Kobe Bryant dead in helicopter crash

kell490 said:
If I ran a tour operation I would install video cameras in all of my helicopters just to keep pilots honest they stick to the rules. He flew right into fog eye witness's saw him You know he done it before and figured dip in and out of the fog little and find his way. He finds his plan not working he could have declared and just kept straight and level ask for vectors to VFR airport, but then has to explain to his company how he ended up in IMC with Kobe in the back seat. Then his name is tarnished in the industry how does he find a new job. Island Express company been around since 1982 is done bankrupt no matter what insurance they had it will exceed the max limits based on Kobe's future calculated earnings. The owner is lost all he built up over those years because one pilot.
Click to expand...

And you know all of this to be fact? :rolleyes:
 
jordane93 said:
Good luck finding pilots who’d work for your company. People break rules all the time in planes that have an FDR and CVR. They’re going to do it regardless of who’s watching.
Click to expand...

Police they say the same thing after being forced to wear body cameras video doesn't lie. If I was pilot I would want the cameras use it as proof I'm following the rules no reason to risk lives of anyone in the back seat for what purpose? Get your passengers to a basketball game? FDR's and CVR's work great for investigators video can be quickly pulled safety guy works at the company can spot review on bad weather days.
 
Doc Holliday said:
And you know all of this to be fact? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I know what eye witnesses said he was flying in the clouds. He entered the clouds at some point right? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Watch this video.

Bell206 said:
Are you?
Click to expand...
Did I say I was? I said if I was a camera would be the least of my worries in life. I have owned a business and employee's are your biggest asset, as well as your highest risk.
 
kell490 said:
I know what eye witnesses said he was flying in the clouds. He entered the clouds at some point right? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Watch this video.
Click to expand...

You stated this:
kell490 said:
He flew right into fog eye witness's saw him You know he done it before and figured dip in and out of the fog little and find his way.
Click to expand...

How do you know he's done it before?
 
kell490 said:
Did I say I was? I said if I was a camera would be the least of my worries in life.
Click to expand...
No you didn't, hence my question. I've found it's also best to quantify a persons response based on their experience. Which now explains the second part of the quote above.

Curious, as a business owner, do you have cameras on your employees now? A camera in your office perhaps?
 
kell490 said:
He flew right into fog eye witness's saw him...

...You know he done it before and figured dip in and out of the fog little and find his way.

...He finds his plan not working he could have declared and just kept straight and level ask for vectors to VFR airport,

...Island Express has been around since 1982 is going to end up bankrupt no matter what insurance they had
Click to expand...


Eye witnesses may have seen him fly into fog, but eye witnesses do not know what he was seeing out his windscreen.

No I don't know that, and neither do you. What you meant to say was "You *think* he done it before..."

The last thing you want to do in their situation is "just kept straight and level"

Can you give me next weeks winning lottery ticket numbers?
 
Last edited:
The armchair quarterbacking on this thread is near hair-pulling levels. People who aren't even pilots have this accident chain all figured out and know exactly what they would've done. :rolleyes:

It's time I dismiss myself from this discussion before I lose anymore brain cells.
 
Bell206 said:
Curious, as a business owner, do you have cameras on your employees now? A camera in your office perhaps?
Click to expand...
You didn't direct this at me but since you asked, I'm not the owner of my company but I was the person who made the decision to install driver facing and forward facing camera systems in all of our trucks. No I do not have a camera on me in my office but I wouldn't care a lick if someone higher up than me in the company felt the need to install one. I am not aware of any drivers who left because we put cameras in their trucks and in fact quite a few of my guys prefer to have them because the system proves their innocence far more often than it proves their guilt.

The whole line of discussion is kind of pointless however because nothing you put in a truck requires an STC. Systems for trucks and other vehicle fleets that capture and upload video automatically and alert you automatically when they are disconnected or when a lens is covered are cheap and easy to install. A system with similar capability STC'd for installation in aircraft would cost a fortune. No operator would ever install such a system unless forced.
 
kell490 said:
Police they say the same thing after being forced to wear body cameras video doesn't lie. If I was pilot I would want the cameras use it as proof I'm following the rules no reason to risk lives of anyone in the back seat for what purpose? Get your passengers to a basketball game? FDR's and CVR's work great for investigators video can be quickly pulled safety guy works at the company can spot review on bad weather days.
Click to expand...
Nope. Nobody is filming me.
 
Ryanb said:
It's time I dismiss myself from this discussion before I lose anymore brain cells.
Click to expand...

Weak. Treat it like instrument training. Ignore those feelings, lol. Just watch, don’t participate. Or use the ignore function, as long as you don’t ignore me.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
The whole line of discussion is kind of pointless however because nothing you put in a truck requires an STC.
Click to expand...
True. But far from entirely pointless. The only part that is pointless is any comparison from a non-aviation application to aviation applications. Different industry specific dynamics and requirements. In reality there are cameras flying as we speak right now in various large aircraft. There is actually a FAA TSO for cameras. Even at my old day job we certified a camera system for a small twin turbine helicopter but never fielded it due to various reasons and liabilities. Personally I think emerging aviation/virtual technology will eclipse the use/need for optical cockpit cameras in aircraft accident investigations before they reach the level of required equipment.
 
Bell206 said:
True. But far from entirely pointless. The only part that is pointless is any comparison from a non-aviation application to aviation applications. Different industry specific dynamics and requirements. In reality there are cameras flying as we speak right now in various large aircraft. There is actually a FAA TSO for cameras. Even at my old day job we certified a camera system for a small twin turbine helicopter but never fielded it due to various reasons and liabilities. Personally I think emerging aviation/virtual technology will eclipse the use/need for optical cockpit cameras in aircraft accident investigations before they reach the level of required equipment.
Click to expand...

Many HAA operators have them now to.

I used to hang my hat over it so they couldn't see me doing barrel rolls.
 
The ewitness at Devil's Lake where we waterlooped a PBY told the newspaper we were in a 90 degree bank with one wing straight up in the air. Sorry I'd probably not be here if we were 90 degrees while on the water at 70/80 MPH.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Eyewitnesses are also notoriously unreliable. There have been incidents where eyewitnesses swear the engine was sputtering... On a glider.
Click to expand...

yes! Eyewitness reports are not worth the value we give them. Not her nor in courts even...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Eyewitnesses are also notoriously unreliable. There have been incidents where eyewitnesses swear the engine was sputtering... On a glider.
Click to expand...

I was an eyewitness of a fatal crash. When the NTSB report came out, I was completely misquoted.
 
Dave Theisen said:
I was an eyewitness of a fatal crash. When the NTSB report came out, I was completely misquoted.
Click to expand...

Why if I'm ever in an event I'll decline talking to the media. They will somehow edit and twist your response to fit their agenda.
 
Ryanb said:
The armchair quarterbacking on this thread is near hair-pulling levels. People who aren't even pilots have this accident chain all figured out and know exactly what they would've done. :rolleyes:

It's time I dismiss myself from this discussion before I lose anymore brain cells.
Click to expand...
I would have pulled the 'chute. But speculation is fun, even on morbid subjects, though there will be a bunch of red faces, mine included, if it turns out that the main or tail-rotor gearbox failed. The press will feel no shame, however.
 
If we believe eyewitness reports, the S76s engine 'sputtered' before the crash.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I am not aware of any drivers who left because we put cameras in their trucks and in fact quite a few of my guys prefer to have them because the system proves their innocence far more often than it proves their guilt.
Click to expand...

Were I a police officer, I would not want to go out without a body cam rolling and recording audio.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Eyewitnesses are also notoriously unreliable. There have been incidents where eyewitnesses swear the engine was sputtering... On a glider.
Click to expand...
Eye/ear-witnesses seem to forget that it takes time for sound to travel. I watched a fatal accident from a couple hundred yards away. Someone else, several miles away had a camera running and caught it on video. Because of that video, there was a lot of discussion about engine sounds, simply because the sound didn't match the visual from that distance.
 
AKBill said:
Not often you hear a jet engine "sputter"
Click to expand...

Well, they do get compressor stalls on rare occasions. That could sound a lot like sputtering. I always thought it sounded like automatic weapons fire. The odds of that happening in this case is so remote, it’s not even worth speculating.

Obviously we’re all speculating here but in this case, we have pretty good evidence to go on. When I’ve seen countless accidents like this in the 20 years I’ve been in helos, I really don’t scratch my head wondering what happened. Based on what we have to go on, the end result was predictable. Of course it could always be mechanical but the odds of that in this case is so remote, it would be wild speculation.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Eyewitnesses are also notoriously unreliable.
Click to expand...

I watched a 172 crash after doing a touch and go, from about 25 feet in the air. Wide open throttle all the way to the ground. The non-flying witnesses, 5 firemen, all claimed the engine wasn't running. The prop marks in the ground told the story.
 
"At 0945, the pilot of N72EX again contacted SCT and advised he was climbing above cloud layers and requested advisory services. […] The SCT controller then asked the pilot his intentions, to which he replied he was climbing to 4,000 feet. There were no further transmissions."​

Interesting. o_O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top