pubdc

We are so good at avoiding the elephant in the room : “Investigators determined that the S-76 was properly equipped” and all blame on the pilot. I don’t buy that. I blame the FAA and its certification policies. It’s very easy these days to get 3D terrain in the cockpit… for experimentals. Shouldn’t cost more than a few AMUs imho, in any case insignificant for anything turbine driven. But the FAA keeps enforcing Flintstone standards and self-serving hefty requirements that make progress economically insane. There is a dim light these last few years as approvals are finally forthcoming but nothing near where we ought to be. The only measure should be : “proven more reliable than what is currently installed”, a very very low bar considering the equipment installed in much of the GA and yes even airline fleets. My drone is better equipped than that S76 or a 10 yr old Gulfstream, let alone a 1960’s Bonanza. Every year there is still a vacuum pump driving a critical function on any N-reg aicraft, the head of the FAA should be fired for incompetence.

5 replies

jimdorn

I wonder when the NTSB will start to add the attitudes of high-power passengers to the list of causes. Initial articles published indicated that Kobe had “fired” other pilots for not getting him where he needed to be and that this pilot was his “preferred pilot”. I feel extremely bad for all of these families, don’t get me wrong. However, like the Aaliyah crash in 2001, the attitude and demands of a high-power passenger were a factor. The pilot’s decisions were causal, but the passenger was a factor.

4 replies

jimdorn

I meant to say “list of factors” in the first sentence, not causes. I tried to edit but it won’t let me.

system

The aircraft didn’t need another device of any type to have easily avoided the accident. It was all on the pilot. He had tons of experience both as a pilot in the type copter and lots of experience flying the L.A. basin area. He was totally familiar with the weather. He was given visual routing by the controllers, routing given helicopters on a regular basis. He was obviously very familiar with what they issue , accepting it without question, probably having flown those visual routings many times. He just used poor, poor judgement. More regulations would not have changed that for a moment. He was scud running. Frank Talman, who’s credentials also fit those of the copter pilot, in fact probably even more experienced, did exactly the same thing in his Aztec when he was scud running and flew into the mountains east of L.A. As pilots we are expected to use good judgement. That can’t be legislated.

1 reply

brian

Classic pilot error. Nothing the FAA could do to a pilot that brakes the rules. Even if the FAA required TAWS you are still not supposed to fly IMC in a VFR aircraft on a VFR flight, and it does not help prevent vertigo. Who knows, having a TAWS requirement may emboldened pilots to brake the rules more, leading to more accidents.

Richard_Hardoon

The S-76 had a 4 axis Autopilot, I don’t think your Bonanza came with one. A 4 Axis autopilot has hover capability. This accident should never have happened. Qualified Rotorcraft pilots routinely fly into instrument conditions, do instrument approaches and land safely. This pilot made a bad decision, compounded it with losing spatial orientation and it cost 9 lives. A simple IFR clearance and climb to VFR above the marine layer would have safely ended the situation. He knew the route and the terrain. I am pretty certain Island Helicopter was a ‘VFR only’ 135 operator.

R_Thorson

Beating on any agency, operator or individual is not productive. I encourage everyone to look at the certification standards for Private and Commercial for fixed wing and then rotorcraft side by side. There is no instrument training or practical testing at the Private level for Rotorcraft. There is 5 hours training at the Commercial level but no practical testing on Rotorcraft. Yet the VFR requirements have always been lower for Rotorcraft. Under 135 there is only a requirement for training and testing if the operator is approved for IFR operations. Very few rotorcraft are certified for IFR. Historically the need for IFR has not been there and it does kill the utility of rotorcraft to fly IFR as there is really no infrastructure to support it increasing flight times dramatically when forced into fixed wing route structures.
A great alternate route would have been to fly towards Catalina then go north on the airway just past the Class B airspace. No terrain, no traffic, no altitude restrictions. Two engines and they flew to Catalina regularly. Stay on top to destination then find an area to descend.

1 reply

system

And, as mentioned by the NTSB, because helicopters have such excellent maneuvering ability, they are permitted to operate at lower altitudes and in reduced VFR visibility that fixed wings can’t. He could have slowed down, stopped, hovered, landed off airport, anything to study the weather ahead. He apparently though headed into it at cruise speed.

brian

Good point about requiring some IMC training for a private helicopter rating. But, that would not have helped in this situation as the pilot had the training. Beating up on the individual (pilot) is productive, his poor judgment killed 8 people.

c.alburn

Regardless of what the company’s or 135 rules require, when encountering IMC, the pilot must revert to flying the instruments. That’s basic. Pretty clearly, this pilot didn’t do that. Loss of control is inevitable, when the pilot relies instead on physiological “feelings” and/or glimpses outside the cockpit. As pilots, we can’t allow external pressures to complete a flight get in the way of basics.

system

The weather was IFR at Burbank yet company ops specs required it to be VFR (or better). Very simple decision if one has the right mindset. He should have punched the 180 button (assuming it was safe to go back), or at least have landed at Burbank. He flew through controlled airspace at KBUR knowing very well that he was breaking his ops specs rules. The same rules that were designed to keep his passengers safe. It’s one thing to get caught in un-forecast low vis then land, and an entirely different issue to continue in those conditions. Bad pilot decisions and terrible to non-existent company supervision. Off course the company was unsafe!

1 reply

system

You are spot on re: the FAA and it’s Flintstone Standards. Anything that helps safety should be allowed. If you can put it in an experimental you should have it in a Certified Aircraft.

Having said that, The FAA should require the same VFR/IFR rules for Helicopters. Over my 53 years of corporate flying I cannot tell you how many times I have had scary encounters with “RUDE” Helicopter pilots flying around in Fixed wing IFR conditions.

2 replies

system

The threat of getting fired by High Profile clients or employers is the first thing that should cause a pilot to quit “on the spot”. I have been the sacrificial lamb in this case more than once. I like living too much to have cratered to a moron High Profile boss.

system

I echo what Roger A states above…

This wasn’t a case of “Inadvertent IFR”; this was a case of “Advertent IFR”: any time you’re mucking around in reduced visibility, there’s always a possibility that you could lose all visual reference. Especially in fog. (Been there; done that)

There’s a saying in the rotary wing world: “When you go down, you slow down”. I think that’s the main error here: the pilot did not manage his speed to compensate for his visual conditions; had he done so, it is possible he could have “winkled” through to destination. (Maybe not a smart thing to do, but in a situation where it’s an absolute necessity…) At a minimum, there would have been sufficient reaction time to land or do a “one eighty” and return to better conditions.

If you’re going to ‘muck about’ in low viz conditions, you have to have a plan - something in your hip pocket on which to rely.

Something like: Upon losing visual reference;

Go on the dials
Note your heading
Note the reciprocal and commence a level turn toward the low ground
Maintain altitude
Fly back to better conditions

Now, if you’re surrounded by hills as in the Kobe accident, you better have intimate knowledge of the lay of the land or be equipped with synthetic vision. (A real boon, BTW)

Given the general area of operations and historical weather conditions, I can’t believe that this was the pilot’s first encounter with reduced visibility operations; why he didn’t slow down will always remain a mystery.

(I post as a dual qualified pilot: rotary- and fixed-wing)

system

I have a different question. The pilot was told that he was to low for radar advisories.
When is ATC going to start using ADS-B real time?

1 reply

ralotter

Very Interesting viewpoint. While I am not arguing about the efficiency or lack thereof of the FAA, this crash is 100% the responsibility of the pilot. To enter into Marginal VFR conditions in rising terrain is dangerous. Terrain warning equipment on a helicopter is also an interesting idea. Nevertheless, you got no business being at or below 1000 feet when the hills around you are higher, UNLESS YOU CAN SEE the terrain. Try that in any aircraft. BTW the entire time his TAWS would be screaming “terrain terrain” visual conditions or not. By definition, helicopters fly close to the terrain regularly and well below that acceptable for most other forms of flight. Why? Because we can hover and can land almost anywhere. When the pilot got to Van Nuys and asked to transition, the tower questioned why he wasn’t on a special VFR clearance, because it was already below VFR minimums for normal flights. Then after getting his code, SOCAL couldn’t see him due to terrain. The 11 minutes he waited for clearance he was hovering over a parking lot with low clouds above and rising terrain around. It was that moment when he made a climbing left hand turn INTO the clouds and impacted seconds later. As a 6000 hour commercial rated pilot who used to own and operate a heli almost daily, I agree with the NTSB conclusion, not so much with all the equipment recommendations. Very simply, the pilot had made this run probably hundreds of times and was over confident and pressed on into IFR conditions near rising terrain, costing the lives of all souls on board. How can an operator anticipate this marginal VFR day is better or worse than the last one. BTW there was no VFR traffic flying into or out of Van Nuys at the time. No police helicopters flying either. Its the answer to the oldest question in flying, “Do you want to be there when you get there?”

1 reply

Richard_G

ADS-B as it is called now was turned down by both the FAA and the DOD when I suggested this system of aircraft tracking in 1989. I was a radar, communication (sea, land, and satellite) and navigation tech that liked to fly search and rescue for the CAP and realized using the GPS how accurate this type system of aircraft tracking was over the ATC radar I maintained.
The problem has always been the fear of a single point of break down, jammed GPS signal. It is a handy side safety system that has no real back up. They are warming up to it now with numerous ground stations that can augment the satellites.
It still isn’t quite there yet, but once the ground stems are in place that can be ‘boosted’ they will likely move to it.

1 reply

system

Bottom line: Nothing new here. Just another “use it wrong & face the consequences.”

system

A subject that is rarely taught in any aviation related training, dealing with “high profile” or celebrity types who pressure crews to do things they know better. I have been lucky enough to fly for companies that do a good job at screening out these type of clients. As one chief pilot told me that is his job. My current company has such a long waiting list of prospective clients, they can afford to. It is also a skill to know how to say unable to a client without being confrontational or getting fired. Not a lot of pilots have this skill, a lot of time this is gained through experience!

Richard_G

This was an instrument rated pilot in a single pilot instrument equipped and certified helicopter complete with 4 axis autopilot. So, yes, it could have easily flown in this weather on instruments by this pilot safely.
However, the 135 operation was certified for VFR only. This had to play a roll in his decision not to go to the instruments. He flys these for a living, is the chief pilot, and knows the regulations. Many years ago, and even recently when questioning other newer pilots and student pilots, I ask the question; What should you do if you inadvertently fly into the clouds. They all replied “I’ll go to the instruments and do a 180”. This is a very bad idea. Instrument pilots set up their air craft equipment and prepare mentally for an instrument flight. Cruising low below scud is no place to set up instruments while single pilot in a helicopter. His head was out the window until it was too late.
The FAA use to have a Vertigo machine, that would force pilots to make movements that would bring on spatial disorientation. It is more disabling then blowing a 2.0 on a breathalyzer.
The hairs in your inner ear that let you know everything is level get screwed up even worse when you turn your head while turning the aircraft. Before going into the clouds this guys head was on a swivel looking outside the aircraft.when he went into the clouds he did what everyone I’ve asked said they would do… turn… do a 180… It is exactly what brings on spatial disorientation.
Low with instruments not set, and his head outside… he was set up to fail. Sad.
Don’t turn if this happens to you, climb out straight and as level as you can. Once you feel comfortable on the instruments… 7700. This is an emergency ?
You should have had an idea of what is in front of you before you went IIMC, climb out straight so you have some idea of where you are. If you do a 180, you will not pop out of the clouds where you went in. Don’t even try it. It has killed many pilots.

system

It is too bad we do not know the discussion between the pilot and the pax regarding get-there-itis. I am sure there was some, maybe convincing the pilot he could make it ontime.
A shame it happened but ultimately, most accidents are operator error.
~john

1 reply

system

I thought I saw in one of the early stories that the pilot WAS instrument rated in helicopters, but the company was not allowed to fly IFR. I checked the airman registry, and Ara Zobayan holds an Instrument Helicopter rating. But if you don’t fly IFR regularly…

1 reply

Richard_G

Yes, he was IFR rated and the aircraft was IFR, but he was flying low with his head out the window and head on a swivel… single pilot helicopter… low, he had his hand on the collective and the cyclic. No time or extra hands to set up the instruments.
Doesn’t matter if you have 100,000 hours on instruments in that aircraft. The decision to turn instead of go straight and climb, killed him. Spatial disorientation comes on very fast. If you remember getting drunk as a kid and puking… yea, that’s the feeling. Imagine trying to fly a helicopter like that.

I was real good at finding crashes when I flew SAR for the CAP, because I studied what pilots did before they crashed so much, I knew where to find the wreckage.

Richard_G

They were going to a basket ball game for the kids. This was supposed to be a fun ride to the shore along Ventura Highway. But turned into the only way they could arrive on time for the game.
I wonder who was sitting up front? Could they have helped?
Plowing head long into the clouds is not the time to set up instruments for IFR flight, even if rated and with 20,000 hrs… especially in a helicopter.

Richard_G

He did punch the 180 button… but he was already in the clouds. Wrong time to make that choice. It only makes things far worse if you try a 180 when you first enter IIMC.
Fly straight (because you should have an idea of what is in front of you) with a slow climb (so you don’t hit the ground) when you feel in control on instruments, 7700 goes in the box (so you don’t hit something in the air).
Controllers will move every away from you. Don’t call for clearance. This isn’t a planned instrument flight. Don’t think they haven’t noticed you are scud running, and you think you can get away with it. The only thing you need to get away with is your life. The controllers need to know there is a problem, and 7700 sets off that alarm to them.

1 reply

system

Actually, that’s probably not correct. The turn he was in was almost certainly unintended and the result of a spatial-D. This is a common scenario in this type of accident and it’s very often an uncommanded descending left turn. His training called for climb straight ahead and engage the AP.

Richard_G

I had to say ‘no’ to my boss before. This was when I was with the FAA. They understood the aircraft flying part when I said, ‘NO’… but when I said no to certifying a ground air traffic control radar system I was hung out to dry and punished, eventually losing my job and my livelihood.
Yes, I was homeless once for saying ‘NO’ when I thought it wasn’t safe. Even when to jail because I couldn’t pay the demanded child support…
And this was the FAA.
So, yes, this pilot was in a horrible position.

1 reply

system

I blame the pilot, with no qualms whatsoever.

system

You need better lawyers.

2 replies

system

I think that a relatively cheap INS could be integrated, and periodically updated by the GPS signal, and used for “rough” navigation if the GPS signal wasn’t available. I say “rough” nav, as today’s sensors would be pretty good at putting you in position compared to what was used for nav the previous generation.

Richard_G

When you have no money… you get what you get. Yes, I was told I should have won my cases. I didn’t see anyone jumping to take my case, not like you can advertise. These were cases I had to fight from another state, because I couldn’t afford to live where I was living anymore… then it got really interesting. The federal government AUSA, over my whistle blower case (defending the governments actions) told me to settle or they would put me in prison, because I couldn’t pay for support owed in another state.
Yes, life isn’t fare. This was almost 20 years ago. I never really recovered from it.
I’ve seen many people loose everything for saying ‘NO’, I’m one of them.
You would think there would be a law to protect the pilot (or anyone else for that matter when lives are at stake) when they say, ‘NO’ that is not safe’. I was supposed to be protected by law… and you see how that worked out for me. The so called ‘system’ really doesn’t work from first hand experience.

Richard_G

Lawyers that sue companies into non existence prevent this… not the FAA.

Richard_G

You should try to fly a helicopter in IFR conditions before you talk about something you know little to nothing about.

Richard_G

I think his boss having fired several pilots before him for not making the trip had a lot to do with it. I would argue in a court, the person chartering had as much to do with the bad decision as the pilot.
This is a case of the coffee being served to hot and McDonalds had to pay, not the person serving the coffee and spilled it.

Richard_G

It is the companies, not the FAA. They don’t want to be sued into non existence.
An experimental aircraft is ‘experimental and the person that put what ever they wanted to experiment with… is responsible for the end result.
You can go to the hardware store and use whatever they have there to put on your plane, and in the end, YOU are responsible for what happens if you crash.

That is why experimental aircraft have cool stuff. No liability tied to the company that made it.

Richard_G

Good lawyer… I have yet to see one of those pink unicorns.

brian

As helicopter pilots we are trained to do the four Cs when IIMC. Control, Climb, Course, Communicate. Sounds like he skipped the first C, Control and went to what his body was telling him was a Climb and then skipped Course and Communicated he was climbing.

R_Cassel

About the time of the accident I had just started flying again to get my CFII reinstated after many years away, so many of the issues discussed here are relevant, especially from a teaching perspective. The one thing no one ever seems to discuss with regard to this tragedy is the true (to me anyway) elephant in the room: there was no need to fly a helicopter from KSNA, available rwy length 5700 ft to KCMA, available rwy length 6000 ft. There are no less than four instrument approaches into Camarillo (including a GPS LPV) and they are routine for airplane pilots. There was simply no requirement for a helicopter on this flight, helicopters generally being required when there is no runway to land on. Maybe it is easy to say in hindsight, but a responsible pilot would have referred this flight to a 135 operation using airplanes, e.g Gulfstreams, King Airs, etc. As stated by others, there is an irresistible urge to not turn away work. Money was not a consideration for Kobe Bryant, getting there safely was. You can use a snorkel tube to work underwater but a scuba tank does a much better job. Aside from the obvious, i.e. a pilot used to VFR flying into IMC, the even more obvious was that there was no immediate need to use a helicopter for a what is a routine airplane operation. You can look at this and see the cascading number of mistakes made that led to a disaster, but the biggest mistake was choosing the wrong equipment for the job. With reference to aeronautical decision making, this was the biggest mistake of all. Mr. Bryant was not trained to make this decision but his pilot was and should have done so.

Roger_Mullins

“Higher precision navigation, sophisticated flight planning capabilities and more robust flight controls better manage aircraft and environmental conditions and improve safety with or without onboard crew,” this is called hyperbole. IMPROVE SAFETY? We love technology don’t we. See related news story of Tesla crashing into parked Fire Truck, one dead one serious.

1 reply

KlausM

Roger, that sentence set off my B.S. meter also. What Reliable Robotics is really saying: “We’re going to pay ourselves millions of dollars and write a bunch of ‘feel good’ ‘hyperbole’ white papers.” ?

Reliable Robotics will probably use ChatCPT to write the white papers besides. I just want to see how robots are going to change fuel nozzles, filters, oil, inspections and any other routine maintenance.

1 reply

rv8tr

Unfortunately it won’t just be a Tesla, it’s occupant, and a fire truck on the line. Image the carnage of a C-17 loaded with munitions going down in a major metro area due to a “software glitch”.

1 reply

Arthur_Foyt

Only guess is that forced “diversity hiring” means not enough qualified pilots, even for cargo duty.

1 reply

RichardKatz

And what happens if the GPS satellites get goofy? Without land based navigation aids as a backup, things might get a bit compromised, especially in IMC, when any type of onboard
cameras, even if infared rated are available. Unless they have some sort of super accurate inertial sensors that can navigate without any external input, this system doesn’t seem to be capable of flying…literally and figuratively.

2 replies

davidbunin

I suspect the C17 does have good accurate inertial sensors, along with a terrain-mapping radar system in the nose. Maybe not like the F-111 for nap-of-the-earth attack runs, but good enough for transport duty.

If we ARE going to explore automated flight, the military seems like a good place to start. It’s already a high risk environment, and they have experience with experimental operations. Most of our air navigation procedures (starting with NDB approaches, and even IFR flying itself) came out of military missions.

1 reply

lstencel

Lemme see if I have this right … the FAA is gonna run remote towers with cameras to potentially land airplanes without pilots. Imagine the Sully flight w/o Sully aboard. Have these people gone mad? I’ll say it again … what’s wrong with using flying sergeants if pilots are so hard to find. The USAF already has trained around 100 of them for the drones …

Goluscombe

Pilotsd are dumbasses but I won’t get in an airplane or stand underneath or near one that has no pilots. The only bigger dumbasses are the engineers, management and sales types trying to convince the public that pilotless aircraft are agood idea.

Count me out. There is too much at stake to leave the flying to “Hal”.

1 reply

gliders

As is typical for “endeavors” of this sort, the statements issued by the vendor are phrased in MarketingSpeak. Sorry, but for clarification, readers will need more. I really, really hope the USAF wants more as well.

adainv

When Air Force 1 and government executive aircraft are being flown autonomously for a few years, with no incidents, I may consider it for myself!

rklarich

No terrain mapping that is considered a navigation source.

Standard Laser Ring IRUs, good to get over the airport or runway, but not to landing precision.

goldsteinjd

Yep. These aircraft return from the “combat zone” to bases in Germany, Italy, and Spain before they head back again. Will these host countries (and others under the flight path) even allow these flights to take place? And how will these countries react when the first one crashes? I’d leave the pilot’s seats in for now.

JR1

I remember many years ago, I think it was Boeing that showed a mockup of a 737 with the cockpit in the BACK of the plane. Obviously, that didn’t “fly”. Anything that is flying autonomously will be able to be compromised electronically. There’s nothing better than actual eyes when it comes to situational awareness. Not saying humans are perfect, but catching something out of the corner of your eye or other things sensors won’t/can’t pick up. The one comment about the Tesla crashing into the firetruck is very relevant. What happens when an self driving truck has an accident? I drove a rig for several years. Trust me, unless you are running on I-90 across the top of the western US, I doubt it will be feasible. I can see the lawyers lining up already. No thanks to a large or even smaller autonomous aircraft.

1 reply

jcraven54

What is probably on the horizon are single pilot ops with a ground “support pilot” watching over multiple flights. Why? Money.

1 reply

Zeca

“The Air Force has awarded a contract to Silicon Valley firm Reliable Robotics” Here we go again. It will be nonstop… Got to laugh about this one! There’s nothing more ridiculous than this idea of “safety” applied to a complex system of a “flying BOMB”. Oh, yea! it’s the greedy money thing…

gahorn146ys

…And over just what population does the military propose to fly this thing?…

This is just a BAD IDEA. DOH

chip

What’s the old joke about the single-pilot airliner requiring a dog in the cockpit?

1 reply

Skypark

Since we already have proven systems that handle fully autonomous flight to zero-zero landing at a properly equipped airport, presumably that’s the type of endpoints being discussed. Doubtful there’s much consideration yet being given to dispatching an uncrewed C-17 to some unequipped dirt strip somewhere.

That being the case feasibility rests much more on social-political considerations than on hardware, so initially approaching it within the military context makes sense.

lstencel

“Anything that is flying autonomously will be able to be compromised electronically.”

EVERYTHING you wanted to know about autonomous flight can be summed up by that one sentence: and it bears repeating! Good job!!

Who the heck is running MY USAF ?

1 reply

zumajim

Really? That’s your only guess? Got any documentation to back up your claim? Didn’t think so…

2 replies

NewUserName

Hey, if do use AI to write their marketing, then they are just being consistent.

Besides, I for one welcome the wisdom of our new robot overlords, so they have no need to put me in a gulag. ??

NewUserName

I think if he had proof, he would not have used the word “guess”. Just Say’n.

NewUserName

Yeah, those greedy Air Force types are trying to get rich. Wait, what?

Money is a good thing. Greed is a bad thing. Greed existed before money, and will persist without it. Yes, USAF officers often grow to be too careerist, but I don’t think they are the truly greedy types.

We are likely not the best people to figure out why young people prefer not to be pilots. Many of us love flying, so there’s going to be a disconnect.

Dennis_C

And a cat. The dog keeps the cat awake. The cat shows the pilot which way is down.

NewUserName

As a former soldier, I find the idea of having necessities arrive where needed without risk of life a good idea. I suspect, if the USAF is having issues finding pilots, eliminating the need is a reasonable reaction.

I think the picture of a huge plane chosen for the story is likely warping the message. If the contractor is starting with a Cessna, perhaps the Air Force will start with smaller planes also. The amount of resources involved in the safety of a C17 flight would likely justify a human crew in almost every flight.

More likely we might see a fleet of those new Cessna twins being developed to serve forward air fields and later maturing into a solution for Fed Ex or similar.

1 reply

ag4n6

Refer to the recent articles on one pilot tankers due to ongoing and future shortages, along with the current admins emphasis on feel good, woke, equity inclusion as being primary efforts in the new and increasing understaffed military. Action - reaction.

ag4n6

The PC inclusionary equity wokesters, they just finished up another multiday session for all the brass.

atpcficto

With all the negative comments her, you’d think this spells “aeronautical armageddon”, or something.

Wait, what??

But yep, it’s coming sooner or later. Stop saying “it’s impossible” — because it is. And it’ll start first with the overseas freighters. I think Fed Ex has already jumped on it. So don’t be a “Luddite.”

Now, back to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

pubdc

Yall seem to get quite emotional about this topic. Which proves why it is such a good idea. The other article today talks about a 2 captains on an ATR crashing a perfectly good airplane and 71 pax. How many crashes are pilot induced ? Runway incursion at JFK could have been a bad one. Look in the mirror: you are human. The military have been flying all kinds of unmanned craft for years now, so they will know a thing or 2 about it. Also : unions strongly object single-pilot ops, so voila : you reap what you sow. Imho FAA and pilots have brought this upon ourselves through lack of vision and innovation. I repeat : my drone has better avionics than many an airliner and most of the GA fleet. The question is not : will this be perfect ? Rather : will it be better than we have today ? Before you answer : go over all of last years crashes and think about all those poor souls killed by their pilots.

1 reply

rpstrong

Thumbs up. We’re looking at the Nirvana fallacy, variously attributed to Churchill as “Perfection is the enemy of the good”, or similarly to Voltaire, or to an Italian proverb.

jbrewster7453

accurate.

jbrewster7453

You would think so, but the article specifically states that the contract is for “large, multi-engine jets”.