BINGO! It almost HAS to be at least a significant ingredient in the final outcome.
I’ve only flown two helicopters, the R22 being one of them. It is the ONLY aircraft that I can honestly say I hated. The low mass rotor system is an accident looking for a place to happen. A two turbine S-76 multi-blade helicopter is an entirely different machine. If the highly touted 8200 hr pilot was SO good, why was he flying single pilot VFR in – at best – very marginal conditions? All roads in this evolution lead to the pilot. When you’re about to smack into a hill and you pull back on the collective … you’re gonna stall … duh.
Monday morning quarterbacking is easy for those of us who think we would have performed better.Hopefully we can all learn to avoid putting ourselves in a similar situation.
Thank you Ricky. You’re absolutely right. We weren’t there, so we don’t know for sure what was the real cause.
The Board member is a politician. The real leader of the investigation is the investigator in charge. In this case, it is Bill English. I’ve worked with Bill in the past. He is as good as they get. Someone mentioned the Aspen Gulfstream crash. Bill ran that investigation.
Probably for the same reason many other highly-experienced pilots do dumb things: they felt pressured and thought they could complete the mission, and then got locked into get-there-itis. Assuming it was a VFR-into-IMC crash, the worst part is that he could have set down almost anywhere and waited out the weather - that’s the whole point of a helicopter: that you can land in almost any spot that is a little bit bigger than the rotor diameter.
yep makes you wonder are there any pilots on this blog. very sad. no one was there but somehow have all the facts.
On skyvector.com the TFR is centered 17nm WSW of Burbank.
I’ve been in a helicopter scud running, it is pretty hairy as you fly past the telegraph poles following the road. It was a military chopper and we were on a rather imprtant mission for the Foreign Office, hence the scud running to the High Commission to pick up our diplomat. Not recommended unless you REALLY HAVE to be there!!!
Sfter the pick-up the chopper dropped us at a civilian airstrip so it could refuel at a VTOL only fuelling stop. Filled the long-range tank in the cabin then picked us up for a rolling take-off.
The return journey was almost as hair-raising as the cloud base was lkower than tha peaks of the mountain range we had to traverse. The Pilots found a way through eventually after a few false starts up cloud covered valleys.
The ADS-B data shows that the pilot had indeed intercepted the 101 freeway out near Woodland Hills, which despite its name, is fairly flat and densely populated. He intercepted the 101 from a southwesterly track because ATC had routed him north of the Burbank and Van Nuys airports, to avoid some IFR departures which were coming off to the south. He then tracks the 101 dead on all the way into the Calabasas area, which is several miles, so the indications are that he has visibility below the aircraft at this point. He’s flying at 1250 ft calibrated altitude and 130 knot ground speed heading into this area, but Calabasas is where the 101 starts winding through the hills. After the first couple of turns of the 101, the aircraft starts gaining altitude, and the pilot informs ATC that he is climbing to avoid a cloud deck. One eyewitness describes this area as “a bowl, with its own microclimates”. Tracking a ground reference, like the 101 freeway, at low altitude, high speed, and winding through hills, it may have been impossible to see an approaching decrease in the cloud ceiling until after coming around the bend. Heck, I’ve done it in a car in the mountains, on a windy road, and that’s at low speed. Came around the bend, and suddenly I’m in the soup. The climb and the initial speed decrease to 110 knots was most likely the best response if this was the case, but why the aircraft subsequently turns left and descends rapidly, will be the key for investigators to determine (if possible).
”Monday quarterbacking”? More like learning from other people’s experience.
No one’s mentioned Part 135. Was this a 135 flight and, regardless of aircraft and pilot qualifications, was it required to be conducted VFR?
Yes, according to the NTSB briefing on Tuesday, the flight was operating under Part 135 charter, and according to several articles (e.g., Forbes, CNN), “Island Express Helicopters, a Long Beach-based company that has seven helicopters registered to it and a related holding corporation, is certified under Part 135 of FAA regulations to provide on-demand charter services under VFR conditions only, according to FAA records.”.
I’m not a pilot, but I wonder if Artificial Intelligence is not mature enough be used to detect an erratic flight or vertigo situation and emit consequently a strong warning to the pilot, like “correct attitude/bank now” etc.
There are larger issues with flying members of the public in warbirds:
-
Warbirds are inherently dangerous. Bomber engines seem to be prone to fluid leaks and fires.
-
The public assumes there’s no risk when somebody takes their money and says to get on the plane, and rightfully so. They don’t have the experience to say, “Wait a minute. This is an 80 year-old plane that was just substantially rebuilt a few years ago.”
We used to do air shows with the flight line over the crowd. We don’t do that any more because of several accidents. Regarding warbirds, at a minimum, only informed passengers should fly on the plane.
This sounds like a preview of coming attractions.
We all know that maintenance is expensive and time consuming especially with aging aircraft. With that said there is no excuse for this type of shoddy care on 80 year old warbirds that fly passengers. The issue with the mags is an inexcusable lack of concern for public safety. In this case I agree with the FAA and the Company should get its act together before they can fly again.
Agree, so much easier to say ‘NO’ then work on better practices and programs.
New parts and new run in engines with cowls and engine mounts already installed (bolt on) were very plentiful in WW2 days not so now. It takes very good and knowledgeable maintenance personnel to keep these machines up to snuff. A person would be hard pressed to find a good mech. to climb up on those greasy engines in 20 something degrees F with snow out and clean/gap sp. plugs and change mags and for what? A joy ride around the patch. Its all hind sight now but unprofessional/bandaid maint. caught up and now the Feds. dropped the hammer.
I find it hard to blame the maintenance personnel. These aircraft ARE different than something built today–those engines were built to last a couple of hundred hours AT MOST–given their operating conditions.
After saying that, there ARE differences in “paying passengers” for airlines and commercial operators–vs. those that want to fly in one of these rare warbirds. I’ve flown Aluminum Overcast and Yankee Lady for magazine articles–the guys do a great job of keeping them airborne. The record up until now of these aircraft on tour has been superb–only in hindsight is the FAA now worried. Was the FAA wrong THEN, or is it wrong NOW?
To protect the “unaware public”, perhaps the Warbird community should take a page from the Skydiving Tandem Jump operators. Rather than just sign a waiver, most Tandem jump operators require the prospective Tandem jumper to watch a video. Far from glamorizing the Tandem jump, they read off a litany of things that CAN go wrong. Far from making it look glamorous, they use actors that often look “odd”. In short, they lay it out straight–“Participating in this activity is DANGEROUS–IT MAY INJURE OR KILL YOU!” There is no question of “protecting the unaware public” after watching that video and signing the paper. As of a few years ago, there had not been a successful claim against Tandem jumping. Perhaps Paul can elaborate on what is being done in Tandem jumping today.
Did pointing out (or even emphasizing) the danger hurt Tandem jumping? An emphatic NO–but it certainly provides a good defense–and it certainly has allowed thousands of people to experience something they have always wanted to do by inoculating the providers against the “nanny state.”