(Forgive me if this post rehashes some of the things in my previous post on this subject.)
Well, the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash is still front-page news. Accidents like this are embarrassing for us helicopter pilots. People who know I’m a helicopter pilot – or people who find out – always ask me about the Kobe crash. The embarrassing part is that it’s looking more and like a case of pilot-error. It does appear that Kobe’s pilot “simply” screwed-up. I put that word in quotes because there’s nothing simple about the issues and circumstances that lead up to this crash.
The “simple” part was that he flew into a cloud or fog bank which put him in a situation for which he was unprepared. In his attempt to reverse course and fly back to better weather, he flew smack-dab into a mountain. Boom. Not the first pilot to make such a dumb mistake; won’t be the last, sadly.
But how did it happen? What lead up to this event? Well, that’s more complicated.
Kobe’s pilot was 50 years old and very experienced; he had plenty of flight time and he was very familiar with the Los Angeles area. He was not only qualified to fly “on instruments” as we say. Not all helicopter pilots are. Not only that, but he was also qualified to teach the skill to other pilots. So he was no slouch.
He’d made the same flight plenty of times before with Kobe, who obviously trusted his judgment. On that fateful Sunday morning, the weather was bad but not horrible. Nevertheless, the pilot went VFR – that is, he flew by visual flight rules. Instead of going up, flying in the clouds, and then making an instrument approach to the airport at Camarillo (the closest one to Kobe’s sports academy), they would stay low.
The helicopter, a Sikorsky S-76 is a big, fast, sleek, sophisticated, capable twin-engine helicopter. It is used by corporations and government officials all around the world. Until recently, it was considered the “standard” for executive travel. Most S-76’s are equipped with all of the “bells and whistles” that smaller helicopters usually don’t have…for example, stability-augmentation systems and autopilots, weather radar, certification to fly in IFR (i.e. “bad”) weather…things like that. The incredible S-76 can often fly in weather conditions that keep lesser helicopters on the ground.
But…! But at the same time, the S-76 can be used like any other helicopter, plugging along down low, VFR, taking people from one off-airport site to another. You know, doing the things helicopters do. In these cases, the incredible capability of the S-76 is not needed. You might as well be in a dang ol’ Bell 206. The S-76 is designed to go fast. Like a Ferrari, it doesn’t like going slow. It’ll do it, but it’s not happy.
So why did they not “simply” file an IFR flight plan and go that way? We learned today from the NTSB that the charter company that owned and operated “Kobe’s” helicopter, Island Express Helicopters was not authorized to fly charters under an IFR flight plan. In other words, they were limited by the FAA to visual, VFR flights only. This is not uncommon. The FAA regulations are onerous for certifying an operator to fly IFR trips.
Meeting all of the requirements is expensive for a helicopter operator. Then maintaining the required proficiency is also expensive. In an area like Los Angeles that has generally good weather, the need to fly IFR trips is low – maybe less than half a dozen trips per year. For most operators, IFR certification is not worth the money it costs to get it.
What do VFR operators do if they have a charter on a bad-weather day? If the weather is truly bad and forecast to stay that way, they call the customer and cancel the trip. Or if the weather is low-but-doable, they strike out VFR and hope they can make it through. For a helicopter, it’s not as dangerous as it sounds. You go as far as you can, and then you turn around and go back. If you push too far into the shit and it gets really, really crummy, you can always slow down to just above a hover while you find a place (e.g. ballfield, big parking lot) to set down. I’m not proud to say I’ve done it, but I have. Setting down anywhere is better than crashing.
So Kobe’s pilot did not have the option of going IFR. They took off VFR with a reasonable expectation that they could make it to their destination. The would just follow the roads, which is easy and convenient to do in L.A. and we helicopter pilots do it all the time. The route would need to be circuitous, because there were a couple of airports along the way. At such airports, when the cloud ceiling drops below 1,000 feet and/or the ground visibility drops below three miles, the field now becomes “IFR.” Air traffic is restricted. VFR traffic is permitted, but it is by special permission only, and priority for VFR aircraft is low. Preference is given to aircraft on Instrument flight plans.
The visibility at Burbank was 2.5 miles, just under what is needed for VFR flight. The cloud ceiling was 1,100 feet above the ground, which put the clouds at about 1,900 feet above sea level. The Burbank Airport sits about 800 feet above sea level. Kobe’s pilot reported that he was at 1,400 feet above sea level, or about 500 feet below the clouds and 600 feet above the ground (1400 minus 800). This is where most helicopters live. We usually don’t like flying high for a number of reasons.
The flight took longer than expected. The ATC tower controller at Burbank Airport initially denied Kobe’s pilot entry into his area because of heavy IFR air traffic that morning.. Thus, the helicopter circled outside of Burbank’s zone for fifteen minutes. Helicopters burn just as much fuel when they’re circling as when they’re going full-steam ahead. When there was a break in the traffic level and the helicopter was finally cleared in, the pilot accelerated up to his usual cruise speed of 130 knots or so. Perhaps he was trying to make up time. Perhaps fuel was an issue – helicopters do not carry unlimited amounts of fuel - often not much more than required to do the flight.
In any event, as directed by ATC, he proceded north up the east side of Burbank, then looped up and around, north of Burbank and Van Nuys Airports to come back down on their west side. His intention was to pick up Highway 101 and follow it westbound out to Camarillo. Maybe not the greatest plan, but an okay plan.
But there was rising terrain to the west of Van Nuys. Consider this: If you’re flying at 600 feet above the ground and the terrain comes up below you while the cloud level stays the same, it puts a helicopter pilot in an uncomfortable squeeze. You might have been cruising happily at 600-700 feet before, but now that the terrain is coming up you find yourself maybe only a couple of hundred feet above the ground.
At some point as they followed Highway 101 westbound, Kobe’s pilot found himself in a cloud or fog bank. This should not have been a big deal for an Instrument-rated pilot in an aircraft like the S-76. All he would have needed to do was keep the aircraft level, initiate a climb above the fog, and then call ATC and let them know. They undoubtedly would have vectored him to the Camarillo Airport, or maybe back to Van Nuys or Burbank. But that’s not what happened.
Instead, Kobe’s pilot decided to try a course reversal. This might have worked in a more pedestrian (read; slower) helicopter like a Bell 206 which cruises at a mere 95 knots (110 mph). But remember, they were in the all-singing/all-dancing S-76, which scoots along at 130 knots/140 mph. Had the pilot slowed down a bit before entering the cloud/fog, he might have pulled it off. A turn at 90 mph takes up a whole lot less airspace than does a turn at 140 mph. You can get a fast aircraft to turn more sharply, but it requires a steep angle of bank, “Top Gun” style. This is not only unwise and inadvisable when you’re unexpectedly in the clouds and can’t see out the windows, but you don’t lay a helicopter over on its side when you have someone like Kobe friggin’ Bryant onboard.
In any case, the turn took up a lot of room. Too much room. The helicopter used up all of the space in the valley they were over, and then some. They impacted a mountain of the opposite side of the valley. The pilot probably never saw it coming until the last second.
Ultimately, the pilot’s advanced qualifications worked against him. He knew that he was capable of flying in the clouds, so there was no fear of that. Trouble was, when he found himself actually in a cloud, he did not commit to it and go “on the gauges” as we say. Instead, he very likely tried to get back to visual conditions. It is a bad mistake…an often-fatal mistake…that many pilots have made in the past, including yours truly. Fortunately for me and my passengers, we did not end up like Kobe’s S-76. But let me tell ya, I’ve come close.
At the same time, the all-weather capability of the marvelous S-76 works against VFR pilots, especially Kobe’s. It gives them a false sense of security. If the pilot had been in a more basic helicopter, like the aforementioned Bell 206 which is (typically) not equipped and in any case not authorized to fly in the clouds, he likely would’ve been much more diligent about maintaining visual references. And even if he didn’t slow down, the low cruise speed of the 206 might have allowed him to see the fog bank/cloud before they flew into it.
So this is not a “simple” accident by any means.
11 comments:
Thanks for the excellent explanation both in this and your previous post. It’s a sad, sad situation and I’m heartsick for Kobe’s widow and the three other daughters.
I just finished a book on my kindle about the airline accident of Tenerife which was/possibly still is considered the worst airline accident in terms of casualties. (Not sure how they classify it with 9/11 which had less passengers but took out more people on the ground.) Anyway, they talked extensively about the chain of events that led to the crash. It certainly wasn't a black and white issue as I thought such an event would be.
I'm curious as to your perspective on anything that should change to prevent such things from happening. I know most changes to air flight rules always seem to follow disasters such as this one so I'm sure people will be pondering the same question. From your description and from reading the book on the Tenerife disaster, it sounds like another long chain of events that led up to this and would probably be impossible to prevent.
Well Bob and Ed, of course we ask ourselves those very questions after every accident: How could this have been prevented? And how can we prevent it from happening in the future? The answer is: I don't know.
The NTSB was quick to criticize the FAA for not mandating TAWS (Terrain Awareness and Warning System) for helicopters, but I doubt that it would have made a difference in this case. As low as most helicopters fly normally, the TAWS alert would be going off continually, and the pilot(s) would get in the habit of just canceling it and pressing on. At best, the TAWS would not have warned Kobe's pilot early enough for him to do anything. By the time he got the "Terrain! Pull up!" command, it likely would have been too late.
Similarly, cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders only help us after the crash - they do not prevent it from happening.
How do we teach judgment? I think Kobe's pilot is going to come under incredible posthumous scrutiny for bombing along so close to the ground in bad weather at 130+ knots. And rightly so! Also, as I mentioned, when he punched into that cloud/fog bank, he should have committed to being "on instruments," done a straight-ahead climb, and called ATC to confess his predicament. If he'd done that, they all might still be alive. But let's remember, the pilot was no noob - he had a lot of experience under his belt. Even experienced pilots can make a mistake.
What might help is synthetic vision, which is expensively available right now. An image of the terrain is projected onto the windscreen in front of you or alternatively on a big screen on the dash. Either way, gives the pilot much better "situational awareness" of what's around him. It's not a guarantee of anything...and it's certainly no substitute for common-sense and good judgment, but it might have saved their bacon in this case.
Maybe the solution is to get rid of the pilot! Some people are hoping for truly autonomous aircraft. In such a thing, the passengers get in, punch their destination onto a screen, and then the aircraft automatically flies them to that destination. It can do so in the clear or in the clouds, no matter because it has onboard terrain avoidance and the ability to separate itself from other air vehicles. Ironically, Sikorsky has already successfully experimented with such a system in an S-76. It works. But aviation is notoriously slow to embrace new technology. So for the time being, we're "stuck" with having pilots up front doing the stick-wiggling and making the tough decisions. And unfortunately, pilots are the weakest link in the whole system.
Another excellent explanation post that I appreciate. The media just can't (or won't) go into this kind of detail Very interesting comment from you above, too. That last paragraph.... the Jetsons? (not as good as the Flintstones, but I still loved them)
Maybe it's ignorance and being naive but, I see it all coming down to one major issue. "IFR"... being Instrument rated makes for overconfidence, more of a risk taker and brings on complacency "I done this flight hundreds of times". If not IFR rated you would be less prone to take those chances. It's not to say it won't happen but a lot less likely. I've flown a time or two or three in foggy conditions or heavy rain or blowing snow following a fence line at 15 feet and less than 10knots. I'm not proud of it but I did do it on flat ground open country and in the the cascade mountains of Washington state. By the way I'm not IFR rated but I do know how to read my instruments (this the over confidence part).That being said I have since changed my personal limitations many years ago and have not flown in those conditions since. Well light fog , misty or drizzle/light rain but nothing IFR required. I believe doing away with the IFR ratings for Helicopters is not the best solution but it is a solution. You want to fly IFR go fly a plane above 15,000...
By the way Bob very informative post. I appreciate your advice and help you have given.
Kelly, very much like The Jetsons, yes. Without the magical...whatever it was that powered their little flivver. But same deal - no need for a human pilot to manually fly the thing. The technology is with us now - in the experimental phase - but I suspect that it's only a matter of time before it becomes practical. Not that I'd ever get into a pilotless aircraft! And I would think that most people would also not. That will be the biggest factor: Overcoming public reluctance.
Now, ktmchopper...sorry, yzchopper… you bring up some VERY interesting points! Me, I'm not Instrument Rated either. During my 15 years out in the Gulf of Mexico, I often heard other (IFR-rated) pilots brag about how they "punched-in," and saved the day by going on the gauges. I'd shake my head and laugh at their poor decision-making. That *never* happened to me - because I'd just turn around or land before it got really bad. For me, going inside of a cloud or fog bank was simply not an option. PHI's weather minimums were designed so that an inadvertent encounter with instrument conditions should never happen. Full disclosure: I did get down on the water and creep along until I found a platform to land on a time or two, but I never flew in visibility so bad that I could not see outside.
And so I agree with you: The Instrument Rating does give pilots a false sense of security. (However, people make extremely strong arguments to the contrary.) And flying in a very capable aircraft like the S-76 adds to that feeling.
I wouldn't go so far as to recommend abolishing the Instrument Rating for helicopter pilots. There are operations that require it (e.g. EMS, corporate, offshore oil, etc.). But to get the rating and then never use it is pretty much the same as not having it at all.
I think you are wrong Bob in the assumption that people would not get into a pilotless aircraft. I'm sure people thought similar thoughts about getting into a gas powered automobile and even a piloted aircraft but eventually they became norms. I think maybe our generation will be leery of doing so until death but the upcoming generations will most certainly hop into one and not think twice.
Ed, what you say is interesting. And I have to admit, I may be wrong. Culturally, over time we may find pilotless aircraft acceptable. I'm not sure it'll happen in my lifetime though (and I'm 64, so I've got, what, 30 years left?). I mean, even those airport shuttle trains still have drivers, as do NYC subway trains - even though I suppose they could all be easily automated. So why would aviation be the first to introduce autonomous aircraft? I don't think we will. Maybe some day...just not soon. At least I hope not.
Bob, check into “flicker vertigo” a particular problem in the S76B. It’s warned about in the S76B flight manual specifically in the conditions in which he was flying.
Ohhh, Rtrblade, I had not considered that flicker vertigo may have played a part in this accident. Which is why it's important to keep an open mind and not come to any hard conclusions that it happened "this" way or "that."
I think that at this point, all we know is that a helicopter crashed in bad weather. We can speculate, as I do, how and why he got there, but at the end of the day it's just guesswork - educated guesswork but we really don't know. I believe that the NTSB has information that they haven't released yet that will be enlightening.
Post a Comment