IFR. He went IIMC... do you understand there is a difference here?
I humbly await your well thought out articulate response.
I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore. They say in the video that the helicopter crashed at 1085 feet. You do realize the hills around the crash, ahead in the direction they were pointed, rise to 1600+ very quickly, right? And they also say they were descending at 2000 fpm? At this point, I have to assume you are trying to appear ignorant for fun(?)
Bryant’s Helicopter Almost Cleared the Hill Says NTSB
Sigh. Even the once-respected Flying magazine ...
"Early media reports following the accident used terminology like, “FAA Cleared Bryant Helicopter to Fly,” a clear reference to the special VFR clearance issued by ATC at both Burbank and Van Nuys. While those headlines seemed to imply ATC was somehow responsible in the accident, a special VFR clearance required the helicopter’s pilot, Ara Zobayan, to remain clear of clouds at all times."
It apparently escaped Flying's notice that the whole Special VFR issue is a red herring. The helicopter left Class C and D airspace -- and thus any Special VFR clearance -- more than seven nautical miles before the accident.
"At the time of the accident, the area around and west of Van Nuys was shrouded in dense fog."
As the helicopter passed VNY the controller gave the weather there as 1,100' overcast, visibility 2-1/2 miles -- not what I would call "shrouded in dense fog". That seems to be reasonable conditions for a SVFR helicopter operation in the flat urban area around BUR and VNY. It was only after he followed the 101 freeway into the hills west of Woodland Hills that it became a different matter.
And to me, "almost clearing the hill" by any amount doesn't have much relevance in a 2,000 fpm descent.
that was my point exactly. misleading the public, like they do best.
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.
(This will never be included in the official report) Contributing factors: Poor visibility, gravity and sudden deceleration.
I don't mind learning from clear cut reports or survivor accounts, but other than IMC CFIT there's nothing here to learn from ...
I've not ever been left with impression the investigators at the NTSB didn't try to do the best they could with whatever they had to work with.
I don't imagine it's a wonderful way to spend your time...sifting through the burned out remains or scattered debris of shattered aircraft and the people that were in them. I'd be awful surprised if any of them take what they do lightly.
The criticism of the NTSB I read on this board is misplaced.
All this talk about journalism and headlines is why I am only following this story from this site. Journalists are expected to be experts on everything, one day it’s murder,the next bank fraud, the next a helicopter crash... I guarantee if you asked a single reporter in the pool of people asking the NTSB questions to explain what SVFR actually is the reporter would fumble the definition just as if we here on a pilot message board we’re asked to define some police procedure being used to investigate a bank fraud situation. It’s not really the media’s fault they are ignorant— they can’t be experts in everything and unless you have comparable knowledge to us pilots you really don’t have any business reporting on this( or more accurately creating a narrative, not actually reporting.) What is 100% the media’s fault is perpetuating false and dishonest narratives just to sell copies( like the headline of almost clearing a mountain when the helicopter turned towards higher terrain and was in an apparent descent.) The most honest way to report that is “Helicopter crashes into mountain” but that’s far less eye catching these days then selling this idea that this crash almost did not happen.
Stick to facts and thinking for oneself and this entire news media industry may just have to change their “glorification” approach to every single report.
Well, they will in this case given the deaths of famous people involved. Such is not universally the case in NTSB investigations, sadly.
No, they aren't. In fact, they're typically never experts on anything (including journalism). What they are expected to do is be able to RESEARCH and write an objective story. It's the ones that are lazy or not savvy enough to know where to do the research that write most of the drivel in the media. This has even been supplanted of late by those who don't do any research at all and just write what they "innately" know to be true.
This ^^^^. And add in the fact that many include their "analysis" in the reporting and you've got the sorry state we're in today.
Media, media bias, and journalism are an area of particular interest to me. I was quite impressed with the recent interview of Ted Koppel on the subject of journalism (although he focuses on democracy, you can substitute any number of other topics for any political topics he mentions). It's quite well worth the watch, especially keeping a broader view of any regulated hobby or industry including aviation. Let's not take the discussion down the political road - but consider how his comments apply to all reporting (and "analysis" by so-called journalists)...
He points to "money" as a big cause of the problems with media. I can't say I disagree with him.
News organizations make their money based on readership, number of people watching, and clicks. I think this explains a lot.
To be nitpicky, they make their money from advertising. How much a sponsor/advertiser is willing to pay is generally based on readership, number of people watching and clicks, but can be enhanced with detailed demographic data of the folks reading/watching. So the journalist not only wants maximum eyeballs, but maximum eyeballs within the target demographic of the advertiser. It's also why online tracking is so deeply ingrained in the experience. The broad interest about a tragedy involving Kobe appeals to advertisers in a bunch of demographics, where a story about Tom Brady's contract will appeal more to those that are sports fans.
Money is one of the things that Koppel mentions in the video.
Not contradicting you, Mari, just adding a bit more detail.
Do you know if those Cop helipads have Approaches? If so do they share them with you guys? Just curious, not thinking it has anything to do with this.
100% correct. The element of this discussion that I struggle with is sentiment that the media is to be blamed for this. No one blames the fast food industry for selling gigantic fountain sugar drinks. No one blames the television industry for turning out crap tv shows. The thought of wanting a news media industry that is for-profit and yet does not give the people the product they want seems ridiculous to me. You can't have it both ways. If you want the news industry to be a free-enterprise for-profit undertaking then don't complain when they produce crap if crap is what sells.
I think the public has much different expectations when viewing TMZ vs CNN although these days I personally put them both in the “ purely entertainment and non factual based junk drawer”
The LEO helicopter operations are VFR only. It’s expensive to develop IFR approach procedures and expensive to maintain them.
I don't think head-banging stupidity is particularly entertaining... maybe that's just me, though.
No, they don't. If they did, CNN would either use different headlines or go out of business. Which is to say there have in the course of history been news agencies that did exactly what those complaining about this are longing for. Those news agencies don't exist anymore for a reason. They either learned to write headlines that sold or they got out the business.
What @Doc Holliday said. Outside of like the very few State Trooper aircraft (Bell 429 / AW139) that are IFR, they’re going to be VFR only. Even with those IFR State aircraft I’m not sure they use them for IFR or even have approaches to their bases. In HAA, it’s common for us.
I don’t agree with what the guy said about turning for the police pad. The police pad was located further up the road. The pilot turned away from the pad.
Yeah. That’s what I figured.
Also, the cops and news copters are trying to get useful video. A video shot from 500’ with 1 mile vis isn’t what they are generally after/
I mean.. it's a PoA shtick, like hating certain composite planes, but the media is generally very poor at their job. Focusing just an aviation, the thing I posted above of them focusing on his grieving wife are classless and shallow, and headlines like these are completely misleading and do nothing but dramatize what actually happened and push a certain narrative
^no, he wasn't. Nobody "clears" you to fly based on weather, at least not in the sense that this headline is suggesting happens
^no really, totally out of context, they were not warned of an impending terrain strike, as this headline suggests
^can we define "poor visibility" - the New York Post (less reputable in my opinion) correctly stated this as "instruments only" flight.. and no, it is not normally "so simple" to navigate in Southern California, at all
^missing? that makes it seem like its required equipment that the operator was careless to install. TAWS is not required
^no, they really don't. In some applications the time savings for "the wealthy elite" (what even is that?) makes sense.. but I've don't see "the rich" flying their choppers to The Penthouse at Mastro's for steak, and then hanging out outside hailing down other helicopters
**The media has a consistent and focused goal (since it's controlled by a handful of people with vested political and financial interests) to always assure three things happen, in any news coverage
-instill generalized fear in the public, because a scared populace is more amenable to change
-paint "the rich" as evil
-portray aviation as inherently dangerous
I would also add: show the "other side" of every event, no matter how ridiculous the "other side" is. You can be watching a news report about NASA, and then for the "other side" they interview a flat earth idiot.
you put a lot of work into proving what most of us already know as 100% true, other than one clueless troll who we continue to feed.
my favorite one was the reports of the pilot being warned "YOU'RE TOO LOW" just before crashing into the mountain. yup, that's exactly what happened. you keep believing, mryan! cnn, 100% accurate. BAAHAHAHHAA!! troll, for sure.
k, I'm done, too silly to waste any time on.
Is your argument that had he missed that ridge, he would have pulled out of his dive and flown away like nothing happened ?
I viewed the picture. Had he missed that ripple, he would have splatted in the next draw.
This is the NTSB statement quoted by 'CNN Wire'
The crash occurred about 1,085 feet above sea level, missing the top of the hill by 20 to 30 feet, investigators said. Parts of the helicopter were found scattered around a crash site that stretched 500 to 600 feet, the NTSB said.
This is the headline:
Helicopter carrying Kobe Bryant and 8 others was 20 to 30 feet from clearing a hilltop when it crashed, investigators say
The headline is a sensationalized interpretation of what they think the ntsb stated.
“If I had another 20 or 30 bucks I could make my mortgage payment, but I still wouldn’t own my house”
Admins, please lock this thread. It has gone to hell due to a pi$$ing contest with a troll...
10:30 TMZ “How far from the top of the hillside was the impact. As in, how much did they miss clearing the mountain by?”
The answer @ 11:05 is “20 ft, 30 ft”. Look at the body language of the investigators. They obviously know that the information is not very pivotal.
At 16:40 there’s a clarifying question.
Answer at 17:40.
The reporter says “so the helicopter just missed clearing the hilltop?”
The investigator clarifies that there are lots of other hills in the area and “undulating terrain”
Context is important. And the media is masterful at taking quotes out of context in order to portray a more sensational picture. CNN may have reported what was said correctly, but the implication that they wouldn’t have crashed if they missed this hill is wrong, and is even specifically clarified as being wrong by the NTSB (18:20)
Hey, I’ve seen this before! Keyboard warriors who know more about the accident sequence than the NTSB does...
Another good vid from this guy. Exactly what I’ve been saying. Not sure why they brought up VRS but whatever.
The NTSB managed to locate a number of paper records in the wreckage like W&B etc. So even with the amount of fire and the violent impact, some of the nonvolatile memory in the instrumentation may have survived.