Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Charter Company In Bryant Crash Operated VFR-Only
Island Express, the aircraft charter company that owned the Sikorsky S-76 helicopter that impacted a hillside in Calabasas, California, on Sunday killing all nine people onboard including retired NBA star Kobe Bryant, is a VFR-only operation, according to information from the NTSB and a former company employee. (www.avweb.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Well I’m wondering if the PIC ever told his superiors or his clients: No Sirs we are not flying in this type of weather this morning.
Charter Company in Bryant Crash Operated VFR-Only.....and....?....and...? Man in Montana Changes Shirt? Sorry Av Web, that ain't unusual for these kinds of operations at all. Please go back to reporting about ADS B or something.
recently there was another "fog related" crash of a helicopter in a mountainous area of one of the hawaiian islands..it was a tour operater, and the pilot,as with this one, had many hours of flight time..weather services and computers can predict the possibility of fog in any given area,but it comes and goes in layers and often not where you expect it..a computer graphic was shown on one of the networks,showing the flight path of the "chopper" carrying bryant and the other passengers,and it appeared to show the pilot following along the coastal highway,then suddnely turninng and bankinng in circles,probably because he was disoriented by heavy fog..the ntsb will examine all of the details,the wreckage,any recording or paperwork found,and then the speculation will stop..vfr means flying only where you can see,and with the hours of flight time the pilot had,he still may have been disoriented...
Simple.. left airport. Encountered low scud, called in for s vfr. Circled in vfr until got squawk code.. flew Svfr..
Encountered fog.. no longer flying special vfr rules. Went into clouds. Got disoriented and crashed.
He had no business flying S-76 single pilot in these conditions. Shudder had two pilots monitoring, or taking the over water low route and landed on north Malibu golf course and ubered the rest. JMO
Encountered fog.. no longer flying special vfr rules. Went into clouds. Got disoriented and crashed.
He had no business flying S-76 single pilot in these conditions. Shudder had two pilots monitoring, or taking the over water low route and landed on north Malibu golf course and ubered the rest. JMO
10 years with a VFR only company. The skill set for instrument flying is pretty shot at that point and the chance of controlling anything IFR much less the S-76 in a sudden IFR encounter would have been minimal at best.
What? Pilot experience determines IFR competency. Was the pilot current? Wasn’t he a CFII for rotorcraft? That is pertinent! NOT that one of the company’s he worked for commercial flights were limited to VFR flights only.
It is irrational conclusions like this that give people credibility problems.
It is irrational conclusions like this that give people credibility problems.
Did you read the story Dan? His last 10 years had been with a VFR only company. Skills diminish over time if unused. Wether he maintained IFR currency some other way, I don’t know. The result of this flight says probably not. His ratings say he may have had a better chance than most encountering IFR while VFR but it still wasn’t enough.
I’ll take your silence as an admission that you irresponsibly declared your assumption, based on no facts, that the pilot’s IFR experience was inadequate.
He crashed in IFR weather,
Your comment shows that you do not understand the conversation.
That he crashed in IFR weather is an assumption you have accepted from some accounts of the weather that day, and is certainly a possibility, but still an assumption. There were no ceiling/visibility reporting stations near the crash site, and from my review of the reports, no trained weather observers made any observations at that time either. I suggest that one must be very careful making assumptions that others are operating illegally and irresponsibly when all the available facts are unknown.
But, what does that have to do with assumptions about his flying experience, which was Bill was talking about?
This pilot was rated for IFR flight in helicopters and was an instructor for instrument flight in helicopters. It’s ridiculous to knee-jerk assume that the pilot did not have IFR experience for 10 years because (one of?) the companies he worked for provided VFR-only commercial operations. To maintain his currency, he would have had to fly in actual or simulated IFR conditions frequently, (quite possibly in the accident aircraft) and if he was exercising his privilege to provide instrument flight instruction to IFR students, he would have had even more experience. These are much, much more reasonable assumptions to make in the absence of an analysis of his logbook than the assumption that Bill made.
That he crashed in IFR weather is an assumption you have accepted from some accounts of the weather that day, and is certainly a possibility, but still an assumption. There were no ceiling/visibility reporting stations near the crash site, and from my review of the reports, no trained weather observers made any observations at that time either. I suggest that one must be very careful making assumptions that others are operating illegally and irresponsibly when all the available facts are unknown.
But, what does that have to do with assumptions about his flying experience, which was Bill was talking about?
This pilot was rated for IFR flight in helicopters and was an instructor for instrument flight in helicopters. It’s ridiculous to knee-jerk assume that the pilot did not have IFR experience for 10 years because (one of?) the companies he worked for provided VFR-only commercial operations. To maintain his currency, he would have had to fly in actual or simulated IFR conditions frequently, (quite possibly in the accident aircraft) and if he was exercising his privilege to provide instrument flight instruction to IFR students, he would have had even more experience. These are much, much more reasonable assumptions to make in the absence of an analysis of his logbook than the assumption that Bill made.
Commercial pilots are trained weather observers. All the surrounding airports at the time of departure reported marginal VFR conditions. Burbank got so bad an airliner missed it’s approach delaying the hello‘s special VFR clearance....that’s a sign right there. Coastal fog comes inland and the helo was tracking towards the coast? Flying hours in the logbook is just total time, flying time logged in actual instrument conditions accounts for less than 10%. Following a highway road system into deteriorating weather, rising mountainous terrain, too low even for radar assistance and speed was never reduced. There was a lot more lacking here than just skill, I agree with Bill.
You have a habit of making things up. Commercial pilots are NOT trained weather observers. There is no weather observer training required to get a commercial pilot certificate. My airplane co-owner has his commercial rating and would be hard pressed to provide an accurate cloud ceiling.
Marginal VFR is not IFR, so again, you have no official information to back up your assumptions of IFR at the crash site. IFR, maybe, but you are saying it was definite, an irresponsible statement.
“Flying time logged in actual instrument conditions accounts for less than 10%”. Interesting, you did not address my request for sources to back up your bogus statement that 99% of IFR flight training is in VFR conditions. I’m guessing that this more unsupported spouting.
Marginal VFR is not IFR, so again, you have no official information to back up your assumptions of IFR at the crash site. IFR, maybe, but you are saying it was definite, an irresponsible statement.
“Flying time logged in actual instrument conditions accounts for less than 10%”. Interesting, you did not address my request for sources to back up your bogus statement that 99% of IFR flight training is in VFR conditions. I’m guessing that this more unsupported spouting.
16,000+, hours, ATPL rated in 3 counties, USA, Canada, Great Britain....10 Jet type ratings incl. 2 heavy. I’m not perfect but pretty well qualified....you?
Since you asked... 20+ years continuous flying experience 1000+ hours, ASEL with Instrument rating, complex and HP endorsements.
My suggestion is that all that experience has lulled you into being comfortable passing unsubstantiated and unreasonable information as truth. My advice (free and you are free to ignore it) is to place a higher standard on yourself of the accuracy for what you say.
First you say 99% of IFR training is simulated (I claim you made that up, and you have not responded with ANY sources to back up the claim) and I know that my own experience (documented in my logbook if you want a copy) is that 17% of my IFR training was in actual, all signed off by my instructor.
Then you say that ‘weather observer training’ is required to get a commercial pilot certificate, but I think I demonstrated that to be bunk, based on my airplane co-owner’s experience getting his commercial license. I have also reviewed the training materials for a commercial certificate and found no ‘weather observer’ training.
Then you changed your story to be that ATPL’s were required to receive a weather observer ‘certificate’, but I did research and found no such requirement.
You’re not exactly batting a thousand on your statements.
My suggestion is that all that experience has lulled you into being comfortable passing unsubstantiated and unreasonable information as truth. My advice (free and you are free to ignore it) is to place a higher standard on yourself of the accuracy for what you say.
First you say 99% of IFR training is simulated (I claim you made that up, and you have not responded with ANY sources to back up the claim) and I know that my own experience (documented in my logbook if you want a copy) is that 17% of my IFR training was in actual, all signed off by my instructor.
Then you say that ‘weather observer training’ is required to get a commercial pilot certificate, but I think I demonstrated that to be bunk, based on my airplane co-owner’s experience getting his commercial license. I have also reviewed the training materials for a commercial certificate and found no ‘weather observer’ training.
Then you changed your story to be that ATPL’s were required to receive a weather observer ‘certificate’, but I did research and found no such requirement.
You’re not exactly batting a thousand on your statements.
I never said you had to have a separate weather requirement, the ATPL, and many thousands of hours gives you that ability to understand weather. The claim you say, is from instructing IFR, conducting check rides, route checks, TRE & TRI , PART 121. So you average just over 4 hours a month, how many in IFR conditions? now I understand your statements. Go back, read the FAR’s and don’t confuse your limited experience with those who make a living at it.
This is what you said: “ BTW, a private pilot may not be a credited weather observer but an ATPL is.”
You’re backtracking again. Saying that an ATPL is a ‘credited weather observer’ is completely different from saying that the experience of exercising ATPL privileges ‘gives you the ability to understand weather”. Your first statement is false. I happen to agree with the second.
You have no respect for the meaning of the words that you use. You tell me to check the FARs, I do and don’t find what you say is there, so I ask for a reference, you can’t provide one, but belittle me. Hmmmmm.
Don’t belittle my experience when your experience fails to come through in your posts.
You’re backtracking again. Saying that an ATPL is a ‘credited weather observer’ is completely different from saying that the experience of exercising ATPL privileges ‘gives you the ability to understand weather”. Your first statement is false. I happen to agree with the second.
You have no respect for the meaning of the words that you use. You tell me to check the FARs, I do and don’t find what you say is there, so I ask for a reference, you can’t provide one, but belittle me. Hmmmmm.
Don’t belittle my experience when your experience fails to come through in your posts.
Not belittling you, I just don’t agree with your analysis. You don't seem to know what every other professional commercial, ATPl pilot does. Fair enough you are neither. Happy Flying.
My analysis is quite simple. A trained weather observer receives training specific to making weather observations. This training is important to being able to determine cloud ceiling height, in addition to precise estimations of visibility.
Pilots receive training on interpreting weather observations and responding to adverse weather conditions.
These are two different things. When you say that an ‘ATPL is a credited weather observer’, you are flat out wrong.
If you think you are right, use your extensive knowledge of the regulations to prove it.
As a bonus, if you provide proof ATPL’s are ‘credited weather observers’ (which, by definition, means they have accredited credentials), then I will apologize for saying that you are wrong.
Otherwise I ask you to man up and say that you were incorrect when you made that statement.
Pilots receive training on interpreting weather observations and responding to adverse weather conditions.
These are two different things. When you say that an ‘ATPL is a credited weather observer’, you are flat out wrong.
If you think you are right, use your extensive knowledge of the regulations to prove it.
As a bonus, if you provide proof ATPL’s are ‘credited weather observers’ (which, by definition, means they have accredited credentials), then I will apologize for saying that you are wrong.
Otherwise I ask you to man up and say that you were incorrect when you made that statement.