Yes 2000 fpm is bothersome. Jennifer Homendy in her press conference described it as a “dive”. In my humble opinion questions about the crash site being “only” 20 to 30 feet below one particular summit surrounded by other hills took an inordinate amount of press conference time, as if 20 to 30 feet higher would have prevented the accident.
2 replies
Writing as someone in the UK (incidentally a helicopter pilot) I just want to say how impressive it is that the NTSB (an organisation of world renown) conducts these open briefings and is so transparent in its investigations and findings - for example, in providing access to the evidence after it has reached a conclusion. Americans must be proud of this organisation. I wish our own (otherwise admirable) AAIB operated this way.
So because the ops manual was VFR only, the Chief Pilot / PIC couldn’t come to the conclusion that he had gotten himself in over his head, hollered “Uncle” and climbed up to find VFR conditions or make a safe landing when able? Instead, he pressed on. I am reasonably certain that helicopter had instruments capable of getting him to VFR conditions and answering for it later. And if, perchance, it didn’t … then the machine should never have left the ground on a day like that encountered. Beyond that, I’d say that the PIC should have taken a copilot/observer with him under the condition of weather and high vis customer. He was SO focused on finding the Ventura freeway that he forgot everything else. A second set of eyes might have made a difference? Confess, climb, conserve, communicate and comply.
If there’s one takeaway for me – personally – here … I will take command of any situation that gets out of hand and not be afraid to exercise my right to FAR 91.3 .
2 replies
135.203 VFR: Minimum altitudes.
Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate under VFR—
(a) An airplane—
(1) During the day, below 500 feet above the surface or less than 500 feet horizontally from any obstacle; or
(2) At night, at an altitude less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 5 miles from the course intended to be flown or, in designated mountainous terrain, less than 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 5 miles from the course intended to be flown; or
(b) A helicopter over a congested area at an altitude less than 300 feet above the surface.
return arrow Back to Top
§135.205 VFR: Visibility requirements.
(a) No person may operate an airplane under VFR in uncontrolled airspace when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet unless flight visibility is at least 2 miles.
(b) No person may operate a helicopter under VFR in Class G airspace at an altitude of 1,200 feet or less above the surface or within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport unless the visibility is at least—
(1) During the day— 1⁄2 mile; or
(2) At night—1 mile.
[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-41, 56 FR 65663, Dec. 17, 1991]
return arrow Back to Top
§135.207 VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.
No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.
return arrow Back to Top
I hear. What you are saying, but for me a non helicopter rated pilot it looks like 135 has lower minimums for Helicopter. Read .205
135.203 VFR: Minimum altitudes.
Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate under VFR—
(a) An airplane—
(1) During the day, below 500 feet above the surface or less than 500 feet horizontally from any obstacle; or
(2) At night, at an altitude less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 5 miles from the course intended to be flown or, in designated mountainous terrain, less than 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 5 miles from the course intended to be flown; or
(b) A helicopter over a congested area at an altitude less than 300 feet above the surface.
return arrow Back to Top
§135.205 VFR: Visibility requirements.
(a) No person may operate an airplane under VFR in uncontrolled airspace when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet unless flight visibility is at least 2 miles.
(b) No person may operate a helicopter under VFR in Class G airspace at an altitude of 1,200 feet or less above the surface or within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport unless the visibility is at least—
(1) During the day— 1⁄2 mile; or
(2) At night—1 mile.
[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-41, 56 FR 65663, Dec. 17, 1991]
return arrow Back to Top
§135.207 VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.
No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.
return arrow Back to Top
1 reply
Can a rotor stall when a pilot heaves up too fast on the collective? A 2000 ft decent doesn’t make sense.
1 reply
More of a cost effectiveness thing. Less aircraft maintenance, less training required and no instrument comp check every 6 months. Hard to stay current IFR flying a helicopter. Majority 135 helicopter operators are VFR only.
“the helicopter was in a left bank with a descent rate of over 2000 feet per minute prior to impact?”
My first question is, how did the NTSB determine the descent rate or the left bank? There was no on-board equipment nor ground-radar contact.
It sounds like he flew into a hillside that sloped away at an angle at about 2,000 ft/min, which is about 22 mph. Sounds about the right speed if the pilot was trying to find the entrance to the canyon.
I agree with Larry S., get out of trouble first, then deal with the legal stuff. Alive.
3 replies
Can complacency creep into pilot persona as time builds on one aircraft? Sadly, this crash was avoidable.
Bob G, I believe the NTSB may be one of the few entities serving the aviation industry free of politics and business interests to develop into a world renowned authority from freedom to invite all professionals into the unique party system without recriminations. I found more than casual interest when researching type aircraft related to my student flying days to appreciate the history and breadth of pilot, weather and extenuating circumstances told in each final report. Unfortunately, other nations don’t seem to regard their own air accident investigative board with respect, due to outside influences that disagrees with political or business agendas. Perhaps the NTSB is as close to a true agency able to determine and report with clarity factual evidence to develop a picture of how and why each a/c becomes another unfortunate statistic while providing invaluable info useful in avoiding a similar occurrence.
That’s a strange assumption to make. She is in charge. It is entirely possible that she is the most qualified to be in charge and speak for the team. Besides, rarely is the team leader the technical expert in any business or government organization situation.
Examination of wreckage (exactly how the metal bent upon impact) can reveal the general attitude and velocity of the craft at impact. There is good known science for that, and the NTSB happens to excel at using that science.
In a nutshell, if everything is bent toward the left side, then you know the thing hit left side first. If a five inch section of sheet metal is crushed to one inch then the velocity/force required/applied to do that is known. There’s way more to it than that, but you get the idea.
VFR only is fine as long as it is VFR. It does not take long for things to go terribly wrong when all of a sudden you can’t see. I am surprised that the helicopter was not an IFR equipped machine. Kobe seemed safety conscious be likely did not know or understand the dangers of VFR into IMC.
As hard as the helicopter hit the ground there was a definite possibility of witness marks on the instruments face or possibly some type of GPS.
ADS-B data show altitude, flight direction & velocity. They have surmised a left-banked dive from these.
In my opinion, given the descent rate immediately after a zoom climb, the dive was not CFIT, but rather a loss of control due to disorientation, from continuing VFR into IMC. He told ATC he was climbing to get out of the cloud layer and was never heard from again.
If the rotor RPM is already low or decaying, it’s certainly possible. My own guess as to what happened is that the pilot got disoriented, and helicopters have a way of getting in to unrecoverable attitudes pretty quickly when the pilot is disoriented. It’s possible during that disorientation that the pilot allowed the helicopter to get in to a low rotor RPM situation, though without firsthand knowledge of an S-76, I can’t say for sure if that’s what caused the descent or if it was simply a matter of not knowing which way was up.
If this can happen with a high-time skilled pilot in command of a very expensive, sophisticated aircraft think of what it will be like with hundreds of cheap autonomous air taxis flying around.
2 replies
Ҥ135.207 VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.
No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference”
Eye witnesses, looking up, did not see the helicopter because of the fog.
If the surface an not see the helicopter, the helicopter does not have a visual reference to the surface. They cheated and they died. Don’t do what they did.
Me too! If he could not see anything but cloud (fog) then why such a high descent rate and forward speed? That sounds like super special VFR.
She’s the Board member. One of the five always go with a go team. She is not a pilot. The Board member is politically in charge of the go team. Bill English is really in charge.
1/2 mile during the day for helicopters. And, once he cleared the Van Nuys Class D ATC couldn’t grant him a SVFR clearance even had he requested one.
SVFR is only in surface areas.
Those will be flying pigs.
Agree
$$$$ More stringent pilot training, more stringent MEL, and more Avionics maintenance.
Though the aircraft was IFR equipped, and the pilot was IFR certified, I wonder if the pilot was IFR current in that helicopter since the company operated as VFR only. As a VFR only company, they may not have given the pilot the opportunity to maintain his IFR currency or even his annual IPC. Inadvertent IMC is evaluated each year on the Flight Review. I can foresee Garmin noticing this and developing (if not already) a helicopter specific ‘Inadvertent IMC’ button just for these instances. Similar to their recent ‘Auto Land’ products.
Its time the FAA rethinks helicopter minimums. They should be no less than those required for fixed wing aircraft. In my 24,000 hours of flying the only hazardous situations I have encountered are having to do with helicopters nearly colliding with me when operating in low visibility near an airport. Helicopters operating in low visibility are a danger to IFR aircraft and people on the ground.
1 reply
Agree.
They Saud that particular hill would have been cleared 20 to 30ft but other hills surrounding were higher.
In fairness, in order to be autonomous it would have to have Terrain detection avoidance. You could just as easily argue it would be safer.
You do know that this is 2020 right? Oh sorry, was that too politically correct for you?
Even if the minimums were raised, that doesn’t stop airplane pilots from scud running and flying VFR into IMC. And basic Class G VFR minimums for fixed-wing aircraft is low enough that they too could cause a danger to IFR aircraft and people on the ground, so should those minimums be raised too?
I can’t say for certain why helicopter VFR minimums are lower than fixed-wing, but my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that helicopters can safely set down (and depart) almost any area that’s reasonably larger than the helicopter itself. All this pilot had to do was to find about a 100’x100’ area to set down, or turn back to the airport he just passed, and there wouldn’t have been an accident. His clients would have been inconvenienced, but they would be alive too.
“If there’s one takeaway for me — personally — here … I will take command of any situation that gets out of hand and not be afraid to exercise my right to FAR 91.3 .“ Yes…, in a big way…, yes…
The news media is having a feeding frenzy with this unfortunate event. The reality of it is a very competent and experienced pilot flying an extremely reliable aircraft legally in weather that was well within the regulations and experience level of the pilot, in the last couple minutes of the flight apparently made a mistake that ended tragically. The weather was reported at 1100 overcast and 2 1/2 miles, barely under Basic vfr for controlled airspace and well above the 1 mile (lower for Helicopters) clear of clouds in svfr or uncontrolled airspace below 700 agl, which at 1500 MSL he would have been. The ADSB readout shows somewhere in the last few minutes the altitude was as low as 1200 ft. The terrain in that area thru the pass on either side ranges up to 1400 ± feet. The question seems to be what was the weather thru the pass. I agree with the comment someone on here made that it is time to reassess the vfr minimums for 135 operations, even in helicopters. 1 mile visibility in that airspace is not much. As the media attacks the pilot, the controllers, the system all for ratings, due to a celebrity being involved, who if he had not been on board the accident would be forgotten news by now, the industry has to deal with how to prevent this from happening to others.
We all know what happened here; we can and should learn from this sad situation. Doesn’t matter if it was LOC or CFIT. It was the end result of get there itis which had many earlier facets. It was the quintessential series of wrong decisions that came together to result in a tragic ending. All WE here – collectively – can do is to promise ourselves to redouble our efforts to be careful as a result. Sometimes, a hard hit in the head serves to remind us that we ain’t 10’ tall and bullet proof. As a PIC, think twice … act once. Maybe run the situation through a second pilot if it’s dicey. Don’t let external pressures drive you to do something stupid. Have your backup plan in place too. Take command of a bad situation and make it right early. Sometimes, saying “No” is the right decision. It’s OK if you can’t complete your mission. Not much else can be said. As the saying goes, flying is pretty safe but is terribly intolerant of mistakes.
2 replies
It’s about corpus callosum and the sixth sense, “common sense”. Some of us have less than others.
Good advice.
Bear in mind that the rate of descent was calculated from ADS-B and/or Mode C output, and may not be accurate. But even if it’s off by 50%, it’s quite a thing to be descending in hilly country when one cannot see.
IFR also has $$$ benefits: less weather dependence means more flying and a more dependable service means more customers. If the costs associated with IFR outweigh those benefits, maybe we should be looking at the FAA imposed costs of IFR to see if they are actually necessary. Because if they are preventing 135 heli operators from getting IFR capable then they just might be making helicopter aviation less safe overall.
But is it technically relevant to the current war? HELL YEAH!!!
We want them to win …
Careful now…the newest form of virtue signaling is letting everyone know that you are willing to see unlimited US tax dollars and if necessary, nukes exploding around the world in order to support Ukraine. And…whatever you do, don’t EVER discuss the fact that pushing Baltic countries into joining NATO and the threat of NATO military bases on Russian borders played a role in the current Russian aggression. Just fly your Amazon purchased Ukrainian flag on the front porch and keep telling yourself that Finland has enormous strategic value to the US and is worth millions of US lives to protect if Russia invades now that Finland will be a NATO member.
A10’s were NOT ment for this type of conflict.
The airspace will be contested and without adequate counter-air fighters, they will be chewed up and destroyed.
Surface counter air is not enough to protect A10’s from fighters.
Yes, Ukraine in known to be corrupt, but they choose their leaders and are mostly peaceful when left alone, if they want different leadership, they should have the right to choose not have that take from them.
As for the expansion of NATO, countries that join together for common defense may be enough to deter a country that is aggressive and expansionist. That is worth lives, when they came for my neighbor, I did nothing because it wasn’t my business or I didn’t like them, now they come for me, who will help me?
Again, the A10 will be wiped out in that conflict. If the Air Force doesn’t want them, give them to the Army. They know how valuable they really are.
1 reply
Well, I don’t think protecting uninhabited Taiga forest on the border of Finland/Russia is worth Nuclear war. You really think we need Finland to protect our country? Any direct armed conflict between the US and Russia would end in mutual destruction.
2 replies
Where dose your freedom begin? The Taiga Forrest? Finland? Poland? Germany? New York?
The direct armed conflict will be with the Brave Service men of our Country protecting your rights to do nothing and complain.
When someone moves into your neighbors house and invites their friends to move into yours, will you do nothing?
2 replies
Ridiculous argument. Should we or should we not launch a war with Russia if they invade Finland and claim 10 miles of forest land in Finland? Yes or no?
2 replies
Stupid to get closer to a direct conflict with Russia by supplying them with aircraft and associated weapons. We invaded a sovereign country south of us because of small arms imports that we felt threatened us. What do you think Russia will do if we hand over A-10’s?
Hmm, USAF wants “modern” aircraft better suited to “modern” conflicts. Except that all conflicts since the early 90s (Gulf 1, Kosovo, Gulf 2, Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS, Ukraine), the A-10 works perfectly. Oh, and the A-10 was designed based on lessons learned on the needs for ground attack aircraft learned in Korea and Vietnam. What “modern” conflicts have occurred where these “modern” aircraft do a better job?
First off, this “A-10 needed” is just a MSM invention. If you read what they need, they are requesting AIR SUPERIORITY and FIGHTER BOMBERS.
STOP THE MADNESS! Stop quoting “Media sources” and go look at their requests. They are looking for F-16’s and F-18’s.
Once air superiority is achieved, they’ll let us know if they need anything else.
1 reply
Here’s where I think you are right: Perhaps allowing Finland into NATO is too confrontational and inflammatory.
Here’s where I think you are wrong: Containing aggression of nuclear powers when they misbehave is MORE important than if they are not nuclear powers. Which is why we, and the others, are doing the right thing by supporting Ukraine from this invasion. Putin used everything except the weather to try to justify this invasion. Arguing as if NATO expansion was the real reason is a stretch.
Lastly, from a realpolitik standpoint, it certainly seems correct to let the Ukrainians teach the Russians a lesson.
1 reply
The Ukrainians wisely want to use their limited resources to get better air superiority, while the Air Force brass want to use Ukrainian resources to solve their political issues.
It does put the lie to the position that the AF is playing 3D budget chess when it tries to rid itself of the A-10 without a true replacement. Somebody in Congress needs to grow a pair and tell the Army they can start planning to replace the A10 themselves.
No more stupid agreements on who gets what toys. Mission first, egos last.
So are we (USA) going to continue to give Ukraine 100’s of billions every 6 months or so for years? Is Ukraine worth the economic destruction of the US? I doubt Russia will be taught a lesson. They are in this for the long run. This will end with Russia being given most of the Donbas region which is occupied by millions of ethnic Russians who never wanted to leave Russia and Zelenskyy will personally pocket billions stashed away in his personal bank account from skimming off the billions in aid.
1 reply
The army doesn’t want them since they can get the air force to do the close air support on the USAF budget.
I suspect if the a10 didn’t exist and work so well the army would have to do something else for close air support, on the army budget,
that is the basis for the argument.
Judicious words, Joseph L.
Exactly, Tyler H.
Send them that “Assault Airplane with the thing that goes up”, shoots fast enough to blow your head off your neck, and never runs out of bullets so deadly that they should only ever be used by the police, without body armor.
So it is as suggested earlier in this forum - need air superiority to avoid A-10s getting shot down.
My modest understanding of the war by Russia on Ukraine is that both sides have significant ability to shoot down aircraft, so Ukraine uses its aircraft cautiously.
What Ukraine could use is missiles capable of hitting Russian airplanes launching missiles from over Russian territory. US does not like that notion, thinking it would be interpreted as US involvment in the war.
Haha!
Um…no.
…and don’t forget about those laundered dollars that will filter back into the pockets of the Biden crime family.
Good one! Have the political Hollywood movie prop, General Miley, lead the way…