Kobe Bryant Crash-- Risk by the Numbers
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- Basketball star Kobe Bryant was killed in the crash of a chartered Sikorsky S-76B helicopter on January 26th, 2020. This high-profile crash, which killed his daughter Gianna and seven others, is causing a re-examination of how Part 135 helicopters are operated. In this video, AVweb's Paul Bertorelli examines the risks.
The irony about flying in fog is that the weather nearly always clears up and sunny by the time they put you in a body bag
This is so accurate, I'm stealing this comment for the future. Take my like.
Alex Christian lmfao
dannnng... TRUTH, shit, wasn't expecting that! Accurate AF
Damn, now that was a funny comment. Thank you.
True much of the time. Years ago I heard a similar saying that went something like "killed scud-running and pushing the weather buried on a sunny day". Yours is an astute observation.
I shuddered when you said “Thirty years ago, in 1990”...man I’m getting old!
Stop reminding us we're all old
Same i was born in 92 😬
I'm 98. I'll be a boomer next 5 years :/
@orionh3000 get a job millennial.
@@thebidstar26 Ahh Gen Z, you still have a few years of life. Enjoy it
All Kobe’s Pilot had to do was land it in an empty parking lot and say
“This weather is not safe.”
But, no, we gotta get to these kids' basketball game!
@@Umrebs64 I saw a video on CZcams
A guy got hired to fly a helo from Los Angeles to Florida. Somewhere around Louisiana he ran into fog. He set it down in a field and said to himself
“So I’ll wait.”
2-3hrs later he took off again.
Yes a basketball game vs. 9 lives. Nope
@@PInk77W1 next to kobe's pilot, the other high profile doofus was JFK juniour. What a cocky inept pilot! Cost him his life, his wife and here sister. Still blows my mind.
@@Umrebs64 the guy that sold JFK jr
Told him
“Let me go with u just in case ?”
JFK jr said
“No I want to see if I can do it by myself.”
Bad move.
I don’t think he was cocky.
He is the only Kennedy I liked.
I think he was very naive and inexperienced
@@PInk77W1 Yep. And from what I read, he was delayed getting off and flew into marginal VFR/IFR conditions and could no longer see the horizon properly causing a non-IFR rated pilot to encounter spacial disorientation.
Sad. He seemed like a decent guy.
Eventually the aircraft becomes 100% safe because no one can afford to fly it... 😂😂
Kobe Bryant could've
I have a $1,000 drone that wouldn't have hit the ground as the helicopter in question did because of the sensors and automation it is equipped with.
Can't argue with that statement. If no one can afford to fly it there will be no accidents!
@Big Dee Nothing is 100% safe, but if you take as much care as you can, then it is as safe as you can make it under the circumstances!
@Big Dee u u
Good information, Paul! As an air traffic controller and aircraft owner, I get a million questions any time an aircraft goes down. This Kobe crash was no exception. Non aviation folks try to tell me that ATC “CLEARED” the helicopter into bad weather (because that what they heard on the news). They are shocked when I tell them that it was pilot requested, and actually all SVFR must be pilot request. The controllers involved expressed concern over the pilots decisions and can be heard in their voices. It’s sad and leaves a lasting impression for their whole careers, all because of get-there-itis....
Great point. I had no idea that the msm was pushing a narrative where ATC cleared them into IMC. Ridiculous. You can clearly hear the controllers concern in their voice and as you have stated correctly, all SVFR is requested by the pilot and atc monitors (if possible, not so in the Kobe incident)
I haven't seen this reported so far, but I believe he also had an additional distraction to contend with - squawk code.
Burbank had assigned him 0235, and then "Radar services terminated. Remain that squawk". Q: Did he possibly hit the reset button to 1200 by mistake?
Pilot verbally mentions he "has 0235" to the Van Nuys Controller, which is odd.
Socal Approach says, "Ident", and then, "You're following a 1200 code". This means there was a form of two-way communication between the pilot and SoCal.
Distraction: He knows he needs to re-enter the Squawk code in order to get Flight Following. Head-in-the-cockpit. Looks up -- possibly doesn't know he's already in the soup.
Summary: Based on the ATC recording, I think we can also add in an additional Human Factors distraction.
Human Factors with Paul Garth Wow thank u
I agree, his experience and lack of judgment literally went down.
Not necessarily. Once the helo was handed off to SoCal he was traveling following the hwy fine, and then dropped out of the sky for some reason. Have you seen the final flight path of VASradar? Very unusual and to this point unexplained, though there are a few of us in the ballpark on what caused that final turn to oblivion you see on radar. It's over now. The pilot is the cause and weather is the reason. Who will argue it was a trip that never should have been made, despite the galactic qualifications of the pilots.
Really well articulated, I’m glad you mentioned the importance of the low and slow missions that do carry risk but there is simply no other machine that can do the job.
Yes, because flying over traffic is considered part of the "critical missions". Agree 100% on the Medical, oil rig, "twicks" power lines, emergency ect. services. Reducing flying restriction to fly over traffic to get to a meeting 3 hours faster is simply dumb.
@@wrushb2626 Absolutely, but would you have the same perspective had the helicopter crashed onto a highway and hit a bus load of people? Right now you are making the assumption that everyone on board made the conscientious decision that flying in restrictive weather was worth the risk. As far as I know, its probable conversation that happened in between the pilot and owner/renter/lease owner is. "Sir, we have restricted and heavy weather in our flight path", "Fuck it, i want to get to the game asap" type of conversation at best. Very much doubt the rest of the passengers had a say or opinion on the matter. But they climbed on board so you assume the risk. It's a free country after all as you stated. So go back to my question. Would you feel the same had the crash incurred additional victims impacting on a highway, or building? Does the "it's a free country" have extended to the other potential victims? Allowing commercial non-critical flights in adverse weather is dumb. And I would bet most of the victims on that flight would have agreed had they known the risk.
Fred Pinczuk think about nascar
Fred Pinczuk the risk of getting hit my a Helicopter while driving down the highway is basically zero. So not sure what your concern is over that happening.
I’ve binged a lot of aviation videos since Kobe’s crash, this is hands down the best. Outstanding work sir!!
Blancolirio has a great video too on this with a current pilot - huge insights
So have I , JFK Jr was very preventable... You tube been sending them to me
I am with you on that Chris. THis Paul guy is good!
Definitely...
Chris Ohrugo
Didn’t say one thing involving that involved that crash other than they want to put Ground Alerts in Helicopters now. Waste of time.
You forgot to mention the amazing work of Aircraft Maintenance - Part 43 in the circle of safety.
R San - people always forget this part of aviation until an accident cause is directed towards maintenance failures or lack their of?? Maintenance professionals rule because without them their aircraft go nowhere!! Hell they won’t even start!! Love your Mech!!
He mentioned maintenance at the start. He didn't go into that part because it wasnt relevant to what this short, 10 minute video was about.
The other thing that wasn't mentioned is the Part 121 recurrent training and how much more encompassing it is than for part 135 operations. More thorough recurrent training may well have prevented this terrible accident.
@@rjbishop12, recurrent training wouldn't have helped. This accident pilot just need to make better decisions. How many times do you have to tell someone to not go speeding into zero vis.?
**All A&Ps liked this**
" If the wings are traveling faster than the fuselage, it's probably a helicopter, therefore, unsafe."
Stats just don’t back that up though.
@@TheBeingReal Just an amusing statement from somebody in the US Military. US Army I think, but don't remember.
@@TheBeingReal Probably when that quote was *coined, it was very accurate.
every time a fixed wing aircraft turns, one of the wings is traveling faster than the fuselage ;)
I swear I’m never getting on a helicopter...
"30 years ago in 1990"
WHY YOU GOTTA DO ME LIKE THAT MAN
same here, that was a hard swallow.
Paul, that’s one of the best videos I’ve ever seen, period.
For sure the best video I've ever seen from Paul
your mom gay
Wahab Files 😂
Wahab Files wtf
Who else is binge watching aviation safety & training videos while in self-isolation?
Yep, I'm here. I also recommend TheFlightChannel and Mentour Pilot. Both are very informative channels.
Go away
Gotta watch the stuff on the sr-71!
I am but I have been doing it for years.
czcams.com/video/Ndamj_Ewod8/video.html
As a 135 helicopter pilot, I approve of this message.
As an H130 helicopter, I too approve this message.
@@AmyAnnLand You are a H130 Helicopter? Is this like the progressive commercial?
@@smokejblow66 Ha. As if. Like I'm going to go into some spiel about how you can save 15% by bundling your home and auto or using our, I mean their, bundling tool to find the right coverage for you. Nah.
@@AmyAnnLand Thats Geico. Progressive is the commercial about "Motor" half man half motorcycle!
@@smokejblow66 Aah. Thanks. I can never keep them straight.
2:33 don't forget the airline manufacturer engineers and technicians, airline maintenance, and all the other people that make part 121 Airline flying safe besides the pilots.
gmcjetpilot - Exactly!
Ok. FO.
@Copter Cop Everyone can and does make mistakes maintenance or pilots. i have been in the airline industry for 35 years, similar experience as an enginer and pilot, Part 91 corporate, 135 non sched and sched and part 121. It would be true to say without deep diving into the statistics more commercial accidents or Part 91 accidents are caused by Pilots than Maintenance. To be sure some major accidents have been caused by MX screw ups, often unintentional. Some accident as we know are based on design of the airacraft (MAX). My point was in Part 121 there is a lot of support that helps the pilot be safe, including ATC, maintenance, dispatch, training, scheduling......
I started after college (mechanical engineering) working for Boeing analyzing aircraft structure, certifying aircraft and later transitioned to simulator pilot instructor at Boeing. I earned my CFI/II/ME, and ATP/CE500. After Boeing flew for several airlines and earned B737/757/767 type ratings. I still work for an airline, flying and supporting maintenance, safety, airworthiness compliance, heavy maintenance. I don't know about "pencil whipping" but I do see records mistakes. MX not doing the proper MX either out of human error. Same for flying. Everyone strives to be safe and legal. Never seen gross willful violations but human error and mistakes in Part 121... which is why we have safety nets to catch these.
I built some of my early flight time as CFI (1800 hrs dual given) and flying single pilot non schedule Part 135 in light twins, both passenger and cargo. The safety net is less for sure compared to Part 121. I flew Part 91 corporate aviation. It was a good experience, except one "old school" pilot I few with in a Citation who was kick tires light the fire. He scared me. Part 121 and scheduled part 135 have close control of both operations and maintenance, because of news making tragic accidents by regional airlines and low cost like Valujet changes were made. MRO contract MX has been tightened. I did have some pressure flying non-sched 135 once when it was not safe. I declined. I was not fired.
I look at heavy MX check paperwork, AD's and SB all the time. None of that has to do with this Kobe crash. It was a pilot who flew into IMC and lost control due to loss of situational awareness and spacial disorientation. This helicopter is a handful and often flown two pilot. He was in a fast aircraft, flying in low (no) visibility, close to rising terrain. This is a recipe for classic continued flight into IMC accident. Same with the cargo B767 that few into the swamp outside of Houston on initial approach last year. The FO should not have been flying, should have washed out long ago at his previous airlines. If a A&P or Inspector makes mistakes it should cost them their licence if willful or gross negligence. The difference is when a pilot really screws up they die. Mechanics don't typically die from their mistake unless for example they fall or get crushed (which sadly can happen).
Except given that maintenance issues are relatively rarely direct causes of accidents in aviation of all types, this actually isn't a hugely helpful differentiator - which is why it wasn't highlighted.
@@blueb0g You have no facts to back up your statement. Mechanical, system, design issues have been known direct cause of many accidents. Research it list is long. This case not MX but pilot LOC due to IMC.
Who does your graphics? Buy him a cup a coffee and charge it to Blancolirio... he's killin' it! ;-)
Good stuff Paul. Juan.
The tools you need: Royalty-free images, Powerpoint or similar, greenscreen, OBS and a bit of imagination. (If you can do one-shot takes, you don't even have to edit)
Thanks, Juan. I'll pass the message along to me. :) One man band around this joint. I do have a company bring in the electricity for the lights.
AVweb Amazing! Very good job. How long did it take you to make this video sir?
MyBrotherJudy Beats We will never know .
If Juan likes this channel, then so will I. Subscribed!!!
Fantastic video, the calendar with the crashing airliners really drove home your point.
The point it drove home for me is how ridiculously safe airliner travel is these days. Like, I always knew it was ridiculously safe, but somehow I've never taken into account in my head just how many commercial flights there are these days, compared to just 20 years ago... and yet, essentially *zero* fatalities. That's crazy.
Crazy in a good way.
So well explained, especially for those scared of flying
Well done
it was obviously unsafe to fly that night but not for a big shot
@@RobertJamesChinneryH It wasn't at night.
That folks is a professional aviation report by someone who really cares!
It's a professional aviation report from an actual professional aviation reporter. You won't find much of that in the sea of "kobe aviation" experts.
Very impressive. Lots of info well presented.
Informative. There is no better aviation journalist than Bertorelli, IMHO.
As someone who’s never flown and never had any formal aviation training or education, these videos are absolutely amazing! So much info that’s still accessible to me and understandable if I research the subject matter. Flying is one of my dreams... I appreciate your videos.
Thank you. This was one of the most informative and intelligent videos on aviation I’ve viewed....
Hello Sir, I’m an A&P Mechanic and while I am familiar with some of these rules and regulations I had a lot of questions regarding Kobe Bryant’s fatal crash. You broke this down exceptionally well, thanks. R.I.P. to All of the poor souls on that flight. 🙏🏽
I've known 4 pilots In my life of 42 years. 3 of them are dead. 2 in small aircraft. 1 cargo and another is commercial airliner. Guess who the ones are that are dead.. Everyone except commercial. A guy I knew went Heli skiing in B.C. Chopper went down, he was the only one that survived. Weird thing is he had zero injuries. My days of hopping in a buddies plane or going for a chopper ride over the volcanoes in Hawaii are over.
UFO Crash 1947 New Mexico UFO Crash 1965 Ohio UFO collided with a small plane 1974 Mexico
@TylOOOr D you're a pilot and you don't even know your proper statistics. It's 1 death per 100,000 hours not crashes.
Out of 35 million commercial global flights in 2017, only two ended in accidents resulting in fatalities, according to To70, an aviation consulting firm. A total of 13 people died in the two crashes in Angola and Russia.
By contrast, general aviation-which includes unscheduled charter flights as well as private flights-is much more dangerous. In the 12 months ending Sept. 30, there were 209 fatal accidents, resulting in 347 deaths, in the US alone, according to the Federal Aviation.
If I flew to work everyday opposed to driving. I'm sure something would go wrong flying before driving. If you look at those numbers in contrast to commercial, it's jaw dropping. Not to mention civilian run flights, I'm sure was no where near 35 million flights with 13 deaths.
The one thing all these people that died had in common was, it was all due to human error in low ceiling weather.. So what are the stats on idiots flying in shit weather? The fact that in today's day and age that this bone head pilot decided to take a chance in those conditions considering the police grounded everything, just shows how incompetent that company and pilot is, regardless if their regulations permitted him to fly. Not to mention the company is taking on high profile clients and they don't even have the best equipment for assisting the pilot with terrain visual aids and instruments. If I was the owner of that company I would have had run the business to a much higher standard.
Rich83 you shouldn’t fly and definitely don’t drive. Stay on the couch where it’s safe for you.
@@ocvegasproperty and you're the meat head mentality to push through with your ego right in to the side of the mountain.
@TylOOOr D I disagree. It's far better to be a living coward than a dead brave & so called 'courageous'. Whatchoo got when you're dead? Whatser bravery getting you then? Hah?!!??!?
I'm not a pilot, nor am I in any way connected to aviation except as an infrequent flying passenger, but I find Paul Bertorelli's videos to be insightful, straightforward, and worthwhile for the general public.
Whenever we fly, I remind my wife that the drive to the airport is the most dangerous part of the trip.
Car journeys must be fun.
Man I love this guy's videos. Always some interesting stuff.
GZA036 I would LOVE to see Mr Bertorelli work a few Videos with a very passionate CFI who has been featured with Flight Chops , Dan Gryder . Dan is super into improving Aviation Safety , a possible impetus of his passion and WONDERFUL present actions may be due to the loss of a Former student. His work is awesome and despite the seriousness of preventing death, he is afable , articulate , humorous and a wonderful stick and rudder Guy.
I especially appreciate how he slightly tailored this video in a more general/easy to understand manner knowing that this video would attract a wider range of audience. Particularly those who are not in aviation.
@Paul Bertorelli. Your videos are instructive, entertaining and important. Thank you, sir. Please keep up the great work.
A few minutes in and THANK YOU for crediting dispatchers for part 121 safety! We certainly work hard and part of a team to maintain a safe operation. It isn't just our licensed authority or shared responsibility with captains for each flight, it's our passion for aviation as well. Many of us are pilots, I have three licenses (the only three entities who can declare emergencies for a flight: pilot, air traffic controller, and dispatcher), we fly on the flight deck fairly often, we're very knowledgeable about regulations and our aircraft, and we enjoy what we do. Thanks again for recognizing us "aviation ninjas" (the ones many people don't even know exist)!
Came here to say just this. This Dec 8th with mark 25 years since I got my license. 16 years at a regional and I just past 9 years at my major last week. And everybody still thinks I’m an air traffic controller. Anyone who underestimates the extra level of safety provided by the dual responsibility system should look at the accident rate in any other part of the world. Hope you’re doing well during this insane BS.
I gotta admit, I had no idea the role dispatchers play in part 121 aviation.
Thanks Paul. This was very eye-opening, even terrifying. I had no idea that Part 135 applied to air ambulance helos and this is scary because it means that air taxi helos get to play by rules tailored for emergency vehicles. THIS IS MADNESS! I'm a firefighter so I think of the rules for driving firetrucks. We're bound by the same traffic laws as everybody else most of the time but, in emergencies (threat to life or of SIGNIFICANT property/environmental damage), we have permission to break a select few (but not nearly all) of the normal traffic laws, and then only very carefully with due regard for the safety of all people (including ourselves). Before this video, I had assumed that air ambulance helos worked the same way. IOW, the normal, safety-oriented rules would apply to everybody (even air ambulances in non-emergency flight), but that air ambulances could take more risks to save lives. Writing Part 135 to allow air ambulances to do their thing in emergencies allows air taxis to do the same risky things in daily non-emergency flight. And this crash is the totally predictable result.
So it seems to me that the solution is to tighten up Part 135 so that standard rules put saner visibility limits on non-emergency flights, then have a special rule for air ambulances in actual emergency situations doing what Part 135 currently allows for everybody. IOW, write the rules the same as ground traffic rules are written for fire trucks. Imagine the havoc there'd be on the roads if every driver got to play by firetruck rules 24/7. That's the current situation with the helo rules , it seems. Like I said, it's madness.
TheBullethead it’s not the rules. It’s training. People crash and die in all type of weather. And capable pilots can safely fly in any condition. We get all emotional about a helicopter crash but 6000 people die in weather related car accidents every year. 500 people are killed every year while driving in fog. Those are far more MADDENING statistics.
@@CodyCha I think you missed my point. It's beyond stupid to have a single set of rules written to allow emergency response operations in marginal conditions, and then allow everybody else to use those same rules in routine operations. This is a complete failure of risk management: risk nothing to save nothing, risk a lot to save a lot. The single set of rules allows everybody to risk a lot to save nothing on a daily basis. That's just wrong.
Sure, on an individual basis, some pilots are competent enough to fly in the worst allowable weather. But many aren't and can't be made that way. If this could be solved by training, certification, testing, practice, etc., we wouldn't be having this conversation. So the only logical thing is to set tighter restrictions on non-emergency flight and save the extreme stuff for the emergency situations it was intended for.
A firetruck is allowed to go the wrong way on the road, run red lights, drive on roads closed due to weather, and a few other things. BUT ONLY in an emergency, not all the time. The current Part 135 helicopter rules are like allowing every civilian to drive like a firetruck 24/7 just to get groceries. Insane!
A large part of my job is scraping idiots off the road so I know how unsafe road travel is. Every year we kill, by accident, nearly as many Americans on our roads as it took the North Vietnamese about 10 years of actively trying. More firefighters get killed driving to fires than by the fires.
Why? Mostly because people take stupid risks. Consider speeding. Exceeding the speed limit by 5mph is a much greater risk at 70mph than at 50mph, but folks think it's the same degree of risk because they're breaking the rule by the same amount.. IOW, the more you're allowed to get away with, the less perceived risk there is in barely breaking a rule, when in reality it's the reverse. So, you tighten up the rule, knowing many will still break it a little, but doing so will be less risky than breaking the old, laxer rule.
Great Safety presentation, very informative. Confidence builder, knowing Safety comes 1st.
I really enjoy Paul's reporting. There are no biases to his report/commentary.
He helps educate us with all of the parameters involved with the event and is able to take the "edge" off the knee-jerk reactions.
THIS is what reporting should be across all fields!
Thanks Paul.
The most outstanding video lecture on aviation i ever heard
TAWS wouldn't help correct loss of spatial orientation.
Mort Homer No, but it might have helped to avoid the encounter of IMC into VMC with terrain contributing to the encounter. Better yet, iPad/ForeFlight synthetic vision available with a minimum of Sentry or Stratus. Even though I have TAWS via a 530 in my spam can, I consider synthetic vision to be a required asset when flying in low vis or at night with terrain more intrusive than exists in Kansas.
If helicopters fly that low, even if they got a TWAS alert they would already be so close to terrain
How would TAWS help with flight into clouds? Looking at the Kobe accident, the helicopter was above terrain until the spiraling decent. If you are an instrument rated pilot, you should know how that happens.
@@mannypuerta5086 Even in the midwest flatlands, we have towers that can be 1,500' high, with guy wires. Twenty-some years ago I had (still have, in a box somewhere) a Lowrance GPS unit with an "obstruction database" that marked these towers. The altitude reckoning of GPS at the time was useless, but you would still know if it was in your path.
Kenny Phillips You are correct. There’s a tower south of Houston that rises to 1999’ AGL and one south of Sacramento that reaches 2049’ AGL...and they are lit at night, terrain isn’t.
Towers can be a challenge in low vis, but my bigger concern living and flying in the mountains is the terrain. I had to turn the TAWS aural alerting off to keep it from talking incessantly. The visual portion is selected, as desired, but the real benefit is the synthetic vision provided by ForeFlight, in my case.
The nice thing about flying in the mountains is that the towers aren’t as high AGL and they are on the ridges or tops, rarely in the valleys. Passes and canyons are obstacle free, with the exception of the occasional powerline. The idea is to know the area during severe VFR before venturing during low vis conditions. Sometimes that is described as local knowledge and/or proactive CYA.
Well done Paul. I think the quality of your reporting is improving and what you report on is appropriate. Subscribed.
Not only do helicopters become unaffordable with endless regulation, but that causes what would have been helicopter flights to become car rides instead (which are more dangerous). This is a good thing to remember if any politician poses the hypothetical, "How can more safety regulations make us less safe?"
car rides are more dangerous than 121 flights, but not necessarily more dangerous than 135 or 91 flights
@@yanDeriction Here is the basis for my statement: thepointsguy.com/news/are-helicopters-safe-how-they-stack-up-against-planes-cars-and-trains/
You're comparing all comers, pooling all of the data. However, Kobe's risk in this particular trip would have been much lower in a car, given the weather. If you have that data available, the risk at hand, you can't avoid it's consideration, which seems to be what this pilot tried to do.
@@toldt I agree. I was only expressing reticence about a regulatory overreaction leading to a substantial price increase in helicopters, many of which are flown by conscientious pilots in VFR only anyway.
Unaffordable for who exacty???
I think the multimillionaires and billionaires can afford it...
Companies should upgrade and get latest safety equipment and therefore charge more, simple.
I guess my fear of flying, on a commercial airline (or in any other way), is way more neurotic and baseless than I'd even dreamed. The statistics demonstrating the safety of commercial flight, in the US, are indeed staggering.
@Projekt:Kobra There's no comparison. Seriously, no comparison whatsoever.
"The number of deaths per passenger-mile on commercial airlines in the United States between 2000 and 2010 was about 0.2 deaths per 10 billion passenger-miles.[18][19] For driving, the rate was 150 per 10 billion vehicle-miles for 2000 : 750 times higher per mile than for flying in a commercial airplane."
Let me repeat that: your chance of dying in a car accident is *750 times higher* per mile traveled than in an airplane accident. And that's not even taking into account all the car accidents where, like you say, you survive (but possibly end up crippled for life regardless).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety
Not just in the US, but pretty much everywhere.
@ora et labora Every day you play that lottery with a greater chance of winning when you hop in a car.
@ora et labora Deaths per miles traveled and deaths per time spent travelling are both much greater in cars than in airplanes fortune.com/2017/07/20/are-airplanes-safer-than-cars/
Paul, I watch these videos just because of your no-nonsense style and witty humor on even serious subjects like this. A+
"This bud's for you , skipper" -don't know why but I cracked up
That was funny. But then he says “ok FO” as in “fu+% off” that seemed out of place.
@@punapirate FO As in First Officer, right hand seat
As a retired member of that "army of professions dispatchers" (Part 121 Domestic), thanks kindly for the mention. In a 30+ year career, I've seen countless situations where proper operational control (check the FAR 1.1 definition) of flights contributed to flight safety before the flight even pushed the gate, let alone get airborne. There continues to be an occasional case of pilot resistance that we're somehow trying to "fly their aircraft" but we're actually trying to backstop their judgement, but not rubber stamp a bad decision. Diverting and/or cancelling a flight is not a character flaw. Ditto for our refusing an aircraft despite corporate pressures to "go".
Two pilots - IFR trained for day and night operations on medium sized aircraft are necessary to fully utilize the systems and capability built into these fast and complicated aircraft. Protecting the travelling public is the most important reason to buy into this model of business. Many companies do this around the world on the S76 for air medical, commuter airline and charter. US need to change there model and buy into safety first as anything less is statistically unsafe.
VFR is safe if pilots follow the rules it's the ones who don't fly safe who are the problem. With ADS-B they can track where aircraft is and maybe a computer system can send alert when they fly into IMC at least for Part 135. He was was perfectly safe all the way until he passed Van Nuys when he turned south to follow the 101 he ran into rising terrain .
Helicopter IFR is a whole different beast than fixed wing IFR. Most helicopters cannot be safely flown at low speed in IMC (it requires instruments which are not part of the standard IFR package).
I am pretty sure there was one fatality in a commercial airline flight from a flight 2 or so years ago where an engine blew during cruise and some debris destroyed a window. A woman was then sucked through the open window and suffered fatal head injuries. So, there has been at least one fatality
Titus Obbayi, you are right. She was a bank executive, I believe. Sucked out the window on a Southwest flight.
Kobe's heli pilot had a Ipad, and so it was likely that he had, effectively, a TAWS via the mapping software on the Ipad. A TAWS would not have helped that accident, which looks like an inadvertent entry to clouds followed by loss of control.
The cost of entry to TAWS, or the effective equivalent, for light aircraft is down to a few hundred dollars given that a lot of portable GPS and tablet users can use it. There is no real excuse for not having terrain warning on any aircraft at this point.
doesnt seem like you're familiar with the hatred that the FAA has against portable electronic flight bags lol
this look at helicopter safety has described a clear need for IFR training for the pilot.
it seems to me that loss of visual references causes disorientation and that knowing instruments will help guide the pilot past the immediate danger.
You have a gift for presenting information. I'm not a pilot, but still found this to be an amazingly clear and concise presentation. Well done.
Very well put sir. Thank you for helping us all understand these statistics
I have had three forays into part 135. EMS helicopter, EMS airplane, and charter. I never lasted more than 6 months at any of them. They were all unprofessional, stressful, and mostly full of cowboys. Now I am in part 91 corporate and it is a world of difference. I doubt I will ever go back to charter.
Appreciate the education
Simply outstanding video, Paul. Easily one of the very best av vids I've ever seen.
When flying part 135, become your own flight risk assessment monitor. 👍 CYA
Mr. Bertorelli's videos are awesome. This is one of the best. Thanks!
Great short video, straight to the point
Paul, this level of journalism is outstanding. A really superb breakdown of the core safety issues that relate to flying. My only comment would be the cost of IFR rated pilots compared to the $/hour of a twin turbine helicopter which book out at a variable cost of ~$1600 per hour. TAWS and twin IFR rated pilots wouldn't budge this number even an inch so one wonders whether the 'cost' reasons outlined for Part 135 resistance aren't bogus. A dramatically higher level of Part 135 safety would hardly cost any extra at all.
Excellent commentary that should be watched by all interested.
Great presentation. I flew scout and attack helicopters for over 10 years in the U.S. Army, so I have a little bit of practical experience in this area. For fixed-wing pilots, two fundamentals in safe flying are altitude and airspeed. Helicopter operations by their nature sacrifice both of those. From the early reports on the Kobe Bryant crash, I had a very vivid image in my head of the pilot yanking his cyclic stick back to avoid terrain and simultaneously pulling in additional power to establish a positive rate of climb. Doing those things would require simultaneous application of of left pedal (assuming a counter-clockwise-turning main rotor). That might have been one task too many, and it's very easy to understand how the pilot could have found himself in an unusual attitude in the clouds, without enough time left to figure out which side was up before losing control of the helicopter. Situations like that often happen at the end of a chain of bad decisions, starting with the decision to take off in the first place. Not saying that was the case in this instance, but it's often the case.
I assume many if not most aviation people have read Ernest K. Gann's Fate is the Hunter. How we got here from *there* is beyond remarkable.
Thank you for taking the time to put this together.
Paul, I enjoy most of your videos, but let's keep things in perspective.
You make it sound like he was legally allowed to fly in zero visibility. This is not even close to correct.
Once he departed Van Nuys, he was in Class G which has a requirement of 1/2 mile visibility and clear of clouds and at or below 1200 AGL. This pilot violated numerous simple rules of operating in these types of conditions.
As you stated, there are reasons helicopters are allowed to operate in conditions lower than airplanes. They can safely fly slowly (he did not), they can safely go lower to the terrain for visual reference (he did not), and because they can safely be flown lower and slower than airplanes, they can even turn around before entering IMC (he did not) and mostly, they can hover and even land if they need to, (he did not).
This pilot flew way to fast the entire flight, and skirted along the base of the clouds the entire flight. He left himself no options.
All the changes in rules and required equipment are not going to save pilots who don't fly according to weather conditions.
You're a special kind of stupid aren't you ?
Well said
@@PresidentGas1 Explain what you mean. Ad hominem attacks generally indicate lack of understanding with no cogent counter-argument. You can fix that.
Yes, this CFII (Helicopter) pilot suddenly forgot everything about IMC flying..
@@FatGuyInaTruck Certainly would not be the first time it's happened. There's an article where the ex-Safety Officer and pilot for the company stated that this pilot told him he had never flown in actual IMC. Bad things can happen really fast once IIMC, especially with any distractions, i.e., trying to talk on the radio and the sheer complexity of that aircraft.
FINALLY! An aviation safety video that isn't ALL about kobe bryant. Thank you!
Nicely presented Paul. The safest aircraft is the one that stays on the ground....but at least we have come a VERY long way in making those that leave the safety of earth get from point A to point B as safe as possible.
And the safest car is one that never leaves the garage! Hmmm
gary miller can’t compare a car to an air vehicle. You are MILLIONS of times more likely to survive even the worst of car accidents than any fall from the skyv
@@Justin_in_NC I did not compare a car to an aircraft of any type. Listen and silent are spelled with the same letters meaning you didn't read what I said! All I stated was an aircraft on the ground is comparable to a car in a garage.
gary miller I read what you typed, but quite frankly it was a foolish comparison
@@Justin_in_NC As was your analogy. If a car left the road to fall over a 1000 ft cliff your survival level would not be "millions of times better" ! To put this to rest I submit that to argue with a fool is foolish because to the casual observer the difference can't be determined.
I’ve been a regional guy in Canada for over 30 years. Thank you for the shoutout to my colleagues and I.
Paul...this is brilliantly articulated with a wicked, sardonic sense of humor! 😊
Coming from someone in the general public knowing nothing about flight regulations I really appreciate your clear explanations. Thanks for the video
I would like to argue your points, however, I can't see any argument in them! The last point was very funny! :-D
This is one of the best vids I ever saw since the Kobe Bryant crash. I loved how he said helicopters would be 100% safe b/c nobody could afford to fly them lol
Well thought out presentation. Great info
Flight dispatcher here/ and certified A&P mechanic. Just discovered this channel and its super interesting. Thank you for your information and references to the FAR AIM material. Very cool!
Excellent Presentation Paul, thank you! It is most unfortunate that it takes the death of some VERY important people that died in the helicopter crash that took Kobe Bryant, his daughter GIGI, and the other people who were the most important people in Kobe and GiGi's lives. From everything that I have seen and read, the FATE of those people was in the hands of the Pilot, who made several poor decisions as he tried to muscle that helicopter through Maritime Fog that resembled concrete. The cloud cover was "clear enough" in Orange County when they took off, but once they approached the hills along the coast west of the San Fernando Valley, visibility was ZERO. The Pilot did not make safety first, he took a big risk, and they all perished because of his poor decisions. It MUST be STOPPED. The FAA should make mandatory changes to the equipment required to operate commercial helicopters used to transport passengers who are depending on the safe operation of helicopters.
Army vet here. I have to share this story as told to me by a former Apache pilot I went through some medical training with. If you watched the movie O' Dark Thirty (the killing of Bin Laden), there's a scene when the Helo is flying in the mountains at night and the SEAL Leader asks "Who here's been in a helicopter crash?" and EVERYONE raises their hand. That was a play on the "superstition" in the US Special Operations Community that IF you HAVEN'T been on a helo that crashed or at least suffered a hard landing during a night operation or in the unit's first deployment in a combat environment, you have now "jinxed" the flight to suffer one. The irony is that one of the experimental "Stealthhawks(?)" did crash at the compound.
I saw lots of funny "superstitions" during my tour. I remember seeing another one I had heard about in HBO's Generation Kill about "jinxing a mission" by bringing Skittles into their Hummer. I'm not sure how these "superstitions" come about, but they are an interesting look at how US Soldiers (and other Military personnel) think.
Loved this video and explanation by Paul. Ten minutes flew by without one venture into IUC, or Idiotic Unnessesary Commentary
Agreed He only told the facts not his opinion which is 90 percent of what you get on the news
I operate a Sikorsky S-76B under Part 135. Agreed, this is an excellent discussion for people that do not understand the differences between G.A. and Air Carrier Operations. Specific comments about the N72EX fatal incident need to be reserved until the NTSB issues its final report. However, I will add some comments about this AVweb presentation and this great aircraft. As mentioned by Paul, the unique mission capabilities of the helicopter frequently place the aircraft and occupants into high risk environments. This is why good aeronautical decision-making skills, risk-assessment and contingency planning should be a priority for all pilots....especially helicopter pilots operating in high-risk mission profiles. Specifically, the S-76B helicopter is a Part 29 Transport Category Certified Aircraft, meaning that it has powerplant and critical system redundancy. The aircraft is equipped with dual auto-pilots, flight director, FMS and can be coupled for auto-flight and full approach capability. What this means is that during increased pilot workload, cockpit saturation, decreasing ceilings/increasing terrain and all of the other things that can start to sour the situation.........we couple the aircraft to the autopilots and configure the flight director to fly a specific approach or FMS flight plan.....or simply maintain airspeed, course and altitude.......with hands off flying capability.
I cannot comment on what was happening in the cockpit of N72EX, or what the equipment status of the aircraft was for this particular flight (MEL deferrals, etc.). I can add that this is a very solid and reliable aircraft. Under the prevailing weather conditions, traffic density, etc. I do not understand why, with the obvious decision to press onward with the flight, the aircraft was not coupled and an IFR clearance requested to mitigate the deteriorating weather conditions and safety of the flight. Even though the operator did not have IFR authorization within their OpSpecs, the Captain still reserves the right to exercise PIC authority for the safe conduct of the flight......get everyone back on the ground safely........then do the reporting/disclosure requirements to the FAA FSDO for getting that IFR clearance, and elevating away from the increasing terrain.
TAWS and H-TAWS are the politically correct "solutions" for the administrators and politicians. I totally agree that TAWS/H-TAWS is a remarkable tool......but like any cockpit resource/tool, it must be incorporated into the operation and conduct of the flight. Without sound pre-flight actions, weather briefings, identifying personal and crew minimums for the actual flight, proper operational control by the company and a solid/real operator support for cancelling a flight and returning-to-base...........TAWS/H-TAWS just becomes another distraction and source of information overload for an overwhelmed pilot. The FAA should consider applying the pre-flight risk analysis requirements of Part 135.617. These are the same effective tools that helicopter air ambulance operators are required to use. This is a low-cost tool that produces objective results that require specified flight dispatch actions. This is just one of many tools that can be utilized by operators.
As an operator, pilot, instructor, mechanic, I am deeply saddened by the loss of life and as equally frustrated because it may have been avoided with some breaks in the chain of events. We still need to learn about what really happened on that flight and I hope that information will be put to good use so other unfortunate circumstances can be avoided.
Thanks for this. Would you mind contacting me at newsteam@avweb.com Thanks
I understand what you are saying but no disrespect to Kobe's family and all the family that was involved in the crash but when it's your time to go the good Lord takes you home he makes no mistakes it does not matter what the odds are.
Its ridiculous how low the chances of dying in a plane/helicopter crash is. That being said, it makes it more amazing how many celebrities have perished in air travel accidents. There have been quite a few.
Excellent analysis as always Paul!
In the 1950's, regularly scheduled commercial flights were sometimes crashing several times a month. How far we've come!
Excellent.
Using helicopters for highly specialized situations like emergency rescue, offshore platforms, utility maintenance or military operations is a compelling argument. Functioning as a glorified Uber to skip LA traffic to go to a basketball game, not so much. Having flown hundreds of times Kobe may have gotten complacent, but given the pact he made with his wife to never fly together he was aware of the risks. With that much money and fame it was a misstep to not demand helicopters with the best tech, a top 1% pilot (perhaps with military experience) and hard rules about safe flying conditions. My guess is that there will be no significant changes in safety because it's too convenient for too many people and industries and they don't want to have to spend the extra money on training and equipment.
He wouldn't drive a '91 car, but flies in a '91 chopper??
You guys gotta put out more of this awesome content !
I have talked w/ a Part 135 operator about this accident, and he stated that this company was not properly trained for this operation. His company pilots are Fully IFR rated, and practice inadvertent FVR into IMC. Also this particular S-76B had the Honeywell EFIS, which would easily could have been updated w/ Honeywell’s excellent EGPWS, ground proximity warning system. How ever it seems to be more important to “Wrap” the chopper w/ a Nike ad... My operator said the EGPWS may not have helped, the best thing to do would have been to tell the client to take car service and we will pick you up later when it’s safe.
Blah Blah blah his only problem was stupidity.
Excellent discussion. Thanks!
I live about 10 miles north of the Kobe crash site , I'm on a mountain ridge at about 2200' elevation, which was about the height the helicopter was traveling before crashing. I left my property at 8 am and the fog was unusually thick for the time , I literally couldn't see 10 ft, if that, in front of me. Just around the time the helicopter crashed.
Really well done Paul.
Wonderfully presented, to the point and no unnecessary cr+p.
He gives a shout out to the "army of dispatchers" says nothing about the hardworking A&P's. Go figure.
This video should have zero thumbs down - its so informative.
Unfortunately it was just a matter of when
For Kobe? Wouldn’t have been a problem in clearer skies. It was a bad go/no-go decision. Has nothing to do with helicopter vs fixed wing
And where
Always so informative, clear, concise, and well backed by research! Thanks for the videos and explaining it so well. I cant imagine our industry with out you in it.
Kobe’s death could have been avoided so many times that day that it defies logic.
@ Ziggy....please elucidate
Many of us have attended seminars, read articles, and done study on human factors in aviation. Accidents don't just happen. They are caused by a chain of events that if just one link was broken, the accident wouldn't occur.
When it comes to weather related accidents, there is always the choice to not fly. If the weather gets worse once you are flying, youcan turn around. We'll never know what pressure the pilot was under to get to the destination on time to drive him to make the decision to fly. He could have told the passengers of the risk. He could have been confident in his qualifications together him through whatever he encountered. I'm sure he was confident up until the last 30 seconds.
ziggy morris Pls explain what u mean ziggy
Wonder why they didn't just turn around and go back
Sad day
It seems to me that the aviation world is a better, safer and more informed world because of you, Paul, and these videos!
8:50 when you realize that the late, great Stevie Ray Vaughan was one of the people who died in a helicopter crash in the USA in 1990 :-( He was such an amazing musician and person. It's crazy to think how close Eric Clapton came to being the one killed rather than Stevie Ray Vaughan. They had both performed at a big show and Clapton let Vaughan take his place on the helicopter at the last minute, and it slammed into a mountain shortly after takeoff.
Adequate terrain warning and synthetic vision are available for any aircraft for less than $2000. It isn’t TAWS but vastly better than nothing. Not that it would make any difference when your vertical speed is -4000 fpm
Numbers aside, just wish that had never happened. Thanks for the detailed information. LOL.
A little anecdote regarding working from a helicopter. Living in N Louisiana I was travelling on I-20 one clear but cold February morning when all traffic on both sides of the interstate was stopped in order to allow work to be done on a transmission line that crossed the interstate. This work was accomplished with two men in something that looked like a hot air balloon gondola being lowered to the line from a larger helicopter. It wasn't a chinook type but it was bigger than a jet ranger. It was cold that morning, and that line crossing was a few hundred feet above the roadway. I hope they were paid very well.
You can't regulate someone flying into a mountain in the fog.
Would they have flown into the fog if they knew the mountain was there because they were regulated to have terrain warning systems on board and working?
Mike Costello aircraft with TAWS installed still do CFIT. Pilot error.
You can regulate enough to where flying into a mountain in the fog is almost impossible, like with airliners. Maybe not with helicopters, but certainly with autonomous electric flying cars, which will be big rather soon. They'll likely be as safe as airliners, flying helicopter-like routes.
The problem is, it is becoming more obvious that this probably wasn't CFIT. It seems very clear now that the pilot lost control of the helicopter, in which case a TAWS would not have done anything but told him he was going to die at a point when he already knew that.
Great data. The safety of large airline flight is astonishing. I've had to overcome the fear of flying from the crashes I heard about growing up and those horrible air crash movies of the 70's.
Love listening to this guy.
In Australia our Civil Aviation Safety Authority holds regular safety briefings at air fields around the country, discussing trend pilot issues and crash analysis. One of the big things that was not mentioned in this video is pilot stress which we discussed at length in our last briefing, I've seen a lot of posts blaming the pilot for this crash but the question I have is how much stress was he under to fly this route given the low cloud? Did he put the stress on himself or was it placed on him to "Get the job done!" ???? In our briefing we would have spent an hour discussing self induced and external stress on the pilot and how that effects decision making in the cockpit. Our rotary example was a pilot with 2 pax, is seen landing in a field and waiting for 40 minutes but then takes of into cloud, 10 minutes later impacts terrain. The question should be,"How do we take pressure of a pilot so they make the right call"?
You can't teach "common sense"! This flight should never have left the ground but since it did the pilot had multiple opportunity to turn back or land.
The phrase that I've seen discussed in the NTSB initial reports and you mentioned here also is "VFR only, IFR not allowed".
I hope that the NTSB committee looks very carefully at that. If the (single) pilot in the charter operation over LA wasn't ALLOWED to file an emergency pop-up IFR to get out of trouble when (as it now seems likely) he ended up in solid IFR conditions while flying special VFR, then did that contribute to this multiple fatal accident? That accident was an experienced IFR-rated pilot with a (I presume) an IFR-rated aircraft. He could have filed an emergency clearance and gotten out of the soup and been fine. He may have felt legally boxed in my his carrier's VFR-only rules.
Any thoughts, comments?
Hard to second guess the pilot's decision. It looked like he might have been climbing up through the cloud layer intentionally. If that's true, then the NTSB will have to figure out if and why he lost control. Could have been spatial-D.
"Experienced IFR-rated pilot" in a job that was VFR only. How much recent instrument flight experience did he have? Probably not much. Instrument flight skills degrade from lack of use. In my extremely limited experience, piloting a helicopter is like trying to stab a marble with a icepick while driving 60 mph in reverse in a 4WD truck on a gravel road... I can't even begin to imagine flying one in the soup.
With everything there are all levels of skill. Paul you never cease to amaze me in your presentation, information and what I like most your is delivery and witt, and your humor. You my man are a cut above, a true rock star. I always look farward to your videos. I'm grateful for what you do,THANK YOU.
Jeez, FAA: I'm not even allowed to fly my DRONE under part 107 with less than THREE statute miles of visibility...
Mr Bertorelli, your videos always make interesting viewing.
I love this guy, Combines my love of aviation and wise ass comments